Disarmament machinery

"If ever there was a time to break the deadlock in multilateral negotiations and bring disarmament back into the limelight of the international agenda, I believe it is now."1
Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

Developments and trends, 2006

The United Nations disarmament machinery is comprised of the General Assembly, its subsidiary bodies - the First Committee and the Disarmament Commission - and the Conference on Disarmament. Disarmament issues are also addressed within international frameworks established by multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements. The Department for Disarmament Affairs provides substantive and technical assistance to the disarmament machinery. For the purposes of the Secretary-General's report, a mandate was defined as a request or a direction for action by the United Nations Secretariat or other implementing entities in the system, which originated in a resolution of the General Assembly or one of the other organs.
In response to the decision of the 2005 World Summit2 instructing the General Assembly and other relevant organs to review all mandates over five years old, the Secretary-General submitted a report on 30 March entitled "Mandating and delivering: analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of mandates".3 On the issue of disarmament, the Secretary-General suggested that, while much had been achieved since the end of the cold war, the prevailing atmosphere was characterized by stalemate and inaction. By way of illustration, he pointed to: (a) the failure of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at the Review Conference of the Treaty in the 2005 to reach consensus on a final document; (b) the absence of a section on non-proliferation and disarmament in the 2005 World Summit Outcome, and the inability yet again in 2006 of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to agree on a work programme. He asserted that this situation was particularly worrisome given the urgency for strengthened mechanisms to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
According to the Secretary-General, political will and determination were essential for progress to be made in disarmament and non-proliferation. At the same time, streamlining mandates would help to free resources to address more pressing weapons-related issues. Among the Secretary-General's suggestions for streamlining the Organization's disarmament mandates were to: less frequently consider matters of security and disarmament, which are not connected to any current situation but rather of a thematic nature; consider biennializing or triennializing reporting requirements based on a review of their urgency and input; explore different ways to conduct studies by governmental expert groups, including other alternate meeting formats or the convening of smaller groups; reassess the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission's (UNMOVIC) mandate, in light of the changing situation in Iraq;4 and review the activities of the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa with respect to progress achieved through deliberations in recent years.5

