C H A P T E R III

Conventional weapons issues


"In a world awash with small arms, a quarter of the estimated $4 billion annual global gun trade is believed to be illicit. Small arms are easy to buy, easy to use, easy to transport and easy to conceal. Their continued proliferation exacerbates conflict, sparks refugee flows, undermines the rule of law and spawns a culture of violence and impunity. ... These weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction."1
Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

Developments and trends, 2006

The year 2006 marked a charged year of events and developments for issues relating to conventional weapons within the framework of the United Nations. The central event was the convening of the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) in All Its Aspects in June-July. Though failing to adopt an outcome document, owing to disagreement over a possible follow-up mechanism, the Conference reaffirmed the relevance of the PoA and its continuing implementation. The lack of an outcome document was mitigated, inter alia, by several developments later in the year. First, the General Assembly at its fall session decided to convene the next biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the PoA.2 Second, the actual implementation of actions flowing from the PoA continued with the start of the work of the Group of Governmental Experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons. Third, also at its fall session, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a Group of Governmental Experts to consider further steps to enhance cooperation with regard to the issues of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus.3 Also in the realm of small arms and light weapons, the Security Council held another open debate on the issue in March, considering ways and means to deal with the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
In the broader field of major conventional weapons issues, a fifth group of experts to consider the further development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms met during the year and took a positive step forward towards more transparency in the arms trade.
Finally, the third Review Conference of the convention dealing with certain conventional weapons (CCW) was held, taking up such items as explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions, and mines other than anti-personnel landmines.
The present chapter reviews these developments.

Small arms and light weapons

Security Council

On 20 March, the Security Council held an open debate on the issue of small arms4 to consider the Secretary-General's report5 on the subject, submitted pursuant to its request of 17 February 2005.6 The report focused on implementing the recommendations contained in the Secretary-General's first report, which addressed ways and means to deal with illicit trade in SALW.7 Those recommendations covered four main topics: implementation of the Programme of Action; actions and arms embargoes mandated by the Security Council; conflict prevention, peacebuilding and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of former combatants; and confidence-building measures. Some members of the Council proposed that it adopt a resolution supporting actions to address the threat posed by the proliferation of illicit SALW. However, as others felt that such a resolution would be stepping into the General Assembly's realm, no agreement was reached.

United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

In the PoA,8 Member States recommended that the General Assembly convene a conference, no later than 2006, to review its status of implementation. In resolution 58/2419 of 23 December 2003, the General Assembly decided to convene a United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the PoA (Review Conference) in New York for a two-week period between June and July 2006. Subsequently, the General Assembly, in its resolution 59/86 of 3 December 2004 decided that the Review Conference would meet from 26 June to 7 July 2006. In the same resolution, the General Assembly also decided to hold a Preparatory Committee for the Conference from 9 to 20 January 2006, in New York.

Preparatory Committee for the Conference

The Preparatory Committee, chaired by Sylvester Rowe (Sierra Leone), held 15 formal and 5 informal meetings that included a segment to hear general statements and sessions devoted to an interactive thematic debate as well as opportunities to hear statements by representatives of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The interactive thematic debate was divided into the following six clusters of issues: human/humanitarian, socio-economic and other dimensions (cluster I); norms, regulations and administrative procedures (cluster II); excessive accumulation, misuse and uncontrolled spread (cluster III); international cooperation and assistance (cluster IV); communication (cluster V); and follow-up and reporting mechanisms (cluster VI).
The outcome of the intense discussions that took place during the thematic debate was a list of elements for possible inclusion in a draft final outcome document of the Review Conference. However, the Preparatory Committee did not reach agreement on an outline for a draft final outcome document. The wide disparity of views expressed during the Preparatory Committee made it impossible for the Committee's final report to reflect a coherent rendition of the thematic debate. As a result, fearing that the contents of the discussions that occurred during the thematic debate would be completely lost, the Chair decided, in his own capacity, to issue a conference room paper which was neither discussed nor agreed upon.10 The Preparatory Committee did, however, reach agreement on procedural issues for the Conference, including its draft provisional agenda, draft rules of procedure and the composition of the Bureau. Furthermore, the Preparatory Committee unanimously endorsed the candidacy of Prasad Kariyawasam (Sri Lanka) as President of the Conference and requested him to undertake the necessary consultations and handle technical and other organizational matters in the period before the Conference.11

Other preparations for the Review Conference

In the period leading to the Review Conference, the President-designate undertook five informal consultations at the United Nations Headquarters in New York12 as well as consultations with NGOs in New York and Geneva. In addition, several regional consultations took place, for the purpose of harmonizing the views of States in preparation for the Review Conference.
From 14 to 16 December 2005, the African Union organized the Second Continental Conference of African governmental experts and regional Economic Communities on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, in Windhoek, Namibia. The Conference adopted the African Common Position, which was later submitted to the Review Conference as a conference room paper.13 From 2 to 4 May 2006, the representatives of the Latin American and Caribbean States met in Guatemala to seek a common regional perspective to the Review Conference and adopted the Antigua, Guatemala Declaration, which was also subsequently submitted to the Review Conference (see annex V to this chapter).14 Also, from 17 to 19 May 2006, the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific organized a workshop in Bangkok entitled "Towards the Review Conference on the Implementation of the PoA". As a result of the workshop, two reports were adopted, one from the Working Group of South Asian States and one from the Working Group of Southeast Asian States. Both reports were subsequently submitted to the Review Conference.15 Several other meetings were held by United Nations Offices, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in preparation for the Review Conference.16
Also in preparation for the Review Conference, DDA and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) jointly organized a Pilot Sponsorship Programme and a Training Workshop for Members of SALW National Coordination Bodies (NCBs)17 from 22 June to 7 July in New York. The Programme provided funding for the participation of NCB members from 33 States in a Capacity-building Workshop and in the Review Conference itself. The Workshop aimed to prepare participants for an active participation in the Review Conference and to promote the International Tracing Instrument.18
A further project was completed in preparation for the Review Conference under the auspices of the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA). Begun in 2003, the project titled "Capacity Development for Reporting to the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms"19 was completed in September. Implemented by UNDP, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and DDA, in collaboration with the Small Arms Survey, the project provided assistance to 115 States through the development of a reporting assistance package that included a reporting template and fact sheets on small arms issues.20 As a contribution to the Conference, an analysis and compilation of the national reports submitted by States in 2005 and 2006 was also prepared. The publication, entitled Five Years of Implementing the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons: Regional Analysis of National Reports identified major developments in the implementation of the PoA and highlighted the main trends in reporting, including regional differences, thematic priorities and areas where further assistance was needed. UNIDIR published the information under the same title, and the project partners launched it at a reception during the 2006 Review Conference.21
Working closely together, DDA and DPI developed and implemented a comprehensive communications strategy on the illicit trade in SALW, utilizing the information and communications tools available for dissemination in all official languages. This included: issuing press releases and other media and promotional material for print, radio and television; developing a multifaceted website; performing outreach through special projects at Headquarters and worldwide to call attention to the dangers of illicit trade in SALW; and raising global awareness of the progress made in implementing the PoA on SALW.
In the area of television, the UN in Action series produced, in close collaboration with UN-LiREC, a programme entitled "Brazil combats illegal arms traffic", which was broadcast by CNN World Report in July 2006. Through the Associated Press Television News agency, UNIFEED, the daily satellite feed to television stations around the world produced and distributed various stories on topics such as the problem of small arms in the Great Lakes region in Africa and news on the 2006 Review Conference of the PoA on Small Arms.
In May, Michael Douglas, as a Messenger of Peace, was featured in a public service announcement (PSA) where he spotlighted the illicit trade in SALW and promoted the 2006 Review Conference. The PSA was translated into over a dozen languages, transmitted globally and displayed on the 2006 Conference website.
During the 2006 Review Conference of the PoA, special SALW-related events and exhibitions took place at the United Nations. As part of the Million Faces Campaign, on 26 June, the one-millionth signatory, a Kenyan victim of gun violence, of the Control Arms Petition calling for an international arms trade treaty handed the petition over to the Secretary-General. To further emphasize the threat posed by SALW, Colombian artist, Cesar López, created an electric guitar from a shotgun as a symbol of peace in his war-torn country and performed with it in New York. The escopetarra is on display in the permanent exhibition on the theme "Disarmament: peace through security", which is part of the guided tour route.

The Review Conference

The Review Conference took place from 26 June to 7 July at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Nobuaki Tanaka, opened the meeting, which then proceeded to the election of Prasad Kariyawasam (Sri Lanka) as President and of the 29 Vice-Presidents.22
The Conference was composed of three parts: a high-level segment which comprised a general exchange of views; an exchange of views on progress and problems in the implementation of the PoA, with specific emphasis on international cooperation and assistance and best practices of small arms and light weapons projects; and consideration of the draft final documents. More than 100 senior government officials, including some at the ministerial level, participated in the high-level segment. The Conference also heard statements by representatives of international and regional organizations23 and a wide spectrum of civil society organizations.24
The main objective of the Conference was to assess the progress made in the implementation of the commitments made under the PoA and there was general agreement on this objective. Moreover, many proposals, from different regions, were put forward to expand the discussion to include, inter alia, human rights, human security and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration perspectives. However, no agreement could be reached to include these issues in the debate.
As requested by the Preparatory Committee, the President of the Conference prepared a non-paper to serve as a basis for negotiations on a final outcome document of the Conference.25 The document contained four sections, as follows: (i) Preamble; (ii) Concrete Measures to Strengthen Implementation at National, Regional and Global Levels; (iii) International Cooperation and Assistance; and (iv) Follow-up to the United Nations Conference to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. On 29 June, following a proposal by delegations, the Conference agreed to adopt the President's non-paper as a working paper of the Conference. The President invited delegations to submit proposals on his paper.
Between Thursday, 29 June and Friday, 30 June, a total of 325 proposals were submitted to the Secretariat.26 In view of the time constraints facing the Conference, the President concluded that it would not be possible to negotiate on the basis of such an unwieldy number of proposals. Therefore, on Monday, 3 July, the President tabled a new paper, which attempted to reflect a middle ground among the various proposals submitted. The President also appointed facilitators to help delegations reach compromise language on contentious paragraphs.
Discussions focused on some of the issues which were not agreed upon in 2001 and which proved to be still contentious. In particular, there was a lack of consensus on the inclusion in the outcome document of any references to the civilian possession of SALW, despite the vast support from States of Latin America and the Caribbean, most African States, and of the States of the European Union, among others. Those States opposing references to civilian possession argued that the PoA was about the illicit trade in SALW and not legal possession of SALW, an issue which in their view should be left up to each State to regulate through national laws.
There was also considerable discussion on the issue of SALW ammunition, which in the view of many States is an integral part of the problem of illicit small arms and light weapons. The issue of ammunition was contentious during the 2001 Conference that created the PoA and, ultimately, was not addressed in that instrument. Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue, the President, in his working paper, included a paragraph that would call on States to initiate a separate process, within the framework of the United Nations, on the issue of ammunition for illicit small arms and light weapons in a comprehensive manner, as recommended by the report of the Open-ended Working Group on Tracing Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons. While the European Union, the States from Latin America and the Caribbean and South Africa, to cite just a few, supported this language, some other States opposed the inclusion of that paragraph, as they maintained that the issue of ammunition, not being addressed in the PoA, was therefore outside the mandate of the Review Conference.
Contentious also was the inclusion in the draft final document of any reference to the transfer of SALW to non-State actors, a position which was supported by a large number of States from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe, but opposed by others who thought that negotiations on this issue would amount to re-negotiating the PoA.
Many States underscored the importance of developing common international standards on the controls governing transfers of SALW. On this issue, on 19 June the United Kingdom submitted a working paper highlighting progress, since 2003, in the development of common guidelines for national controls on transfers of small arms and light weapons.27 Many States, especially from Africa, the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, were in favour of the initiative. On 22 June, Kenya submitted a working paper with suggested international guidelines for transfer controls. These guidelines were drafted at the Conference that took place in April 200628 in Nairobi, where representatives of 11 States and civil society met to discuss and develop a non-paper which could be used as the basis for a negotiation on agreed minimum common guidelines for transfers of SALW.29 For other States, however, the issue of setting international standards for the transfer of SALW posed a serious problem as it has implications for licit transfers between States and, therefore, extended beyond the scope of the PoA. Furthermore, negotiations on such international standards would have to take into account specific regional and national conditions.
An Australian proposal to address the issue of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), received the support of a few countries, among them Israel and the United States. Other States, however, held the view that no single category of weapons should be singled out.
Several Member States, especially those of Latin America and the Caribbean, regretted that the International Tracing Instrument (see p. 1), which had been adopted by the General Assembly in December 2005, was not legally-binding. Those States expressed hope that States would eventually negotiate a legally-binding international tracing instrument. There was, however, widespread support for a way forward to implement the recently concluded agreement.
On 26 June, Canada tabled a working paper30 outlining a proposal for an intersessional programme of work to complement work carried out during formal meetings of States. There were no objections to the proposal.
The nature of the follow-up process to consider and/or review progress in the implementation of the Programme of Action was also a key point of contention. The United States objected to the convening of another Review Conference at the United Nations in the future and declared that it would "only consider proposals regarding follow-on actions that are focused, practical, and intended to strengthen the implementation of the Program of Action".31 Despite strenuous efforts on the part of the President of the Conference to find consensus on a one-week action implementation meeting with clearly defined tasks as outlined in his paper,32 no consensus emerged. Negotiations on this matter were carried out until the last minute of the Review Conference, when the President, having exhausted all options, announced that it was not possible for the Review Conference to reach a consensus on an outcome document.
Nonetheless, the participating States overwhelmingly reaffirmed their strong commitment to the full implementation of the PoA and unanimously adopted the procedural report of the Conference.33 The Conference succeeded in refocusing the attention of the international community on the SALW issue and clearly underscored the importance of the PoA as a main framework for measures to curtail the illegal trade in these weapons. Member States also acknowledged that progress had been made at the national, regional and global levels, although more needed to be done in order to effectively address the illicit trade in SALW in all its aspects and to fully implement the PoA. There was also consensus on the need to strengthen and better coordinate international cooperation and assistance aimed at building the capacity of States to implement the PoA.

