|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
7169th Meeting (AM)
Security Council Statement Reaffirms Concern over Weapons of Mass Destruction
As It Marks 10 Years since Adopting Landmark Non-proliferation Text
Deputy Secretary-General Urges Global Commitment to Make Resolution More Effective
Marking a decade since its landmark adoption of resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation, the Security Council today reaffirmed its concern about the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Issuing a presidential statement (document S/PRST/2014/7), the 15-member body said it was gravely concerned by the threat of terrorism, and the risk that non-State actors may acquire, develop, traffic in or use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Also by that statement, the Security Council reaffirmed the necessity to prevent non-State actors from gaining access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and related materials, or the assistance and financing needed to acquire them. In addition, the Council emphasized the need for the 1540 Committee — established pursuant to the resolution — to coordinate its non-proliferation activities with other international, regional and subregional organizations.
Recognizing that many States continued to require support and help in implementing the resolution, the Council stressed the need for enhanced assistance to that end. Additionally, it recommended that the 1540 Committee consider developing a strategy for incorporation into a comprehensive review of the implementation status, to be submitted to the Council before December 2016.
In opening remarks, Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said the progress made since the resolution’s adoption 10 years ago could be seen in the more than 30,0000 measures carried out by States reporting to the 1540 Committee. “This, of course, only tells part of the story,” he said, recalling such setbacks as the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria. Yet, even there, more than 90 per cent of the country’s chemical weapons had been removed through vigorous diplomatic and administrative action, even as the conflict intensified.
In order for the resolution to work even more effectively, there must be global commitment, he emphasized, observing that most of the countries that had not submitted national reports to the 1540 Committee faced serious economic or social difficulties. Still, it was critical that every State implement the resolution because terrorists and traffickers often targeted countries with poorly monitored customs, borders, imports, exports, ports and airports. A wide scope of measures, ranging from legislation to law enforcement, was required, not only of Governments, but also of industry and other relevant actors. “No right hands for wrong weapons,” he said, quoting the Secretary-General. The world must join together with renewed resolved against proliferation.
Yun Byung-Se, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and Council President for May, spoke in his national capacity, noting that the presidential statement mapped out key areas needing work in order for the resolution to be fully implemented by 2021. To date, 172 out of 193 Member States had presented their reports, a “remarkable achievement” in light of the voluntary nature of reporting. Capacity-building and assistance must be emphasized since “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, he said.
In the current landscape, however, the weakest link in nuclear non-proliferation had been “exposed by North Korea”, he said, pointing out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was the only country in the world that had conducted nuclear tests in the twenty-first century. “Further nuclear tests by North Korea must be prevented” through concerted efforts by the international community, he stressed. Failure to act effectively upon “such a clear and present threat to international peace and security” would critically weaken the Security Council’s credibility and the integrity of the United Nations Charter. “We must clearly warn North Korea that if it challenges the international community with another test, it will be met with the most serious consequences.”
Also speaking were representatives of Rwanda, Chile, United Kingdom, China, United States, Australia, Chad, Russian Federation, Lithuania, Jordan, Nigeria, Luxembourg, France, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Japan, Guatemala, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Malaysia, Syria, Morocco, Italy, Colombia, Finland, Poland (also speaking for Croatia), Spain, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Israel, Mexico, Iraq, Mongolia, Turkey, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, New Zealand, Netherlands, Belarus, Romania, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Slovenia, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Bangladesh, Denmark, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Montenegro, Armenia, Philippines and Peru.
Also delivering a statement was a speaker representing the European Union.
The meeting began at 10:09 a.m. and ended at 5 p.m.
The Security Council met this morning to commemorate the tenth anniversary of resolution 1540 (2004) and to hold an open debate on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Before it for the consideration of members was a letter dated 2 May from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea addressed to the Secretary-General (document S/2014/313).
JAN ELIASSON, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) had accomplished a great deal since its adoption 10 years ago. It had guided the international community to make important inroads against the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as demonstrated by the more than 30,0000 measures carried out by States in implementation of the resolution and reported to the 1540 Committee. “This, of course, only tells part of the story,” he pointed out, recalling such setbacks as the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria. Through vigorous diplomatic and administrative action, however, more than 90 per cent of Syria’s chemical weapons had been removed, even as the conflict there intensified.
Although some 20 countries had not submitted a national report to the 1540 Committee, most of them faced serious economic or social difficulties, he noted, urging all Member States to submit reports. In order for resolution 1540 (2004) to work even more effectively, it must be a global commitment. It was critical that every country implement the resolution because terrorists and traffickers often targeted countries whose customs, borders, imports, exports, ports and airports were less well or poorly monitored and controlled. However, the preparation of voluntary national implementation action plans was increasing, he said, noting that 32 countries had released a joint statement at the recent Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague reaffirming their commitment to submit action plans to the 1540 Committee.
Expanded regional cooperation and civil society would both play a critical role towards implementation of the resolution’s goals and fulfilment of an “even more ambitious vision: a world free of all weapons of mass destruction”, he said. Supporting its implementation was a high priority for the Organization and a key task of the Office for Disarmament Affairs, and the international community had a shared interest and duty to prevent individuals and groups from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. A wide scope of measures, ranging from legislation to law enforcement, was required, not only of Governments, but also on the part of industry and other relevant actors. “No right hands for wrong weapons,” he said, quoting the Secretary-General. The world must join together with renewed resolved against proliferation.
The Council then issued presidential statement S/PRST/2014/7.
YUN BYUNG-SE, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and Council President for May, spoke in his national capacity, stating that, given the rapid advances in science and technology, daunting challenges lay ahead in an increasingly complex operational environment. The presidential statement just adopted set forth the important goal of achieving full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), mapping out key areas needing work and focus so that full implementation could be achieved by 2021. To date, 172 out of 193 Member States had presented their reports, a “remarkable achievement” in light of the voluntary nature of reporting. Furthermore, capacity-building and assistance must be underscored since “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, he said, urging the strengthening of the 1540 Committee’s “matchmaking” role in facilitating the provision of effective and tailored assistance to States requiring it. He also called for synergy between implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) and other non-proliferation-related efforts.
