Ahead of an open debate on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and other non-State groups, the Security Council called today for intensified efforts to ensure the development of a secure international framework for that purpose in the face rapid technological advances and increasingly ambitious malefactors.
Unanimously adopting resolution 2325 (2016), the Council called on all States to strengthen national anti-proliferation regimes in implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) — which seeks to keep non-State actors from acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction — and to submit timely reports on their efforts. It called for greater assistance for building State capacity in that regard, including through voluntary contributions, and for greater cooperation among all stakeholders, civil society and academia among them.
Also by that text, the Council endorsed a recent review of such efforts (document S/2016/1013). Its findings included an increase in the number of legally binding measures adopted by States with the aim of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also a lack of progress towards securing the production, use, storage and transportation of materials related to chemical and biological threats. There had been uneven progress across regions in that regard.
Delivering a briefing as he opened the day-long meeting, Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson declared: “Preventing non-State actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.” He continued: “In our rapidly evolving global security environment, gaps will continue to open.”
He said vicious non-State groups with no regard for human life were actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, deepening concern over unregulated stockpiles of fissile material, new means of producing biological weapons and abuse of cyber technology that made the hacking of nuclear power plants plausible. To stay ahead of the curve, greater multilateral prevention and response capability must be built, he emphasized. To finally end the threat, however, States should work towards a world free of weapons of mass destruction.
High Representative Kim said that since the review, the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass production (1540 Committee) had substantially expanded its outreach, but its capacity to respond to Member States’ requests for assistance was declining. He urged States in a position to do so to respond to the call contained in the resolution adopted today for voluntary contributions and high-quality assistance that would meet national needs for comprehensive implementation of the 1540 regime.
Mr. Finlay noted that globalization had fundamentally altered the drivers of proliferation, citing access to illicit intangible technology transfers. The 1540 Committee’s Group of Experts was overwhelmed and the Committee should consider widening its global network of supporters in all sectors, including industry and civil society, he said.
Mr. Min added that the private firms should never be a proxy for law enforcement, but should have strong internal compliance programmes to prevent malicious non-State actors from exploiting their services. Describing DHL’s global screening system, he said harmonized regulatory requirements could harmonize such efforts.
Following those briefings, speakers emphasized the risks posed by weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors, and called for full implementation of the resolution just adopted as well as 1540 (2004). Most speakers welcomed the new text’s call for a focus on evolving threats and building the capacity to ensure compliance in all States. Others said that requests for assistance should be more specific so that they could be more effectively fulfilled.
Some speakers, including the United Kingdom’s Attorney General, expressed regret that today’s text did not provide more tools to help the 1540 Committee promote national implementation. China’s representative, however, cautioned that such measures must not overstep their bounds and impinge on national sovereignty.
Many speakers condemned the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq, while several voiced regret over the weak outcome of the recent review conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. Some urged the Security Council to strengthen its ability not only to prevent, but also to respond, to the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. The Russian Federation’s representative underlined the need for a holistic approach to that task and urged support for his country’s proposals in that regard.
Also speaking today were representatives of Spain, Senegal, New Zealand, Angola, Ukraine, Venezuela, Uruguay, Japan, France, Malaysia, United States, Egypt, Chile, Colombia, Sweden, Italy, Pakistan, Brazil, Jamaica, Pakistan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Philippines, Poland, Germany, Mexico, Argentina, Hungary, India, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Israel, Slovenia, Australia, Slovakia, Kyrgyzstan, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Netherlands, Peru, South Africa, Morocco, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ecuador, Belgium, Georgia, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Panama, Afghanistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Jordan, Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria.
Also addressing the Council were the Permanent Observer for the Holy See as well as representatives of the European Union, African Union, Organization of American States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Other speakers were officials representing the Financial Action Task Force, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, International Atomic Energy Agency, Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear Suppliers Group, INTERPOL and the United Nations University.
The meeting began at 10:05 a.m. and ended at 5:53 p.m.
JAN ELIASSON, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, declared: “Preventing non-State actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.” Reviewing United Nations efforts in that regard, he cautioned that gaps would continue to open in the rapidly evolving global security environment. “Vicious non-State groups with no regard for human life” were actively seeking increasingly accessible weapons of mass destruction, he said, noting in that regard that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) had already used chemical weapons.
He went on to state that the security of large stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material outside international regulation deepened that concern, as did scientific advances that had lowered barriers to the production of biological weapons and access to 3D printing and unmanned aerial vehicles. With non-State actors already able to create mass disruption through the abuse of cyber technology, the nightmare scenario of a hack on a nuclear power plant causing an uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation grew increasingly plausible, he emphasized. To stay ahead of the technological curve, robust and nimble defences would be needed.
Tools like resolution 1540 (2004) must constantly be kept fit for purpose, he said, stressing that efforts on all levels must be boosted and multilateral response capability built, he continued. Among other efforts, the Security Council had a role to play in holding those who used chemical or other inhumane weapons accountable, he said, underling the need to strengthen the collective defence at every opportunity. “I count on States to work together to prevent potential disasters,” he said, adding: “I count on the Council to lead.” It was not a case of simply letting weapons fall into the wrong hands. “There are no right hands for wrong weapons.” Only the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction would end the threat, he stressed, urging all States to fulfil their commitments to building a world free of them.
KIM WON-SOO, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said resolution 1540 (2014) had been a bulwark against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors. Noting that the threat of such actors acquiring such a weapon was not receding, he said the resolution recognized the growing threats associated with biological weapons. More work must be done to implement preventative measures, he said, adding that the new resolution could lead to augmented sharing of information on biological threats among Governments, regional and other organizations.
Turning to the question of disruptive technology, he said States must take advances in information technology into account. The 1540 Committee could hold an open meeting on emerging technologies that could be adapted for use as a means of delivery, he suggested. It could also establish contacts with the industry on how the private sector could self-regulate in relation to the use of technology. Noting that the Committee had substantially expanded its outreach since the last review, and was now reaching 188 States, that was not enough, he emphasized.
Noting that the capacity to respond to Member States’ requests for help was declining, he said the Committee also needed institutional support, emphasizing the need to ensure that its resources and those of the Office for Disarmament Affairs were used in the most efficient way. The Office counted on the Security Council to continue to enhancing preventative measures but also to look ahead at risk point challenges in case prevention failed. One must be prepared, he said, stressing that total and universal elimination was the ultimate guarantee against any use of weapons of mass destruction.
BRIAN D. FINLAY, President and CEO, The Stimson Center, said that organization had supported the work of the 1540 Committee since 2004. Since then, advances in science and technology had hastened ill-intentioned non-State actors, facilitating their access to the world’s most dangerous weapons and technologies of mass destructions. Globalization had fundamentally altered the drivers of proliferation, he said, citing access to illicit and intangible technology transfers and steady increases in nuclear, biological and chemical incidents, among other examples.
Applauding Spain’s Security Council Presidency, he noted that the Council had widened interest in and access to resolution 1540 (2004) by constituencies beyond national Governments. However, the 1540 Committee’s Group of Experts was overwhelmed, he said, emphasizing that nine experts could not hope to keep pace with the evolving proliferation landscape, nor with the activities and demands of 193 Member States. The 1540 Committee should consider widening its global network of supporters, he suggested, noting Canada’s proposal calling for targeted implementation support for the 1540 Committee. Assistance could be provided not only by official entities but also by legal specialists, industry leaders and scholars.
He went on to state that civil society could present a no-cost additive supportive mechanism by working with national authorities to identify critical risks and capacity gaps, developing actionable assistance requests and working with the 1540 Committee to match those requests with donors or even providing assistance directly. Only by inculcating civil society, industry and the general public with shared strong values against proliferation could the full and effective implementation of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) be realized, he stressed. The Government of Finland had paved the way with an innovative “whole of society” approach to implementing the resolution, he noted, underlining the need to scale and replicate Finland’s approach globally.
JAMES MIN, Vice-President, International Trade Law and Head, Global Trade Law Practice Group, at DHL Global Business Services, described that entity as a global leader in mail and logistics operating in almost all countries. That international presence was challenging in a global environment of conflict, political tensions and non-State actors, he said, noting that global businesses benefited from international stability, trade and economic integration. A multinational company could neither be profitable nor increase its brand value in the long run if it ignored international norms, legal requirements and potential risks to global security, he emphasized.