Conference on Disarmament, 2006

The CD held three sessions - 23 January to 31 March, 15 May to 30 June and 31 July to 15 September - and concluded by adopting a report to the General Assembly.6 Sixty-five Member States7 participated in the session and thirty-five States8 were invited to take part.9
Given the prolonged impasse in the CD, the incoming Presidency sought to explore new ways of engaging in substantive work. The first President of the 2006 session, Zdzisaw Rapacki (Poland), submitted a proposal providing for close cooperation of the six 2006 Presidents (P-6)10 in order to assure the continuity of their actions. This joint initiative was supplemented with the appointment of six Friends of Presidents11 who were charged with assisting the Presidents in reviewing the CD's agenda, enhancing the effectiveness of the Conference by facilitating consensus on a programme of work and augmenting the involvement of civil society. Both proposals were accepted by the Conference.
Before the agenda of the Conference was adopted,12 France emphasized the importance of addressing "new issues", which had not previously been considered by the CD, particularly threats to the critical civil infrastructure. Australia proposed the introduction of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) on the agenda, which, while not included as a separate item, was addressed under "Transparency in armaments". Moreover, some delegations addressed the issue of an arms trade treaty under the item "Comprehensive programme of disarmament".
Consultations on the programme of work, held during the first two weeks of the annual session, indicated that positions of States continued to preclude consensus. In that light, the President, with a view to intensifying the substantive work of the CD, submitted a joint presidential proposal to infuse traditional general debates with structured discussions, and to include the participation of experts. He also proposed a timetable of such debates whereby each President would focus on two agenda items. In line with the new mechanism, the successive Presidents presided over substantive debates on the following items.
Under the Presidency of Park In-kook (Republic of Korea), the CD considered the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament with a focus on the latter. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania) presided over discussions on the same items, but with a focus on issues related to a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). Discussions regarding the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and new types and systems of WMD as well as radiological weapons were overseen by the Presidency of Valery Loshchinin (Russian Federation). The consideration of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and a comprehensive programme of disarmament were conducted under the Presidency of Ousmane Camara (Senegal). Lastly, the CD undertook discussions of transparency in armaments, and consideration and adoption of the annual and any other report, as appropriate, to the General Assembly under the Presidency of Anton Pinter (Slovakia).
Although equal time was allocated for each agenda item, the most intensive debates, with the participation of national experts, took place on FMCT and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). The volume of documentation submitted on these issues was considerably greater than usual. For full discussions on FMCT and PAROS deliberations, see chapters I and V, respectively.
As a result of these intensified deliberations, the Conference doubled the number of meetings held and heard an increased number of statements on each agenda item. However, the process of drafting the General Assembly report still proved to be contentious. The main controversy emerged over how to reflect the views expressed on so-called "new issues". Although there was an understanding at the time of the adoption of the agenda that issues such as MANPADS, critical civil infrastructure, landmines and the elaboration of an arms trade treaty could be addressed during plenary meetings, some delegations questioned the legitimacy of referring to deliberations on these issues in the annual report. In particular, references to MANPADS were not acceptable to a number of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries. Consequently, for the first time in its history, the Conference did not agree on the substantive part of the report and adopted only the procedural portions.
Under these circumstances, at the end of the session, the P-6 submitted an informal "vision paper" on lessons to be drawn from the 2006 session,13 which also included recommendations for preparing the work of the 2007 Conference. In the paper, the P-6 supported resuming the substantive work of the CD believing that structured and constructive debates on all issues not only contributed to a better understanding of problems involved but also helped to determine the level of preparedness for future substantive work. Additionally, these debates could be conducive to achieving consensus on a programme of work and engage the Conference in a dialogue on the substance of its agenda items. Notwithstanding, the Presidents concluded that there was still no consensus on either a programme of work or a possible format for it. Views of the delegations varied. Some believed that the "schedule of activities" that followed was a de facto programme of work. Others were convinced that a comprehensive approach (covering all issues and mandates for subsidiary bodies) was the only acceptable solution. They noted that, without a decision by the Conference on the organization of its work, a mere remake of discussions in 2007 could exhaust the debate, at a certain point make the discussions repetitive and void their purpose. Accordingly, they believed that further advancement in 2007 of the CD's substantive work needed, inter alia, the following: (a) to draw the right conclusions from the 2006 experience; (b) to take separate decisions on establishing subsidiary bodies to negotiate and/or consider issues, as well as to adopt a "schedule of activities" for substantive discussions on all CD agenda topics; (c) to consider the possibility of establishing subsidiary bodies other than ad hoc committees, as provided for in the Rules of Procedure; (d) to use focused structured debates to advance the substantive work of the CD, pending agreement on the programme of work and/or the establishment of subsidiary bodies; and (e) to invite experts not only from capitals but also from relevant United Nations bodies and other international organizations.

Disarmament Commission, 2006

After two years without an agreement on a substantive agenda for its deliberations, the 2006 session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) was able to find consensus on a programme of work during its first organizational session on 12 December 2005. The Commission adopted the following two agenda items: (i) Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and (ii) Practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons.14 The UNDC also agreed to allot equitable consideration time to discuss measures to improve the effectiveness of its work. On 28 March at a resumed organizational session, the UNDC adopted the session's provisional agenda15 and the general programme of work.16 At the same meeting, Member States elected Joon Oh (Republic of Korea) as Chairman for the substantive session, as well as other officers.17 Further, agreement was reached on the re-establishment of two working groups for the discussion of substantive agenda items, as well as the Committee of the Whole.18
The substantive session of the UNDC included seven plenary and four informal meetings held from 10 to 28 April. In addition, Working Group I held seven meetings between 18 and 28 April, and Working Group II held seven meetings between 12 and 28 April. While the UNDC was unable to reach consensus on its two agenda items, recommendations for improving the effectiveness of its methods of work were agreed upon (see below). The Commission adopted its report to the General Assembly19 at its final plenary meeting on 28 April.
In his remarks to the UNDC at the beginning of the substantive session, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, urged the UNDC to provide fresh momentum to the multilateral disarmament machinery, especially in light of the setbacks experienced during negotiations in 2005.20 Moreover, in relation to the agenda items of the Commission, he suggested that the UNDC might wish to consider practical steps to ensure the continuing relevance and strength of the NPT and the need for increased openness and transparency with regard to legitimate arms transfers.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation

In regard to the discussions on the first agenda item, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, many Member States reiterated their support for the outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences, but expressed regret that the 2005 Review Conference was unable to reach agreement. Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), expressed support for the convening of the 2007 Preparatory Committee of the NPT in Vienna. Significant support was also expressed for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Repeated calls were made for the CD to adopt a programme of work and begin negotiations on an FMCT. The Russian Federation reaffirmed its position that the negotiation of such a treaty should be the next multilateral measure in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament. Pakistan supported the negotiation of an FMCT on the basis of the Shannon mandate contained in the report of the Special Coordinator,21 highlighting that the scope of the treaty should include the past and future production of fissile material.
The majority of States supported efforts to reduce the size of nuclear arsenals. The EU welcomed reductions in the number of strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the end of the cold war. It also called on States with non-strategic weapons to include them in the disarmament process. China promoted the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons and declared that it had exercised utmost restraint in the size and development of its nuclear arsenal. The Republic of Korea welcomed the progress made by nuclear-weapon States (NWS) over the past decades in reducing their nuclear arsenals and encouraged them to be more proactive and transparent in further reductions. The Russian Federation reiterated its commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and noted that, since 1991, the global aggregate number of stockpiled strategic nuclear weapons had been reduced by one fifth, and non-strategic weapons by one fourth.

Confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the field of conventional weapons

On this issue, many States stressed the importance of initiatives to promote regional and international security and advance disarmament. Specifically, delegations underscored the role of CBMs in generating trust and fostering cooperation. The EU pointed to the salience of openness and predictability, and endorsed the use of verification regimes to ensure the reliability of information.
A number of States noted the need for CBMs to take security environments into account, according to region. In this regard, the NAM States highlighted the significance of implementing CBM guidelines appropriate for all States, in addition to considering the specific conditions prevailing in a region. Likewise, China suggested that CBMs be developed in a step-by-step manner and tailored to the needs of a particular region and/or situation.
Based on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Vienna Document 1999 of the Negotiations on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures, Belarus stressed the importance of developing and elaborating additional bilateral CBMs.22 The Republic of Korea asserted that consideration should be given to the Secretary-General's suggestion to expand the UN Register of Conventional Arms to include international transfers of small arms and light weapons (SALW).23
Many delegations, including the NAM and the EU, recommended that the 2003 working paper of the Chairman on practical CBMs in the field of conventional arms be used as a basis for CBM discussions.24 Switzerland echoed this recommendation, but added that the working paper must be updated to take into account more recent proposals and initiatives.

Improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the Commission

Most Member States welcomed the prospect of engaging in plenary discussions on improving the Commission's work and many expressed appreciation for its unique role. Several States stressed the need to strengthen the role of the UNDC. The NAM considered improvements in the UNDC's methods of work as part of the comprehensive revitalization of the General Assembly. Switzerland expressed hope that the Member States could take advantage of the Commission's purely deliberative nature to elicit greater flexibility in the content and format of its discussions.
During plenary discussions, delegations addressed a number of proposals regarding the substance and volume of agenda items, the three-year cycle of work, the issue of consensus, the participation of experts in its discussions and communication between the UNDC and other disarmament bodies. There was also some debate over the ability of the UNDC to make decisions regarding its own methods of work.
The United States recommended the consideration of a one-year mandate with a single agenda item. The notion of a one- or two-year mandate was also supported by the Republic of Korea, and Japan asserted that a short mandate would better respond to the rapidly changing security environment. However, several NAM States voiced their disagreement with the proposal. Jordan highlighted the need to maintain balance between disarmament and non-proliferation, while Indonesia noted that it was too early to judge the current working methods as they had only been in effect for one session.
The EU proposed that agenda items be determined according to relevance within the international security environment. Some States expressed concern that such a formulation might restrict potential topics in favour of interests of certain Member States. Jordan, for example, asserted that the discussion of new security concerns should not preclude the consideration of old security issues.
Several States, in particular NAM, supported the participation of external experts, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in UNDC discussions. This proposal, however, was not supported by France, India and the United States. Furthermore, Russia and Uruguay were concerned about the financial implications of such involvement.
Although Member States were unable to reach consensus on all of the proposals or issues addressed, the UNDC agreed to the following set of recommendations:25
(a) Electing the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies at least three months prior to the beginning of the substantive session, if possible;
(b) Encouraging Member States to adopt the draft agenda of the substantive session of the Commission as early as possible at the organizational meetings of the Commission;
(c) Encouraging Member States to present their national working documents to the Commission as early as possible before the substantive session begins;
(d) Efforts by the Commission to strengthen dialogue with other bodies of the disarmament machinery;
(e) Encouraging the Commission to invite, as appropriate, experts on disarmament, including those at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) for discussions during the plenary; and
(f) Requesting the Secretariat to improve the UNDC section of the United Nations website to provide better communication and up-to-date information about its work.
During its final plenary meeting, the UNDC adopted the reports of its subsidiary bodies. Working Group I's report noted that a number of delegations expressed reservations regarding some of the issues contained in the Chairman's papers26 which, along with the working papers and conference room papers submitted by Member States, would be forwarded to the 2007 session. Working Group II indicated its decision to consider the Chairman's paper27 along with the corresponding views and proposals, as the possible basis for the next session's work.

Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters

The Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters held its forty-sixth and forty-seventh sessions from 8 to 10 February in New York and from 21 to 23 June in Geneva, respectively, under the chairmanship of U. Joy Ogwu (Nigeria) (see annex I on p. 1 for the Board's membership). The Secretary-General submitted a report on the work of the Advisory Board in 2006 to the General Assembly on 29 August.28
During its deliberations over these two sessions, the Board considered the following four issues: (a) a review of the disarmament situation, on account of the decisions taken at the 2005 World Summit; (b) measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons systems to non-State actors; (c) the way ahead on building an international security system; and (d) consolidation and further development of international norms on SALW.
The Board members conveyed their concern over the impasse in multilateral disarmament and their disappointment that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were not addressed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document.29 In analysing causes for the stalemate, the Board noted the political impact of conceptual differences between counter-proliferation, non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control (and to an extent, counter-terrorism). Additionally, it was alarmed at the development and implications of the Iranian nuclear issue and posited that the case required careful consideration, both for immediate repercussions as well as for any long-term consequences on the non-proliferation regime. Among the Board's recommendations was the suggestion that incremental steps be taken to help gain momentum on priority issues such as WMD terrorism, the universality of the WMD treaty regimes and the early start of substantive work at the CD. The Board advocated the pursuit of disarmament and non-proliferation in a mutually complementary manner, and underlined the need to balance the security concerns of all States. To discourage withdrawal from the NPT, it advised that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be empowered to respond decisively to non-compliance.
In considering measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons systems to non-State actors, the Board recognized that conventional military arms were the principal choice for terrorists, including MANPADS, shorter-range rockets, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), firearms and assault rifles. Furthermore, it recognized as the key problem that most of these systems were available on the black market, or could be illegally acquired or stolen from States. To prevent or limit non-State actors or terrorist groups from acquiring weapons, the Board stressed efforts to restrain their financial resources. Lastly, while UNSCR 1540 (2004) was a good foundation to address this issue, its scope should be expanded, as necessary and feasible, to involve the private sector. The Board further recommended redirecting civilian frameworks and infrastructures to strengthen efforts to eliminate the supply of weapons to terrorists. Such efforts included export control legislation, law enforcement, customs, border controls, the exchange of information and intelligence regarding persons, as well as accounting and physical security measures for arms storage facilities. The Board also recommended that the mandatory provisions of UNSCR 1373 (2001),30 regarding preventing the supply of weapons to terrorists, should be strictly applied to all States.
During its discussion on building an international security system, the Board noted the mounting need for the United Nations to become more responsive to the changing international security environment. This included social, political, religious, ethnic and/or linguistic differences along with terrorist activities, refugee flows and conflict over access to natural resources as the most prominent security challenges. The Board agreed that multilateral instruments should still play a central role in addressing these challenges and that reform of the United Nations and the Security Council were necessary to make them more effective, accountable and representative. Furthermore, the Board highlighted the need to define clear priorities on non-proliferation and counterterrorism and stressed that the United Nations take them into account, even though they fell outside of its traditional area of responsibility. The clear trend towards ad hoc arrangements for crisis management was seen as a positive development - the Board recognized the six-party talks on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's nuclear issue as a good example. Therefore, it recommended greater use of regional organizations in crisis resolution and further exploration of their relationship with the United Nations. In regard to improving multilateral approaches, the Board advised incorporating wider non-proliferation activity, consistent with UNSCR 1540. Lastly, the Board recommended greater efforts to make disarmament issues more relevant to the generation growing up in the twenty-first century.
The Board's deliberations on consolidating and further developing international norms on SALW sought to address the observation that many of the actors in the illicit SALW trade were small and medium-sized States in the developing world, which were also struggling with poverty, disease and poor governance. According to the Board, it was critical to recognize the linkages between illicit trade and the gamut of political, economic and social challenges. The international community was, in theory, better positioned to alleviate these challenges. It was suggested that an effective solution to the illicit SALW trade would be the development of a cordon sanitaire around sensitive areas to prevent arms movement in a given region. The Board advocated regional arms brokering laws to prevent dealers from smuggling weapons through a neighbouring State with weaker laws. The Board also recommended enhanced assistance efforts by donor countries and international organizations for States that lacked the capacity to implement effective SALW trafficking laws.
At its forty-sixth and forty-seventh sessions, the Director of UNIDIR briefed the Board on the Institute's programme and budget for 2006. The Board expressed strong support for the work of UNIDIR and elicited concern at the prospect of any curtailment of its activities. The Board formally adopted the programme and budget of the Institute for 2006 and reviewed the proposed programme and budget for 2007.

The Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (UNREC)

Though 2006 marked the twentieth anniversary of UNREC, its work programme continued to be hampered by serious financial difficulties. To address the situation, the Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) conducted fund-raising activities and donor outreach to pursue its operational sustainability.
In January, the Executive Council of the African Union (AU) called upon member States to make voluntary contributions so that UNREC may continue its operations, pending recommendations by the Commission and adoption of a decision by the policy organs of the AU.31

The Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-LiREC)

During the year, UN-LiREC continued to strengthen its capacity with the appointment of a Deputy-Director to address both programming and managerial issues, and a new associate expert on disarmament. Additional capacity enhancement included the creation of the Office of the Director with a special assistant and fund-raising officer. With the assistance of the Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), four additional associate expert positions were also added.

The Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (RCPD)

Throughout the year, consultations with the Government of Nepal on the relocation of the Centre continued, and in November resulted in the transmission of a Host Country Agreement and the related Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to the Nepalese authorities. DDA focused on identifying ways to ensure the operational sustainability of RCPD, with particular attention to solutions highlighting efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as to the demands and needs of the Asia and the Pacific region in today's context.