Today, the weakest link in nuclear non-proliferation had been “exposed by North Korea”, he said, pointing out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was the only country in the world that had conducted nuclear tests in the twenty-first century. Notwithstanding the international community’s efforts, it had continued to develop nuclear weapons over the last two decades. “Further nuclear tests by North Korea must be prevented” through concerted efforts by the international community, he stressed. Failure to act effectively upon “such a clear and present threat to international peace and security” would critically weaken the Security Council’s credibility and the integrity of the United Nations Charter, he warned. “We must clearly warn North Korea that if it challenges the international community with another test, it will be met with the most serious consequences.”
EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA ( Rwanda) said his country had fulfilled its obligations relating to implementation of the resolution within its borders and across the region. Rwanda urged States that had not yet done the same to do so as soon as possible, because their efforts would contribute to a long-term vision and strategy for effective implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). States must take advantage of existing border-control mechanisms and tailor their efforts by establishing effective export-control mechanisms, he said, noting in that respect that the World Customs Organization had proven a strong partner for States and the 1540 Committee. Emphasizing the need for greater political will on the part of Governments, he said that non-proliferation financing also remained a core contributing element of international peace and security. Rwanda appreciated the work of the Financial Systems Task Force, in collaboration with the 1540 Committee, because targeted financial sanctions were crucial to the success of non-proliferation efforts, he added.
ALFREDO LABBÈ, Director-General for Foreign Policy of Chile, said the terrorist threat was real and the mere thought of non-State actors gaining access to weapons of mass destruction was of great concern. The goal of resolution 1540 (2004) remained relevant and States must continue to adopt measures to preclude the financing of prohibited activities relating to weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials. Over the past 10 years, the 1540 Committee had raised awareness of the terrorist threat, including through various regional organizations and by fostering better practices to reduce the risk of terrorism, but the international community must move on to the next stage, since new challenges showed that the threat was still present, particularly in the area of terrorist financing. Recalling his country’s participation in the recent Nuclear Security Summit, he said it was critical that institutions responsible for cross-border control be fully staffed and trained, and for States with greater capacity in that areas to share their experiences and best practices.
MARK LYALL GRANT ( United Kingdom) said that, since the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004) 10 years ago, non-State actors had not acquired any weapons of mass destruction, thus demonstrating its effectiveness. However, constant and vigorous vigilance was critical to maintaining peace and security. On the national level, the United Kingdom had submitted its fourth report, as well as its first national action plan to the 1540 Committee, he said, adding that his country had also hosted outreach events and workshops for non-reporting States, some of which had subsequently submitted their first reports to the Committee. The United Kingdom had also collaborated with Indonesia and Canada in developing a non-proliferation kit to help States implement resolution 1540 (2004). The activities of the Committee’s experts, who conducted country-specific visits and guided implementation of the resolution, had resulted in a decrease in the number of non-reporting countries, he said, noting that 17 of the 21 non-reporting States were in Africa. Reporting was “not as onerous as feared”, he said, assuring non-reporting States that assistance was available.
LIU JIEYI ( China) said that his country emphasized both internal and external strategies, focusing on collective, regional, as well as national security, a stance it had demonstrated at The Hague Summit. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China always took a highly responsible approach to non-proliferation and enforcements, putting an all-encompassing set of export controls in place for materials relating to weapons of mass destruction. Three detailed national reports describing the Government’s efforts to prevent proliferation by non-State actors had been submitted to the 1540 Committee, and resolution 1540 (2004) had been integrated into the domestic legal system. Because non-traditional and traditional factors were intertwined, the international community should “seize the opportunity and take stock”, he said, calling for a comprehensive approach to the symptoms, as well as the root causes of terrorism and extremism. Furthermore, China emphasized the need for adherence to multilateralism in terms of the political and diplomatic tools applied in settling conflicts. Efforts to ensure comprehensive implementation should be stepped up, with all parties strengthening export controls over materials and technology, as well as the regulation of materials nationally.
ROSEMARY DICARLO ( United States) said there had been reminders over the past year of the horror that could be inflicted by the use of weapons of mass destruction. Since the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), the Committee had identified hundreds of additional measures that States had taken to prevent proliferation, she recalled, noting also that 15 international organizations in at least 48 countries had registered as assistance providers and made themselves available to States needing help with their non-proliferation efforts. Non-proliferation had also become a major goal for civil society and a key component of the global security environment. Since its creation, the 1540 Committee had done an excellent job of coordinating the global response to resolution 1540 (2004). However, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction was not one of those fields where a “pretty good record” was good enough, since the repercussions of failure could be catastrophic, she cautioned. With global vigilance high, the imperative now was to continue moving forward, with each State identifying vulnerabilities and gaps while developing plans for next steps. States that lacked the capacity to take those steps should ask for help and those in a position to lend assistance should do so. The United States was committed to doing its part and had provided $4.5 million to the United Nations trust fund to support resolution 1540 (2004), she said, calling for special emphasis to be placed on bio-security.
GARY QUINLAN ( Australia) called for steps to strengthen implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including the leveraging of links with other United Nations instruments and multilateral non-proliferation and export-control regimes. He said that, as Chair of the Australia Group, an informal multilateral export-control forum, his country had formally offered assistance to the 1540 Committee on the implementation of export controls relating to dual-use chemical and biological agents. Leveraging the role of industry and the private sector in preventing proliferation was also crucial, as was ensuring that the provision of assistance to developing countries was practical, coordinated and coherent, notably by better harnessing the link between security and development. Such countries needed more guidance from the Council so that their efforts to enact legislation and improve law enforcement could help them fulfil the range of relevant measures for preventing terrorism, strengthening non-proliferation and implementing sanctions.
MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF ( Chad) said that increasing terrorist activity in recent years had contributed to fears that non-State actors could acquire weapons of mass destruction. The situation had deteriorated over the last 10 years, despite progress in the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including in terms of cooperation between regional and subregional organizations. Despite praiseworthy efforts, Chad was concerned that numerous Member States had porous borders without sufficient customs and border-control authorities to prevent the trafficking of weapons, he said, emphasizing the great importance of building their capacity and promoting synergies between non-proliferation and counter-terrorist activities.
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation), recalled that his country had co-sponsored resolution 1540 (2004), and stressed that the top priority was to achieve its full implementation by all countries. Much had been done through international assistance and export-control assistance, and the Russian Federation had played an active part, holding regional meetings for member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), focusing on prevention and export control, and holding seminars for specialized agencies. A signatory of several non-proliferation treaties, including the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Russian Federation planned to submit updated national reports, and continued to destroy its own arsenal, he said. However, “bottlenecks” had appeared and the 1540 Committee’s work had been reduced to secondary issues, including academic activities, with its core tasks delegated to regional and subregional organizations which lacked the appropriate expertise. That could weaken resolution 1540 (2004), he cautioned, urging that the Committee focus its main efforts on countries that had not submitted their first reports. The upcoming comprehensive review of resolution 1540 (2004) would help identify and carry out practical steps, he added.
RAIMONDA MURMOKATĖ ( Lithuania), associating herself with the statement to be delivered on behalf of by the European Union, said that, although traditional non-proliferation regimes had been established, resolution 1540 (2004) was aimed at non-State actors, among others, and at establishing universal export standards. Lithuania, which had presented its initial report to the 1540 Committee in 2004 and continued to provide updates, had been a dedicated supporter of the resolution through workshops on prevention and security. Alongside its collaborative efforts with Jordan and the United States, it had also trained 400 experts regionally and was committed to expanding international cooperation. She called for greater transparency in transnational conflicts, and commended the Committee’s outreach, matchmaking and implementation-assistance activities. However, the Committee must be very clear about what each State required because overburdening them could result in “reporting fatigue”. Lithuania also called for greater collaboration and synergy between the experts of the 1540 Committee and those of other Council subsidiary bodies, including those dealing with Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN (Jordan) said it was high time the Council granted the 1540 Committee a permanent mandate, questioning whether the absence of any general machinery to curtail the smuggling of weapons materials was reasonable. It was also high time to think seriously about amending the Committee’s mandate to include developing a list of smugglers, including individuals and non-States actors who persisted in smuggling such materials. The Council was duty-bound to move away from unilateral thinking regarding States’ adherence to resolution 1540 (2004) to a more inclusive perspective, he said, emphasizing that it must promote the development of a road map to address implementation through the prism of groups of States, rather than simply monitoring individual States.
U. JOY OGWU ( Nigeria) said that, while resolution 1540 (2004) filled a gap in international law by addressing the risk of terrorists obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction, it should not be considered a stand-alone tool. The international community should strive to develop national, regional and international assets to promote implementation of the resolution, while building on what had already been achieved and retaining the capacity to adapt to new strategies. The link between resolution 1540 (2004) and other existing non-proliferation initiatives and regimes could not be over-emphasized, she said. Establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones across additional regions could prevent the vertical and horizontal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and result in greater transparency in terms of meeting the objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she added.
SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg), associating herself with the statement to be delivered on behalf of the European Union, said that, despite progress towards universalism and technological advances, the activities of non-State actors called for close, effective cooperation between the Council’s subsidiary bodies, including its 1540 and sanctions committees. In that regard, she recalled the 2013 joint public meeting in which the Chairs of the Council’s subsidiaries had informed Member States about their activities, and urged the 1540 Committee to use that event as an example of cooperation in its future activities.
GÉRARD ARAUD ( France) said his country was responsible for coordinating the working group on assistance and would be working to convene a conference on implementation in Paris. However, there was a need to strengthen export controls and to prevent financing for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and for gaining access to related materials. France pledged to launch an initiative focused on security, in particular high-activity sealed radioactive sources, he said, adding that, although their theft was rare, it was critical that they not be used for criminal ends.
MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL ( Argentina) said her country had participated actively in initiatives to bring about a world free of weapons of mass destruction of all types, and was a party to the legal instruments forming the pillars of disarmament and non-proliferation. From the beginning, Argentina had taken part in the nuclear security process and had supported efforts to combat terrorism. There were no good or bad weapons of mass destruction, she emphasized, and as in the words of the Secretary-General, “there are no right hands that can handle these wrong weapons”. However, the significant efforts deployed by the international community would only enjoy relative success globally while arsenals of weapons of mass destruction continued to exist, she warned.
BHAGWANT S. BISHNOI ( India) said his country had an unwavering commitment to international efforts to prevent non-State actors and terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The international community must join hands to eliminate the risks of sensitive materials and technologies falling into the hands of terrorists and other non-State actors, he said, emphasizing that meeting new proliferation challenges would require reinvigorated approaches in a variety of multilateral global forums. India had always expressed its readiness to help other countries build capacity and fulfil their obligations under resolution 1540 (2004), he said, adding that his country had never been a source of proliferation, whether in terms of sensitive materials or technologies, and was proud of its record on nuclear security and non-proliferation. India was also committed to maintaining effective national export controls, consistent with the highest international standards.