Cooperation among national Governments was not enough to meet the goals of resolution 1540 (2004), he continued, stressing that the private and public sectors must work together in combating illicit activities by non-State actors. The Wiesbaden Process, initiated by the Government of Germany, was a model for facilitating dialogue between the two sectors. Businesses like DHL had a unique vantage point from which to initiate cooperation with the public sector to ensure that non-State actors did not abuse logistical services for illicit purposes, he said. While private businesses should never be a proxy of law enforcement, they should have strong internal compliance programmes to prevent malicious non-State actors from exploiting their services.
He went on to say that DHL had instituted a global screening system that used lists of restricted individuals and entities designated by the United Nations or national Governments to reduce the chance of their gaining access to services with the potential to harm global security. One of the challenges facing private industry was the differing requirements and standards contained in export-control laws, he said, adding that uniform or harmonized regulatory requirements would make it easier for multinational businesses to comply, maximize the effectiveness of resolution 1540 (2004), and enhance cooperation with the public sector. One good example was the Wassenaar Arrangement, which set global standards for classifying dual-use goods, he noted. He concluded by stating that it was harder than ever before for national Governments to combat illicit activities by non-State actors on their own. That would require greater cooperation across borders and, more importantly, between the public and private sectors, he emphasized.
ALFONSO DASTIS, Council President for December and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, recalled his country’s leadership role in the review of resolution 1540 (2004), and emphasized that the United Nations must not flinch in ensuring that humanitarian law was upheld despite the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors. Threats were constantly growing and evolving, he said, emphasizing: “We cannot remain impassive.”
The resolution just adapted was a step towards preventing a global catastrophe, substantially improving the original text’s effectiveness without weakening its basic tenets, he said. International cooperation, transparency, as well as the role and effectiveness of civil society had all been strengthened, as had the capacity to provide direct assistance for national implementation. However, the text would be a dead letter without a firm commitment by all stakeholders to completely fulfil all its provisions and remain vigilant, he stressed, pledging that Spain, for one, would continue to spare no effort to strengthen and promote the work of the 1540 Committee.
MANKEUR NDIAYE, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senegalese Abroad of Senegal, said that the resolution adopted today, if implemented, was an ideal framework for strengthening the fight against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors. There should be an inventory of all possible sources of such weapons in order to secure or eliminate them, he suggested. The review process had helped Member States and relevant organizations and civil society to focus their actions on a more global coordinated approach, he said, noting that its recommendations had led to the proposal of concrete, practical steps. Senegal urged the strengthening of cooperation in monitoring financial flows and the Internet, he added.
Emphasizing the importance of supporting cooperation between the 1540 Committee and African countries, he welcomed the regional approach that the Committee had adopted. African nations continued their efforts to improve assistance, legislation, dialogue with civil society as well as regional and subregional organizations. Urging the strengthening of early-warning systems, he said there was also a need for a mechanism to improve coordination between countries requiring assistance and those providing it. Senegal had established a mechanism for detecting activities by non-State actors through its national commission in charge of nuclear security, he said, adding that, among other things, it brought together ministerial departments involved in policies relating to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
MURRAY MCCULLY, Minister for Foreign Affairs of New Zealand, said his country was a strong supporter of the 1540 regime and of Spain-led efforts to upgrade and expand that regime so as to make it more efficient and responsive to the realities of today. Expressing disappointment that some Council members had limited the full realization of today’s proposal, he said New Zealand was also frustrated by the “extraordinary aversion of some Council members to ideas that would seem like simple common sense in any other context”. The risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists arose when a State lacked the systems or capabilities to deal with such a threat and would benefit from more active cooperation, he noted. Yet, the Council had been unable to endorse the resolution’s simple proposition that it take the initiative to offer such cooperation through the 1540 Committee.
The objection was that such an offer might be construed as inconsistent with State sovereignty or constitute an unwarranted intrusion in internal affairs, he noted. However, if the Council continued to constrain itself with such excessively sensitive notions, it risked becoming increasingly ineffective and irrelevant, he stressed. Noting the small size and limited capacity of Pacific small island developing States to enact and implement complex 1540 legislative requirements, often not directly relevant to them, he said it was neither sensible nor realistic to impose the same administrative and reporting burdens on countries like Tuvalu or Nauru as on much larger countries such as France, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Egypt, Uruguay or New Zealand. He applauded today’s resolution for urging the 1540 Committee to prioritize efforts targeting specific risks as well as the countries and regions most vulnerable to proliferation.
JEREMY WRIGHT, Attorney General for England and Wales of the United Kingdom, described the resolution just adopted as a step towards preventing the kind of tragic attacks that were already occurring in Syria, as well as worse catastrophes. Progress had been made under the 1540 regime, but many gaps remained, some of which the resolution addressed.
Emphasizing that anti-proliferation efforts must be targeted to the most important areas, as directed by the text, he said it also highlighted the need for the 1540 regime to advance with the emergence of new technologies, and encouraged cooperation with civil society and academia. Calling for full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), he pledged that his country would continue its efforts to work with all stakeholders in that regard.
MANUEL DOMINGOS AUGUSTO, Minister of External Relations of the Republic of Angola, said that multilateral efforts, cooperation, partnerships and the sharing of best practices were of key importance in the pursuit of collective security. Over the years, the 1540 Committee had made a tangible contribution to progress in implementing resolution 1540 (2004), but greater attention must be paid to the decline in the number of requests for assistance from Member States. Providing technical assistance through regional and subregional organizations could lead to sounder implementation of the resolution, he added.
African countries had made a concerted effort in their efforts for implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), he said, noting that the African Union had held a conference in April in that regard. Angola had established a commission coordinated by the Ministry of National Defence to act as a focal point on weapons of mass destruction, he said, describing its training courses on control and proper use of chemical and biological agents. Angola did not own or produce weapons of mass destruction, he noted, adding that it advocated greater sharing of information and know-how among States, as well as assistance in implementing international legal instruments.
SERGII KYSLYTSYA, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, associated himself with the statement to be delivered by the European Union delegation, but not with that of the Commonwealth of Independent States. He said the resolution adopted today identified areas requiring improvement and contained recommendations for the adoption of new measures. Results thus far had been achieved under difficult circumstances, he said, noting that Member States had different interpretations of resolution 1540 (2004) and various approaches to its implementation. Urgent measures were needed to strengthen the framework against the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by non-State actors, terrorists in particular, he stressed.
The conclusions of the comprehensive review showed that improvements had been made, but despite measures taken by Member States, the world faced increasingly complex threats posed by, among other things, the rapid technological developments. He also underlined that the erosion of the existing global order, violations of international law as well as ongoing conflicts weakened the architecture of the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons non-proliferation framework as a whole.
VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation) described today’s resolution as the roadmap for the future, and emphasized the need for continuing positive momentum in implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). That would require resources and focus on the part of Member States as well as cooperation with the 1540 Committee. The resolution appealed to States to take into account developments in science, technology and international trade that could be used by non-State actors, he noted. It also involved a regional component, including regional conferences and seminars, in the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). Welcoming its focus on the need to make greater use of international and regional organizations in cooperation with the 1540 Committee, he noted that ISIL/Da’esh and other terrorist groups were using chemical weapons in Syria. Reports to that effect called for thorough investigation and rapid action by the Council, he said, underlining the need for a global and holistic approach.
RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela) noted the rapid development of new technologies that could be used by non-State actors, including terrorists, saying they were often of a dual-use nature and were disseminated ever widely. There had also been an increased use of drones, which were capable of violating State sovereignty and could also be used to disperse chemical or biological agents. Pointing out that ISIL/Da’esh was already using drones, he said the so-called dark web allowed terrorists to communicate safely with each other. Resolution 1540 (2004) could only be truly effective as far as it strengthened the capacity of all States and consolidated mechanisms for cooperation with regional organizations as well as assistance to States. Greater efforts were needed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, he said, emphasizing that the Latin America and Caribbean region remained a nuclear-free zone.
ELBIO ROSSELLI (Uruguay), describing the negotiations on today’s resolution as admirably inclusive, emphasized the pre-eminence of international law and the United Nations Charter in facing threats to use weapons of mass destruction. All States must live up to their disarmament and proliferation responsibilities, including those related to the need for the elimination of all such weapons. He welcomed the resolution’s focus on international and regional cooperation, and called for the strengthening of transparency and dialogue in all related efforts. Uruguay was developing an implementation plan, in conjunction with regional organizations and the 1540 Committee, he said.
KORO BESSHO (Japan), describing the development of nuclear and ballistic missile technology by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a blatant violation of Security Council resolutions, said it represented a challenge to the global non-proliferation regime. In order to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the international community must pay close attention to global trends. Citing an example, he recalled that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism had concluded that chemical weapons had been used in Syria. Concerning the newly adopted resolution, he emphasized the need to specify the items to be controlled. On the 1540 Committee’s role, he noted that it had received many assistance requests that failed to specify actual needs. The resolution attempted to address that situation by directing the Committee to help States formulate their requests.
FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France), associating himself with the statement to be delivered by the European Union delegation, condemned the development of nuclear weapons by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists must be an international priority, he said, emphasizing the need to strengthen implementation of existing tools by raising awareness, building capacity and updating legal frameworks, as France had done. The resolution just adopted was a step forward in that regard. Noting that his country was also prioritizing the security of nuclear and related materials, he called for international unity in the pursuit of advances in all such critical areas.
RAMLAN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said that development in science and technology over the past few years had created new challenges to implementation of the 1540 regime. Malaysia was pleased that the resolution took calls for the 1540 Committee to review international scientific, technological and commercial advances into account, he said, adding that his country’s implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) fell within the framework of the national Strategic Trade Act of 2004. Malaysia had taken the lead in developing and strengthening measures to ensure effective management of information on the protection of radioactive nuclear materials and facilities, he said, adding that the country was also cultivating relationships with industry with a view to building strategic trade management.
WU HAITAO (China) called for an improved common and consensual security architecture to prevent the threat of proliferation, building on all existing frameworks and on the right to use nuclear and related materials for peaceful purposes. China had actively supported the work of the 1540 Committee and had participated constructively in developing today’s resolution, he said. Promoting its implementation would require enhanced effectiveness of capacity-building assistance, at the request of the States concerned and consistent with their particular needs and situations. All measures must remain strictly within the bounds of non-proliferation efforts and not interfere with State policy prerogatives, he stressed. China would continue its efforts to strengthen the 1540 regime, he pledged.
MICHELE J. SISON (United States) said the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remained the gravest threat to international peace and security, emphasizing that an attack by non-State actors could not be prevented without cooperation between States and relevant organizations. Noting that the second review had reinforced the relevance of resolution 1540 (2004), she it had included representatives from the private sector, academia and civil society. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was an expanding threat, as demonstrated by the use of chemical weapons by non-State actors in Syria, she said, emphasizing that such a threat did not require a new mechanism, but more effective implementation of existing instruments. Non-State actors like private companies could contribute to such efforts, she added. Stressing that resolution 1540 (2004) applied equally to State and non-State actors, she said the comprehensive review process had been a success, adding that she would welcome a discussion in the Council on the enforcement of obligations contained in the text.
AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said that non-State armed groups and terrorists, as well as the proven use of chemical weapons in Syria represented increasing global security challenges. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa was facing genuine threats posed by ISIL/Da’esh and other terrorist organizations that could use such weapons, he said, pointing out that terrorism recognized no borders or moral strictures. The main concern was to prevent terrorists from acquiring dangerous materials and from recruiting the brain power that could produce them. Egypt called for streamlining the nature of commitments arising from the comprehensive review in order to maintain the preventative nature of anti-proliferation efforts while avoiding impractical measures and strengthening cooperation with Governments, regional and international organizations, as well as civil society. The one and only solution to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction lay in eliminating all such weapons, he stressed.
AHMET ÜZÜMCÜ, Director General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said the Chemical Weapons Convention called for engendering international cooperation, with a view to the destruction of 94 per cent of chemical weapons under international supervision. Their complete eradication would be a unique achievement but that goal remained elusive because they could be produced again, he said. Data reporting and enforcing national legislation was an important factor in that regard, he said, adding that inspections were also essential and that more than 3,000 had been carried out.
The effectiveness of regulatory measures was critical to preventing non-State actors from gaining access to materials that could be used for chemical weapons, he continued. The OPCW had helped States parties by reviewing drafts of their respective national legislation and its secretariat had offered on-site assistance upon request. While chemicals weighing hundreds of thousands of tons were legitimately traded every year, that trade required monitoring, he said, noting that the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board provided recommendations on mitigating proliferation risks emanating from technological and scientific advances.
RAJA ABDUL AZIZ RAJA ADNAN, Director of Nuclear Security at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that reports to that entity’s Incident and Trafficking Database indicated continuing reports of lost or stolen nuclear items such as highly enriched uranium and other radioactive materials. Although the amounts were far less than required to make a nuclear weapon, such thefts indicated an interest in such materials. The potential for missing radioactive sources to be used in a radiation-dispersal device could not be ruled out, he emphasized.
He said the IAEA had developed a document that provided recommended requirements for the physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as other radioactive items, as well as materials not under regulatory control. Its Ministerial Declaration, adopted in connection with last week’s Vienna international conference on nuclear security, highlighted the need to remain vigilant for threats and for concrete measures to protect against malicious acts involving nuclear or radioactive material. Each State bore full responsibility for nuclear security within its own borders, he said.
However, collective vigilance remained essential since nuclear security also depended on the effectiveness of nuclear security regimes in other States, he continued. The IAEA implemented its nuclear security assistance through mutually agreed Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans and encouraged States to share their Plans with the 1540 Committee, which helped the concerned State to demonstrate how it was meeting its obligations relating to nuclear materials, as set out in the resolution. Committee experts had been invited to attend the IAEA’s information-exchange meetings, and the Agency provided them with information on the assistance it had already provided, or planned to provide, to States that had requested the Committee’s assistance.
CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile) said that, as the threat of weapons of mass destruction evolved, it was necessary for States to develop effective measures. Strengthening national capacities, assistance and cooperation were particularly critical in advancing the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Chile had adopted necessary measures for the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), and had organized a training course for States in Latin America and the Caribbean in October. In addition, an effective national control system to combat the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and dual-use material had been established.
MARÍA EMMA MEJÍA VÉLEZ (Colombia) said the risk of weapons of mass destruction being used by non-State actors represented a major threat to international security. To prevent catastrophe, States needed support from the 1540 Committee and others in order to fulfil implementation. Help could include the crafting of action plans and fostering the exchange of experiences. All action regarding nuclear weapons should lead towards the complete eradication of nuclear arsenals, she said. With regard to chemical weapons, more education and outreach was needed, bringing together industry, academia, universities and research institutes. Regarding biological weapons, she emphasized the need to strengthen import and export controls as well as the rigorous end-use assessments. On strengthening resolution 1540 (2004), she proposed, among other measures, broadening the geographical representation of the 1540 Committee and promoting education and outreach in order to drive home the message of the responsible use of chemical, biological and nuclear material in line with international legal instruments.
OLOF SKOOG (Sweden), associating himself with the European Union, concurred with the urgency of keeping weapons of mass destruction away from terrorists while acknowledging the close connection of that effort with progress in disarmament and non-proliferation regimes. He expressed particular concern over reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq, as well as the weak results of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention. Noting his country’s international cooperation to strengthen implementation of the 1540 regime, he encouraged the 1540 Committee to help States develop specific assistance requests for the purpose of match-making and to conduct other outreach activities, in a way that did not impede global access to technology in general.
SEBASTIANO CARDI (Italy), associating himself with the European Union, welcomed the adoption of today’s text and stressed the importance of universal reporting on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). Given the importance of international cooperation in the face of new technologies, he expressed disappointment over the outcome of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention. He also stressed the need for more attention on protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. Detailing the participation of his country in cooperation to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction, he called for synergy between all international and regional bodies involved. He pledged continued full support to the activities of the 1540 Committee.
JACEK BYLICA, European Union, said resolution 1540 (2004) remained a central pillar of the international non-proliferation architecture, and must continue to be the cornerstone of a global agenda for stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-state actors. In a current environment in which the distinction between international and internal security was blurred, the resolution had become ever more important. The future development of the instrument should take into account new and emerging trends in nuclear, chemical and biological security. In that regard, the European Union had submitted proposals on how it could adapt to new security challenges.
As the threat against global security increased, so did the international community’s response, he continued. The European Union Global Strategy recently issued had provided the foundation to continue and even step up efforts in the coming years. The use of nuclear or biological weapons by non-State actors, particularly terrorists, would be catastrophic. It was completely unacceptable that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had concluded that a non-State actor had used chemical weapons in Iraq. However, by working together, the international community could succeed in preventing the worst case scenario.
ALISON AUGUST TREPPEL, Inter American Committee against Terrorism of the Organization of American States, underscored that the more complex and asymmetric the violence, the greater the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In most Latin American and Caribbean countries the human, financial and material resources allocated for emergency preparedness and response were limited. While the humanitarian impact of weapons of mass destruction was undeniable, few, if any, countries currently had the capacity to address the humanitarian consequences of an attack caused by such a weapon. The Organization of American States was committed to improving the effectiveness of existing non-proliferation and arms control systems. Because implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) must reconcile international security and strategic trade needs, her organization would continue to encourage enactment of legislation that supported both non-proliferation objectives and commercial interests, as well as criminalized offenses related to the proliferation and financing of weapons of mass destruction.