The International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons

By its decision 60/519 of 8 December 2005, the General Assembly had adopted the International Instrument.34
Since the International Instrument is not legally-binding, its effectiveness depends on the willingness of States to implement its provisions but also on their capacity to do so. Capacity-building is thus a critical factor as a large number of States requires assistance to develop the technical means for SALW marking and record-keeping, and to train law enforcement officials in SALW tracing procedures and techniques. In 2006, the Department for Disarmament Affairs began promoting the Instrument and familiarizing relevant stakeholders with its key provisions. Its implementation was one of the items considered at the Regional Small Arms Workshop held in Bangkok, in May, and the Capacity-building Workshop for Members of SALW National Coordination Bodies held in June, in New York. Furthermore, DDA consulted with Interpol to define a strategy for cooperation in providing capacity-building assistance for its implementation.
The instrument provided for mandatory follow-up whereby States would biennially report to the Secretary-General on implementation of its provisions. Member States also agreed to meet biennially to consider the reports submitted. This review will take place in the framework of the Biennial Meeting of States in 2008 (see resolution 61/66 on p. 2).

Group of Governmental Experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 60/81 of 8 December 2005, the Secretary-General established the Group of Governmental Experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons. Taking into account equitable geographical representation, availability of expertise and expressions of interest by Member States, 25 experts were appointed by the Secretary-General35 (see annex IV to this chapter for the names of the experts). The first session of the Group was held in Geneva from 27 November to 1 December.36 When the Group concludes its work, the Secretary-General is expected to submit its report to the sixty-second session of the General Assembly.

Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) mechanism

In 2006, CASA37 members actively addressed multidisciplinary aspects of illicit SALW and, where relevant, continued to support implementation of the PoA. Many of these activities were aimed at capacity-building to assist States in formulating and implementing measures to tackle SALW proliferation and in fulfilling their international obligations. At the same time, some CASA members continued to develop the capacity to integrate a small arms component into the framework of their primary activities.
DDA and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs continued to provide support to Sri Lanka's National Commission Against Illicit Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons (NCAPISA). The project, which was initiated in 2003, was extended for an additional two years and is expected to conclude in 2008. A project coordination meeting involving officials of the Government of Sri Lanka, Saferworld, DDA and DESA, was organized in London from 31 August to 2 September. Various aspects of the project's implementation were assessed, including the evaluation of an SALW pilot survey that was carried out in the Hambantota District of Sri Lanka from May to June.38 A workplan for the activities of the National Commission, covering the period from November 2006 to the end of 2007, was also drafted at that meeting and later approved by the National Commission. In the implementation of the Project, UNDESA fielded a technical mission to Colombo from 16 to 20 October 2007 in order to prepare for the National Survey and to discuss administrative issues with the management of the National Commission. Also during this mission, a one-day workshop was organized on 19 October to introduce the revised Project Document to the National Commission and to discuss the workplan and a proposal to conduct a national survey.39
The CASA Internet Database, an important part of the communication strategy, was launched in January (for content, see box). The Database project was developed by DDA, including UN-LiREC, with financial and technical support from the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery of the UNDP and UNIDIR. Financial contributions were also provided by the Governments of the Czech Republic, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden and Switzerland.40  
The CASA Internet Database aims to:
• Facilitate information exchange among
  CASA members;
• Disseminate information to Member
  States and the public in general; and
• Collect data on United Nations activities
  related to small arms.
The Database also contains country-specific information via country profiles, which, inter alia, provides data to help identify areas where international assistance is needed.

 

Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations Children's Fund)

DDR programmes have been increasingly recognized as vital steps in ensuring smooth transition of countries from war to post-conflict stability, helping create the conditions for post-conflict reconstruction and peace-building, and preventing relapse into conflict. SALW collection and control measures form an integral part of the DDR process, especially during the initial disarmament phase of DDR, when there is an urgent need to collect, store and destroy weapons held by ex-combatants. Effective DDR would also address weapons held by non-combatants or civilians, thereby contributing to preserving the overall security balance in the immediate post-conflict situations, including that of between ex-combatants and civilians. Such growing recognition of SALW issues in the DDR process led to the statement by the President of the Security Council on 17 February 2005.41
At the policy level, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations led a United Nations Inter-Agency Working Group to develop comprehensive and coherent United Nations policies, guidelines and procedures on DDR through system-wide integrated disarmament, demobilization and reintegration standards (IDDRS), which was launched in December. The IDDRS included a module on SALW control measures, to which DDA also contributed, which provides guidance on the principles, planning and long-term support operations required for integrated SALW control in DDR programmes. The IDDRS has been broadly distributed through an Internet-based United Nations Resource Centre.42
In 2006, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) continued its advocacy, programming and partnership-building to effectuate children's rights. In the area of SALW, UNICEF was an active DDR partner in more than a dozen countries supporting children and youth associated with armed forces and groups. It worked closely with national Governments, NGOs, civil society and over 14 United Nations agencies to ensure adherence to agreed standards, norms and procedures in the context of demobilization and reintegration initiatives for children.
In Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UNICEF collaborated with partners in the area of DDR to provide educational and skills training for tens of thousands of demobilized child soldiers and other war-affected children. It also facilitated their reintegration into families and communities.

Armed violence prevention (UNDP and WHO)

Together with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNDP continued providing support to implement Phase 1 of the Armed Violence Prevention Programme.43 At the global level, Phase 1 produced secondary research on armed violence and its prevention, coupled with initiatives to integrate it within broader development assistance frameworks. At the national level, two projects were implemented in Brazil and El Salvador, respectively. These projects focused on strengthening national interventions and institutional monitoring capacities and evaluating prevention practices. Phase 2 of the programme is expected to be launched during 2007.

Violence against children (UNICEF)

During the year, UNICEF contributed to landmark research conducted for the Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Children44 and the expanded World Report on Violence Against Children.45 The Study and Report provided a detailed picture of the nature, extent and causes of violence against children, including SALW, and proposed clear recommendations for action.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNICEF integrated SALW awareness into a school-based mine risk education programme, through training for teachers and a peer education programme.

Firearms protocol (UNODC)

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) continued to assist States in ratifying and implementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, its Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition (Firearms Protocol),46 as well as its other two Protocols. In the course of the year, 13 States ratified the Firearms Protocol.47
The Conference of the Parties to the Convention, which held its third session in Vienna from 9 to 18 October, reviewed the implementation of the Firearms Protocol.48 After considering the first analytical report on the issue,49 the Conference agreed on the following technical assistance priorities: (i) marking firearms; (ii) record-keeping; (iii) deactivating firearms; and (iv) identifying competent authorities within State parties.
In its Decision 3/4, the Conference of the Parties requested the Secretariat (UNODC) to develop and submit proposals for technical assistance activities to satisfy the priority needs identified, for consideration at the intersessional meeting, scheduled to take place in Vienna, from 3 to 5 October 2007.
To assist in implementing the Firearms Protocol, UNODC began developing guidelines aimed at helping Member States to create and strengthen the necessary institutions to control the flows of firearms, their parts, components and ammunition; and to combat their illicit manufacturing and trafficking. Additionally, it is envisaged that the guidelines would assist in establishing mechanisms for implementation, including setting up systems for controlling transfers of firearms and transnational information sharing. The first meeting of the expert working group was held in Vienna in November, and brought together experts from Member States, NGOs, the firearms manufacturing industry and other United Nations agencies. Additional expert working group meetings are planned for 2007.

International Assistance: Findings of a Global Survey

As United Nations Member States recognized the necessity to curb the illicit trade of SALW, a section dedicated to international assistance and cooperation was included in the PoA to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW in All Its Aspects.
To provide a global overview of international assistance during the period of 2001 to 2005, UNIDIR published a report entitled "International Assistance for implementing the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects: Findings of a Global Survey".50 The report uncovered certain challenges associated with requesting assistance and identified the types of assistance that affected States may require. It also provided recommendations to improve the effectiveness of resource mobilization and allocation to implement the PoA, while underscoring that much work remained to be done in order to ensure that resources and needs were appropriately matched.

Research and studies (UNIDIR)

The final report of the project "European Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons and Explosive Remnants of War"51 (ERW) was also published during the year. The project aimed to provide the EU with an overview of SALW and ERW problems, an analysis of selected European actions in these areas along with an assessment of their effectiveness, and evidence-based recommendations for future action. Options were presented for the enhanced integration of small arms and ERW into relevant EU policies, improved internal coordination in the EU and enhanced cooperation with external partners.
As part of this project, UNIDIR conducted field research and training in cooperation with six North African States: Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. The overall aim of this phase was to develop EU recommendations to improve external assistance to third countries affected by illicit trade in SALW and ERW - with a focus on North Africa.

Transparency in conventional arms transfers and military expenditures

The UN Register of Conventional Arms

The following section deals with three main activities of the United Nations in connection with the UN Register: the annual submissions by States of information; the triennial review of its operation and future development; and promotion of the Register to increase participation.

Annual report on the Register for the calendar year 2005

The fourteenth consolidated report issued by the Secretary-General and the two addenda and one corrigendum for the calendar year 2005 contained data and information provided by 117 Governments on imports and exports in the seven categories of conventional arms covered by the Register. A composite table for 2005, listing all the replies received by the Secretary-General and indicating whether each reply contained data on imports and exports or both, and whether relevant explanations and background information were included, is annexed to this chapter (see p. 3).52 Table 1 gives the regional distribution of reports received for the years 2000-2005.

Table 1
Regional participation of Member States in the UN Register of Conventional Arms: 2000-2005

(excluding Cook Islands, Holy See and Niue)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
African States
(total number: 53)
11
17
17
9
16
16
Asian States
(total number: 54)
31
30
29
32
30
28
Eastern European States
(total number: 22)
21
21
22
20
21
21
Latin American and Caribbean States
(total number: 33)
23
26
24
21
18
21
Western European and Other States
(total number: 30)
30
30
29
30
29
29

Group of Governmental Experts on the UN Register of Conventional Arms (GGE)

By its resolution 60/226 of 23 December 2005, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a Group of Governmental Experts based on equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account the views expressed by Member States and the earlier reports of the GGE. This marked the fifth periodic review of the Register.
Experts from 20 Member States from different regions and subregions were invited to participate in the review (for a list of experts, see annex I to this chapter), which was held over three sessions in New York from 27 February to 3 March, 8 to 12 May and 17 to 28 July.
The GGE studied and reported on the progress of the Register in terms of regional and global participation and various aspects of its operation, including reporting methods, Member States contact information, access to data and information reported and the role of the United Nations Secretariat. They also examined issues concerning further development of the Register in terms of categorical adjustments to conventional arms, the status of reporting on military holdings, procurement through national production and transfers of SALW.
The adopted report contained a number of significant recommendations designed to improve the operation of the Register and enhance its global relevance (see recommendations in annex II of the chapter).53 Notably, the GGE suggested that States in a position to do so provide data and information on SALW transfers to the Register, as part of additional background information. They also recommended lowering the reporting threshold for warships (including submarines) from 750 to 500 metric tonnes as well as those of lower tonnage if equipped with missiles or torpedoes capable of a 25-kilometre range or greater. Further, the experts recommended that the Register be used to record transfers of conventional arms between Member States only.
The GGE reviewed the results of a series of workshops that were held between 2004 and 2005 on "Transparency in armaments" to enhance familiarity with and promote greater participation in the Register, and also to obtain feedback on its operation and further development. The GGE recommended that DDA sustain this effort.
In addition, the GGE identified a number of issues on which consensus could not be reached, and concluded that further consideration be given to those issues during the next periodic review. The report was submitted to the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, and endorsed in resolution 61/77 (see p. 4 for discussion).