MASOOD KHAN ( Pakistan) said the immediate challenge facing the 1540 Committee was persuading non-reporting States to participate. It should also focus on outreach and implementation while deepening cooperation by holding annual open meetings to enhance cooperation with subsidiary bodies, as well as regional and global organizations. Among its many activities aimed at advancing the aims of resolution 1540 (2004), Pakistan had instituted a comprehensive export regime that was on a par with that of the Australia Group, among others. Parliament was considering a bill intended to ensure that the country met its obligations under the resolution, and Pakistan was a party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, among other instruments. Through laws designed to track suspicious activities, the Government had frozen hundreds of bank accounts, he said, adding that, as a fully qualified member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Pakistan looked forward to instituting all safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA ( Brazil) said that despite the shortcomings of any strategy that did not include consider the linkage between disarmament and non-proliferation, his country was fully committed to its obligations under resolution 1540 (2004). A party to all major disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and convention, Brazil was among the promoters of a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere. It had submitted national reports to the 1540 Committee and national legislation safeguarded the peaceful application of sensitive and dual-use goods and items. However, one of the most fundamental challenges was to match progress on non-proliferation with concrete steps towards verifiable and irreversible disarmament, he emphasized, once again expressing concern that lack of consensus had continued to prevent progress in the Conference on Disarmament for 18 years, and in the Disarmament Commission for a decade. He also voiced disappointment that the Conference on the Establishment of a Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East, which should have taken place in 2012, had been postponed.
MOTOHIDE YOSHIKAWA ( Japan) said that some States mistakenly believed that export controls would impede trade and investment, and that non-proliferation efforts would obstruct economic growth. Leaders at the 2013 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Japan Commemorative Summit had agreed to intensify efforts for the implementation of non-proliferation measures, including cooperation to strengthen export-control capabilities, while Japan’s Foreign Minister had emphasized in January the “strategic effects of export control”. To support resolution 1540 (2004), Japan had been hosting the Asian Export Control Seminar for more than 20 years, he said, adding that the Government had organized, in partnership with the Permanent Missions of Poland and Turkey, six non-proliferation and disarmament seminars in New York.
JACEK BYLICA, Principal Adviser and Special Envoy for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament of the European External Action Service of the European Union, said that after the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), the bloc had revised its dual-use regulations in 2009 to include export controls, controls on transit, as well as brokering and transhipment issues. Since 2004, the European Union had invested €17 million in an outreach programme with 28 partner countries on non-proliferation and export controls over dual-use goods.
Since 2000, the member States of the European Union had regulated export controls on dual-use goods through community law, which had been amended regularly in response to growing and specific challenges, he said. The four export-control regime lists had also been merged. Outside Europe, it supported regional and national efforts to implement resolution 1540 (2004) through subregional workshops, country visits, experts meetings, training and public relations efforts. In addition, it had adopted a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear action plan in 2009, he said, adding that it contained 133 internal measures to prevent, detect and respond to threats. In the area of partnerships, he said the European Union and the United States had signed a joint declaration in 2011 on resolutions 1540 (2004) and 1977 (2011).
GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said the universal and balanced implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) depended on Member States playing a central role, adding that assistance and exchanging information were the two key elements of effective implementation. In addition to finding ways to advance the role of assistance between donors and States, it was time for the 1540 Committee to go beyond its clearinghouse function and play a more direct role, through the establishment of training programmes, for example.
KINGSLEY MAMABOLO ( South Africa) said the challenges facing the international community in the area of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems could only be addressed effectively through inclusive multilateralism. The relevant international regimes provided clear recognition of the inextricable link between disarmament and non-proliferation, although the threat posed by such weapons could not be eliminated through non-proliferation measures alone. South Africa was proud of its control system, while recognizing that no system was either fool proof or static in a world of rapid technological advances. At the same time, under no circumstances should some States impose unwarranted restrictions on the inalienable right of others to use materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes. He concluded by noting that there was little incentive for States, some of which were under-resourced and overburdened in other areas of their development, to commit to onerous reporting standards.
HARALD BRAUN ( Germany) said his Government continued to provide substantial support and assistance to the implementation efforts of other States through the European Union’s assistance programme in the area of export controls. Ways in which to enhance assistance could be included in a medium-term strategy yet to be elaborated, while promoting synergies with other counter-terrorism, he suggested, adding that non-proliferation bodies could also help to enhance implementation. Implementation required the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including the private sector. Germany had hosted two international industry outreach conferences on resolution 1540 (2004), and envisaged convening a conference on governance and compliance management later this year, which could explore ways for industry to complement State efforts in the areas of bio-security, chemical and nuclear security and transport, among others.
GUILLERMO RISHCHYNSKI ( Canada) said his country would undertake a joint initiative with the Republic of Korea to outline a series of concrete steps for advancing implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), both domestically and internationally. Canada had submitted three national reports to the 1540 Committee and was working with partners, through multilateral organizations, to encourage other countries to submit their initial national reports. Canada had also submitted a voluntary national summary action plan, and was supporting six regional workshops and related follow-up capacity-building activities for the implementation of international legal instruments relating to nuclear security, such as the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials.
PAUL SEGER (Switzerland) said national efforts must remain at the heart of resolution 1540 (2004), noting that while chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological threats were of a global nature, it was the individual responsibility of Member States to fulfil their obligations and implement the relevant provisions. Switzerland, in close cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), provided assistance in the areas of capacity-building, expertise and personnel, and had provided support to Iraq in relation to bio-safety and bio-security. He urged the international community to anticipate new challenges and consider meaningful ways to address them, including the dual-use implications and convergence of biology and chemistry. Switzerland would be holding a series of workshops on that matter and would inform the 1540 Committee of the results, he said.
SITI HAJJAR ADNIN (Malaysia), noting her country’s strategic location in one of the world’s busiest and most important international shipping routes, said its reliance on international trade necessitated a robust and clearly defined approach to the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). In 2010, Malaysia had enacted the Strategic Trade Act to ensure its standing as a safe and secure trading partner, while at the same time shouldering its responsibilities in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Malaysia realized that non-proliferation was a global concern requiring a global response, and had undertaken regional and subregional initiatives to complement and strengthen existing national efforts, while also offering assistance to other Member States through the 1540 Committee.
BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) deplored the use of major vacuums, with support from certain Member States, to provide chemical weapons and ingredients to terrorist groups in his country, noting that some members of the Security Council remained silent in the face of such violations. Armed terrorist groups had used weapons of mass destruction against civilians and the military in Syria with the support of other States. The Government of Syria had warned the Council and the Secretary-General of the risk of such actions, and had alerted them that certain States were facilitating the intention of terrorist groups to use chemical weapons inside Syria. However, Council members had decided to ignore the warnings, he said. While resolution 1540 (2004) called on Member States to refrain from providing support to terrorist groups attempting to use weapons of mass destruction, Syria's attempts to inform the Council of attempted violations were ignored. The Council had done nothing because influential States had prevented it from doing its duty in the face of threatened terrorist actions. Syria again called upon the Security Council to take up its responsibility to ensure that active terrorist groups in Syria were not able to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
ABDERRAZZAK LAASSEL ( Morocco) said his country had submitted its report in 2004 and had since updated it to the 1540 Committee. Mexico’s national efforts demonstrated its commitment through the strengthening of its legal system by incorporating international norms, combating terrorism and addressing trafficking issues and export standards. However, only active international cooperation and shared responsibility would lead to universal implementation, he emphasized. Legal and technical assistance were critical, he said, adding that assistance mechanisms should be strengthened, particularly those relating to Africa. Without regional strengthening, international efforts would not be effective, he cautioned.
SEBASTIANO CARDI (Italy), associating himself with the European Union, recalled that several States, including his own, had delivered the joint statement on promoting full and universal implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) at the third Nuclear Security Summit. Italy had also prioritized education, training and institutional capacity-building as essential in ensuring that the safety and security infrastructure was effective. Opportunities could be seized for weapons scientists to redirect their efforts to peaceful endeavours, he added, noting that synergies with the scientific community were crucial to implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). Italy was a member of the Proliferation Security Initiative, he added.
MIGUEL CAMILO RUIZ BLANCO ( Colombia) said his country had submitted three reports, the latest one in 2013. Colombia had convened a meeting of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism, and was planning an event to launch its national action plan. The national police had been crucial in providing responses to criminal actions involving illegal materials, he said, adding that training and assistance had been provided by international partners. He urged all Member States to commit themselves to concrete goals disarmament goals, including those relating to trafficking in small arms, among others.
KLAUS KORHONEN ( Finland), associating himself with the European Union, said his country contributed to non-proliferation projects and cooperative activities in various regions, ranging from Latin America to the Far East. Finland’s efforts were based mainly on a multi-benefit principle through the allocation and use of scarce resources. For example, measures to enable the detection of and response to biological weapons could also help to improve surveillance of diseases and other national public health capacities. Citing another example, he said resources used to detect the movement of terrorists across borders could also help in combating human trafficking. “We hit two balls by one strike,” he said. “We overcome the dichotomy between security and development. On the basis of a multi-benefit strategy we can promote both goals.”
RYSZARD SARKOWICZ ( Poland), speaking also for Croatia, said both countries viewed resolution 1540 (2004) as one of the most important elements of the global non-proliferation architecture. Both had taken measures to increase their law enforcement capabilities and capacity to respond to the challenges of illegal smuggling of materials related to weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors. In 2013, Croatia had adopted a national strategy and action plan defining its framework of actions for suppressing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In 2010, Poland had established an inter-ministerial committee which had defined its policy for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries had introduced the “1540-related peer review”, a bilateral framework for comparing experiences and examining implementation practices in 2013, with the aim of building country-specific dialogue and enhanced mutual cooperation, he said, adding that Croatia and Poland were ready to share their experience with other interested States.
IGNACIO YBÁÑEZ ( Spain) said his country had worked to develop a national plan in accordance with the recommendations of the 1540 Committee, including the development and update of a legal framework, the protection of critical facilities and control over sensitive transfers. Spain had organized a seminar with Mexico with the aim of exploring the implementation of various aspects of resolution 1540 (2004). Spain had also intensified its cooperation efforts through multilateral forums, while its bilateral cooperation efforts had resulted in an action plan for the prevention of threats related to weapons of mass destruction, under development in cooperation with Morocco, he said.
RODOLFO REYES ( Cuba) said that his country neither had, nor intended to have, any weapons of mass destruction. All its nuclear programmes were strictly for peaceful development and under rigorous control. He condemned other countries that imposed disarmament obligations on others while ignoring the need for the complete elimination of such weapons. Cuba, a party to 16 disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, would never allow the use of its territory for the deployment of such weapons. The international community should not attack other States, interfere in their affairs, or commit unilateral actions under the guise of fighting terrorism, he emphasized, describing his country’s “arbitrary” listing by the United States as a so-called State sponsor of international terrorism as an absurd designation that turned the list into an instrument of policy against Cuba.
ABDALLAH YAHYA A. AL-MOUALLIMI ( Saudi Arabia) said his country had been among the first to adopt resolutions on nuclear disarmament, including resolution 1540 (2004). It had established an academic programme on nuclear sciences, organized a workshop in 2011 to raise awareness of the resolution, and in 2012, contributed $500,000 to help the 1540 Committee carry out its tasks. At the global level, Saudi Arabia had acceded to international conventions and treaties on weapons of mass destruction, and to the Geneva Protocol on Toxic Gases. It had announced plans to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, notably to pursue sustainable development goals and preserve hydrocarbon resources. Affirming the legitimate right of States to own nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, he called attention to Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, reiterating the call for the Middle East’s designation as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including by inviting Israel to declare its weapons and allow inspectors into its facilities. Syria must destroy all chemical weapons and materials, he added, saying his country held the Syrian regime accountable in respect of chemical and all other weapons of mass destruction. They must not be transferred to any other parties, he stressed, voicing support for the creation of an international instrument to guarantee the safety of States that did not possess nuclear weapons
RI TONG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said his country had come to possess nuclear weapons for self-defence purposes. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only way to guarantee non-proliferation, he said, adding that his country’s leader had appealed for the entire Korean nation to move towards national reunification. The National Defence Commission had proposed to the Republic of Korea the suspension of all mutual slander and all hostile military actions, especially joint military exercises. It had also taken the unilateral step of suspending its slandering of “the other side”, as well as all military moves along the demarcation line. It had proposed high-level talks, which had been held, and accepted a proposal by the South for holding family reunions. However, the United States had ignored those positive moves and instead moved to increase tensions on the peninsula, saying there would be no change in its policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and that joint military exercises would be held as planned. Those exercises threatened his country's security, he said.
