Friday 20th June 2014
20 June 2014
Adoption of the Final Outcome Document
The final meeting of the Fifth Biennial Meeting of the States considered agenda item 10, the consideration of the Final Draft Document. Chairman Tanin introduced the oral revisions and editorial changes that would ensure the consistency of the document. Chairman Tanin asked the delegates for their consensus in the adoption of the Final Draft Document, and it was so decided. The floor was then opened for statements after the adoption.
The following delegations spoke in the order as presented: Qatar, European Union, Nigeria on behalf of African States, Indonesia on Behalf of Non-Aligned Movement , Japan, Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM, Ghana, Egypt, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Morocco, Algeria, Cuba, Venezuela, Republic of Korea, Islamic Republic of Iran, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Iraq, Australia, Uruguay, Bolivia, the State of Palestine, Canada, Israel, United States, and again the European Union.
Egypt and Qatar on the behalf of Arab Statesboth spoke of the need for consensus building on all items. TheEgyptian delegation would have liked the “other issues section” to reflect what delegations have discussed but not reached consensus on ammunitions and border control. Qatar highlighted to be registered in the record that the group of Arab States committed itself to the points of the PoA and reaffirmed the fact that the commitments are a result of the text itself and that within the PoA, questions or additional concepts that arise require consideration to determine if the resolutions can be passed on these issues by the states itself. Venezuela expressed a similar concern with the introduction of elements that are not in keeping with the process, scope and spirit of the PoA. Whereas Morocco expressed a need to conclusively determine what the actual scope and mandate of the PoA is.
The European Union raised a series of concerns that were reaffirmed by other delegations. These concerns include the lack of priority given to ammunition, a comprehensive approach to implementation of the PoA, inadequate reference to UNSC Resolution 2117 as well as PSSM, lack of reference to integration of stockpile management and SSR as well as the lack of reference to synergies and complementarities with the PoA and the ATT.
In agreement with the statement made by the European Union, the following countries also expressed discontent with the absence of direct mention of ammunition: Australia, Bolivia, Egypt, European Union, Ghana (on behalf of ECOWAS), Guatemala, Jamaica (on behalf of CARICOM), Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago and Uruguay. Whereas Cuba, Egypt and Qatar all believe the question of ammunition to be outside the scope of the PoA’s mandate.
With regards to UNSC Resolution 2117, Australia and the Republic of Korea also agreed with the European Union that a clear reference should have been incorporated.
Several states also expressed a desire to see a linkage between the PoA and ATT. This included Australia, Guatemala, the European Union, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago whereas Cuba, Egypt, and Qatar reiterated that the scope and mandate of the PoA must be adhered. As Cuba stated, there must be a preservation of the divergence in the mandate between the ATT and the PoA.
Canada, Israel and the United Statesall disassociated themselves with paragraph 11 of the Programme of Action, which draws linkages between self-determination and occupation and the prevention of the illicit trade in SALW as again reflected in paragraph 3 of the Final Document of the BMS5.
Some delegations also raised that they would have preferred stronger language on border controls since porous borders are one of the major contributive factors to illicit trade of SALW. These nations included Mexico, the State of Palestine and Uruguay.
Several member states mentioned the important role of women (Australia, European Union, Trinidad & Tobago) and civil society (Argentina, Australia, Jamaica (on behalf of CARICOM), Japan) in combating illicit trade of SALW.
States had varying opinions on the role of technology in international aid and cooperation. Jamaica expressed want for greater consideration of how technology can be shared to aid developing countries in the fight against illicit trade of SALW whereas Japan and the United States reiterated that it is at the discretion of donors to determine the level and kind of aid provided to requesting states.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea drew attention for the need of the Final Outcome Document to better incorporate language that acknowledge state’s right to self defense under UN Charter Article 51 and that the PoA should by no measure limit the sovereignty of all member states in legal acquisition of SALW. Mexico also mentioned the importance that international cooperation should collaborate with respect to national sovereignty.
After the 5th BMS was adjourned, the Chair Ambassador Tanin, took the time to speak with the NGOs in Conference Room B to share his thoughts and views on the Outcome Document. He was accompanied by Mr Daniel Prins head of ODA who acknowledged the great work by IANSA during the week and its continued relationship with ODA. Baffour, Chair of the IAC then expressed the appreciation of IANSA and NGOs to the Chair for the outcome of the meeting although NGOs had expected more. He wished both gentlemen well.
|BMS5 Day 5 Friday.pdf||54.67 KB|