Promotion of the Register

To enhance familiarity with and promote participation in the Register, DDA continued to organize workshops in cooperation with interested States. In December a regional workshop was held in Bangkok and a presentation at a plenary meeting of the Hemispheric Security Committee of the Organization of American States was made in Washington, D.C. DDA also published a booklet highlighting the salient features of a review conducted by the 2006 Group of Governmental Experts on the Register.54

Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures

The United Nations Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures

The United Nations continued to gather official data on military expenditures from Member States through its Standardized Instrument55 with a total of 82 States reporting in 2006. They were reproduced in a report of the Secretary-General.56 A number of States that did not maintain regular armed forces also reported by submitting "nil" returns. Although the progress to date fell short of the universal participation goal, the submitted replies increased significantly over the past five years, illustrating a relatively high level of contribution as compared to the previous decade when the average level of participation by States was 30 less each year. Recent developments indicated a positive trend towards greater transparency of military expenditures.

Promotion of standardized reporting

By its biennial resolution 60/44, of 8 December 2005, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General, within available resources, to promote international and regional symposia and training seminars to explain the purposes of the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures as well as to give relevant technical instructions. Pursuant to this request, DDA continued to cooperate with interested Governments in promoting the Standardized Instrument, such as by attending and providing background information to the VII Conference of the Defence Ministers of the Americas in October 2006.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

This section covers a key event in 2006, the Third Review Conference of the Convention, which took place in Geneva from 7 to 17 November. It was preceded by an intensive preparatory process, which took place in the framework of three sessions of a group of governmental experts established by the States parties to the Convention, which served as a de facto preparatory committee for the Conference. In addition, this section also covers the eighth annual Conference dealing with the Convention's Amended Protocol II on anti-personnel landmines.

Group of Governmental Experts of the States Parties to the CCW

Under the oversight of the Third Review Conference's President-designate,57 the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth sessions of the GGE were held in Geneva from 6 to 10 March, 19 to 23 June, and 28 August to 6 September. The three sessions shared the same agenda, and rules of procedure.58 Work was divided between two main working groups: ERW59 and mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM), often referred to as anti-vehicle mines (AVM).60
Consensus was reached to recommend to the Third Review Conference: setting up a compliance mechanism for the Convention and its annexed Protocols; establishing a sponsorship programme under the Convention;61 and adopting a Plan of Action to promote the universality of the Convention and its Protocols.62
All three sessions considered the status of CCW Protocol V on ERW, with the fifteenth session noting that 23 States had consented to be bound, allowing the Protocol to enter into force on 12 November 2006, during the Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention (see below).63
As agreed at the 2005 Review Conference, the GGE was mandated to make the necessary preparations for the Third Review Conference. To that end, it made a series of recommendations to the Review Conference on procedural64 and substantive65 issues, including the ad referendum decision that the Review Conference should have two Main Committees.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) presented a paper,66 which suggested a thorough review of the status and operation of the CCW and its Protocols. It focused especially on: (1) implementation measures (including universality, dissemination, training of military personnel, technical cooperation and national legislative measures); (2) review of the legality of new weapons (including exchange of information on such weapons and establishment of appropriate national mechanisms); and (3) clarification of several issues identified by the First and the Second Review Conferences (in particular total prohibition of blinding laser weapons and blinding resulting from the use of other laser systems, etc.). On the topic of blinding laser weapons (Protocol IV), a new draft mandate to study military laser systems was tabled by Germany and Sweden with the aid of ICRC.67

Working Group on ERW

France presented to the Group a methodology to reduce the related risks of ERW.68 Two draft mandates for future work (to be recommended to the Third Review Conference) were tabled. The EU proposed to continue work based on the current mandate69 and a group of six like-minded countries proposed negotiating an instrument on cluster munitions.70
The GGE devoted much attention to identifying types of munitions, including sub-munitions that present a specific humanitarian risk,71 with the main focus of discussion on munitions overview. As previous discussions on the humanitarian threat of sub-munitions revealed that ammunition classifications seemed to be inconsistent,72 the Chairperson (of the Meeting of Military and Technical Experts) submitted a more standardized list of munitions and a new table,73 which aimed to better define the types of munitions to be considered. Designed for consistency, the new classification list did not contain any judgement on risk. It was proposed rather as an "inventory of explosive ordnance".
In response to an initiative of the President-designate, agreement was reached on a draft declaration on the occasion of the entry into force of the protocol on ERW to be adopted during a special plenary meeting of the Third Review Conference. The second part of the ERW mandate, preventive technical measures, was discussed in the meeting of military and technical experts. The military experts focused on "detectability" and "active life", and sought an acceptable definition for "perimeter marked area".

Working group on MOTAPM

The working group on MOTAPM considered but did not agree upon two papers presented by the Coordinator,74 which put forward an "opt-in approach" for the two main stumbling blocks on "detectability" and "active life". At the beginning of the thirteenth session, delegations that did not favour negotiations on a MOTAPM protocol (Belarus, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russian Federation) continued to oppose the notion of a legally-binding instrument, considering it premature. However, they did agree to continue the discussion. On the other hand, those delegations who strongly supported a protocol on MOTAPM continued to press for the need to address the humanitarian concerns associated with these mines and proposed a legally-binding instrument for adoption by the Third Review Conference.75
On the issue of compliance, the GGE continued to discuss the various proposals contained in the papers presented by the President-designate.76 A simplified form was widely favoured, i.e., a decision of the Review Conference instead of an amendment to the Convention. The United States, however, remained sceptical about the need for a compliance mechanism and submitted an alternative proposal,77 suggesting a change in both form and substance.
On the issue of universality, the President-designate presented a paper78 containing a draft plan of action to promote universality of the Convention, which was agreed by the GGE. It suggested a number of concrete steps to be taken between the Third and the Fourth Review Conferences.

Eighth Annual Conference of the States Parties to CCW Amended Protocol II

On 6 November, the Eighth Annual Conference met in Geneva.79 In his message to the Conference, the Secretary-General underscored that the threats from landmines still persisted despite the adoption of Amended Protocol II a decade before. He also urged States parties to consider how best to promote universal adherence to the Protocol, and strongly appealed to those countries that had not yet ratified the instrument to do so as soon as possible, particularly those States parties which acceded to the original Protocol II.80
At its first plenary meeting, the Conference adopted its agenda, rules of procedure and cost estimates. A total of 63 States, which had notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Amended Protocol II,81 1 signatory State,82 13 observer States,83 as well as representatives of DDA, UNIDIR and United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) participated in its work. Additionally, representatives of international organizations and NGOs attended open meetings of the Conference.84
The Conference devoted much of its work to the consideration of the 50 annual national reports submitted by the States parties in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 4, and Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Amended Protocol, which outlines specific information to be submitted.85 The Secretariat prepared and submitted a synopsis of the national annual reports.86
In a new development, the Conference considered the issue of the deferral, for up to nine years, of implementing the detectability and self-destruct requirements for anti-personnel landmines, as permitted by the Protocol.87 The Conference took note that as Amended Protocol II entered into force on 3 December 1998, the permitted deferral period would expire on 3 December 2007.88
The Conference adopted a report which included an appeal for the Protocol's universality. It recommended that the Secretary-General, in his capacity as Depositary, as well as the President of the Conference, exercise their authority to achieve that goal.89 The Conference decided to nominate the Permanent Representative of Jordan as President-designate of the Ninth Annual Conference, scheduled to take place in Geneva on 6 November 2007.90

Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the CCW

The Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the CCW was convened in Geneva from 7 to 17 November.91 A total of 76 States parties attended the Conference.92 Two signatory States93 and 19 States not parties participated as observers.94 Four United Nations agencies,95 an intergovernmental organization,96 two international organizations97 and 15 NGOs98 were also among the participants. A number of side events by NGOs were organized during the course of the Conference.
The United Nations Secretary-General sent a message to the Review Conference.99 Referring to events that had recently taken place which showed "the atrocious, inhumane effects" of cluster munitions, he underscored the need for these weapons to be addressed immediately, so that civilian populations could start rebuilding their lives. He urged States parties to make full use of the CCW framework to "devise effective norms that will reduce and ultimately eliminate the horrendous humanitarian and development impact of these weapons". He also called on States parties: to freeze the use of cluster munitions against military assets located in or near populated areas; to recall that placing military assets in such areas was illegal under international humanitarian law; and to freeze the transfer of those cluster munitions that are known to be inaccurate and unreliable, and to dispose of them.

Organization of the Third Review Conference

At its first plenary meeting the Conference confirmed the nomination of François Rivasseau (France) as President of the Third Review Conference and elected 10 Vice-Presidents.100 The Conference also elected the Chair- and Vice-Chairpersons of the Credentials Committee,101 the two Main Committees102 and the Drafting Committee.103 On the proposal of the President, the Conference also appointed representatives from three High Contracting Parties as members of the Credentials Committee.104
The Conference adopted its agenda,105 rules of procedure106 and programme of work.107 In connection with the adoption of the Rules of Procedure, the President made a statement.108 The Conference also confirmed the nomination of its Secretary-General.
The Conference decided to distribute its work between two main committees: Main Committee I: Review of the scope and operation of the Convention and its annexed Protocols; consideration of any proposal for the Convention and its existing Protocols; and preparation and consideration of the final documents; and Main Committee II: Consideration of proposals for additional protocols to the Convention.

The work of Main Committee I

Main Committee I held meetings from 8 to 16 November. In accordance with the Committee's agenda, the items considered were: (1) options to promote compliance with the Convention and its annexed Protocols; and (2) scope and operation of the Convention and its annexed Protocols, in particular: (a) plan of action on the universalization of the Convention and its annexed Protocols; and (b) establishment of a sponsorship programme under the Convention. The Chairperson of the Committee presented its report to the Conference at its final plenary meeting on 17 November.109
On compliance, the President, assisted by the Friend of the President on Compliance,110 secured agreement on a new compliance mechanism for the Convention and its annexed Protocols in the form of a decision of the Third Review Conference. Some delegations expressed disappointment that it had not proved possible to agree on a legally-binding mechanism.111
In the mechanism, the States parties undertook to consult each other and to cooperate with each other regarding any concerns which related to the fulfilment of their legal obligations or to resolve any issue that might arise with regard to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Convention and any of its annexed Protocols by which they are bound. In implementing the above decision, the Conference also decided to convene, within 12 months, a separate Meeting of the States parties, in the context of other CCW meetings.
It was also agreed to establish a pool of experts, which would allow each State party to seek assistance on any concerns relating to the fulfilment of its legal obligations under the provisions of the Convention or any of its Protocols by which it is bound.
On universality, the Conference adopted by acclamation the Plan of Action to Promote Universality of the Convention. The States parties declared that universalization would remain a priority objective of cooperation among them in the period from 2006 to 2011, during which a set of actions are to be implemented. Such steps would include: encouraging Signatory States to ratify the CCW as soon as possible; encouraging adherence by States in conflict regions; and establishing contacts with regional organizations aiming to designate "points of contacts" and designating "regional coordinators" on a voluntary and informal basis. The Fourth Review Conference will review the implementation of the Plan of Action.112
Regarding the sponsorship programme, the States parties agreed to establish an efficient, transparent and cost-effective programme within the framework of the Convention, the basic goals of which are: (i) to strengthen the implementation of the Convention and its annexed Protocols; (ii) to promote universal observance of the norms and principles enshrined in the Convention and its annexed Protocols; (iii) to support the universalization of the Convention and its annexed Protocols; and (iv) to enhance the cooperation, the exchange of information and the consultations among the States parties on issues related to the Convention and its annexed Protocols.113

The work of Main Committee II

Main Committee II held meetings from 8 to 16 November. Its main responsibilities were on two issues: ERW and MOTAPM based on texts on both presented by the GGE. The Chairperson of the Committee presented its report to the Conference at its final plenary meeting on 17 November.114
Cluster munitions
On ERW, the significant rise in international concern over the use of cluster munitions during the months preceding the Third Review Conference significantly impacted the discussions under this topic. This resulted in a coalition of more than 25 States parties arguing strongly for a legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions.
The States parties had before them a draft mandate to "Negotiate a Legally-Binding Instrument that Addresses the Humanitarian Concerns Posed by Cluster Munitions"115 submitted prior to the Review Conference by six countries (Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand and Sweden). Other proposals submitted were considered at a series of formal and informal meetings and eventually resulted in the adoption under ERW of a cluster munitions mandate for future work. Mexico, however, while not opposing adoption of the mandate, did not join the consensus on the grounds that the mandate did not sufficiently address humanitarian concerns, as reflected in the Final Declaration's review of Article 8 of the Convention, last paragraph.
Pursuant to that agreement, it was decided to urgently convene an intersessional meeting of governmental experts "to consider further the application and implementation of existing international humanitarian law to specific munitions that may cause ERW, with particular focus on cluster munitions, including the factors affecting their reliability and their technical and design characteristics, with a view to minimizing the humanitarian impact of the use of these munitions".116 It was also decided that the Military and Technical Experts of the GGE would continue their work and provide advice, as required.
Mines other than anti-personnel mines
After five years of intensive discussions and negotiations in previous forums, the Third Review Conference failed to agree on a legally-binding instrument to address the humanitarian concerns associated with MOTAPM and was unable to reach an agreement on a mandate to engage in such negotiations. National positions remained divergent on the Coordinator's "Set of provisions that could command consensus", comprising an opt-in approach for the two main stumbling blocks on "detectability" and "active life". Contradictory views on possible action by the Conference and the way ahead also persisted.
It was agreed, however, that the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties would discuss further ways to protect civilians from the harmful effects of MOTAPM. This came as a result of the support from those States that believed existing texts in the Coordinator's "Set of provisions that could command consensus" were too diluted to offer a worthwhile outcome on this issue and those for whom the time was not yet ripe to conduct negotiations on a new Protocol.117
A group of 25 States parties, issued a declaration on undertakings on the "use" and "transfer" of MOTAPM that they would assume as politically binding until such time as a new Protocol could be negotiated, as also did other individual delegations.118

Protocol V

Main Committee II considered a proposal for a mandate on laser systems by Sweden and Germany, with the support of the ICRC. The proposal was opposed by some delegations on the grounds that there was no documented evidence of the harm associated with the use of these armaments that was not already covered by Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons.