YURIY SERGEYEV (Ukraine) said that, in his country’s 20 years as a State party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, it had thoroughly implemented all provisions of resolution 1540 (2004). Ukraine’s decision to remove all nuclear weapons from its territory and to accede to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State had been adopted under strict conditions. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom had welcomed Ukraine’s actions and committed to respecting its independence, sovereignty and existing borders. However, the Russian Federation’s deliberate aggression and annexation of Crimea, as well as its support for terrorist groups operating in eastern Ukraine, undermined the foundations of global security and security, he said, adding that the neighbouring State was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which stipulates that “States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner”.
KAIRAT ABDRAKHMANOV ( Kazakhstan) called for intensified efforts for full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), saying that, on the regional level, his country had been actively engaged in several initiatives and was implementing the decisions of the three summits on nuclear security. Proposing that the cycle be extended beyond 2016, he said his country would be willing to convene such a summit in 2020. Because it was a substantial producer and supplier of uranium, it had instituted the 2007 Export Control Act, which followed the most stringent international standards. Furthermore, it was a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and of the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, among others, and was awaiting accession to the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.
RON PROSOR ( Israel) said that, despite the Council’s resolutions against weapons proliferation, more must be done to stem the flow of arms, particularly to the Middle East. Israel had seized a shipment of advanced rockets bound for the Gaza Strip in March, and through the years, had discovered tens of thousands of munitions and rockets. Syria had announced that it possessed no weapons of mass destruction, lying to the international community, and the elimination of its chemical weapons must be verified and validated, he emphasized. Israel had instituted significant legal measures to fight terrorism and was closely engaged in non-proliferation initiatives. Warning that the world was more dangerous than ever before, he stressed that resolution 1540 (2004) must be strengthened with real preventative measures, enforcement mechanisms and consequences for terrorists and rogue regimes.
JORGE MONTAÑO ( Mexico) said the destruction of weapons of mass destruction was the best guarantee of non-proliferation. Strengthening strategic control over the trade in dual-use goods and technologies was among the measures that had led Mexico to join three like-minded international groups. Governments must establish effective restrictions on trade in dual-use goods that would be in compliance with international agreements. The 1540 Committee must work to achieve universal national reporting, he said, calling on States that had not yet done so to submit their reports.
MOHAMED AL HAKIM ( Iraq) said his country had acceded to all international treaties and conventions relating to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and supported the strengthening of their universality. Iraq had implemented a series of measures, including legislative steps, to prohibit the spread of nuclear weapons, and had put local controls in place to regulate materials needed for their production. The Government had submitted four national reports, as required by resolution 1540 (2004). Iraq regretted the actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its failure to respect its obligations under the resolution, he said, stressing that full implementation of its requirements to ban or stop non-State actors from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction was imperative.
OCH OD ( Mongolia), citing paragraph 4 of resolution 1540 (2004), said his country had submitted its initial report in 2005 and its second last month. Mongolia had worked to promote non-proliferation by joining all major international frameworks and ensuring full implementation of its national obligations under multilateral agreements. At the national level, it had taken measures to establish a monitoring mechanism and enforced legislative acts prohibiting non-State actors from manufacturing, developing or transferring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. As for strengthening the legal environment, Mongolia had renewed a law prohibiting the stationing of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction on its territory, he said, recalling that, in January, the Government had established a working group to monitor implementation of non-proliferation laws. It had recommended intensifying efforts to improve border controls, among other measures.
LEVENT ELER ( Turkey) said that, given its location in a region with particular challenges in respect of proliferation, his country valued all initiatives aimed at preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1540 (2004) was a solid and compelling basis for efforts to prevent proliferation, complementing existing international treaties and conventions. Robust export controls were crucial in combating the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, their means of delivery and all related technology. Interagency coordination and cooperation, as well as timely and effective intelligence-sharing were crucial, and Turkey strongly supported the strengthening of all assistance and cooperation mechanisms. The development of realistic and applicable methods to reinforce transit controls should remain a priority. Turkey’s track record against proliferation and its commitment to international mechanisms was clear, he said, rejecting any “baseless” allegations that suggested otherwise.
GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI ( Iran) said every effort should be made, in accordance with international law, to rid the world of inhumane weapons of mass destruction and ensure that they never fell into the hands of terrorists. However, such efforts should not distract attention from the real threat, which was the continuing existence of thousands of weapons in the arsenals of the nuclear-weapon States. Arguments raised when the Council had adopted resolution 1540 (2004) included the failure to acknowledge that the link between non-proliferation and disarmament remained pertinent and valid, he said. The international community should exert maximum efforts for the fulfilment of States’ legal obligations and commitments under treaties on weapons of mass destruction. While the Council had the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, it had no right to assume the role of prescribing legislative action by Member States, he said, emphasizing that there was a clear conflict between the Council’s action in adopting resolution 1540 (2004) and the power and function of the General Assembly in the progressive development and codification of international law. Issues relating to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring weapons of mass destruction should be addressed by the Assembly on the basis of consensus, he stressed.
TALAIBEK KYDYROV ( Kyrgyzstan) said that his country had carried out measures to bolster the national export control regime and strengthen the monitoring of materials used in weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, it had ratified the main international non-proliferation instruments and regarded international safeguards and the protection of nuclear materials as the first line of defence against nuclear terrorism. Kyrgyzstan had submitted three reports on its implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), in 2004, 2006 and 2008. In 2013, it had submitted its national action plan, which was based on the idea that countries with appropriate capacities would provide assistance to those requiring help in implementing the resolution. He urged early ratification of the Protocol on Negative Security Assurances by the “nuclear five”.
