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

• f 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

• bligations 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

• r 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.

All these positive developments mentioned above cannot conceal the fact that some CIS countries still face challenges in implementation of resolution 1540 lacking resources, experience and expertise necessary for meeting fully its requirements. Due to economic, political and social reasons in some CIS States the starting points for implementation of the resolution differed greatly from the very beginning. Examination of the reports and additional information submitted by CIS States demonstrates that some countries have to take more steps to fill the gaps and achieve the goal of full implementation of the resolution. As for the legislative base relating to non-proliferation and counter-terrorism of most countries it had been largely formed before resolution 1540 was adopted. Thus, now it does not reflect fully what specific measures are taken to prevent non-state actors’ access to WMD related materials. Most CIS States presented their first reports and additional information to the Committee in 2005-2007, but not so much has been delivered since

• then. For example, some States do not have a legal framework to penalize violations of

many prohibited or controlled activities relevant to the resolution, especially criminal

• penalties. A few countries have reported on legislation on accountability, security and

physical protection of materials related to chemical and biological weapons. In this regard we would welcome it if CIS States could update the information on the status of implementation of the resolution and present it to the 1540 Committee, since many of them did this several years ago. The implementation of the resolution is an

• ngoing process and the awareness of the Committee of the existing changes in

legislation, of the emerging problems in enforcement and of the new developments in the field of non-proliferation in different countries is very important from the point of view

• f meeting the requirements of the resolution. It would be also appreciated if CIS States

could inform the Committee on the measures they have taken recently, or intend to take, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. According the information we possess, in 2010 -2012 only four or five CIS States have sent their letters to UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs in this regard but not to the Committee 1540. One of the tasks that still stand before some CIS States is the need to develop adequate export control lists that would cover the full scope of the provisions of resolution 1540, as they relate to nuclear, chemical and biological materials. At present not all States have such lists to enable customs officers and officials concerned with trade and security to have effective control. Information on the activities by the Eurasian Economic Community in this field might be of relevance to the work of the 1540 Committee as well as the information on the status of the Customs Union. We would appreciate any new information that explains the present situation with export controls, first of all regulating to transfers of dual use goods within the Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Cooperation and assistance The existing challenges of implementation of resolution 1540 by CIS States highlights the importance of the task of facilitating cooperation, especially in the areas of trade, border controls and strengthening physical protection of sensitive materials, technologies and sites. At this stage of implementation of the resolution the main stress is being made not only on having in place relevant national laws and regulations but on capacity building, enforcement of effective accounting and physical protection measures to secure WMD related materials and technologies. In its letters to the UN the Executive Secretariat of the CIS notes that CIS Member States regularly work on the major areas of international cooperation to ensure counter- terrorism security including operations to prevent the “illicit production of and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and of materials and equipment that can be used to make them”. In this regard we would ask the representatives of CIS member States to address their authorities a request to share more actively with the 1540 Committee their national experiences and lessons learned. The need to develop and maintain appropriate border controls, including laws and regulations to control transit, transshipment, transporting, financing and monitoring of every activity relevant to countering the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery requires active international cooperation. In recent years one could note activation of cooperation of CIS countries among themselves on the issues related to implementation of resolution 1540. To a large extent this process was triggered by the workshop in Astana in September 2011 organized by the OSCE and the ODA where alongside with participants from all States of Central Asia the experts of the CIS and CSTO were present. It was the last time when the experts of the Committee had informal consultations with the representatives of the CIS. Resolution 1540 stipulates that each State is responsible for its implementation acknowledging that some countries may need assistance in this regard. The task of making an inventory of potentially dangerous objects and sources to secure nuclear sites and materials, including orphan sources, abandoned chemical and biological laboratories is still in place as well as the need for strengthening capacity building and border controls. The achievement of the above-mentioned goals for some CIS countries could hardly be reached without external assistance including financial, technical, and

• expertise. The supporting role of international professional and regional organizations

dealing with non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, like the IAEA, ISU CWC, WCO or Interpol is essential. A lot is being done by regional organizations. For example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has held a number of events on resolution 1540 providing assistance to its countries-members of the CIS that can continue to rely on the support of

this organization. Some regional organizations can be helpful. The assistance of the ASEAN and the Shanghai Organization for Cooperation could be important since these

• rganizations have demonstrated interest in strengthening collective security and to

prevent proliferation. As far as we know, the European Union is also ready to provide funds to support the process of implementing the resolution in many states, including CIS members. However, it should be noted that CIS Member States do not actively formally apply for

• assistance. The 1540 Committee is playing a role of a clearing house, trying to match
• ffers and requests of assistance and finding potential donors. By now the Committee is

aware of the efforts by the Russian Federation in providing assistance to enhance the safety of the Armenian nuclear power station as well as of assistance requests of Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan published on the web of the Committee. What about the rest? The 1540 Committee encourages CIS Member States to examine once more the gaps in their implementation of the resolution in accordance with the existing matrix, to establish priorities for addressing them, to study, if appropriate, the assistance needs, and to share this information with the Committee. Though some non-proliferation and counter- terrorist assistance programs are underway in the CIS helping with the development of legislative base and providing training and equipment for export control, border protection and customs check points the states should not hesitate to apply for assistance for other purposes relevant to 1540 process. From our side, we would appreciate the development of closer ties with the CIS and are ready to give necessary support and advice. We hope that our workshop will contribute to enhancing cooperation between the CIS and the 1540 Committee. Thank you for your attention.