U.N. Security Council Approves WMD Resolution

["Gerry Blackwood" <gpblackwood@HOTMAIL.COM>]

I somtimes wnder if we are our own worse enemy. There is zip enforcement or 

teeth in any of this. G



U.N. Security Council Approves WMD Resolution





By Jim Wurst

Global Security Newswire







UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously approved a 

resolution designed to close a loophole in international law by requiring 

states to ensure terrorists and other nonstate actors are denied access to 

weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23).



>From comments made by the delegates after the vote, it was clear there were 

still concerns about the implications of the measure they had just approved, 

especially worries that the resolution would be applied unevenly among 

states and that the council was creating arms control law that should be 

properly done through treaty negotiations.



Council members agreed with the premise of the text, that more needs to be 

done to prevent terrorists and other nonstate actors from acquiring nuclear, 

chemical or biological weapons, because it is an obvious security concern 

and existing treaties deal only with relationship among states. However, 

there were concerns about whether this resolution was the best way to 

accomplish that.



Resolution 1540 requires states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective 

laws” to deny weapons of mass destruction, their components and “means of 

delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.”



The United States proposed the resolution. U.S. Deputy Ambassador James 

Cunningham said, “In this resolution the council is responding appropriately 

to what all agree is a clear and present threat to global peace and 

security: the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and 

their means of delivery, especially to nonstate actors, including 

terrorists.”



The draft was presented to the council in March on behalf of all five 

permanent members of the council, and was then altered to address some of 

the concerns of the elected members. Chief among those concerns were that 

the text ignored the importance of disarmament, that the council was acting 

as a global legislature and that the enforcement provisions of the 

resolution would be unevenly applied.



German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger voted for the text but with the “regret 

that no explicit language” was included to deal with disarmament issues, 

including verification and security assurances for non-nuclear states. 

Changes in the text make it clear that “the resolution does not foresee any 

unilateral enforcement measures. If necessary, such measures must be” 

imposed by the council “as a whole.”



Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg said that while dealing with an 

urgent threat, it was also important to “safeguard the legitimacy of 

existing nonproliferation treaties.” He said limiting the resolution to the 

question of nonproliferation as “the overriding threat was inadequate.” At 

the same time, disarmament must be pursued in good faith, he added.



To address the concern that the emphasis was on nonproliferation at the 

expense of disarmament, the revisions make more references to the need for 

disarmament and say the resolution cannot “be interpreted so as to conflict 

with or alter” obligations in disarmament treaties. “The resolution clearly 

states that it will not alter or amend the existing nonproliferation treaty 

regimes,” said Cunningham.



Another issue was concern that the council was attempting to act as a global 

legislature, writing law that should be left to universal bodies such as the 

U.N. Conference on Disarmament. The council “cannot assume the stewardship 

of global nonproliferation and disarmament issues,” said Pakistani 

Ambassador Munir Akram. The fear was that the council was assuming powers 

not given to it by the U.N. Charter and that council enforcement would be 

discriminatory —because the five permanent members of the council are also 

nuclear weapon states, they would never be subjected to any council action 

since they could veto any resolution concerning them.



Akram said the final text makes clear that the council is not attempting to 

legislate for the entire U.N. membership and it does not “seek to prescribe 

specific legislation, which is left to national action by states.”



In addition, the text more clearly defines that the resolution deals only 

with nonstate actors and has “no intention to oblige states to join 

treaties.” These points are particularly sensitive to Pakistan since it is a 

nuclear-armed state but not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 

and it was revealed earlier this year that the father of Pakistan’s nuclear 

program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was involved with an illicit network supplying 

nuclear technology to other governments.



Another change was extending the life of the committee that will monitor 

compliance with the resolution from six months to two years. States were 

concerned that six months was not enough time for states to comply with 

demands to enact national legislation on multiple fronts to combat 

proliferation. British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the obligations in 

the resolution would be “applied without favor” to all states. In addition, 

he said the new committee should serve as “the heart of a collaborative and 

cooperative approach” to nonproliferation.











Gerry Blackwood

New York, New York



"Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, but continually 

expecting a different result."  -- Sigmund Freud



_________________________________________________________________

Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/