JIM MCLAY (New Zealand) applauded the successes arising from the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), including efforts to engage constructively with Member States on their capacity needs, proactive attempts to capture synergies between implementation and other development and capacity-building needs, and the collective political will of States to secure existing weapons of mass destruction and impose effective controls. New Zealand was one of 47 countries providing assistance to others in implementation of the resolution’s requirements and had allocated $7 million since 2004 to initiatives including the G-8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Challenges remained, however, and the confirmed 2013 use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria was a stark reminder of the horrific power of such weapons, justifying even greater political support for preventing their proliferation.
KAREL VAN OOSTEROM ( Netherlands) said the historic adoption of resolution 1540 (2004) was a crucial step in preventing terrorist groups from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction. Even today, there was a real risk that non-State actors could acquire or develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, he warned, emphasizing that effective multilateralism, strong bilateral partnerships and robust national implementation were of key importance to achieving the common goal of eliminating them. For its part, the Netherlands had taken robust measures to ensure compliance with the resolution, including in terms of controls, a new bio-security regime and other safety measures. It had also hosted the Nuclear Security Summit, and was one of 33 countries that had signed up to a joint statement issued in The Hague, which focused on better implementation, reporting and provision of assistance, among other things. Looking ahead, the focus should shift from raising awareness to effective implementation, he said.
ANDREI DAPKIUNAS ( Belarus) said that, as long as weapons of mass destruction were the legitimate entitlement of a few, rather than an evil to be abolished, technological advances aimed at stopping their proliferation would never suffice. There was a need to address the root causes of proliferation, which were political, social and shaped by economic injustice. Recalling that his country had suffered three quarters of the radioactive fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, history’s largest civil nuclear accident, he said that by joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1993, Belarus had become the first country to renounce, voluntarily and without preconditions, the possession of operational nuclear weapons deployed on its territory. For decades, it had advocated the prohibition of new weapons of mass destruction, he said, stressing that real breakthroughs would only happen when world leaders realized that empathy was the surest way to influence an opponent.
SIMONA MICULESCU (Romania), associating herself with the European Union, said that all States in a position to provide assistance should do so, as her country had done in providing technical assistance to neighbouring countries. In a global world, the risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was most often associated with transnational organized crime, illicit trafficking and corruption, a reality that called for integrated efforts and approaches in addressing such risks in a comprehensive manner. Integrated approaches were all the more necessary in light of scarce resources, she added.
TOFIG MUSAYEV ( Azerbaijan) said that the direct relevance of resolution 1540 (2004) for his region was obvious. Affected by armed conflict, aggression, foreign military occupation, violent extremism, terrorism and transnational organized crime, it could easily become a proliferation-prone area. Azerbaijan defined proliferation as one of the key challenges to its national security. In addition to being a State party to relevant international legal instruments, it also participated in multilateral efforts such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. On the national level, it had an effective export control system in place to prevent illegal activities, and had taken full account of its international legal obligations. Furthermore, Azerbaijan had hosted national and international events on effective implementation of resolution 1540 (2014). He stressed that, in a time when challenges to international peace and security continued unabated, more concerted action and synergy were needed on all levels, and the need for greater international assistance was acute.
KATARINA LALIĆ SMAJEVIĆ (Serbia) described her country’s efforts to improve legislation, standards and practices for ensuring adherence to resolution 1540 (2004), saying that the Government had adopted a national action plan for the period 2012-2016 for its implementation, the first country in the region to have done so. It had established a working group to oversee the action plan, she added. In 2013, Serbia had become the forty-ninth member of the Nuclear Supplier Group, and had adopted a law on the controlling exports of dual-use goods. It also had drafted two laws on control over exports of arms and military equipment, and implementation of international restrictive measures. In May 2013, Serbia had hosted the first regional workshop on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), where participants had adopted informal recommendations on priority topics for the region, she said.
ANDREJ LOGAR ( Slovenia) cautioned that, while the world was better-equipped to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors thanks to efforts under resolution 1540 (2004), the global community should not be complacent. It should instead strive for universal implementation. While crediting international efforts to strengthen export controls, Slovenia urged all Member States to establish and ensure effective functioning of national export-control mechanisms. More should be done to enhance cooperation with international and regional organizations, and efforts to work closely with financial institutions should be promoted, he said.
DER KOGDA ( Burkina Faso) said that his country continued its efforts to uphold resolution 1540 (2004), recalling that, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council between 2008 and 2009, it had introduced several initiatives. Furthermore, the visit to Burkina Faso by the 1540 Committee’s experts had shown its commitment to non-proliferation. It was a State party to many international instruments, and it was to be hoped that the experts’ visit would lead to assistance and technical help, he said, urging all Member States to act openly in creating the conditions for disarmament and non-proliferation.
SABRI BOUKADOUM ( Algeria) urged all States to bring comprehensive safeguard agreements into force as soon as possible, cautioning, however, that such they should be implemented without violating the right of States to the peaceful use of technology. Resolution 1540 (2004) had been adopted at the right time to face the risk posed by the dangerous nexus of terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation remained a great challenge, and implementation of the resolution was a long-term task requiring action on all levels — national, regional and international. In a show of cooperation and commitment, Algeria had fulfilled its obligations under the resolution and had participated in the three nuclear security summits, he said.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN ( Bangladesh) said the urgent concerns of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction were among the more pre-eminent threats to collective global security in the twenty-first century. Reaffirming his country’s strong commitment to full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) he said it unequivocally supported all international efforts to promote a more peaceful and safer world. As a State without weapons of mass destruction, Bangladesh believed that as long as some States were so armed, others would also pursue their acquisition. The only absolute guarantee against the possible use, abuse or misuse of weapons of mass destruction, and there acquisition by terrorists and other non-State actors, was their total abolition, he emphasized.