Entry into force of Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War

On 13 November, the Conference organized a special plenary meeting to mark the entry into force of Protocol V, adopting a Declaration on the occasion (see appendix IV for the Declaration). The Secretary-General sent a message on this occasion, delivered by the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs,119 commending the 26 States that had agreed to be bound by Protocol V.120 He also renewed his call for the universality of this instrument and underlined that its success hinged upon the ability to overcome the challenges in clearing, removing and destroying ERW.

Final document and future work

The Conference took note of the reports of the Main and Drafting Committees and, at its final plenary meeting, concluded with the adoption of the Final Document, comprising the Final Report and the Final Declaration (see appendix IV for the Final Declaration).121
As to future work, the States parties agreed to convene the following CCW-related meetings:
The Conference also decided that a representative of the Western European and Other Group would preside over the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties, and appointed Janis Karklin (Latvia) as the Chairperson of the GGE.

Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention

The Seventh Meeting of the States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention122 met in Geneva from 18 to 22 September.123 To prepare for the Seventh Meeting, intersessional work was conducted in Standing Committees, which met from 8 to 12 May.
Following a request by the President, the general exchange of views was limited to one meeting, leaving the remaining time available for focused thematic discussions.
The main goals of the Seventh Meeting were to support the application of the Nairobi Action Plan (NAP) 2005-2009 by assessing progress in the implementation of the 70 specific action points defined by the 2004 First Review Conference in Nairobi, and identifying priorities for implementing the Convention in 2007. Attention was first focused on the Geneva Progress Report presented by the President.124 The Report was subject to intensive consultations before and during the Meeting, as well as to amendments. It proved widely acceptable.
The subsequent focus of attention at the Meeting was on the fulfilment of the mine-clearance obligations under Article 5 (3) of the Convention, in particular on the procedure to seek extension of the mine destruction deadline when a State party was unable to meet it. Successfully meeting Article 5 deadlines was considered by the First Review Conference as the "most significant challenge to be addressed in the coming five years" and would require intensive efforts by both mine-affected States parties and those in a position to assist them. Forty-five States parties have clearance deadlines in 2009. The States parties took decisions on the key elements of a voluntary extension process, as developed in a paper by the President, as well as a voluntary Declaration of completion of Article 5 obligations125 and a voluntary request template.126
The Meeting noted that 151 States had adhered to the Convention. A President's Action Plan on universalization was launched, aimed at making use of all available bilateral, regional and multilateral means and opportunities for promoting universal adherence to the Convention.
At the final plenary, the States parties adopted a Final Report127 and, inter alia, took the following decisions and recommendations: (1) the modalities were set for the preparation, submission and consideration of requests to extend Article 5 deadlines; (2) to adopt a model declaration for voluntarily reporting completion of Article 5 obligations; (3) to work further on the voluntary template to facilitate preparation and assessment of extension requests, with a view to enable voluntary implementation until its formal adoption at the Eighth Meeting in 2007; and (4) the Meeting warmly welcomed the Geneva Progress Report.
It was further decided to convene the Eighth Meeting of the States parties from 18 to 22 November 2007 in Jordan.128 The meetings of the Standing Committees were also scheduled to convene from 23 to 27 April 2007.

Towards an arms trade treaty

Activity towards an international arms trade treaty (ATT) in the framework of the United Nations started in 2005, though the idea had first been promoted by a group of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates led by Oscar Arias in October 1995. On 15 March 2005, the then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, made a public statement declaring the United Kingdom's support for such a treaty and outlining the principles which his country would like to see in such an agreement (see the 2005 edition of the Disarmament Yearbook, p. 96). Further, on 7 April 2005, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom sent a letter129 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, affirming his Government's support for such a treaty and for starting a formal process of negotiations towards that end within the United Nations.
On 23 March 2006, the United Kingdom laid out the case for an arms trade treaty to the Conference on Disarmament, emphasizing the strong humanitarian, developmental, human rights and moral aspects of a treaty,130 and outlining the steps it had taken towards its achievement. It pointed to the leading efforts that had been made by civil society in this regard, though it also clarified that it was not supporting any particular version of a draft treaty.
In a letter dated 11 April 2006 addressed to the Secretary-General, the Permanent Representative expressed his Government's intention to commence that process with the submission of a resolution in the First Committee during the General Assembly at its sixty-first session later that year.
Pursuant to that announced intention, the United Kingdom, in collaboration with Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya, held extensive consultations with Member States to develop the resolution and mobilize support for the proposal. They organized informal consultations among Governments on 13 and 14 September in New York and London, respectively, followed by a ministerial-level briefing held in New York on 20 September.
Throughout the year also, members of Control Arms,131 the international coalition of non-governmental organizations, continued their intensive efforts with Governments and public opinion in favour of a future arms trade treaty and the adoption of the General Assembly resolution.
On 18 October, the United Kingdom introduced a draft resolution to the First Committee on behalf of the seven original co-authors, stressing that the moral case for an arms trade treaty had been well expressed by the Nobel Laureates, civil society and spiritual leaders of all faiths. The co-authors shared concern about the human cost and the wider detrimental effect of irresponsible arms transfers, for example, on sustainable development. At the same time, they recognized the inherent and fundamental rights of States to provide for their defence and security. As a major arms producer, the United Kingdom stressed that the arms industry formed an important part of its economy and many thousands of ordinary citizens depended upon that industry for their livelihood. Thus it recognized that the issues involved were complex and that developing common international standards for criteria and norms to govern arms manufacturing and exporting countries would be a challenge.
The draft resolution gathered a large majority of the Assembly as co-sponsors and was adopted by the First Committee on 26 October, and forwarded to the Assembly (see p. 5). On 6 December, the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 by which, among other things, it recognized that the absence of common international standards on import, export and transfer of conventional arms was a contributory factor to conflict, the displacement of people, crime and terrorism, thereby undermining peace and reconciliation, safety, security stability and sustainable development. By the terms of the resolution (see appendix V, p. 6), the Assembly agreed that the next step in the process would be the collection of views throughout 2007 of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally-binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, which would be presented to the next Assembly. The Assembly also agreed on the following step in the process, that is, to request the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to examine those issues, using the views collected. The group would meet during 2008 and report to the Assembly at the end of that year.
On 6 December, the Secretary-General welcomed the adoption of the resolution, stressing that while there were still many steps to be taken to forge consensus, the adoption represented the first formal step to develop common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.132

Export controls

Wassenaar Arrangement

The twelfth plenary meeting of the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA or the Arrangement) was held in Vienna from 5 to 6 December.133 It was followed by an event open to all diplomatic missions in Vienna hosted by the Austrian Foreign Ministry on 7 December to mark the tenth anniversary of the WA. In a special Ministerial Statement issued to commemorate the occasion, the Participating States highlighted the Arrangement's "significant contributions toward regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in the transfer of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations".
During the year, the WA continued to keep pace with advances in technology, market trends and international security developments, such as the threat of terrorist acquisition of military and dual-use goods and technologies. In this regard, the Plenary approved a number of amendments to the control lists, including some in technically complex and challenging areas. The Plenary also agreed to initiate a dialogue between the WA Experts Group and its counterpart from the Missile Technology Control Regime (see also chapter I) with a view to discussing the control of specific items.
In response to growing international concern about unregulated "intangible" transfers of software and technology related to conventional arms and dual-use items, such as via oral or electronic means, the Plenary adopted a document entitled "Best Practices for Implementing Intangible Transfer of Technology Controls".
The Plenary also approved a document of "Best Practice Guidelines for the Licensing of Items on the Basic List and Sensitive List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies". Through guidance on the use of general licences and licence exceptions, this document was intended to assist States in implementing effective export controls.
To promote robust export controls, the WA continued to place a high priority on transparency and outreach to non-participating States and international organizations. It conducted outreach activities to a number of non-participating States while the Participating States advocated in their national capacities.
Addressing concerns about unauthorized users acquiring MANPADS, the Plenary encouraged Participating States to promote the Wassenaar Elements on Export Controls of MANPADS to non-participating States, and expressed appreciation for its Chair's outreach activities to this end in 2006.
The Plenary also established a framework for a 2007 overall functioning evaluation, intended to guide the WA in appraising its response to existing challenges and its preparedness for emerging ones. Furthermore, it set up several task forces to assist in the assessment process.
The Plenary reaffirmed the commitment of Participating States to take all appropriate measures to ensure effective implementation of all UNSCR provisions relevant to the purposes of the Arrangement.134

General Assembly

61/89
Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. The draft resolution was introduced by the United Kingdom on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 7 for sponsors), on 18 October. It was adopted by the First Committee on 26 October as follows: as a whole (139-1-24), operative paragraph 2 (133-1-26), operative paragraph 3 (133-1-24), and on 6 December by the General Assembly as follows: as a whole (153-1-24), operative paragraph 2 (148-1-22), operative paragraph 3 (147-1-21). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 8 and 9.
The resolution requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States, on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally-binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms and submit a report on the subject to the Assembly at its sixty-second session; and further requested the Secretary-General to establish a GGE, on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to examine the information, commencing in 2008, and transmit the report of the GGE to the Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session.
First Committee
Before supporting the draft resolution, Nigeria stated its belief that an arms trade treaty should establish a common standard on arms transfers, regulate the international arms trade and ensure the non-diversion of arms to unauthorized end-users; and stressed that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) landmark Convention on SALW contained far-reaching provisions on international arms transfers, which were not found in existing norms. Jamaica expressed interest in the far-reaching impact a legally-binding instrument to regulate conventional arms would have, but felt it lacked the elements that would have given it greater balance and a wider scope. Explaining their abstentions before the vote, Cuba, China, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Venezuela believed that the draft resolution prejudged the outcome of the GGE's discussions. Before the vote, Cuba stated that it could not support an international legal instrument determined by a group of experts, whereas a process involving the participation of all States would have been universally accepted and, therefore, effective. Venezuela believed that the initiative was not sufficiently discussed given its political, economic and social implications, and its significance for States' security and defence, the initiative should have been dealt with one step at a time.
After voting in favour of the draft, Algeria supported the establishment of an international instrument that would define objective norms to regulate the transfer of conventional weapons on a non-selective basis. Costa Rica voted in favour, pledging to continue until the process culminates in a comprehensive treaty.
After abstaining from the vote several countries explained their positions. China maintained that the conduct of trade should be determined by the countries involved. India added that the responsibility to establish control over conventional arms trade lay with the States. Iran considered the text repetitive and contradictory, lacking a basis for consensus. Speaking on behalf of the Arab countries,10 Libya believed the draft neglected a number of considerations for monitoring arms in a balanced, comprehensive way. Russia questioned the need for another treaty, the more pressing issue instead would be how to implement the numerous arms limitation regimes already in place. Israel was not convinced that a treaty could prevent the transfer of arms to terrorists or to countries lacking adequate controls, and felt that it could hinder a country's self-defence and harm legitimate military trade. Pakistan felt that the draft did not address existing imbalances that negatively impact regional security and were caused by inequitable policies of certain supplying States.