TETE ANTONIO, Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations, said the Union’s Defence and Security Division of its Peace and Security Department had recognized that chemical weapons had been the most widely used weapon of mass destruction and that terrorism had added a new dimension to the proliferation threat of that weapon. With the evolving threat of terrorism and transnational organized crime, the need to have a robust and transparent approach to prevent non-State actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction required a collective responsibility.
He said the twentieth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the Union in January 2013 had adopted a decision calling for the full and effective implementation of resolution 1977 (2011), which extended the mandate of resolution 1540 (2004). It had also requested the African Union Commission, in collaboration the 1540 Committee and relevant regional and international partners, to support Member States’ efforts in that regard. The Commission’s activities, combined with the indispensable technical support provided by the 1540 Committee, partner States and organizations, had contributed to achieving significant progress in implementing the resolution.
JUAN MANUEL VEGA SERRANO, President, Financial Action Task Force, said every movement of goods had an associated financial transaction. The Financial Action Task Force had been established in 1989 to combat money laundering associated with drug trafficking. In 2008, in response to threats of proliferation, the Task Force had taken up counter-proliferation. Effective standards set were enforced through peer review and follow-up. It was important to underline that the role of the Financial Action Task Force went beyond targeted financial sanctions. Notable remaining challenges included some countries not having the capacity to exercise effective controls. At a global level, the international community must ensure financing wasn’t exploited for terrorism; financial measures were an important tool against proliferation.
Mr. ONEIL HAMILTON (Jamaica), speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said the ongoing cooperation of the 1540 Committee with its CARICOM regional programme remained a cornerstone of the Community’s ongoing efforts to combat proliferation both within the Caribbean and in the hemisphere at large. Regional progress in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was linked to the economic viability of CARICOM member States. Faraway shocks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had had an economic impact on the region causing over $900 million in losses within the first year after the attacks. It was for that reason that terrorism and the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials continued to be of significant importance to CARICOM, even as regional Governments had grappled with the effect of the drug trade and spiralling gun-related crime.
Non-proliferation required sustained interaction with both policy and enforcement entities within the region, he said, adding that it also called for the provision of equally sustained material support going forward. As well, the debate had particular relevance. Because of the expansion of a regional initiative, the Freeport Process which related to implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) there was now new and unprecedented cooperation aimed at strengthening port and border security. CARICOM member States were cognizant of the emerging vulnerabilities posed by chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials to the safety and security of the region’s maritime space.
NABEEL MUNIR (Pakistan), stressing that his country had been a consistent supporter of the objectives of resolution 1540 (2004), stated: “Our commitment to its implementation has remained second to none.” It was imperative for the 1540 Committee to be more responsive to requests from States for assistance. Underscoring Pakistan’s fulfilment of its non-proliferation obligations, he noted the adoption of several measures, including a comprehensive export control regime and a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, which it was prepared to translate into a bilateral arrangement with India. He emphasized Pakistan’s eligibility to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, saying it was critical to adopt an equitable, non-discriminatory and criteria-based approach to promoting civil nuclear cooperation and membership in export control regimes.
MAURO VIEIRA (Brazil) emphasized the need to strike a balance between development and security, with no restrictions on access to technology for peaceful purposes. States had primary responsibility for goods entering and leaving their territory. Brazil was a party to all major disarmament and non-proliferation instruments, he said, adding that full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) would be a long-term task. Countries in a position to do so should help others formulate their assistance requests. Over the past 50 years, the international community had adopted multilateral instruments addressing biological and chemical weapons. However, it was perplexing that it had not done so for nuclear weapons, as well. The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) had put forth a draft resolution that would convene a conference in 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons leading to their total elimination. Recalling the Deputy Secretary-General’s comment that there were no right hands for wrong weapons, he said it was imperative that the international community take concrete steps to achieve long-overdue nuclear disarmament.
LACHEZARA STOEVA (Bulgaria), associating herself with the European Union, said prevention was of the essence. Resolution 1540 (2004) would only be effective if fully implemented at the national, regional and global levels. Emphasizing that Bulgaria had been a strong supporter of that resolution since its adoption, she said her country was developing a national strategy for countering weapons of mass destruction that would emphasize preventing their acquisition by non-State actors. She went on to say that improved cooperation between the 1540 Committee and the three counter-terrorism committees would help achieve the resolution’s objectives.
LOURDES ORTIZ YPARRAGUIRRE (Philippines) said that, because of the recognized threat posed to peace and security by non-State actors acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the Philippine Government had put in place legislation to mitigate those risks, such as the Human Security Act which regulated trade of dual-use items and ensured the Philippines was not used for trans-shipment of such items. A nuclear regulatory authority was being set up to regulate nuclear security aspects in the peaceful use of ionizing radiation. The Philippines had also installed radiation portal monitors. The threat posed by non-State actors required a collective global response, and the Philippines continued to engage with partners in the international arena to share its national experiences. At the Asia-Pacific economic forum, her country was pursuing efforts to combat the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters. Non-State actors were quick to adopt new technologies and States must step up their own efforts to protect their populations from catastrophe.
PAWEL RADOMSKI (Poland) welcomed provisions of resolution 2325 (2016) that focused on delivering more effective assistance by the 1540 Committee to States, enhancing cooperation between the Committee and other United Nations bodies and international institutions, as well as drawing on expertise from industry, scientific and academic communities. The resolution also accurately stated that more attention should be given to enforcement measures against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, as well as to measures to strengthen notional export and transhipment controls. His country was considering accession to the Additional Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which penalized transfer of weapons of mass destruction and related materials.
THOMAS SCHIEB (Germany) said that since 2013, the repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria had dramatically exacerbated concerns, and holding those responsible for such heinous acts accountable remained a major challenge. In addition to international frameworks, conferences and national regulations, the responsible involvement of the private sector was vital for successful non-proliferation. For its part, Germany had initiated the Wiesbaden Process, which focused on private sector engagement in the context of resolution 1540 (2004). Listening to the concerns and concrete proposals of the industry representatives was instrumental in identifying practical measures to prevent non-State actors from obtaining or using weapons of mass destruction. Among other things, he expressed support for the newly adopted resolution, which aimed at strengthening the 1540 Committee’s role in facilitating technical assistance.
JUAN SANDOVAL MENDIOLEA (Mexico) said a secure international system must build on the full implementation of international law. The system around resolution 1540 (2004) and its regime was valuable and must be implemented, a task which entailed shared responsibilities by the international community. That which did not exist could not proliferate, he said, so weapons of mass destruction should not exist, they should all be eliminated. Mexico welcomed the report on the comprehensive review process, and supported the work of the 1540 Committee, noting that the experts had developed useful tools which fostered trust. The international community had to continue to enhance the strength of the Committee, and Mexico would continue to work to that end.
MATEO ESTREME (Argentina) said that since the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004), his nation’s approach was found in seeking to uphold the balance between non-proliferation and reaffirmation of the sovereign right to the peaceful use of advanced technologies. Both those principles were enshrined in the text of resolution 1540 (2004), which Argentina had co-sponsored. Having submitted its first national report, his country had demonstrated its commitment as an active member of non-proliferation regimes. Member States must redouble efforts to strengthen export control systems built around four pillars, which were a system for granting licences, compliance with existing regimes, the promotion of businesses’ awareness of all that, and close regional cooperation. Argentina welcomed the just-adopted resolution’s recognition of the positive role played by civil society. “We are deluding ourselves if we believe we can live in security as long as there are gaps anywhere in the world,” he said, noting that it was vital there be proper institutional support.
KATALIN ANNAMÁRIA BOGYAY (Hungary) said her country had traditionally been active in non-proliferation, export controls and the fight against terrorism. For those reasons, it had adopted a number of measures to comply with resolution 1540 (2004). The threat of non-State actors and terrorists using weapons of mass destruction was not limited to one country or region. The use of chemical weapons by ISIL/Da’esh underscored the need for the international community to better understand such actors. Building and maintaining weapons of mass destruction still required specific knowledge and infrastructure, but with technology advancing at a rapid pace, the international community had an obligation to monitor non-State actors engaging in proliferation activities. It should thus emphasize the sharing of information about such non-State actors, with special attention being given to unstable and failed States, she said.