General Assembly, 2006


Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD IV). The draft resolution was introduced on 23 October by Indonesia, on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement. It was adopted by the First Committee on 30 October (166-1-1), and on 6 December by the General Assembly (175-1-0). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 2 and 3.
Among other things, the resolution decided to establish an open-ended working group, working on the basis of consensus, to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament; and requested the Open-ended Working Group to hold an organizational session to set the date for its 2007 substantive sessions and to submit a report on its work before the end of the sixty-first session.
First Committee
Before the vote, Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it would support the resolution to mobilize the attention of the international community in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. Switzerland also said it supported the resolution. Voicing its support, Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, believed that the substantive sessions of the Open-ended Working Group were the appropriate forum to prepare for a fourth special session on disarmament, affording each State an opportunity to contribute to common objectives and shared responsibility for international peace and security. The NAM expressed its readiness to work constructively with all Member States at the forthcoming substantive sessions of the Working Group.

Declaration of the fourth disarmament decade

Declaration of the fourth disarmament decade. On 18 October, the draft resolution was introduced by Sierra Leone, explaining that the idea of a disarmament decade was not new but, considering the poor performance witnessed in arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation in recent years, should be re-recognized as a priority of the international community. The revised draft was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 30 October as follows: (116-1-51) and in the General Assembly on 6 December (123-1-52). For the text of the resolution and voting pattern, see pages 4 and 5.
The resolution recalled its previous resolutions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and noted that if ever there was a time to break the deadlock in multilateral negotiations to bring disarmament back into the limelight of the international agenda, it was the present.32 Additionally, it directed the Disarmament Commission, at its 2009 session, to prepare elements of a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade for submission to the Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.
First Committee
Before the vote, Finland spoke on behalf of the European Union to explain its decision to abstain. As staunch supporters of effective multilateral action in the field of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, the EU believed the work of developing a stronger international community, well-functioning international institutions and a rules-based international order should be done by the global disarmament machinery. While they attached great importance to strengthening and adequately equipping the United Nations and revitalizing the First Committee, they were not convinced of the added value in setting the agenda for the 2009 UNDC at the Assembly's sixty-fourth session. Cuba said it would support the draft resolution because it could make a positive contribution in mobilizing international efforts to move forward on disarmament objectives, as well as promote multilateralism as a basic principle of negotiations on disarmament and non-proliferation in all their aspects.
After the vote, Switzerland explained it abstention. While it recognized the difficulties faced by international arms control and disarmament negotiating forums, it believed that the stalemates were due to a lack of will on the part of States to negotiate and not necessarily from the existing structures. Additionally, Switzerland believed the resolution ran counter to the previous objectives set with respect to revitalizing the First Committee.

DDA and its regional centres

United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament. The draft resolution was introduced on 23 October by Indonesia, on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement (see p. 6 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 7.
The resolution appealed to Member States in each region and those that were able to do so, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the regional centres in their respective regions to strengthen their activities and initiatives. It also requested the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support, within existing resources, to the regional centres in carrying out their programmes of activities.
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The draft resolution was introduced on 23 October by Ecuador, on behalf of the members of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States. 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 8.
The resolution invited all States of the region to continue to take part in the activities of the Regional Centre, proposing items for inclusion in its programme and making greater and better use of the Centre's potential to meet the current challenges facing the international community with a view to fulfilling the aims of the United Nations Charter in the fields of peace, disarmament and development.
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa. The draft resolution was introduced by Nigeria on 23 October. It was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 27 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 9.
The resolution noted that the year 2006 commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa in Lomé; and noted with satisfaction the establishment of the Consultative Mechanism for reorganizing the Centre, and its focus on responding to the demands and needs of Africa in the field of peace and disarmament with a view to identifying concrete measures for its revitalization.
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. The draft resolution was introduced by Nepal, on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 10 for sponsors), on 23 October. The draft was adopted without a vote in the First Committee on 27 October and in the General Assembly on 6 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 11.
The resolution urged the Secretary-General to ensure the physical operation of the Regional Centre from Katmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement and to enable it to function effectively.