Small arms and light weapons

61/71
Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them. The draft resolution was introduced on 18 October by Mali, on behalf of the members of the Economic Community of West African States. The orally revised draft was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 30 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December.
The resolution encouraged the international community to support the ECOWAS Convention,136 and to provide technical and financial assistance to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to help combat the illicit trade in SALW.
61/66
The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. The draft resolution was introduced by South Africa on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 11 for sponsors), on 18 October. The revised draft was adopted as follows by the First Committee on 26 October (172-1-0) and by the General Assembly on 6 December (176-1-0). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 12 and 13.
The resolution called upon States to implement the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit SALW, and encouraged regional and subregional initiatives to mobilize resources and expertise to promote the PoA, and decided that the next biennial meeting of States to consider its national, regional and global implementation should be held, within the framework of the biennial meeting of States, in New York no later than 2008. It also recalled that the GGE, established to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW was to submit a report on the outcome of its study to the Assembly at its sixty-second session.
First Committee
Speaking before the vote on behalf of the European Union, Finland stated that despite the exclusion of two proposed preambular paragraphs, one noting views on national and regional practices regarding transfers of SALW and the other on possible integration of strategies on national and local levels, it would support the resolution. Further, the EU considered global exchange of views essential to implementation of the PoA.
After voting in favour, Switzerland expressed regret that its proposal for a preambular paragraph inspired by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development was not taken into consideration.137

Conventional disarmament at regional levels

61/53
Maintenance of international security - good neighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe. The draft resolution was introduced by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 14 for the sponsors) on 20 October. The revised draft was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 30 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 15.
The resolution supported the countries of the region in their determination to gradually take responsibility for regional cooperation by a phased evolution of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe into a more regionally owned, streamlined and effective cooperation framework as set out at the Stability Pact's Regional Table meeting on 30 May 2006 in Belgrade; and urged all States to take effective measures against the illicit trade in SALW and to help collect and destroy surplus stocks. It stressed the importance of cooperation among States and called upon them to resolve their disputes with other States by peaceful means.

Practical disarmament measures

61/72
Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus. The draft resolution was introduced on 18 October by Germany on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 16 for sponsors). The draft was adopted in the First Committee on 30 October as follows: as a whole (164-1-1), operative paragraph 7 (163-2-0), and in the General Assembly on 6 December as follows: as a whole (175-1-1), operative paragraph 7 (172-2-0). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 17 and 18.
The resolution requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and report to the sixty-second session on risks posed by surplus ammunition stockpiles and on national ways to strengthen their controls. It also requested that a GGE be established to consider, no later than 2008, further steps to enhance cooperation in that regard, and to transmit the report of the GGE to the General Assembly for its consideration at the sixty-third session.
First Committee
After voting in favour, Venezuela noted that each State should determine the amount of accumulated ammunition that would be considered excessive. Venezuela also believed that as illicit trafficking of ammunition was closely linked to that of arms, marking ammunition would be an important aspect in preventing illicit activities. With reference to operative paragraph 7, before establishing a GGE, the opinions of Member States should have been gathered to determine the best course of action. After the vote, Japan explained its abstention by stating that the discussions at the regional and global levels had not developed sufficiently for the international community to be able to share a common understanding of the matter. Additionally, concerned with budget growth, establishing a GGE was premature before first determining how they would provide real value.
61/76
Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures. The draft was introduced on 18 October by Germany, on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 19 for sponsors). It was adopted by the First Committee on 27 October (158-1-0), and in the General Assembly on 6 December (179-1-0). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 20 and 21.
First Committee
The resolution encouraged member States, including the Group of Interested States, to lend their support to the Secretary-General, relevant international, regional and subregional organization, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and non-governmental organizations in responding to requests by member States to collect and destroy small arms and light weapons in post-conflict situations. It then requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly's sixty-third session a report on the implementation of practical disarmament measures, taking into consideration the activities of the Group of Interested States in that regard.
61/77
Transparency in armaments. The draft resolution was introduced on 27 October by the Netherlands on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 22 for sponsors). The draft was adopted in the First Committee on 30 October as follows: as a whole (141-0-23), operative paragraph 9 (140-0-22), operative paragraph 7 (b) (141-0-21), operative paragraph 6 (139-0-22), operative paragraph 5 (141-0-22), operative paragraph 4 (141-0-22), operative paragraph 3 (141-0-22), operative paragraph 2 (140-0-21), and in the General Assembly on 6 December: as a whole (158-0-21), operative paragraph 9 (155-0-20), operative paragraph 7 (b) (154-0-20), operative paragraph 6 (153-0-20), operative paragraph 5 (154-0-21), operative paragraph 4 (153-0-21), operative paragraph 3 (153-0-21), operative paragraph 2 (154-0-21). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 23 and 24.
Among other things, the resolution decided to adapt the scope of the Register to conform with the recommendations contained in the report of the Secretary-General on its continuing operation and further development; and called for Member States to annually submit data by 31 May, on import and exports of arms in seven categories of equipment, and requested that sufficient resources be made available for a GGE to be convened in 2009 to review the Register, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament, the views expressed by Member States and the reports of the Secretary-General. By operative paragraph 6, Member States were also invited to provide background information on transfers of SALW on the basis of the optional standardized reporting form, or by any other methods they deemed appropriate.
First Committee
For the first time in a decade, China voted in favour of the resolution rather than abstaining, stating that it had suspended its participation in the Register because, since 1996, a certain country, in violation of the spirit of the relevant General Assembly resolution and the purposes and principles of the Register, had insisted on registering its illicit weapons sales to China's Taiwan province. This action forced China to suspend temporarily its participation in the Register and had made it impossible for China to support resolutions on transparency in armaments in recent years. China noted with satisfaction that, with the concerted efforts of all parties, the Group of Governmental Experts on the Register had made significant progress during the year. The report that the Group submitted to the General Assembly affirmed the important principle that the Register should only include arms transfers among States Members of the United Nations. Also voting in favour, Pakistan explained the importance of redoubling efforts towards the balanced production of armaments and forces, restraint in the provision and acquisition of destabilizing arms, easing regional and subregional tensions and finding the just resolution of conflicts. Syria, on behalf of the League of Arab States, drew attention to the special situation in the Middle East, which was characterized by an imbalance in armaments. As confidence-building required balanced and comprehensive transparency, the seven categories of conventional weapons provided for in the Register disregarded the most lethal weapons - WMD. The Arab League believed that it was important to expand the limited scope of the Register to sufficiently respond to all security needs. Cuba pointed out that after two years of expressing an interest in participating in the GGE, it was not included.

Transparency in conventional arms transfers

61/79
Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. The draft resolution was introduced on 19 October by Argentina on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 25 for sponsors). It was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 25 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December. For the text of the resolution see page 26.
The resolution requested the Secretary-General to keep the electronic database, containing information provided by Member States, updated to assist them in organizing seminars, courses and workshops aimed at enhancing the knowledge of new developments in that field.

Certain Conventional Weapons

61/100
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The draft resolution was introduced on 16 October by Sweden on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 27 for sponsors). The draft was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 25 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 28.
The resolution welcomed the entry into force of Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War, on 12 November 2006, and called upon the States that had not yet done so, to become parties as soon as possible; and requested the Secretary-General to render the necessary assistance and services required for the Eighth Annual Conference of the High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention, for the Third Review Conference and for any possible continuation of work after the Conference, if necessary.

Anti-personnel mines

61/84
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. The draft resolution was introduced on 10 October by Australia on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 29 for sponsors). The revised draft was adopted in the First Committee on 26 October (157-0-15) and in the General Assembly on 6 December (161-0-17). For text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 30 and 31.
The resolution urged all States to remain seized of the issue at the highest political level and to promote adherence to the Convention through bilateral, subregional, regional and multilateral contacts, outreach, seminars and other means; and invited and encouraged all interested States, the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and relevant non-governmental organizations to participate in the eighth meeting of the States parties to the Convention, to be held in Jordan from 18 to 22 November 2007, and in the intersessional work programme established at the first meeting of the States parties and further developed at subsequent meetings of the States parties.
First Committee
After the resolution was adopted, though not a signatory, Morocco voted in favour, reiterating support for the humanitarian objectives and principles of the Mine Ban Convention (Ottawa Convention). Albeit voting in favour, Singapore supported legitimate security concerns and the right to self-defence, stating that a blanket ban on all types of anti-personnel landmines might be counterproductive. Nine States explained their votes. Cuba, India, Myanmar, the Republic of Korea and Pakistan abstained in accordance with their legitimate security concerns and right to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Libya declined to vote because the Mine Ban Convention did not take into account their concerns and those of other States that were suffering as a result of such mines. Egypt believed the treaty had many gaps, including the omission of responsibility on the part of States that lay anti-personnel landmines in other countries.

Conclusion

The year was marked by a clear determination on the part of the General Assembly to foster progress in the area of conventional arms control. Encouraged by a vigorous campaign spurred by civil society and the overwhelming support of Member States, the General Assembly resolved to begin to pave the way towards an arms trade treaty. In another step, the Assembly decided to establish a GGE to consider the issue of ammunition stockpiles in surplus, which many view as not having been adequately addressed within the United Nations framework.
Determined to dispel the uncertainty lingering from the 2006 Review Conference concerning a follow-up process for the PoA, the General Assembly decided to request the Secretary-General to convene, in 2008, a biennial meeting of States to consider progress in its implementation. This was hailed by the international community as an unambiguous reaffirmation of Member States' commitment to the PoA's full implementation. Also noteworthy was the call for effective implementation of the international tracing instrument adopted in 2005. As a further realization of the implementation of the PoA, the group of governmental experts began its task in 2006 of considering further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW.
The marked increase in the number of States parties to the United Nations Firearms Protocol was another positive development in international efforts to combat the scourge of transborder trafficking in illicit small arms.
The CASA mechanism continued to provide a vehicle for the development and implementation of inter-agency projects and activities. Particular attention was paid to its Internet Database as a means to facilitate the flow of information among the members of the mechanism, with a view to enhancing its ability to provide services to Member States and civil society.
In the area of arms transparency, the scope of the UN Register of Conventional Arms was further broadened in 2006, thus creating more opportunities for States to increase their levels of openness and transparency in the conventional arms trade. In cooperation with interested States, the Secretariat engaged in outreach and other activities to encourage continued progress towards universal participation.
Also in the area of conventional weapons, there was a sharp increase in interest in taking international action on the issue of cluster munitions in the framework of the Third Review Conference of the Convention in Certain Conventional Weapons. A significant parallel effort emerged to mitigate the humanitarian impact of these munitions. The States parties to the Convention will continue further negotiations in 2007 on the subject, and like-minded States will also begin a process aimed towards a ban of these types of weapons.

Annex I

Composition of the 2006 Group of Governmental Experts on the UN Register of Conventional Arms
Mr. Witjaksono Adji (third session), First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Mohammad Kamran Akhtar, Director (Disarmament), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Islamabad
Mr. Hamid Baeidi-Nejad (second and third sessions), Director of Disarmament and International Security, Department of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran
Mr. Alon Bar, Director of the Arms Control, Department Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem
Dr. Gerardo Bravo (second and third sessions), Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Defense of Nicaragua, Managua
Mr. Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Jr., Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Matthias Halter, Deputy Head, Arms Control and Disarmament Policy, Federal Department of Defense of Switzerland, Civil Protection and Sports, Bern
Colonel George Igumba (third session), Military Adviser, Permanent Mission of Uganda to the United Nations, New York
Ms. Onny Kitty Hiltje Jalink, Security Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Hague
Commander Franck Le Biannic, Chargé de mission aux affaires internationales, Ministère de la Défense, Paris
Mr. Li Song (second and third sessions), Counsellor, Permanent Mission of People's Republic of China to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Mauritz Carel Lindeque, Deputy-Director, Biological, Chemical, Missile and Arms Control, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Pretoria
Mr. William Malzahn, Foreign Affairs Officer, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs, United States Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Hiroshi Matsumoto, Senior Research Fellow and Policy Director, Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo
Mr. Roberto García Moritán, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Buenos Aires
Mr. Oleksandr Moskvitin (second and third sessions), Deputy Director, Arms Control and Military-Technical Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Kiev
Mr. Reza Najafi (first session), Second Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Sergey Y. Petlyakov, Chief Counsellor, Department for Security and Disarmament Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow
Rear Admiral Willem Rampangilei (first and second sessions), Minister Counsellor/Military Adviser, Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Anatoliy Scherba (first session), Director-General for Arms Control and Military-Technical Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine
Mr. Coly Seck, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Senegal to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Naveen Srivastava (second and third sessions), Director, Disarmament and International Security Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs of India, New Delhi
Mr. Andrew Wood, Head of Export Control Policy, Counter-Proliferation and Arms Control, Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom, London
Mr. Wu Haitao (first session), Deputy Director-General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Beijing

Annex II

Recommendations of the 2006 Group of Governmental Experts on the Register of Conventional Arms (excerpted from A/61/261)