HAM SANG-WOOK, Chair, Missile Technology Control Regime, noted that Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) had decided that all States should establish national export controls to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction means and related materials. The Missile Technology Control Regime had been playing an important role as the only export control regime concerning delivery means since 1987, he reported, adding that in 2002, its mandate was expanded to include preventing terrorists from acquiring missiles and missile technology. He went on to highlight the Regime’s efforts to update the Missile Technology Control Regime Technical Annex, its list of controlled items that served as an international benchmark for export control of delivery means. A growing number of non-partners were adhering to the Annex, and it was also included in certain Security Council resolutions.
He also underscored the Regime’s efforts to engage with non-partners, pointing out its outreach activities with various actors, including non-partner States, international organizations, industry and academia. In the future, the Regime could share its expertise, experiences and best practices with States through further exchanges with the 1540 Committee, he said, inviting that Committee to consider participating in its biennial event, the Technical Outreach Meeting. As well, States might find the Regime’s adherence policy helpful when implementing the current resolution. Becoming an adherent of the Regime was the easiest and best way for Member States to further improve their implementation of missile-related export controls, he stressed.
SONG YOUNG-WAN, Chair, Nuclear Suppliers Group said that the discovery of a far-reaching proliferation network had revealed the gaps in the international non-proliferation regime. The Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines could be used by any State as part of their efforts to establish an effective export-control system consistent with international non-proliferation norms, including the obligations under resolution 1540 (2004). He welcomed voluntary adherence to the Guidelines in order to ensure that they remained relevant amid emerging and evolving technologies and reflected the growing and globalizing supply chain. With regard to the resolution’s implementation, he said that the Group was not in a position to provide technical assistance. However its 40 participating Governments had registered with the 1540 Committee, offering their expertise and experience to those needed assistance. Furthermore, a number of others had outreach programmes in place in order to further develop and enhance export control systems with partner countries.
EMMANUEL ROUX, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), said that in 2010, INTERPOL had launched a comprehensive chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism prevention and response effort. Its activities included data analysis, multi-agency capacity building and counter-measure programmes, as well as regional cross-border operations resulting in trafficker arrests and materials seizures. Its recently adopted Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy aimed to: facilitate intelligence-sharing and threat analysis among its member countries; assist them in establishing countermeasure programmes; design and coordinate cross-border, intelligence-led interagency operations; and maintain and develop strategic chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism partnerships globally.
He went on to note that INTERPOL would adopt a dual-track global engagement policy to maintain and establish sustainable bilateral partnership frameworks with international partner agencies, as well as further consolidate its integration with major multinational frameworks. Citing the final report’s reference to enhanced cooperation between his organization and the 1540 Committee, he observed that INTERPOL had been regularly exchanging official letters with that Committee outlining the terms of their collaboration and fixing respective points of contact. Further strengthening the points of contact network could only benefit the enhancement of interaction and coordination between the Committee and international organizations, he said adding that INTERPOL was an active 1540 assistance provider agency.
PAUL BEKKERS, Director of the Office of the Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said that resolution 1540 (2004) addressed a critical gap in non-proliferation by targeting non-State actors. However, for Security Council resolutions to remain relevant, their practical implementation at the national level was crucial. “This is where regional organizations under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter remain extremely valuable,” he said, underscoring how the OSCE was ideally placed in that regard. He highlighted a number of ways in which the OSCE had supported its participating States in implementing resolution 1540 (2004), including assistance in the development of national implementation action plans. Concluding, he said the OSCE believed that strengthening the role of the 1540 Committee and its Expert Group could help prevent non-State actors from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
TANMAYA LAL (India) said that, as a victim of terrorism for more than three decades, his country was cognizant of the dangers that the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors could entail. Meeting new proliferation challenges required new approaches that would lead to a more cooperative and consensual international security order, he said. Delays in closing out negotiations on a comprehensive convention on measures to eliminate international terrorism, under discussion since 1996, hinted at a lack of collective will vis-à-vis the most serious threat to world peace since 1945. He reiterated India’s readiness to assist other countries with capacity-building and fulfilment of resolution 1540 (2004) obligations, and welcomed the focus of today’s resolution on enhanced cooperation with other terrorist sanction regimes.
KAIRAT ABDRAKHMANOV (Kazakhstan), welcoming today’s adoption, called for strict control over implementing national commitments as well as strengthened interaction between the 1540 Committee, Member States and regional organizations in sharing technologies and experience. Focus should also be on related trade controls, illicit trafficking, non-proliferation and disarmament and other international counter-terrorism instruments. In that regard, he noted his President’s initiative towards a register of scientific developments related to weapons of mass destruction. He also noted that the Review had shown a need for identifying specific capacity-building needs of each country. The lack of resources to implement the resolution could be filled through cooperation with all sectors of society. He finally called for the universalization of all agreements that could strengthen the global counter-proliferation regime.
SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia), associating him with the European Union, noted that the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that toxic chemicals were used as weapons in Syria by Da’esh, said that resolution 1540 (2004) remained the fundamental pillar in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The new resolution, co-sponsored by Estonia, reflected new and emerging risks and developments and stressed the need to continue enhancing the cooperation of the 1540 Committee with other relevant Security Council committees.
DAVID ROET (Israel) said that nowhere was the threat of non-State actors acquiring weapons of mass destruction more real than in the Middle East, where the situation was further aggravated by the reckless actions of certain States. Iran had been promoting subversive activities through its support for terror organizations, and the Assad regime in Syria had continued its unrelenting use of chemical weapons, giving non-State actors an incentive to obtain the material and know-how required to produce and use such horrific capabilities. Assad’s actions were responsible for eroding the absolute prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. They also created further incentives for others to violate the ban as well. The international community must unequivocally condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria and act with resolve in order to address the issue. Resolution 1540 (2004) was essential, he said, stressing his country’s commitment to its implementation.
SIMON KASSAS, of the Holy See, said the staggering numbers of refugees and forced migrants worldwide bore witness to the devastation wrought by weapons of mass destruction, along with potent conventional weapons. He noted with concern that technological advances produced ever more frightening catastrophes for innocent civilian populations. Business as usual with regard to policies concerning weapons of mass destruction and all weapons systems must be replaced with a new global ethic. Profit, geopolitical advantages at any cost and the logic of fear must replace the wider security, political, economic and cultural dynamics that would lead both State and non-State actors to seek security and legitimacy. The Holy See had repeatedly called on weapons-producing nations to severely limit and control the manufacture and sale of weapons to unstable countries. Non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament underpinned global security, respect for human rights and sustainable development.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), associating himself with the European Union, said that his country had sent its fourth national report on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) in November. It had also joined the Group of Friends of Resolution 1540 to help contribute to better transparency and the resolution’s implementation. He noted that regional approaches prevented duplication, creating synergies and enhancing response effectiveness when compared to individual responses. The Western Balkans region would remain in the sights of ISIL/Da’esh as a transit or logistic route between Europe and Syria or Iraq, including for the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. As a practical measure, his country had expanded the Slovenia-led Western Balkan Counter-Terrorism Initiative, linking up individual initiatives into a comprehensive joint effort, the Integrative Internal Security Governance concept.
CAITLIN WILSON (Australia), voicing support for the Committee’s continued efforts to ensure implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), expressed disappointment that the Review Conference of the Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention had failed to agree on an intersessional programme which would have included the review of new developments in science and technology and their potential dual-use applications. “Progress in these fields will not wait for the decision-making processes of Member States Parties,” she said, calling on the international community to ensure that the Convention continued to be the key multilateral reference point for combating the growing risk of the use of biological weapons.
FRANTIŠEK RUŽIČKA (Slovakia), aligning with the European Union, said that preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors must be the utmost priority for the international community. Resolution 1540 (2004) was central for the effort to garner strong domestic controls within improved international cooperation on the matter. Welcoming today’s adoption, he called for intensified efforts to adapt the 1540 regime to new technologies and outreach to industry and civil society to create true partnerships for safeguarding sensitive items. Noting the range of legislative, executive and enforcement measures contained in his country’s updated 2016 national report on compliance, he announced that the country would co-host a workshop on national legal action in the context of the 1540 regime in January 2017.
MIRGUL MOLDOISAEVA (Kyrgyzstan), speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), said the issue was a priority of the Commonwealth. Effectively countering the proliferation was only possible through coordinating actions undertaken by States, international and regional organizations. A comprehensive approach would be achieved by strengthening the tools available, including several relevant conventions, resolution 1540 (2004) and the national systems on export control. The resolution provided for a comprehensive approach to countering weapons of mass destruction proliferation to non-State actors including terrorists. Member States of the Commonwealth wanted to implement all issues of the resolution and strengthen the efficiency of its implementation through joint efforts. It was important in that regard to take into account the capacities of all countries.
