Workshop on the Implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540 - PDF document

Workshop on the Implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) (15-17 January 2013, Minsk) Presentation by Mr. P. Litavrin, the expert of the 1540 Committee. Distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, As a member of the group of experts working for the Committee 1540 I would like to thank the Government of Belarus, the OSCE and the executive Committee of the CIS for this opportunity to deliver a presentation at this workshop and participate in its work. I would also like to greet the delegates from CIS countries who have come here to discuss the problems of the implementation of the resolution. Let me start by reminding you that resolution, 1540 unanimously adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, establishes binding obligations on all States to refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery. The resolution lays down key principles and mechanisms for coordinated efforts against illicit trafficking in WMD and related materials. The 1540 Committee has become an important tool for facilitating cooperation among Member States in countering the global threat of WMD proliferation and the potential acquisition of such weapons by non-state actors, in particular for terrorist purposes. Present status of implementation Since the adoption of the resolution its implementation has been improving steadily. In 2012, six States: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Serbia and Slovenia provided additional information to the Committee and one more State - the Republic of the Congo- submitted its first report on steps it has taken towards the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) bringing the total number of national implementation reports submitted by States to 169. As it was already mentioned twenty- four UN Member States have yet to make their first submissions. The Committee continued to encourage UN Member States to submit their initial reports and additional information on effective national practices. We are pleased to note that in recent years some CIS Member States activated their cooperation with the 1540 Committee. Belarus submitted its National Framework Document to implement resolution 1540 an analogue of NAPs bringing to six the number of such plans received by the Committee. Kyrgyzstan prepared a draft NAP which was discussed with the experts of the 1540 Committee. A number of CIS States announced their intent to prepare voluntary NAPs as well.

Experts participated in country specific activities on the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) with Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova. In 2012, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan held their national round tables, with the participation of OSCE, on the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). Two training workshops were organized in Turkmenistan and Ukraine. In this regard I would like to emphasize the importance of the outreach activities of the 1540 Committee and the regional workshops. Beyond those mentioned above there were a number of other events organized for CIS members by the UNODC, the OSCE and by the Asian Regional Forum with more diverse membership. We appreciate the helpful role of these organizations and states that hosted these workshops to encourage progress towards full implementation of resolution 1540. We are also grateful to the other countries that have sponsored workshops of relevance to our work. The CIS and the resolution: good practices and challenges CIS States play an important role in a common strategy against the potential nexus between proliferation of WMD and international terrorism that knows no borders. The particularity of the CIS is that some of its members produce, or produced WMD related materials in the past, including dual use items. That makes them potential targets for non- state actors seeking these materials. In this regard, the active cooperation among CIS states on strengthening the nuclear security should be noted, for example, the removal of nuclear materials from some CIS states, in particular, from Uzbekistan. It is of no less importance that nearly all States of the Commonwealth have suffered from terrorist attacks, and in this regard there is no need to explain here the importance of comprehensive and sustained struggle against this evil. The problems of non-proliferation and WMD related terrorism are regularly discussed at the meetings of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, and consultations on export controls and the implementation of resolution 1540 are also regularly take place. This is an example of a good practice relevant to the purposes of resolution 1540. It is not my task to review the process of implementation of the resolution by CIS Member States and identify the best practices. I think that their representatives will do it better by telling us about the achievements, good practices, challenges and perspectives. However, I cannot refrain from certain comments aimed at identifying some experiences which enhance the implementation of the resolution as well as focusing on some breaches and gaps. All CIS States have submitted their reports to the 1540 Committee and most of them have submitted additional information at the request of the Committee. All in all, members of the Commonwealth have a higher rate of response to the requests of the Committee compared to some other regional bodies.

All CIS countries are parties to the most important treaties and conventions. (NPT, CWC, BWC, CTBT, IAEA Safeguards Agreements), some of them are members of international export control regimes like the NSG, the MTCR or Wassenaar Arrangements. It’s noteworthy that constitutions of CIS countries usually have an article that automatically integrates international law into domestic law, including international obligations in the sphere of non-proliferation. This can be also regarded as a good practice which simplifies assessment of measures taken to implement the resolution. The CIS as an organization regularly informs the UN bodies on measures taken to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In May 2010 and in March 2012 relevant letters from the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the CIS were sent to UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. It was noted in a letter of 2012 that the efforts are being made: to suppress the illicit manufacture of, and trafficking in, potent chemical, biological and radioactive substances; to protect facilities which pose an elevated technological and environmental hazard; to identify and shut down specialized laboratories and other facilities used by terrorist and extremist organizations to prepare the instruments of their criminal activity, including the components of weapons of mass destruction. In conclusion it was stated that there is no information about evidence of the production or acquisition by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction and their components, or of they access to production technologies within the territory of the Commonwealth. We would appreciate if such information absolutely relevant to the purposes of our work would be also submitted to the Committee 1540. Another example of good practice is the adoption by the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of several model laws that cover prevention and countering nuclear terrorism. Among them: the model law on Export Control (2001), model Criminal Code (2006), model law on Counter-Terrorism (2004), model Law on Prevention of Financing Terrorism (2004), model Law on Control of Radioactive Materials Trafficking (2004) and some others. Though model laws per se cannot be regarded as a universal instrument their adoption can be useful for facilitating implementation of the resolution. They also illustrate the common interest of members of the Commonwealth in the continuing struggle against proliferation of WMD and terrorism. We welcome the ongoing efforts aimed at harmonization of some legislation among the CIS members States, including the chemical and biological safety and security legislation and also revision of criminal codes to include penalties for smuggling or trafficking in WMD related materials. It is important to reflect changes in criminal law for offences in the reports, since international conventions don’t establish penalties.