14 April 2004	Wednesday	23 Safar 1425

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, April 13: Pakistan has bilaterally conveyed its reservations on the UN draft resolution on non-proliferation to all the five permanent members of the Security Council and proposed certain amendments to that , informed sources told Dawn on Tuesday.

The draft was presented to the UN Security Council by the United States on March 24. It requires all 191 member states to enact criminal and other laws as well as measures to prevent terrorists and other non-state actors from trafficking in and acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, related materials and missiles and other unmanned systems of delivery.

The permanent members - China, France, US, UK and Russia, referred to as P-5 - are currently holding informal consultations with the 10 elected (E-10) members of the Security Council. UN watchers say the US wants that the resolution is adopted by the end of this month.

Pakistan as a current member of the UNSC has been taking keen interest in the resolution that can have serious ramifications for it as it is a declared but internationally unrecognized nuclear power.

Pakistan's reservations to the draft relate to the language, parts of the text and certain definitions, including that of non-state actors and terrorist organizations.

Senior Pakistani diplomats took up the issue with the US officials at a meeting held in London last month, Dawn learnt through diplomatic sources. Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, Munir Akram, and its ambassador to the US, Jehangir Ashraf Qazi, also attended the meeting.

The proposed amendments include, for example, changing the phrase 'calls upon all member states' to 'requests all member states' in the section of the draft that pertains to making national laws that will make it a criminal act if non-state actors get involved in the provision of the weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

According to informed sources, the P-5 representatives have told Pakistan that they will 'look into' its specific concerns and suggestions. While most countries in the E-10 support the objectives of the resolution, they favour a much wider debate. China too has advocated that a broader membership of the UN be involved in the ongoing debate.

Some states have expressed concerns that the approaches proposed in the draft are discriminatory and inflammatory, and will exacerbate the proliferation and security situation rather than alleviate it.

They have been critical of the fact that the draft resolution refers only to prevention of proliferation, and is silent on ending deployment of existing weapons and on the obligations for disarmament.

Another serious concern is that the draft is being presented as a UN Charter Chapter VII resolution which makes its application mandatory for all UN members. Some states fear that it can open the door for a unilateral use of force by certain states to enforce the resolution in specific situations without having to return to the Security Council for any additional authorization.

In this context, the UN members outside the P-5 group have emphasized that there ought to be clarity that the resolution does not imply a mandate for use of force and instead encourages resolution of the proliferation issue through peaceful means and in accordance with international law.

A key question being raised is whether the resolution will become effective retrospectively or at a future date, diplomatic sources said. Objections to the draft are not limited to nuances of the expression employed. Some UN members have questioned the very propriety of the Security Council as the forum to legislate on this issue.

"The overarching question is whether the UNSC should be legislating on everything and if such a resolution would undermine the international disarmament treaty regime," a senior diplomat said. The justification given by the sponsors of the draft is that the spread of the WMDs poses a serious and imminent threat to international peace and security.

Some E-10 countries have argued that since the UNSC is not an equitable body, the matter is better left to multilateral forums that allow a broader debate. Critics point out that the P-5 by virtue of their veto power will themselves be immune to any controls, liabilities and punitive measures.

A prime example cited in this context is the censoring of pages by the P-5 in the 4,600-page dossier submitted by the Iraqi government to the Security Council on Dec 3, 2002, containing full declaration of its chemical, biological and nuclear programme.

The dossier named all the countries, entities and individuals who made supplies for the Iraqi programme. However, all the pages that contained information about the 82 European countries with details of the companies involved in a proliferation network were blacked out by the P-5 from the copies circulated to the E-10.

A discussion paper circulated by Sweden last month raises ideological and legal questions as to whether it is within the ambit of the Security Council to be making an international law or negotiating an international agreement.

"The draft resolution more resembles a multilateral treaty than a UNSC resolution and Sweden is of the opinion that multilateral treaties should be negotiated at a multilateral forum, such as the UNGA, by all states concerned," it argues.

Disarmament experts say that the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament based in Geneva are the two main multilateral bodies that have the mandate to legislate on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. They believe these bodies are more equitable forums as these allow wider debate and normally work by consensus.

In this particular case the First Committee, which is the inter-government committee with full UN membership, is considered to be a more appropriate and democratic forum to evolve consensus on such a resolution.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).