MARÍA SOLEDAD URRUELA ARENALES (Guatemala) stressed the importance of the entire non-proliferation and disarmament process, as well as the need to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Assistance to national capacity in that area was critical, she said, noting the importance of such assistance in her country’s development of a national action plan. Although she would have preferred a more ambitious review outcome, she welcomed the call on the Committee to pursue projects in strengthening national capacity, as well as cooperation with regional and subregional organizations in that regard. She also stated her regret that it was not possible to provide more support to the special political body that works with the Committee. Finally, she emphasized the importance of multilateral efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons
MAHLET HAILU GUADEY (Ethiopia), concurring with the need to meet the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists, stressed that an important part of that effort was a ban on nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, as well as the elimination of other weapons of mass destruction. Welcoming the recommendations of the review of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), she called for full realization of efforts to assist national implementation.
KAREL JAN GUSTAAF VAN OOSTEROM (Netherlands) said that the international community had come a long way, yet reaching a worldwide implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) required further efforts by Member States, as well as international and regional organizations. National actions plans were great instruments to ensure effective implementation and to improve the efficiency of technical assistance. Regarding nuclear security, he acknowledged the critical role played by the IAEA, while stressing the importance of close cooperation between the Agency, Member States and the 1540 Committee. He noted that IAEA’s General Conference resolution on nuclear security and the declaration of the Ministerial Conference provided clear guidance and an effective assistance mechanism. On biological weapons, he cautioned that the possibility of an attack by non-State actors was all too real. Given the rapid pace of technological development in biological sciences, the international framework must be strengthened, he said, emphasizing that today’s resolution would provide a good platform to make progress.
GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru) said the adoption of resolution 1540 (2004) had marked a milestone in dealing with weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors, adding that the multilateral treaties focusing on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should become universal. States must also beef up measures to curtail financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors. He welcomed the fact that the review process had spelled out the role of private enterprise, civil society and academia.
JERRY MATJILA (South Africa) said the global threats of the use and continued existence of weapons of mass destruction could be addressed in a balanced, non-discriminatory and comprehensive manner within the relevant multilateral instruments and organizations, including resolution 1540 (2004). It was, however, imperative that no warranted restrictions were imposed on the inalienable right of Member States, particularly developing countries, to use any related materials, equipment and technologies for peaceful purposes. His country’s experience had illustrated that the transparent, irreversible and verified elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and measures prohibiting their production, transfer and use remained the most effective means to address the threats posed by such weapons.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), welcoming the adoption of the resolution and affirming the importance of the 1540 regime, encouraged the Committee to strengthen its efforts to assist Member States to fully implement the resolution, particularly in Africa. He hailed recommendations of the Committee for setting up a better schema for matching assistance with States that required it. Cooperation with regional organizations and other bodies was critical as well. His country would be hosting a coordination meeting for national focal points on the issue. He also suggested several means of improving communication between the 1540 Committee and Member States, pledging his country’s continued work with the Committee.
ROLANDO CASTRO CORDOBA (Costa Rica), pointing out that his country had no army, stressed that disarmament was a pillar necessary for the survival of humanity. He voiced support for the negotiation of a universal binding instrument that would prohibit nuclear arms. Technological developments facilitated the international community to reduce new risks, but could also open the possibility that such innovations could end up with non-State actors. Implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) by all States was therefore necessary. He called for the exchange of information and good practices, as well as for strengthening national mechanisms for technological oversight.
TAREQ MD. ARIFUL ISLAM (Bangladesh) underscored the importance of implementing resolution 1540 (2004) in a context-specific and common but differentiated manner. The wide divergences in implementation among Member States would continue to remain unless meaningful financial and technical assistance was provided to overcome the structural constraints. In that regard, he expected the international community to provide concrete and need-based assistance to interested States. Regarding cooperation between the 1540 Committee and international, regional and subregional organizations, he emphasized the need to avoid duplication, facilitate assistance and share expertise. Among other things, he took note of the rapid advances in science and technology susceptible to abuse or risks of proliferation by non-State actors, calling upon the Committee to enhance global information and knowledge about the evolving risks.
DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) called for a fund to be established to help Member States implement their 1540 obligations. Intensified support from the 1540 Committee and its Expert Group was extremely important, he added. The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors must be considered by all Member States in an inclusive manner, with actions flowing from multilaterally negotiated instruments. He emphasized that a lacklustre approach to nuclear disarmament obligations, and the flawed notion of nuclear haves and have-nots, was morally indefensible and unsustainable. Nuclear-weapon States were called upon to show political will and to contribute to negotiations that would lead to a universal and legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
HORACIO SEVILLA BORJA (Ecuador), vehemently condemning the production, transport and use of weapons of mass destruction regardless of the parties involved, said his country was creating a registry of related materials and other measures to counter proliferation. He welcomed forums of inclusive participation on countering the dangers of all weapons of mass destruction. As the existence of such weapons kept the danger alive, he urged all States to fulfil their commitments for disarmament. In that light, he called for progress in nuclear disarmament that would lead to a ban on nuclear weapons. As long as arsenals of catastrophic weapons existed, there would be a danger of their being used by malicious actors, he stated.
MARC PECSTEEN DE BUYTSWERVE (Belgium), aligning with the European Union, said that, in the aftermath of chemical weapons use in Syria and Iraq, more action to prevent the use of such weapons must be taken. He welcomed the adoption of today’s resolution, but called for the universalization of all tools that prevented the use of catastrophic weapons. Existing stockpiles of sensitive materials must be reduced and secured, he added, describing efforts being carried out by his country to secure materials used by its nuclear reactors. New industrial and medical technologies should be developed that reduce the needs for dangerous materials. To promote compliance with the 1540 regime, peer review mechanisms and clear standards should be encouraged.
JULIA BLOCHER of United Nations University said that it was hard to think of a more pressing global problem of human survival than the risks entailed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The 1540 mechanism provided an important framework for cooperation in tackling that problem. Academia had a special role to play, through research in the physical sciences and dissemination of technical knowledge, skills and data. Member States and the Security Council must avail themselves of the resources provided by academic partners in promoting transparency and raising awareness on resolution 1540 (2004).
ELENE AGLADZE (Georgia), associating herself with the European Union, said that the chance of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of unauthorized actors was alarming. Political commitment had been crucial in developing policies, strategies and systems to strengthen security at all levels. Georgia was a non-nuclear State, she said, adding that the threats posed by proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and materials, as well as weapons of mass destruction-related technologies, remained a subject of serious concern for her county, not least due to the close proximity to the region posing a high-risk of proliferation. To that end, Georgia had been taking various measures, while implementing its national plans. In recent years, several attempts of smuggling nuclear and radioactive materials via Georgia’s occupied regions had been prevented by law enforcement agencies. In the past decade, 25 cases of illicit smuggling of radioactive materials had been apprehended, 11 of which were from the occupied territories of Georgia. In the absence of the international presence inside those regions, it had become virtually impossible to conduct any type of verification activities on the ground, she warned.
CHO TAL-YUL (Republic of Korea) said that, while resolution 1540 (2004) had successfully mobilized the international community to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, challenges from non-State actors, including terrorist groups and violent extremists continued to arise at breakneck speed. Stressing the importance of raising awareness on that resolution, he added that, with two nuclear tests conducted in the current year alone, “North Korea is now nearing the final state of nuclear weaponizaton”. Given that country’s “track record in illicit arms trade and black-market smuggling”, it could become a willing supplier of weapons of mass destruction technology or materials to non-State actors.
VIRACHAI PLASAI (Thailand) noted that his country had decided to join other Member States in cosponsoring the resolution adopted today. Welcoming the enhancement of ongoing cooperation between counter-terrorism-related Security Council committees, he encouraged closer coordination between the 1540 Committee and other entities in order to ensure that gaps were filled and redundancies eliminated. International cooperation and assistance, particularly for developing countries, was essential for strengthening the non-proliferation regime, he stressed, welcoming the sharing of best practices and technical cooperation. Member States must also ensure effective national implementation, he said, pointing out that no international cooperation effort would bear fruit without robust implementation at the country level through an appropriate legal framework. In August, the Nuclear Energy for Peace Act was promulgated in Thailand and would enter into force in February. He also called for strengthened regional cooperation, citing the October joint cross-border exercise between Thailand and Malaysia on detecting nuclear and other radioactive materials out of regulatory control.
