Printer Friendly Page

Remarks on the Draft Resolution on Non-Proliferation,
at the Security Council Stakeout (excerpted)
Ambassador John Negroponte
United States Mission to the United Nations
March 24, 2004

AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: Hi. I’d like to make a few points about the resolution – the draft resolution that we introduced on non-proliferation into the Security Council today. This draft calls on member states to criminalize the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and their means of delivery to non-state actors. We believe that we must act now to set a higher standard to prevent these weapons, key elements used to create them, and designs used to make them from falling into the hands of non-state actors, including terrorists, who seek to do us harm. There is explicit language in the draft making clear that this resolution is not meant to supercede, undercut or undermine existing disarmament and non-proliferation regimes. The draft resolution calls on member states to refrain from providing support to non-state actors attempting to develop, acquire, possess or use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. It also calls on member states to adopt and enforce laws prohibiting non-state actors from pursuing these activities and to establish effective domestic controls over these weapons and key items used to create them. We’ve also stated that those nations needing assistance in strengthening their controls may ask it of those of us in a position to provide such assistance. The resolution – the draft resolution calls upon all of us to review our current procedures, to improve them, and to cooperate to prevent these very dangerous weapons from spreading beyond our control. It’s an important draft resolution, and an important step we can take together to confront a serious problem we will be facing for some time to come. Any questions?

REPORTER: Ambassador, why did the U.S. decide to take out of the resolution the call for interdiction of ships at sea?

AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: Well, let me say that, first of all, the fundamental purpose of this resolution is to deal with a very important gap that exists in international law today and that is the question of dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and materials that could be used to make them, falling into the hands of non-state actors. There’s nothing in this resolution that precludes the continuation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is being conducted at the moment, and that's the kind of initiative – that’s the kind of activity you’re talking about in your question, which is being conducted under existing international law. The real aim of this resolution is to deal with the problem of non-state actors. There are lots of disarmament and non-proliferation agreements that bind states to certain standards of behavior. This is the issue of preventing these weapons and materials from getting into the hands of non-state actors, who of course are not parties to such treaties.

REPORTER: In the original draft, the resolution used the word interdiction explicitly – it did call for that. Was there a decision made not to go that route?

AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: Well, again I come back to the fundamental purpose of this resolution – the question of denying these weapons and these materials to non-state actors. It’s a very important problem, it's a serious gap in the international regime and it’s one that needs to be dealt with on an urgent basis. It took the P-5 a certain amount of time to come up with this draft. We now expect to go into a period of consultation with the other members of the Council. There will be experts meetings to start off with. We hope to move this forward as expeditiously as possible. Yes.

[…]

REPORTER: Ambassador, not to belabor this issue too much, the Chinese delegation said earlier this week that the provision on op 7 on interdiction was essentially kicked out of the resolution as part of the final agreement. Is that the case? Does it no longer, sort of, enable you to do interdiction at sea?

AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: Well, again, the interdiction under the Proliferation Security Initiative is taking place or takes place under existing international law and consistent with international legal practices. I come back to the key point, the real focus of the resolution is how to prevent WMD and the materials that can be used to make them from falling into the hands of non-state actors, and the most important obligation that it asks member states of the United Nations to undertake is to criminalize the provision of such items and such materials to non-state actors through their own domestic legislation. That’s the key part of the resolution.

[…]