"B. Recommendations

123. After extensive and in-depth discussions on the question of technical adjustments to the seven categories of the Register, as well as other possible changes to its existing scope, the Group arrived at the following decisions.
124. The Group recommends that the definition of category VI, "Warships" be amended to reflect the lowering of the tonnage of vessels from 750 metric tons to 500 metric tons. The definition should read as follows:
VI. Warships
Vessels or submarines armed and equipped for military use with a standard displacement of 500 metric tons or above, and those with a standard displacement of less than 500 metric tons, equipped for launching missiles with a range of at least 25 kilometres or torpedoes with similar range.
125. The Group recommends that Member States that are in a position to do so provide data and information on small arms and light weapons transfers to the Register as part of additional background information on the basis of the standardized reporting form on international transfers of small arms and light weapons (see annexes I and II to the present report), as adopted by the Group, or any other methods they deem appropriate.
126. In addition, and also taking into account the recommendations contained in the report of the 2003 Group of Governmental Experts (A/58/274), the Group recommends the following:
(a) Transfers involving only States Members of the United Nations should be reported to the United Nations Register;
(b) Member States should participate in the United Nations Register in order to achieve the shared goals of this global transparency mechanism, including universal participation;
(c) Member States should enhance awareness of the Register and the importance of participating on a regular basis;
(d) Member States should submit "nil" reports to confirm that they do not have any international transfer to declare. Member States in a position to do so are encouraged to make use of the "Remarks" column in the standardized reporting form to furnish additional data on models or types. They are also encouraged to provide data on additional background information;
(e) Member States should report promptly in order to help to ensure the early dissemination of data and information submitted to the Register and in that connection should use the standardized reporting form provided annually in the note verbale;
(f) Member States should continue to provide details of their national point of contact in the standardized reporting forms when submitting their annual report to the Register and ensure that this information is up-to-date when submitting annual reports to the Register;
(g) The Secretariat should maintain an updated list of national points of contact and request such information, where required, in order to keep its record upto-date and circulate it to all Member States;
(h) The Secretariat should continue to make all possible efforts to promote the Register as a confidence-building measure;
(i) The Secretariat should continue to strengthen the role of the regional centres of the Department for Disarmament Affairs in facilitating the progress of the Register at the regional level;
(j) The workshop series should be sustained with a view to encouraging greater participation as well as obtaining feedback from regions/subregions on the operation and further development of the Register;
(k) The Secretariat, with the support and assistance of interested Member States, should continue to strengthen cooperation within the United Nations and with relevant international, regional and subregional organizations with a view to promoting the Register and its role as a confidence-building measure;
(l) The Department for Disarmament Affairs should overhaul the Register database on its website with a view to making it more user-friendly and up-to-date technologically;
(m) Since the resources of the Secretariat devoted to operating and managing the United Nations Register are also utilized for implementing other departmental responsibilities, including operating and maintaining the standardized United Nations instrument for reporting military expenditures, it should consider providing adequate resources, including a full-time General Service staff for data inputting and other support services on a regular basis;
(n) The Department should conduct a pilot project with the support of interested Member States to test the feasibility of electronic filing of reports to the Register in order to determine the practical requirements for making such a facility available to Member States;
(o) Member States should consider providing support and assistance to the Secretariat in carrying out the recommendations addressed to it, including the holding of workshops and seminars to advance the objectives of the Register;
(p) Member States should consider providing direct bilateral support to those States undertaking Register-related activities;
(q) Member States should also consider including the subject of the United Nations Register in workshops and other relevant meetings organized by them in the disarmament field.
127. The Secretariat should continue to undertake the following activities:
(a) Update the Information Booklet on the United Nations Register and distribute it to all Member States as well as relevant regional organizations, and make the Information Booklet available on the Register website, both as a hypertext linked series of pages and as a downloadable document;
(b) Send a note verbale, with the reporting forms and the categories of equipment covered by the Register, to Member States by the beginning of each year as well as follow-up reminders, including electronic reminders to national points of contact, where appropriate;
(c) Ensure that all information relating to the Register is electronically available as soon as possible;
(d) Provide the General Assembly with the annual consolidated report of data and information on international arms transfers submitted by Member States, as well as the voluntary submission of data and information on procurement through national production and military holdings, as well as small arms and light weapons transfers, together with an index of other additional background information."

Annex III

Composite table of replies of Governments for the Register of Conventional Arms: calendar year 2005
(Including "nil" reports submitted by Cook Islands and Niue)
 
Government
Data on exports
Data on imports
Explanation submitted in note verbale
Background information
Albania
nil
nil

no
Andorra
nil
nil

no
Antigua and Barbuda
nil
nil

no
Argentina
nil
nil

no
Armenia
nil
nil

no
Australia
yes
yes

yes
Austria
nil
nil

yes
Azerbaijan
nil
yes

no
Bangladesh
nil
yes

no
Belarus
yes
nil

no
Belgium
yes
nil

yes
Belize
nil
nil

no
Bolivia
nil
nil

no
Bosnia and Herzegovina
yes
nil

no
Brazil
nil
yes

yes
Bulgaria
yes
yes

yes
Burkina Faso
nil
yes

no
Burundi
nil
nil

no
Canada
yes
yes

yes
Chile
nil
yes

no
Comoros
nil
nil

no
Cook Islands
nil
nil

no
Costa Rica
nil
nil

no
Croatia
nil
nil

yes
Cuba
nil
nil

no
Cyprus
nil
nil

no
Czech Republic
yes
yes

no
Denmark
nil
yes

yes
Djibouti
nil
nil

no
Ecuador
nil
nil

no
Estonia
nil
yes

yes
Finland
yes
nil

yes
France
yes
nil

yes
Georgia
nil
yes

no
Germany
yes
yes

yes
Greece
yes
yes

yes
Grenada
nil
nil

no
Guatemala
nil
nil

no
Guyana
nil
nil

no
Hungary
yes
nil

yes
Iceland
nil
nil

no
India
yes
yes

no
Indonesia
nil
nil

no
Ireland
nil
nil

yes
Israel
yes
nil

yes
Italy
yes
yes

yes
Jamaica
nil
nil

no
Japan
nil
nil

yes
Jordan
nil
yes

no
Kazakhstan
nil
yes

no
Kenya
nil
nil

no
Kiribati
nil
nil

no
Kuwait
nil
nil

yes
Kyrgyzstan
nil
nil

no
Latvia
nil
nil

no
Lebanon
nil
nil

no
Lesotho
nil
nil

no
Liechtenstein
nil
nil

no
Lithuania
nil
yes

yes
Luxembourg
nil
nil

no
Malaysia
nil
yes

no
Maldives
nil
nil

no
Malta
nil
nil

no
Marshall Islands
nil
nil

no
Mauritius
nil
nil

no
Mexico
nil
nil

no
Micronesia (Federated States of)
nil
nil

no
Monaco
nil
nil

no
Mongolia
nil
nil

no
Mozambique
nil
nil

no
Namibia
nil
nil

no
Nauru
nil
nil

no
Netherlands
yes
yes

yes
New Zealand
nil
nil

yes
Nicaragua
nil
nil

no
Niger
nil
nil

no
Niue
nil
nil

no
Norway
yes
nil

yes
Pakistan
nil
yes

no
Palau
nil
nil

no
Paraguay
nil
nil

no
Poland
yes
nil

yes
Portugal
yes
yes

no
Republic of Korea
nil
yes

no
Republic of Moldova
nil
nil

no
Romania
nil
yes

no
Russian Federation
yes
nil

no
Saint Kitts and Nevis
nil
nil

no
Saint Lucia
nil
nil

no
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
nil
nil

no
Samoa
nil
nil

no
San Marino
nil
nil

no
Senegal
nil
nil

no
Seychelles
nil
nil

no
Sierra Leone
nil
nil

no
Singapore
nil
yes

no
Slovakia
yes
yes

no
Slovenia
yes
yes

no
Solomon Islands
nil
nil

no
South Africa
yes
yes

no
Spain
nil
yes

yes
Suriname
nil
nil

no
Sweden
yes
nil

yes
Switzerland
yes
yes

yes
Tajikistan
nil
nil

no
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
nil
nil

no
Trinidad and Tobago
nil
nil

no
Turkey
yes
yes

yes
Turkmenistan
nil
nil

no
Tuvalu
nil
nil

no
Ukraine
yes
nil

no
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
yes
yes

yes
United Republic of Tanzania
nil
nil

no
United States of America
yes
yes

yes
Vanuatu
nil
nil

no
Viet Nam
nil
yes

no
Zambia
nil
nil

no

Annex IV

Composition of the Group of Governmental Experts
to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons (first session)
Ms. Gabriela Martinic, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Cláudio Medeiros Leopoldino, Disarmament and Sensitive Technologies Division, Ministry of External Relations, Brazil
Ms. Daniela Boudinova, State Expert at NATO and International Security Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria
Mr. Li Song, Counsellor of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Beijing
Gen. Dr. Emad Hussein, Police Academy, 5th Aggregation, Egypt
Mr. Erik af Hällström, Counsellor, Unit for Arms Control, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki
Mr. Christophe Jacquot, Head of the Section of sensitive goods and war materials (SIA/MG), Ministry of Defense of France, Paris
Mr. Haim Waxman, Director, Export Control Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, Jerusalem
Mr. Linval Bailey, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Department, Ministry of National Security, Jamaica
Ms. Keiko Yanai, Deputy Director, Non-proliferation, Science and Nuclear Energy Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Tokyo
Mr. Peter Elaini Eregae, Coordinator of the Kenya National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Ministry of the Office of the President, Nairobi
Mr. Kwang-chul Lew, Chargé d'Affaires, Embassy of the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku
Ms. Rima Volf, Chief, International Cooperation Division, Lithuanian Weaponry Fund under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius
Mr. Daniël Prins (Chairperson), Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva
Mr. José Leonel Herrera Cruz, Director of Politics, Ministry of Defense of Nicaragua, Managua
Mr. Jan Arve Knutsen, Senior Adviser, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Department for Security Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Oslo
Mr. Khalil Hashmi, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Przemyslaw Wyganowski, Counsellor and Head of European, Security and Defense Policy Section in Permanent Representation of Poland to the European Union
Mr. Paul Pasnicu, Director, Conventional Arms Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, National Agency for Export Controls of Romania, Bucharest
Mr. Grigory I. Mashkov, Deputy Director, Department for Disarmament and International Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow
Mr. Coly Seck, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations, New York
Mr. David Robin Wensley, Deputy Director, Conventional Arms, Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Pretoria
Mr. Spencer Chilvers, Head, International Policy Unit, Export Control Organisation, Department for Trade and Industry of the United Kingdom, London
Ms. Stephanie Pico, Small Arms and Light Weapons Policy Advisor, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Annex V

Antigua Guatemala Declaration of the Regional Preparatory Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean States for the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

La Antigua, Guatemala, 2 to 4 May 2006

From 2 to 4 May 2006, representatives of the Latin American and Caribbean States gathered in La Antigua, Guatemala, to seek a common approach to contribute a regional perspective to the work of the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, hereinafter referred to as the Review Conference, to be held in New York, from 26 June to 7 July 2006, so that it may effectively and comprehensively help to address the problems arising from the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, in all its aspects.