LAURA E. FLORES (Panama) said her country was fully committed to strengthening the non-proliferation regime regardless of who possessed weapons of mass destruction. Panama belonged to the nuclear weapon-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean. Resolution 1540 (2004) was the only legally binding instrument for the promotion of safe and strategic trade that prevented the weapons of mass destruction and materials to fall into the hands of non-State actors. She then described activities her country had undertaken regarding implementation of the 1540 regime and measures taken nationally among other things regarding dual-use material. Development of weapons of mass destruction was an act against international peace and security, she stated.
MAHMOUD SAIKAL (Afghanistan) said that, although no major attack had happened, terrorists had shown the intent and capacity to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) was a long-term task that required efforts at the national, regional and international levels, as well as provision of technical assistance to States. His country was surrounded by a number of nuclear countries and had consistently called for total elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. As a State party to relevant treaties and conventions, Afghanistan had also joined the Group of Friends of Resolution 1540 (2004). He urged all States to strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, and materials and technologies related to their manufacture.
GÜVEN BEGEÇ (Turkey) said his country had adopted the necessary legislation to fully implement its international obligations, and collaborated closely with the Counter-Terrorism and the ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committees. As growing proliferation concerns and the scale of global commerce placed unprecedented responsibilities on Member States, he welcomed the 1540 Committee’s recommendations for better assistance to Member States in the areas of export and transhipment controls. However, the recommendations pertaining to the enforcement of prohibitions and national control lists might create additional burden on Member States, he pointed out. For its part, Turkey prioritized adopting realistic and applicable methods to strengthen export controls, he said, while emphasizing the need for equitable burden-sharing. Expressing concern about the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East, he opposed the development, production and use of such weapons by all actors. As the gaps and inconsistencies in the Syrian regime’s declarations on its chemical stockpiles remained unsolved, its undeclared weapon capabilities continued to be a serious concern.
JAMAL JAMA AHMED ABDULLA AL MUSHARAKH (United Arab Emirates) welcomed all efforts to increase cooperation on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). His country had enacted robust legislation in favour of stopping proliferation, he said, adding that the only way to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction, however, was to work for their elimination. In his region, a nuclear-weapon-free zone would strengthen security. He called on Israel to join in efforts for that purpose. He also called for the end of the use of chemical and other prohibited weapons in Syria and Iraq, and cited Iran for its military support to non-State groups, which might result in the proliferation of both conventional and more dangerous weapons. He called for greater accountability for those actors that flouted international counter-proliferation frameworks.
MARC-ANDRÉ BLANCHARD (Canada), noting that his country had co-sponsored the resolution adopted today, said that Canada had invested more than $1.2 billion in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction over the past decade and would invest $63 million in 2017, including up to $6 million in dedicated 1540-related programming. It was also engaged in a range of efforts to reduce the threat of such weapons, leading efforts to end fissile material production. On regional and subregional implementation and assistance, Canada was funding a regional 1540-implementation coordinator for CARICOM and was also engaged in cooperation and capacity-building in that region through the Proliferation Security Initiative. Noting that the Comprehensive Review had confirmed that, despite progress, full and universal implementation remained a challenge, he commended measures in today’s resolution that called for more detailed, specific assistance requests, revised tools and templates and a strengthening of the Committee’s role.
MUAZ MOHAMAD A-K AL-OTOOM (Jordan) said the danger of using weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors was alarming, siting the example of the terrorist group Da’esh using mustard gas in Syria and Iraq. His country had taken specific steps in abiding by resolution 1540 (2004) and had adopted several laws to control and prevent biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and their means of delivery falling in the hands of non-State actors. Describing his countries activities regarding implementation of the 1540 regime and participation in international and regional organizations, he said today’s resolution should pave the way to the resolution’s full implementation. He welcomed the continued cooperation between the Counter-Terrorism Committee and the Committee to update information of terrorist groups and their ability to use weapons of mass destruction, and emphasized the need for States to strengthen cooperation in industrial, parliamentary, and private and academic sectors.
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) stressed that it was everybody’s common duty to make sure that no weapons of mass destruction, no technology and no trade end up in the hands of non-State actors. He urged for establishing an appropriate balance between the need for peaceful uses of technologies for development and the concern to protect against any misuse of those technologies by uncontrolled or improper sources. Nuclear States owed it to the world to start fulfilling their commitment to disarmament and to allow equitable access for the peaceful use of the linked technologies. He expressed deep regret that the Middle East region was not even in the “starting blocks” for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANYAN (Armenia), welcoming the adoption of today’s resolution, voiced his support for the critical need to advance measures to address threats posed by non-State actors in relation to weapons of mass destruction. His country had enacted robust national legislation for that purpose, along with national actions plans to implement resolution 1540 (2004) while working with many partners to counter international smuggling of dangerous materials. As terrorists were quick to take note of new technological opportunities, national and international actors should make every effort to keep ahead of them in taking action against new forms of proliferation.
VITALY MACKAY (Belarus), welcoming the adoption, noted that his country was not only the first State to decline nuclear capabilities following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but also was an early actor in implementing resolution 1540 (2004). He described current efforts in that regard, including actions for regional coordination, adding his pledge to continue working with the international community to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
KIM IN RYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) strongly rejected remarks made by the representatives of Japan, the Republic of Korea and France. The purpose of the meeting was to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors. However, some delegates had focused on the issue of his country’s nuclear programme. That nuclear issue was the consequence of the hostile policy of the United States. If that country had not threatened his country with nuclear weapons the nuclear issue would not have existed on the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear blackmail by the largest Power against his country was reaching an explosive level. It was his country’s intent to avoid the danger of a nuclear war by the United States by relying on deterrence, which was being used as a self-defence measure. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to bolster its nuclear forces. As a responsible nuclear State, his country would not use those weapons first unless other States used their nuclear weapons, he said, adding that his country was committed to non-proliferation.
JAVAD SAFAEI (Iran) rejected the allegations of the Israeli regime against his country, which he said represented an effort to deflect attention from its own actions. Unlike the Israeli regime, he stated, his country was a member of international frameworks banning acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and had promoted a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. As a victim of the use of weapons of mass destruction, his country was well aware of their dangers and that was why he called for the international community to pressure Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other instruments. Also rejecting the accusations of the representative of the United Arab Emirates, he said that that country was deflecting attention from its bombing Yemen and supporting non-State militants in other areas.
Mr. ABDALLAH (Syria) stated that his country was willing to cooperate with any international effort to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. His country was committed to a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East and had acceded to international mechanisms countering other dangerous weapons, including chemical weapons. In regard to the latter, the country had complied with all requests of the OPCW, and that fact had been recognized by the Council. Unfortunately, the review report contained many gaps, including those related to the use by terrorists of poisonous materials in his country in proven incidents. No real measures had been taken against those countries that were parties in transporting such materials into his country.