Disarmament Commission

Report of the Disarmament Commission. The draft resolution was introduced by the Republic of Korea on 23 October. 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 12.
The resolution decided this year to adopt additional measures for improving the effectiveness of the Commission's methods of work, including as early as possible to elect the Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and subsidiary bodies, to adopt the draft agenda and for Member States to present national documents, as well as to strengthen dialogue with other bodies of the disarmament machinery of the United Nations, to invite experts on disarmament for discussions at its plenary meetings and to improve the Commission's website. Another new paragraph recommended that the Commission continue to consider, at its 2007 substantive session, recommendations for achieving the objective of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons.
First Committee
Before the vote, the United States announced it would not participate in the action.

Conference on Disarmament

Report of the Conference on Disarmament. The draft resolution was introduced by Slovakia, on behalf of the sponsors (see p. 13 for sponsors), on 23 October. 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 14.
The resolution requested that all States members of the Conference cooperate with its current and successive Presidents in their efforts for an early commencement of substantive work in 2007; that the Secretary-General continue to ensure the provision of adequate administrative, substantive and conference support services to the Conference; and that the Conference submit a report on its work to the General Assembly's sixty-second session.
First Committee
Before joining the consensus, Turkey maintained that the question of expanding the Conference membership, as referred to in the last preambular paragraph, was not a priority at that stage and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to candidates' contributions to international peace and security.


The Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly in March on the Organization-wide effort at reform, analysed and gave recommendations on the mandates given by the Assembly to implement work, activities and projects, including the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. Despite intensive consultations held on the many issues and suggested remedies, by the end of the year, the Assembly had not reached any agreement on ways to follow up the mandate review.
Although Member States in the Conference on Disarmament remained unable to agree on a programme of work and did not begin negotiations on any multilateral disarmament instruments, the fact that they engaged in significant substantive discussions on a number of pressing issues, including an FMCT and PAROS, was welcomed as a way to further crystallize points of convergence and divergence, and set the stage for renewed efforts in 2007.
Also welcomed was the measure of progress achieved by Member States in the Disarmament Commission with the agreement on a substantive agenda, allowing discussions on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and conventional weapons to get under way, as well as a consideration of working methods improvements. As it was the first of a three-year cycle of consideration of substantive issues, hopes were realistic for continued substantive deliberations at the 2007 session. In addition, in the beginning of an effort to give more attention at the global level to the promotion of disarmament and arms regulations efforts by the United Nations, the Assembly began a long-term process by directing the Commission, at its 2009 session, to prepare elements of a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade for submission to the Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.

Annex I

Members of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, 2006
U. Joy Ogwu, OFR (Chair), Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abuja
Dr. Christiane Isabelle Agboton Johnson, Executive Director, Movement against Small Arms in West Africa, Dakar
H.E. Mr. Anatoly I. Antonov, Ambassador, Director, Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament, Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation, Moscow
H.E. Ms. Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Geneva
Mr. Philippe Carré, Director of Strategic Affairs, Security and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris
H.E. Ms. Perla Carvalho Soto, Ambassador of Mexico to Uruguay, Embassy of Mexico in Uruguay, Montevideo
Professor Michael Clarke, Director of Research Development, King's College London, London
H.E. Mr. Gelson Fonseca, Jr., Consul General, Consulado General do Brasil, Madrid
H.E. Mr. Hasmy Agam, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Putrajaya
Dr. Carolina Hernandez, Founding President and Chair, Board of Directors, Institute for Strategic and Development Studies, Inc., Quezon City
Mr. Jeremy Issacharoff, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Israel in the United States, Washington, D.C.
H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Karem, Ambassador of Egypt to Belgium, Luxembourg and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Europe, Brussels
H.E. Mr. Ho-Jin Lee, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Seoul
H.E. Mr. Jayant Prasad, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva
Mr. Stephen G. Rademaker, Policy Adviser for National Security Affairs and Senior Counsel to William Frist, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
Professor Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Chairman of the International Advisory Committee, Polish Institute of International Affairs, Warsaw
H.E. Ms. Kongit Sinegiorgis, Chancery, Ethiopian Embassy, Vienna
H.E. Mr. Zhang Yan, Ambassador, Director-General, Department of Arms Control, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Beijing
Dr. Patricia Lewis (ex-officio member), Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva

1See the Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 1, A/61/1. This and all subsequent United Nations documents are available at http://ods.un.org.
2See "2005 World Summit Outcome", 16 September 2005, A/RES/60/1.
3See the report of the Secretary-General entitled "Mandating and delivering: analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of mandates", 30 March 2006, A/60/733.
4See http://www.unmovic.org.
5See http://disarmament.un.org/cab/sacsqca.html.
6See the report of the Conference on Disarmament, 23 January-31 March, 15 May-30 June and 31 July-15 September 2006, Supplement No. 27, A/61/27.
7Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.
8In conformity with Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure, the following States not members of the Conference attended its plenary meetings: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro (since 3 June 2006 - Serbia), Slovenia, Sudan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Zambia.
9See http://www.unog.ch > Disarmament > Conference on Disarmament.
10The Presidency of the 2006 session consisted of Zdzisaw Rapacki (Poland), Park In-kook (Republic of Korea), Doru Romulus Costea (Romania), Valery Loshchinin (Russian Federation), Ousmane Camara (Senegal) and Anton Pinter (Slovakia).
11The appointed Friends of Presidents were the Ambassadors of: Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy, Japan and Sri Lanka.
12See "Agenda for the 2007 session", CD/1807.
13See "The P-6 Vision Paper", CD/1809.
14See the report of the Disarmament Commission 2005, Supplement No. 42, A/60/42.
15"Provisional Agenda: Disarmament Commission, Substantive Session, New York, 10-28 April 2006", A/CN.10/L.57.
17The Vice-Chairmen were from Austria, Belarus, Benin, Chile, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Poland and Uruguay.
18See "Disarmament Commission, 268th Meeting", 28 March 2006, A/CN.10/PV.268.
19 See the report of the Disarmament Commission for 2006, A/61/42.
20See "Disarmament Commission, 269th Meeting", 10 April 2006, A/CN.10/PV.269.
21See "Report of Ambassador Gerald E. Shannon of Canada on Consultations on the Most Appropriate Arrangement to Negotiate a Treaty Banning the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices", CD/1299.
22See http://www.osce.org/documents/fsc/1999/11/4265_en.pdf (accessed 28 June 2007).
23See the Secretary-General's report on small arms, para. 64, S/2006/109.
24See the report of the Disarmament Commission for 2003, Supplement No. 42, Attachment, A/58/42.
25Op. cit., footnote 19.
26See "Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: working paper submitted by the Chairman", A/CN.10/2006/WG.I/WP.4 and Rev.1, A/CN.10/2006/WG.I/CRP.1 and Rev.1.
27See "Practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons", A/CN.10/2006/WG.II/CRP.1 and Rev.1 and 2.
28See the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, 29 August 2006, A/61/297.
29Op. cit., footnote 2.
30See S/RES/1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting, on 28 September 2001.
31See the Secretary-General's report on the United Nations regional centre for peace and disarmament in Africa, 12 July 2006, A/61/137. See also EX.CL/243 (VIII) Add.7, available at http://www.africa-union.org/root/AU/Documents/Decisions/com/AU6th_ord_Council_Decisions_Jan2006_Khartoum.pdf (accessed 28 June 2007).
32Op. cit., footnote 1.