THE LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN STATES

REAFFIRMING the importance of a common approach to the Review Conference, taking into account the specific needs, progress and experience in individual countries, sub-regions and regions;
REAFFIRMING our strong commitment to the basic norms of International Law and the main principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations: sovereign equality of States; the peaceful resolution of disputes; the prohibition of the use or threat of use of force; and non-intervention in the internal affairs of States;138
REAFFIRMING the importance of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and AGREEING that the outcome of the Review Conference shall not undermine in any way their inherent right to self-defence, which implies that States also have the right to acquire arms with which to defend themselves;
REAFFIRMING ALSO the contents of the Brasilia Declaration adopted by consensus on 24 November 2000 by the Latin American and Caribbean States, at the Itamaraty Palace in Brazil, with the objective of providing the regional perspective to the work of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, convened in New York from 9 to 20 July 2001;
REAFFIRMING an unshakeable will for the effective implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, hereinafter referred to as Programme of Action;
TAKING NOTE with satisfaction of the national reports on the implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action presented on a voluntary basis by States of the region and highlighting their commitment to the creation of national coordination mechanisms;
STRESSING the importance of Cooperation and International Assistance in the implementation of the Programme of Action and EXPRESSING their concern at the lack of progress in the implementation of the commitments in the areas of Cooperation and International Assistance in the Program of Action;
REAFFIRMING the importance of adopting measures to increase international cooperation in the prevention, combating and eradication of illicit brokering of small arms and light weapons;
RECOGNIZING that among various factors, the laxity or absence of national, regional and international regulations on the diversion of legally acquired and/or sold small and light weapons to the illicit market also has a subsequent impact on civilian deaths and victim toll, accidental or criminal, and HIGHLIGHTING the need to put in place effective measures to prevent, combat and eradicate illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects;
RECOGNIZING that one aspect requiring continued attention is the promotion of measures, where appropriate and on a voluntary basis, to enhance transparency with a view to fully implementing the Programme of Action;
RECALLING that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in the region is mainly related to drug trafficking, terrorism, trans-national organized crime, mercenary activities and other criminal acts and conduct. Crime prevention must thus be an integral part of the approach to combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;139
AGREEING on the importance of States to consider adherence to the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, which complements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
APPLAUDING the ratification by nearly all the Members of the Organization of American States of the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials, and its Model Regulations, and COMMEND the work of the CIFTA-CICAD Group of Experts to prepare Model Legislation in the Areas Covered by the CIFTA that will become a useful tool for the full implementation at the national level of the Convention and calls upon American States that have not done so to ratify the Convention as a matter of priority;
RECOGNIZING the challenges posed by the increased illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition and explosives to the economic and social development of States, the maintenance of security of individual States and on the promotion and protection of all human rights;140
TAKING NOTE of the important work carried out by the United Nations General Assembly, through the adoption of resolutions related to the implementation of the Programme of Action;
TAKING NOTE of the work of the Security Council as complementary to the main role of the General Assembly, in providing, within its mandate, an opportunity to strengthen efforts by the international community and the United Nations system to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects;
ACKNOWLEDGING the work carried out in relation to prevention, combat and eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in the region by hemispheric and sub-regional intergovernmental organizations;141
RECOGNIZING AND ENCOURAGING the efforts of national parliaments in the region to incorporate, as appropriate, relevant international legally-binding instruments against the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, into domestic legislation and to improve controls on the transfer and use of firearms, ammunition and explosives;
BEARING in mind paragraph 21 of the preambular section of the Programme of Action and RECOGNIZING the need for further development of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 2, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Chapter II of that Programme with regard to the issue of transfers, and recognizing also the need for objective, balanced, common, transparent, multilaterally agreed and non-discriminatory criteria for arms transfers, based on existing legal obligations and express prohibitions;142
RECOGNIZING that efforts related to the prevention, combating and eradication of the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons are without prejudice to the priorities accorded to nuclear disarmament, weapons of mass destruction and conventional disarmament;143
STRESSING the importance of work carried out by civil society in a responsible manner in assisting Member States, at their request, in the implementation of the Programme of Action;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the Review Conference provides a promising opportunity to consider, if necessary, further steps to advance in the implementation of the Programme of Action and the fight against criminal activities related to the illicit trade of arms and bring benefits in terms of economic and social development, and national, regional and international stability;

THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES

RECALL that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/81 establishes, inter alia, that the objective of the Review Conference is to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action in order to set the agenda for tackling problems in the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons by the international community beyond 2006 and SUGGEST that the review may be conducted taking into account the following;
IDENTIFY the obstacles that hinder the implementation of the Programme of Action and PROPOSE mechanisms that allow for surpassing them;
EXCHANGE experiences regarding the implementation of the Programme of Action and the progress achieved;
IDENTIFY steps that will allow for effective action by the international community to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects;
TAKE the necessary measures to complement and continue advancing in the full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action and reaffirm the importance of fulfilling the commitments made by States to adopt the necessary measures at the national, regional and international levels in order to ensure its implementation in the shortest time possible;
COMMIT to implementing the "International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons" and to continue making efforts in order to achieve a legally binding instrument which includes the issue of ammunition;
RECALL the need to implement the follow-up mechanism of the "International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons" as an integral part of the implementation of the Programme of Action;
RECOGNIZE that the problem of the illicit trade of ammunition is intrinsically linked to the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons;
CALL UPON United Nations Member States to begin a process to study effective ways and means of tackling this problem;
ACKNOWLEDGE that arms transfers through brokers poses the greatest risk for the diversion of small arms and light weapons to the illicit market and to non-authorized purposes or actors;
COMPLEMENT the Programme of Action by adopting measures aimed at regulating brokering activities in small arms and light weapons;
SUPPORT the adoption of a legally binding instrument on illicit brokering and the work of the Group of Governmental Experts;
RECALL once again the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and AGREE to complement the Programme of Action with the adoption of common criteria at the international level to provide national authorities with tools to evaluate the authorization of transfers of small arms and light weapons with a view to avoiding their diversion to the illicit market, and to non-authorized uses or users;144
RECOGNIZE that these common criteria must contain technical and normative aspects, and acknowledge that they need to be objective, non-discriminatory, transparent, adopted at the multilateral level and take into account the particularities of each region. These criteria must also include a clear prohibition to the transfer of small arms and light weapons, understood as import, export and in-transit, which are not expressly authorized by the competent authorities in the country of import, export and in-transit;
ACKNOWLEDGE the need for the Review Conference to call upon States to put in place and/or enforce regulations on the civilian acquisition and possession of small arms and light weapons, with a view to, inter alia, preventing the diversion of legally acquired weapons to the illicit market. These measures may include, as appropriate limits on the type and/or quantity of weapons that civilians might acquire and possess, as well as strict licensing, authorization and record-keeping requirements;
RECALL that the Programme of Action makes reference to the need to adopt national controls on civilian possession and encourage States that have not already done so, to adopt adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to regulate the civilian possession of small arms and light weapons, as well as their use;
INVITE Member States to include in their annual National Reports a reference to the civilian possession regulations in place;
RECALL the contributions made by United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-LiREC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in providing assistance in the preparation of national reports;
SUGGEST the establishment of a database, within the framework of the Department for Disarmament Affairs, in consultation with United Nations Member States, for publication of best practices on different aspects of the Programme of Action, and call upon Member States in a position to do so, to contribute to such establishment;
CALL UPON United Nations Member States to identify and adopt, as appropriate, minimum standards for safety and security of stockpiles;
CALL UPON United Nations Member States to fully comply with the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Programme of Action regarding, inter alia, stockpile management; destruction of all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons; establishment of adequate and detailed standards and procedures for security of stocks; and identification and responsible disposal of surplus stocks;
INVITE United Nations Member States to take into account recommendations contained in the Secretary General's Report on Methods for the Destruction of Small Arms and Light Weapons and the Manual on Destruction of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Ammunition and Explosives, published by the Department of Disarmament Affairs;
RECOGNIZE and support the continuation of national and regional activities for the implementation of the Programme of Action undertaken by non-governmental organizations, in particular with regard to public awareness campaigns on combating the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons;
SUPPORT the strengthening of the capacities of States, upon request, with the objective of enhancing and coordinating national policies to include all aspects relating to the problem of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and improving the implementation of these policies;
UNDERLINE the urgent need for greater international cooperation, including technical and financial assistance, as well as capacity building, in order to support the implementation of the measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as stipulated in the Programme of Action;
URGE increased access to financial and technical resources and the transfer of technology by States in a position to do so, in order to assist interested States, inter alia, in the creation and updating of databases for national small arms and light weapons registers;
CALL UPON States and International Organizations, in a position to do so, and upon request of the national competent authorities of the State concerned, to provide cooperation and assistance to contribute to the full implementation of the Programme of Action and to the outcome document to be adopted at the Review Conference of 2006;
SUPPORT the establishment of a permanent trust fund, under the auspices of the United Nations, and on the basis of voluntary contributions, to provide financial assistance and cooperation to facilitate the full implementation of the Programme of Action in all its aspects;
ACKNOWLEDGE the work carried out by the Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) through the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-LiREC), which is making an effective contribution to the implementation of the Programme of Action and RECOMMEND the continuation of this important regional platform;
RECOMMEND the establishment of a follow-up mechanism resulting from the Review Conference, in order to periodically review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action in all its aspects, and of the outcome documents adopted at the subsequent Conferences;
HIGHLIGHT the importance of convening a Conference no later than 2011 to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action, the date and venue to be decided by the United Nations General Assembly;
UNDERLINE the importance of convening a meeting of States on a biennial basis to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action;
EXPRESS recognition and gratitude to the Government of the Republic of Guatemala for their initiative and hospitality in the Regional Preparatory Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean States for the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects;
EXPRESS recognition and gratitude to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-LiREC); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain for their technical and financial assistance in carrying out the conference.