The full text of resolution 2325 (2016) reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Reaffirming its resolutions 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004, 1673 (2006) of 27 April 2006, 1810 (2008) of 25 April 2008, 1977 (2011) of 20 April 2011, and 2055 (2012) of 29 June 2012,
“Reaffirming that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
“Reaffirming its decision that none of the obligations in resolution 1540 (2004) shall be interpreted so as to conflict with or alter the rights and obligations of State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention or alter the responsibilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,
“Remaining 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, including by using the rapid advances in science, technology and international commerce to that end,
“Reaffirming that prevention of proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons should not hamper international cooperation in materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes while goals of peaceful utilization should not be misused for proliferation purposes,
“Recalling the decisions in resolution 2118 (2013) and resolution 2298 (2016) that member States shall inform immediately the Security Council of any violation of resolution 1540 (2004), and also recalling the invitation in resolution 2319 (2016) for the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to brief, as appropriate, the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), hereafter the 1540 Committee, on relevant results of its work,
“Endorsing the 2016 Comprehensive Review of the status of the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), and noting the findings and recommendations in its final report,
“Noting that not all States have presented to the 1540 Committee their national reports on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004),
“Stressing the need to strengthen national measures of export control of materials related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, consistent with resolution 1540 (2004),
“Further noting that the full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) by all States, including the adoption of national laws and measures to ensure implementation of these laws, is a long-term task that will require continuous efforts at national, regional and international levels,
“Recognizing the need to enhance coordination of efforts at national, regional, subregional and international levels, as appropriate, in order to strengthen a global response to the serious challenge and threat to international peace and security posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery,
“Stressing the importance of dialogue between the 1540 Committee and Member States, including visits to States at their invitation, and also recognising that such a dialogue has contributed to facilitating implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), inter alia by raising awareness about the importance of presenting national reports and the utility of voluntary national implementation action plans and has helped to identify assistance needs of States,
“Recognizing that many States continue to require assistance in implementing resolution 1540 (2004), and emphasising the importance of providing States, in response to their requests, with effective assistance that meets their needs,
“Stressing the need to reinforce the role of the 1540 Committee in providing and facilitating effective assistance, including, inter alia, in the field of State capacity-building, and collaboration among States, between the 1540 Committee and States, and between the 1540 Committee and relevant international, regional and subregional organizations in assisting States to implement resolution 1540 (2004),
“Acknowledging the importance of voluntary contributions made in the field of assistance by Member States and international, regional and subregional organizations, including through the United Nations Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities,
“Endorsing the valuable interaction of the Committee with relevant international, regional and subregional organizations, and emphasizing the need for coordination, as appropriate, between the Committee and those organizations,
“Acknowledging the enhanced ongoing cooperation among the 1540 Committee, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2001) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001), concerning counter-terrorism,
“Acknowledging that transparency and outreach make an important contribution to enhancing confidence, fostering cooperation and raising the awareness among States, including, as appropriate, in their interaction with relevant international, regional and subregional organizations, and also acknowledging the positive role performed by civil society, inter alia industry and academia, could play in the effective implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including by raising awareness, and that parliamentarians have a key role in enacting the necessary legislation to implement the obligations of the resolution,
“Endorsing the work already carried out by the 1540 Committee, in accordance with its Programmes of Work, and reaffirming its continued support,
“Bearing in mind the need to continue the consideration of the 1540 Committee’s ability, consistent with its mandate, to review and facilitate advancing the implementation of the resolution,
“Determined to facilitate the full and effective implementation of resolution 1540 (2004),
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Reiterates its decisions in and the requirements of resolution 1540 (2004), and re-emphasizes the importance for all States to implement fully and effectively that resolution;
“2. Decides that the 1540 Committee will continue to submit to the Security Council its Programme of Work, before the end of each January, and will brief the Security Council in the first quarter of each year, and welcomes the continuous submission of the Annual Review on the Implementation of Resolution 1540 (2004), prepared with the assistance of the Group of Experts, within December annually;
“3. Again calls upon all States that have not yet presented a first report on steps they have taken or intend to take to implement resolution 1540 (2004) to submit such a report to the 1540 Committee without delay, and requests the Committee to make available its expertise to these States, as appropriate, to facilitate the submission of such reports;
“4. Again encourages all States that have submitted such reports to provide, when appropriate or upon the request of the 1540 Committee, additional information on their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including, voluntarily, on their laws and regulations and on States’ effective practices;
“5. Encourages also States to prepare on a voluntary basis national implementation action plans, with the assistance of the 1540 Committee as appropriate, mapping out their priorities and plans for implementing the key provisions of resolution 1540 (2004), and to submit these plans to the Committee;
“6. Encourages all States that have not yet done so to provide the 1540 Committee with a Point of Contact for Resolution 1540 (2004), and urges the Committee to continue to undertake initiatives to strengthen the capacity of such Points of Contact to assist on the implementation of the resolution, upon request of States, including through the continuation on a regional basis of the Committee’s Point of Contact Training Programme;
“7. Calls upon States to take into account developments on the evolving nature of risk of proliferation and rapid advances in science and technology in their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“8. Requests the 1540 Committee to take note in its work, where relevant, of the continually evolving nature of the risks of proliferation, including the use by non-State actors of rapid advances in science, technology and international commerce for proliferation purposes, in the context of the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“9. Requests that the 1540 Committee undertake additional consideration, consistent with the report of the 2016 Comprehensive Review, of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Special Political Mission that supports the Committee, and encourages the Committee to report to the Security Council on the findings of this evaluation, within 2017 as appropriate;
“10. Calls upon all States to intensify their efforts to achieve full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), focusing, when and where appropriate, on areas where measures should be taken and strengthened;
“11. Urges the 1540 Committee to continue to explore and develop an approach, with regard to implementation and reporting, that takes into account the specificity of States, inter alia, with respect to their ability to manufacture and export related materials, with a view to prioritizing efforts and resources where they are most needed without affecting the need for comprehensive implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“12. Decides that the 1540 Committee shall continue to intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of resolution 1540 (2004), through its Programme of Work, which includes the compilation and general examination of information on the status of States’ implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) and addresses all aspects of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of that resolution, particularly noting the need for more attention on: enforcement measures; measures relating to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons; proliferation finance measures; accounting for and securing related materials; and national export and transhipment controls;
“13. Encourages States, as appropriate, to control access to intangible transfers of technology and to information that could be used for weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery;
“14. Recalls its decision that all States shall take and enforce effective measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, including by establishing appropriate control over related materials, and calls upon States that have not done so to start developing effective national control lists at the earliest opportunity for the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“15. Recalls its decision that all States, in accordance with their national procedures, shall adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws for the prohibition of activities under paragraph 2 of resolution 1540 (2004), and requests that the 1540 Committee hold discussions on optimal approaches on enforcement of the indicated paragraph;
“16. Encourages the 1540 Committee to continue to engage actively in dialogue with States, including in the context of ongoing updating of the implementation data it holds, and through visits to States, at their invitation, by the Committee;
“17. Encourages the 1540 Committee to continue to identify and compile effective implementation best practices and, upon request by a State, to share appropriate effective best practices for implementing resolution 1540 (2004) with that State;
“18. Encourages States that have requests for assistance to provide the 1540 Committee, as appropriate, with specific details of the assistance needed, directs the Committee, when possible, to provide States, upon their request, with assistance in the formulation of such requests, and further directs the Committee to revise its assistance template;
“19. Urges States as well as relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to inform the 1540 Committee, as appropriate, of areas in which they are able to provide assistance, and calls upon States, as well as such organizations, if they have not done so previously, to provide the Committee with information on their ongoing assistance programmes relevant to resolution 1540 (2004);
“20. Urges the Committee to continue strengthening its role in facilitating technical assistance for implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), in particular by engaging actively in matching offers and requests for assistance, inter alia through a regional approach, where appropriate, as well as the holding of regional assistance conferences, which bring together States that request assistance with those offering assistance;
“21. Encourages States to contribute funds, on a voluntary basis, to finance projects and activities, including through the United Nations Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities, to assist States in implementing their obligations under resolution 1540 (2004), including for implementing projects in response to assistance requests submitted directly by States to the Committee;
“22. Encourages the Committee to develop, in collaboration with international, regional and subregional organizations, assistance projects to support States in implementing resolution 1540 (2004) in order to facilitate the prompt and direct response to assistance requests;
“23. Encourages relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to enhance cooperation and information-sharing with the 1540 Committee, on the issues related to the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“24. Calls upon relevant international, regional and subregional organizations that have not yet done so to provide the Committee with a Point of Contact or Coordinator for Resolution 1540 (2004);
“25. Encourages also relevant international, regional and subregional organizations, to highlight the obligations of resolution 1540 (2004) in their model legislation and/or guidelines, where appropriate, pertaining to instruments under their mandate relevant to the resolution;
“26. Requests the 1540 Committee to convene regular meetings, inter alia on the margins of the relevant sessions of the General Assembly, with relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to share information and experiences on their efforts to facilitate implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), thereby contributing to promoting coordination of such efforts, as appropriate;
“27. Reiterates the need to continue to enhance ongoing cooperation among the 1540 Committee, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) 1989 (2001) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al‑Qaida, and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001), concerning counter-terrorism, including through, as appropriate, enhanced information sharing, coordination on visits to States, within their respective mandates, technical assistance and other issues of relevance to all three committees, and again expresses its intention to provide guidance to the committees on areas of common interest in order to better coordinate their efforts, and decides the three Committees will jointly brief once per year the Security Council on their cooperation;
“28. Requests the 1540 Committee to continue to institute transparency measures and activities, inter alia, by making the fullest possible use of the Committee’s website and other agreed means of communication, and further requests the Committee to conduct regular meetings open to all Member States on the Committee’s and Group’s activities related to facilitating implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);
“29. Requests the 1540 Committee to continue to organize and participate in outreach events on the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) at the international, regional, subregional, and, as appropriate, national level, including, as appropriate, inviting parliamentarians, as well as representatives of civil society, including industry and academia and promote the refinement of these outreach efforts to focus on specific thematic and regional issues related to implementation;
“30. Encourages the 1540 Committee to continue drawing on relevant expertise, including industry, scientific and academic communities, with, as appropriate, their States’ consent, which can assist States in their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004),
“31. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”