Wednesday 18th June 2014

 

Summaries (PDFs at bottom of page)

18 June 2014 - Morning Session

The 5th meeting of the BMS5 was called to order by Chairman Zahir Tanin. The session broke up for delegation consultation then reconvened to discuss international cooperation and assistance.

The following states spoke in the order: Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, China, Iraq, Belarus, Colombia, Tanzania, Cuba, Turkey, India and the European Union. 

All nations mentioned the necessity of continued use of bilateral channels and multilateral channels in the matter of aid and assistance provision. Colombia noted that without joint efforts and international cooperation on the issue of the illicit trade of SALW, its ammunitions and explosions, then the full and effective implementation of the PoA and ITI would be challenged. China posited that the United Nations should continue to be the main channel with regards to matters of SALW, but reiterated the need for cooperation regionally and internationally. 

Colombia, Cuba and Tanzania, all agreed that requests for assistance should not be disturbed by conditionalities. India and Iraq reaffirmed the need for donor states to take into consideration the unique needs and priorities of each nation. Cuba urged donor states to make available in a more timely manner, information in regards to government assistance and availability of resources.

Belarus, China, and the European Union all recognized the need for developed countries to continue providing assistance to developing countries working to combat the illicit trade of SALW. The abovementioned also outlined the ways in which they have worked to do so. China called attention to the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, a bilateral mechanism used by China to make contributions in the fight against illicit SALW trade. China also mentioned that despite the need for assistance the main responsibility lies with the state. Belarus, once an aid recipient has also become an aid provider in the relevant field. The European Union noted that providing assistance is key to the full implementation of the PoA and ITI and elucidated their programs with regards to PSSM, disposal of surplus and enhancement of record keeping capacities have all been a means to promote international cooperation. The European Union like China stated that there must be national ownership of programs that work in coordination with donor states.

Several nations referenced new technology and how technology and information exchange could assist in the field of international cooperation and assistance. Belarus outlined their modernization of security in PSSM. Colombia noted that new technology could be utilized in creation of a database that improves tracking capacities. Colombia, Cuba, and Tanzania also emphasized that training of relevant persons, both government agencies and law enforcement on tracing, marking, and PSSM of SALW would help to enhance the full implementation of the PoA and ITI.

Cuba, Iraq, and India all associated their delegations’ statements with the presentation provided by the Non-Aligned Movement.

 

18 June 2014 – Afternoon Session

The afternoon session continued with discussion on International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA).

States took the floor in the following order:ECOWAS (Ghana), Thailand, Costa Rica, USA, Switzerland, Guatemala, Egypt, Mexico, France, UK, Africa Group (Nigeria), Nigeria, Australia, Mali, Algeria, Sudan, Peru, Morocco, Austria, Netherlands, South Sudan, Iran, Palestine, Norway, CARICOM (Guyana), Trinidad & Tobago and the Arab Group (Qatar).

Austria, CARICOM, Costa Rica, Iran, Morocco, Peru, South Sudan and the USAall spoke about the importance of using bilateral and multilateral channels for the provision of cooperation and assistance. Costa Rica stated that only through joint effort could SALW be combated. Iran echoed this, saying no country can address this issue alone.

This call for cooperation was also repeated in the discussions on border control. CARICOM, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mali, Mexico, Palestine, South Sudan and Trinidad and Tobago all mentioned the importance of cooperation and assistance in border control. Palestine referenced the lack of control they have on their borders as a reason for cooperation, and Trinidad & Tobago stated that porous borders create huge problems, and allow the continuation of SALW problems in states that are not large manufacturers or importers of SALW.

Austria, CARICOM, Costa Rica, Mali, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, South Sudan and Trinidad and Tobago spoke about the effect of SALW on socioeconomic development, and reiterated its negative impact especially for developing countries. Mali and South Sudan both gave passionate appeals, as states whose development has been impeded by SALW, for more international assistance. Nigeria pointed out the need to delink the concept of international cooperation and assistance from aid, because even though SALW impact development the transfer of assistance should not be seen as a patron-client relationship.

While all states praised UNSCAR and the assistance it has provided there was some disagreement regarding the need for a new fund or fellowship. Costa Rica and Egypt called for the establishment of a new trust fund, while France and the USA stated that it was premature to ask for a new trust fund to be created when UNSCAR had only recently been established.

The delegations from Algeria, CARICOM, Guatemala and Peru agreed that international and regional organizations, in a position to do so, should render cooperation and assistance upon request without conditionalities, and without discrimination. However, France claimed that the provision of cooperation and assistance is a sovereign act that cannot be made binding, thus they called for all references to conditionality to be deleted. The USA sought compromised language to ensure both donor and recipients could come to consensus. African Group, Egypt, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago supported the need for international assistance and cooperation to be adequate, effective and sustainable.

The transfer of technology was again raised as an essential element of allowing states to implement the PoA. South Sudan, Switzerland, Guatemala, Egypt, Nigeria, Peru, Morocco, Iran and CARICOM all called for technology transfer to be a priority. Iran, Peru and South Sudan also called for appropriate training to use the technology.

Algeria, ECOWAS, Egypt, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago mentioned the importance of ensuring that specific needs of states were understood so that resources could be provided effectively. The need to reduce overlap and duplication was also discussed.

Australia, Peru, the UK and the USAall outlined specific programs, which they had undertaken in regards to international cooperation and assistance. Australia has been a significant contributor to UNSCAR, like the UK. Peru called for the establishment of an ‘Inter American Network’ to help information exchange across the region.

There were calls from CARICOM, Netherlands and Switzerland for monitoring and assessment of assistance. Netherlands stated that good assessment would further encourage the operationalization of UNSCAR. Switzerland also encouraged the use of benchmarks and standards in regards to UNSCAR.

Australia, ECOWAS, Norway, Mali and Trinidad and Tobago all made reference to the importance of women in international cooperation and assistance. Further, Guatemala, Netherlands, and Palestine in addition to Norway and Trinidad and Tobago praised civil society and NGOs, and the important role they play within cooperation and assistance.

Australia, Costa Rica, ECOWAS, France, Mexico, Netherland and the UK pointed out the synergy between the PoA, ITI and ATT. They called for an integrated, holistic approach, in regards to these instruments, to ensure full implementation.

Finally numerous states aligned themselves with the statements of regional groups. Africa Group, Algeria, ECOWAS, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Nigeria, Thailand and Trinidad and Tobago all aligned to the Non Aligned Movement statement. Austria, France and Netherlands aligned with the EU. Finally, Algeria, Egypt and Palestine supported the Arab Group.

 

AdjuntoTamaño
BMS5 Day 3 Wednesday AM.pdf46.35 KB
BMS5 Day 3 Wednesday PM.pdf44.66 KB