1SG/SM/10537, Secretary-General's address to the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference in New York, 26 June, available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10537.doc.htm.
2See resolution 61/66 discussed later in this chapter.
3See resolution 61/72 discussed later in this chapter.
4See S/PV.5390. This and all subsequent official United Nations documents are available at http://ods.un.org.
5See the report of the Secretary-General on small arms, S/2006/109.
6See the Security Council Presidential statement on small arms, S/PRST/2005/7.
7See the report of the Secretary-General on small arms, S/2002/1053.
8See A/CONF.192/15 (IV, 1(a)), available at http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html.
9See A/RES/58/241, "The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects".
10A/CONF.192/2006/PC/CRP.7, available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/prepcom/off-docs.html.
11See "Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects", A/CONF.192/2006/RC/1. This and all other referenced documents, as well as texts of statements made, are available at the dedicated website for the Conference, http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
12Information available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/related-events.html.
13See A/CONF.192/2006/RC/CRP.6. Available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
14See A/CONF.192/2006/RC/7. Available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html. For the text of the Declaration, see A/60/876, annex.
15See A/CONF.192/2006/RC/3. Available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
16An indicative calendar of such events is available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/related-events.html.
17The Capacity-building Workshop and the Pilot Sponsorship Programme were funded by the Governments of Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
18In addition to DDA and UNDP, other members of CASA contributed to the Workshop, including the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Development Fund for Women and United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. The Workshop also benefited from contributions provided by the following: Bonn International Center for Conversion, Groupe de Recherche et d'Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, International Police Organization, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, SaferAfrica, Saferworld, Small Arms Survey, United Nations Department for General Assembly and Conference Management and United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
19For more information on the project and the package information materials, see http://www.unidir.org/html/en/activities.html.
20The package is available through the UNDP website at http://www.undp.org/bcpr/smallarms/PoA.htm.
21Five Years of Implementing the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons: Regional analysis of national reports, by Elli Kyötomäki and Valerie Anne Yankey-Wayne, in cooperation with UNDP, DDA and SAS, 2006, 272 p., United Nations publication, Sales No. GV.E.06.0.8.
22Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Finland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Nigeria, Poland, Peru, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland.
23Coordinating Action on Small Arms, Interpol, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Organization of American States, League of Arab States, Regional Centre on Small Arms, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, United Nations Development Programme, East African Community, International Committee of the Red Cross, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, World Health Organization, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Commonwealth of Independent States.
24Of the 210 NGOs who were accredited, the following NGOs made statements: Defence Small Arms Advisory Committee, World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, British Shooting Sports Council, Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, ProTELL of Switzerland, South African Gunowners' Association, Brazilian Pro-Legitimate Defense Coalition, National Firearms Association of Canada, National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), Safari Club International, FAIR Trade Group, Manufacturers Advisory Group of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Amnesty International Venezuela, Congolese Action Network on Small Arms, Million Mom March, Oxfam International, Permanent Peace Movement, South Asia Small Arms Network (SASA-Net), Instituto Sou da Paz, Centre for Democratic Empowerment, Association of People with Disabilities, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and Mozambican Council of Churches.
25See "Working paper submitted by the President on a Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects: a strategy for further implementation", A/CONF.192/2006/RC/WP.4, also available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
26Comments to the President's working paper are contained in A/CONF.192/2006/RC/CRP.7. Available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
27A/CONF.192/2006/RC/WP.1, also available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
28Kenya, Austria, Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
29A/CONF.192/2006/RC/WP.2, also available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
30A/CONF.192/2006/RC/WP.3 also available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html.
31Statement made on Tuesday, 27 June, afternoon session and available at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/mem-states060627.html.
32Op. cit., footnote 25.
33See "Report of the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects", A/CONF.192/2006/RC/9.
34 The International Instrument contained a number of provisions outlining standards for marking and record-keeping, as well as procedures for enhanced cooperation in tracing illicit SALW. Under those provisions, States committed themselves, inter alia, to: marking all SALW during manufacturing; taking the necessary measures to ensure that all SALW of Government-armed and security forces are duly marked; ensuring that accurate and comprehensive records are established for all marked SALW within their territory; and providing prompt, timely and reliable responses to tracing requests made by other States. See annex to the report, "Open-ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons", A/60/88 and Corr.1 and 2.
35From the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Finland, France, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.
36The second and third sessions were held in New York from 19 to 23 March 2007 and from 4 to 8 June 2007, respectively.
37The Coordinating Action on Small Arms Mechanism was established by the Secretary-General in 1998 to enable the Organization to bring a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to bear on a complex and multifaceted global problem. It has 16 United Nations entities as members: the Department for Disarmament Affairs, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Department of Public Information, the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.
38The survey was intended to identify a number of concerns, including evidence of widespread home-made guns, muzzle-loading guns, shotguns and illicit hand grenades, as well as to stimulate discussion on SALW-related issues.
39Launched in November, the national survey aimed to assess the distribution of illicit weapons throughout the surveyed regions, examining their impact on safety, security, development and governance, and to identify constraints in implementing Government controls over them. The national survey is expected to provide a basis for an action plan addressing illicit SALW in the country.
40More information on the CASA mechanism is available at http://www.un-casa.org.
41At the 5127th meeting of the Security Council, held on 17 February 2005, in connection with the Council's consideration of the item entitled "Small arms", the President of the Security Council made a statement on behalf of the Council. See S/PRST/2005/7.
42The IDDRS Resource Centre is available at http://www.unddr.org/index.php.
43The Programme seeks to promote effective responses to armed violence through the development of an international policy dialogue founded on a clear understanding of its causes, nature and impacts.
44The resulting resolution was entitled "Rights of the child", A/RES/61/146.
45For more information on the study, see http://www.unviolencestudy.org.
46Text of the Convention and its Protocols are available at http://untreaty.un.org.
47Cameroon, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kuwait, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tanzania and United Kingdom.
48See "Report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on its third session, held in Vienna from 9 to 18 October 2006", CTOC/COP/2006/14.
49See "Implementation of the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime - Analytical report of the Secretariat", CTOC/COP/2006/8.
50See Kerry Maze and Sarah Parker, International Assistance for implementing the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects: Findings of a Global Survey, UNIDIR, 2006, or see http://www.unidir.org/bdd/fiche-ouvrage.php?ref_ouvrage=92-9045-006-B-en.
51For more information on the publication, see http://www.unidir.org/bdd/
fiche-ouvrage.php?ref_ouvrage=92-9045-186-6-en.
52The UN Register is available on http://disarmament.un.org/cab/ for the years 1992 to 2006.
53See "Note of the Secretary-General: Continuing operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and its further development", A/61/261.
54See http://disarmament.un.org/cab/register.html.
55The Secretary-General had requested Member States to submit their annual reports, not later than 30 April, for the latest fiscal year that data was available, preferably using the reporting instrument recommended in resolution 35/142 B, of 12 December 1980, or as appropriate, any other format developed in conjunction with similar reporting on military expenditures to other international or regional organizations.
56See "Report of the Secretary-General: Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures", A/61/133.
57François Rivasseau (France).
58See "Provisional Agenda" and "Draft Rules of Procedure" in CCW/GGE/XIII/1 and CCW/GGE/XIII/4, respectively.
59Edvardas Borisovas (Lithuania) chaired the working group, assisted by Vera Bohle of the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), who chaired the Meetings of military and technical experts on ERW.
60Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos (Brazil) chaired the working group, assisted by Gerson Menandro Garcia de Freitas (Brazil), who chaired the Meetings of military experts on MOTAPM.
61See "Sponsorship Programme under the Convention", 3 March 2006, CCW/GGE/XIII/6.
62See "Universalization of the CCW and its annexed Protocols", 3 March 2006, CCW/GGE/XIII/5.
63As per article 5.3, "Each of the protocols annexed to this Convention shall enter into force six months after the date by which twenty States have notified their consent to be bound by it in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4 of Article 4 of this Convention."
64Procedural issues: Structure of the Review Conference, as well as Provisional Agenda, Provisional Programme of Work and Draft Rules of Procedure of the Review Conference; and Provisional Agenda and Provisional Programme of Work of the two Main Committees.
65Substantive issues: Draft Plan of Action to Promote Universality of the CCW; Draft Decision on the establishment of a Sponsorship Programme; Draft Declaration on the Occasion of the Entry into Force of CCW Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War; and Draft Final Document of the Review Conference.
66See "Food for thought paper: Ensuring a thorough review of the status and operation of the CCW and its Protocols at the Third Review Conference", 3 March 2006, CCW/GGE/XIII/WP.1.
67See "Proposal for a mandate to study laser systems", 6 October 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/WP.2.
68"Munitions - a method to reduce the risks associated with explosive remnants of war (ERW)", 24 March 2006, CCW/GGE/XIII/WG.1/WP.14.
69See "Proposal for a Mandate on Explosive Remnants of War", 6 October 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/WP.3.
70Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand and Sweden; 6 October 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/WP.1.
71The working group focused on four topics: (1) to define the specific humanitarian risk of munitions that have become ERW; (2) to discuss technical preventive measures to prevent munitions from becoming ERW; (3) to check the relevance and feasibility of such measures; and (4) to consider the exchange of information, assistance and cooperation.
72The terms "types" and "systems" were used interchangeably.
73See "Draft Table of Conventional Ammunition Types and Systems", 27 February 2006, CCW/GGE/XIII/WG.1/WP.8.
74See "Set of Provisions on the Use of MOTAPM/AVM: A Compilation of Provisions that Could Command Consensus in the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE)", 14 August 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/WG.2/1; and CCW/GGE/XV/WG.2/1/Rev.1, 4 September 2006.
75The 31-nation proposal, "Proposal for a Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use and Transfer of Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines" was co-sponsored by Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and United States, 17 March 2004. See CCW/GGE/VII/WG.2/WP.6.
76See "Proposal of Amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects", 16 August 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/2; and "Amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects"; CCW/GGE/XV/2/Rev.1, 1 September 2006, and "Revised Draft Proposal on Compliance", 5 September 2006, CCW/GGE/XV/2/Rev.2.
77See "Alternative approach to promoting compliance with the convention and its annexed Protocols", 12 June 2006, CCW/GGE/XIV/WP.2.
78See "Proposal on a Plan of Action to Promote Universality of the CCW", 19 June 2006, CCW/GGE/XIV/4.
79It was presided by Tomá Husák (Czech Republic), with Cheng Jingye (China), Bernhard Brasack (Germany) and Mousa Burayzat (Jordan) as Vice-Presidents.
80See http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20505&Cr=landmine&Cr1=.
81Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
82Egypt.
83Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
84GICHD, ICRC, American Bar Association, Cluster Munition Coalition, Human Rights Watch, ICBL, Norwegian People's Aid and Pax Christi International.
85The items included: (a) dissemination of information on this Protocol to their armed forces and to the civilian population; (b) mine clearance and rehabilitation programmes; (c) steps taken to meet technical requirements of this Protocol and any other relevant information pertaining thereto; (d) legislation related to this Protocol; (e) measures taken on international technical information exchange, on international cooperation on mine clearance, and on technical cooperation and assistance; and (f) other relevant matters.
86As contained in the Report of the Eight Annual Conference, CCW/AP.II/CONF.8/2, annex VI.
87Deferral of compliance with paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 (a) and/or (b) of the Technical Annex of Amended Protocol II, is permitted under paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 (c) of the Technical Annex.
88Belarus, China, Latvia, Pakistan, Russian Federation and Ukraine declared at the time of consent to be bound by the Protocol that they would defer implementation of these standards.
89"Report of the Eighth Annual Conference", op. cit., annex II.
90The permanent representatives of China, Slovakia and Switzerland will serve as Vice-Presidents-designate.
91It was presided over by François Rivasseau (France).
92Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
93Afghanistan and Egypt.
94Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
95DDA, UNDP, UNIDIR and UNMAS.
96League of Arab States.
97ICRC and GICHD.
98Actiongroup Landmine.de, American Bar Association, Center for Preventive Diplomacy and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Cluster Munition Coalition, Danchurchaid, FAFO Institute for Applied International Studies, Geneva Call, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, ICBL, Landmine Action (UK), Mines Action Canada, Norwegian People's Aid, Pax Christi International, Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
99Delivered at the opening meeting of the Review Conference on 7 November 2006 by Tim Caughley, Director, Geneva Branch, DDA. Available at http://www.unog.ch > Disarmament > Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons > Third Review Conference > Messages from the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
100Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Philippines, Poland and Switzerland.
101Chairperson of the Credentials Committee: Gordan Markotic (Croatia); Vice-Chairperson: Enrique Ochoa Martínez (Mexico).
102Chairperson of Main Committee I: Edvardas Borisovas (Lithuania); Vice-Chairperson: Katherine Baker (United States); Chairperson of Main Committee II: Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos (Brazil); Vice-Chairperson: Vladimir Novokhatskiy (Russian Federation).
103Chairperson of the Drafting Committee: Jayant Prasad (India); Vice-Chairperson: Itzhak Levanon (Israel).
104Australia, Slovakia and South Africa.
105See "Agenda of the Third Review Conference", CCW/CONF.III/11 (Part III), p. 3.
106Ibid., p. 5.
107Ibid., p. 4.
108"With regard to Rule 34 of the Rules of Procedure, it is affirmed that, in the deliberations and negotiations relating to the Convention and its annexed Protocols, High Contracting Parties have proceeded on the basis of consensus and no decisions have been taken by vote."
109This decision and those that follow were adopted by the Conference and are contained in CCW/CONF.III/11 (Part III).
110Ambassador Gordan Markotic (Croatia).
111Prior drafts offered a more rigid structure, in the form of an amendment to the Convention. The issue of compliance had been under discussion since the Second Review Conference, and proved politically sensitive throughout. The main ideas of the two original proposals, originating from South Africa and the EU, were amalgamated into one document comprising two parts.
112CCW/CONF.III/11 (Part II), pp. 20-22.
113Ibid., pp. 26-27.
114CCW/CONF.III/11 (Part III), p. 25.
115CCW/CONF.III/WP.1.
116The mandate was considered a disappointment to a number of Governments and non-governmental organizations, precipitating a Norwegian initiative for a process to achieve a ban on cluster munitions outside the framework of the Convention. A first meeting of like-minded States, the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, was scheduled for 22-23 February 2007.
117Belarus, China, Cuba, Pakistan and Russian Federation.
118Albania, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, El Salvador, Luxembourg, Estonia, France, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and United States. See CCW/CONF.III/11 (Part III), p. 36.
119Available at http://www.unog.ch > Disarmament > Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons > Third Review Conference > Messages from the Secretary-General of the United Nations (accessed 28 August 2007). Delivered by Nobuaki Tanaka.
120Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Holy See, India, Ireland, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, and Ukraine.
121See CCW/CONF.III/11, Parts I, II and III.
122Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.
123The meeting was presided over by Caroline Millar (Australia). Jürg Streuli (Switzerland) served as Secretary-General, in his capacity as a representative of the host country. Some 700 delegates participated in the meeting. Several high-level representatives also participated: Teresa Gambaro, Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Special Representative on Mine Action; Anton Thalmann, Deputy Secretary of State, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland; and Prince Mired Al-Hussein of Jordan.
124This was the second in a series of progress reports the States parties intend to consider annually until the 2009 Second Review Conference.
125Proposed by Guatemala.
126Developed by Canada.
127See "Final Report: Seventh Meeting of the States Parties", 17 January 2006, PLC/MSP.7/2006/5.
128Prince Mired Raad Zeid (Jordan) was designated President of the Eighth Meeting.
129See A/59/844, annex I.
130See CD/PV.1014 of 23 March 2006. See also http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1061396428128 (accessed 2 September 2007).
131Begun in October 2003, Control Arms is a global coalition of organizations led by Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which gathered the support of over one million people worldwide in its Million Faces Campaign for the development of an international arms trade treaty. See http://www.controlarms.org.
132See http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2346.
133The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies was established in July 1996. It normally convenes in Vienna where the Arrangement is based. The Participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
134More information is available on WA's website: http://www.wassenaar.org.
135Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
136For the text of the Convention, see "ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, their Ammunition and Other Related Materials", published by the ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja, Nigeria, June 2006, available at http://www.ecowas.info.
137Available at http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/disarmament-peace/2005GenevaDeclarationArmedViolenceDevelopment.pdf (accessed 23 August 2007).
138In relation to PP2, the Delegation of Uruguay recalls the relevance of mentioning the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS)/ The Republic of El Salvador expresses its concern that the reference in PP2 to the Organization of American States (OAS) has been omitted.
139The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses the following reservations: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers that the direct link between illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons and other criminal activities referred to in PP11 attempts the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused, when attributing responsibilities to him regarding other crimes that have not been proven. This violates the fundamental norms of due process. For Venezuela, such an approach is not acceptable."
140The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses the following reservations: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers that the mandate of the Review Conference is to prevent, eradicate and eliminate trafficking of small and light weapons. Therefore, Venezuela wishes to point out that mention of negative impact on human rights can only be attributed to illegal activities undertaken by entities, groups and persons outside the law, and not to the legal arms between States."
141The Republic of El Salvador expresses its concern that the reference in PP17 to the Organization of American States (OAS) and to the Central American Integration System (CAIS) has been omitted.
142The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses the following reservations: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers that the scope of PP19 under no circumstances impairs the sovereign rights of States to acquire weapons to meet their legitimate security and defence needs."/The Republic of Cuba wishes to express that analysis of the issue of the control of arms transfers is completely out of the mandate of the Programme of Action and, in consequence, considers that its inclusion in this Declaration is inappropriate.
143The Delegation of Uruguay considers that PP20 shall not be interpreted as affecting the priority assigned to the issue of small arms and light weapons.
144The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses the following reservations: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers that the scope of OP13 under no circumstances impairs the sovereign rights of States to acquire weapons to meet their legitimate security and defence needs."