IB PETERSEN (Denmark), associating himself with the European Union, expressed deep concern that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and continued down its “dangerous” path of ballistic missile launches, nuclear tests and material production of nuclear weapons. States must make clear that such actions carried consequences, he emphasized. As for Iran’s nuclear programme, he called for a long-term settlement that would restore confidence in its exclusively peaceful nature, noting that Denmark had donated €270,000 to help IAEA monitor implementation of the 2013 Joint Plan of Action. It had also pledged €1.1 million to the Agency’s Nuclear Security Fund to secure nuclear installations and materials in developing countries. Noting that less than 10 per cent of declared chemical substances remained inside Syria, he stressed that it was vital to transport the remainder out of the country without delay.
RODNEY CHARLES ( Trinidad and Tobago), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said the region had developed a unified approach to the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) which had led to significant progress in a relatively short time. CARICOM’s experience demonstrated that all States, regardless of economic, trade or strategic standing, could assume collective responsibility for preventing the proliferation or weapons of mass destruction, regardless of the level of participation in the strategic global supply chain. It underscored the notion that, if provided with appropriate resources, even small States, such as those in the Caribbean, could develop mechanisms for the effective and measurable advancement of non-proliferation, he said.
Before the CARICOM initiative, no group of States had endeavoured to implement a major Security Council mandate in a unified manner, he said. The success of CARICOM’s efforts had resulted in other regional organizations adopting the same approach, seeking to leverage common structural and administrative assets to advance implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). The CARICOM States were all too cognizant of the region’s susceptibility to external shocks, including those resulting from the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, he said. Although they had not occurred in the Caribbean, their economic impact in the first year after they had occurred had resulted in losses exceeding $900 million in revenue and thousands of jobs, particularly in the tourism and hospitality sectors, he noted.
MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ ( Montenegro) said progress had been made since the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), but challenges remained. Among them were increased potential access to weapons of mass destruction and related materials, which showed the growing need to be vigilant about the dangerous nexus between those arms and global terrorism. Commitments must be made to continuous and long-term efforts and actions, including finding innovative ways to engage all stakeholders. For its part, Montenegro would soon be adopting its 2014-2018 National Action Plan and the latest report on the implementation of the resolution. The Plan included concrete steps and measures for all involved actors that would contribute to more effective compliance with the resolution.
Mr. SAMUELIAN ( Armenia) said that his country fully supported the extension of the resolution 1540 (2004) mandate and had undertaken several measures for its comprehensive implementation, including the establishment of national controls. Armenia had also begun the process of developing a national action plan for the implementation of the resolution. It was hoped that the document would be finalized no later than July 2014 and implemented shortly thereafter.
LIBRAN CABACTULAN ( Philippines) said that, since the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), non-proliferation efforts had moved forward, but only slightly, and the international community had not yet achieved its collective goal. The clear call was to move forward and work closely together. It was an individual and collective responsibility to have the political will to follow through on the commitments and obligations outlined in the resolution. The Philippines had undertaken a full range of national efforts, while continuing to recognize the value of international cooperation and coordination to achieve concrete non-proliferation objectives. It was crucial for the international community to remain engaged with each other to advance and enhance non-proliferation initiatives. The road towards reaching such shared objectives remained long and much work remained.
GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru), while commending the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), said that no country was exempt from the risk of terrorist attacks, so therefore, it was necessary to have the joint implementation of international instruments on weapons of mass destruction. Peru was committed to efforts for complete disarmament to weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, which were threats to international peace and security. Peru had adopted various measures towards the effective implementation of the obligations of the resolution and had adapted its national legislation according to the resolution’s requirements. Peru’s commitment was further displayed in its efforts to organize two regional seminars to disseminate information on the content and scope of the resolution and identity opportunities for regional cooperation in that regard.
The full text of presidential statement S/PR/ST/2014/7 reads as follows:
“The Security Council, meeting at the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), reaffirms that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constitutes a threat to international peace and security.
“The Security Council remains gravely concerned by the threat of terrorism, and the risk that non-State actors may acquire, develop, traffic in or use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery.
“The Security Council, recognizing the urgent need for all States to take additional effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, reaffirms that States shall take effective measures to prevent non-state actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and to establish domestic controls to prevent their proliferation. The Security Council calls upon all States to step up their efforts to implement resolution 1540 (2004), focusing on areas where measures taken may be strengthened, with a view to achieving full implementation of the resolution by 2021.
“The Security Council commends the contributions of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), and recalling resolution 1977 (2011), which extended the mandate of the Committee for 10 years, reaffirms its continued support for the Committee.
“The Security Council directs the Committee to monitor implementation of the resolution and urges all States to inform the Committee regularly on measures they have taken or intend to take to implement the resolution. In particular, the Security Council calls upon all States that have not yet presented their first reports on the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) to do so without delay, in line with the Committee’s objective of achieving universal reporting.
“The Security Council recommends the Committee to consider developing a strategy towards full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) and incorporating such strategy in the Committee’s Comprehensive Review on the status of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), which is to be submitted to the Security Council before December 2016.
“The Security Council recalls its decision that Member States shall inform immediately the Security Council of any violation of resolution 1540 (2004), including acquisition by non-State actors of chemical weapons, their means of delivery and related materials in order to take necessary measures.
“The Security Council recognizes that many States continue to require assistance in implementing resolution 1540 (2004) and stresses the need of enhanced assistance in this area. The Security Council encourages and supports national, regional and sub-regional capacity-building events as a means to support the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004).
“The Security Council reiterates the need to continue to enhance ongoing cooperation among the Committee and relevant Committees as necessary.
“The Security Council recognizes the importance of countering nuclear, chemical and biological threats in the context of resolution 1540 (2004). In this regard, the Security Council reaffirms the necessity to prevent non-State actors access to, or assistance and financing for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials and their means of delivery. The Security Council emphasizes the need for the Committee to coordinate its nonproliferation work with other international, regional and sub-regional organizations.
“The Security Council notes the outcome of The Hague Nuclear Security Summit Communiqué of March 2014 recognizing the significant contribution made by the United Nations to strengthening nuclear security, including the work undertaken by the 1540 Committee.
“The Security Council encourages the Committee, at its discretion, to draw on relevant expertise, including civil society, industry and the private sector, with, as appropriate, their States’ consent.”
* *** *