Statement by
H.E. Mr. Rezlan Ishar Jenie
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Indonesia
Mission to the United Nations
a t
The Open Debate of the Security Council
On Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

New York, 22 April 2004

Mr. President,

The delegation of Indonesia wishes to commend the members of the Security Council for convening this open debate on an issue which has become a preoccupation of the international community. We would also like to avail of this opportunity to fully endorse the statement delivered by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Mr. President,

It is a fact that the threat of nuclear proliferation is on the rise. There are ominous signs that non-state actors remain interested in the illicit acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Illegal networks exist that can deliver nuclear materials and technology usable in producing weapons.

In dealing with these potentially dangerous situations, we are hampered by a lack of legal framework that would effectively thwart non-state actors, in particular terrorists, from acquiring and illegally transferring nuclear materials and other weapons of mass destruction. Although there are rules and regulations promulgated by several arms control regimes, they are by no means uniform, susceptible to varying interpretations, and due to their restrictive nature, do not enjoy universal support. Most importantly, there are no internationally acceptable provisions to penalize illegal proliferation activities by individuals or non-state actors.

Hence, the draft resolution now before the Council deals with one of the most important aspects of non-proliferation. There is clearly an urgent need to prevent nuclear proliferation involving non-state actors as demonstrated by recent revelations. We need to act now and decisively.

However, the draft resolution is unbalanced and consequently has raised serious concerns as it impinges on the sovereign rights of member states. Because of its wide- ranging ramifications, the issues contained therein need to be further deliberated and clarified prior to its adoption.

We agree with the widely-held view that legal obligations can only be created and be assumed on a voluntary basis. Any far-reaching assumption of authority by the Security Council to enact global legislation requiring each member state to modify its national legal system and policies would be unjust and unsustainable.

Mr. President,

The Council is being asked today to playa role in enforcing non-proliferation. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of various international instruments and treaties on this subject.

The draft resolution is one-sided and adopts a unidimensional approach: it deals with prevention based on punitive measures on states but not elimination of WMDs. Nuclear non-proliferation is the obverse side of nuclear. disarmament. Nuclear non- proliferation can not be promoted in the absence of corresponding progress towards nuclear disarmament. It is also conspicuous by its lack of reference to inducement for horizontal and vertical proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

An expanded scope contemplated therein goes far beyond the stated objective of preventing the acquisition of WMD by non-state actors and seeks jurisdiction even over treaty implementing mechanisms such as the IAEA. It is, therefore, not only what is contained in the resolution that is important but also what is implied which needs to be seen in its proper legal and political perspectives. Further compounding the situation are definitional problems relating to "non-state actors", "responsibility of states" and others that are contained in the body of the resolution and in the footnotes.

Notwithstanding the numerous ambiguities and uncertainties, coupled with legal and technical loopholes, the invocation of Chapter VII may give rise in the future to unilateral use of force in implementing the resolution. The preferred option should be cooperative rather than coercive which should be the last resort undertaken within the framework of a consensus decision.

The establishment of a committee under the auspices of the Security Council would constitute a separate regime for non-proliferation and may well undermine the functions and the proven role of existing treaty regimes such as the IAEA. By excluding an overwhelming majority of member states, such a body would be unrepresentative and would serve no useful function. Its role as defined in the draft resolution can be performed by the UN Secretariat.

The legislative process for criminalization of illicit trafficking of WMD by non- state actors at the national. levels is a long drawn-out process. Hence, the deadline of 90 days for reporting the implementation of the resolution would be unrealistic. Furthermore, its mandate should have a specific time-frame and followed by the convening of an international conference with the participation of all states to negotiate a treaty that would address the issue on a permanent basis.

Finally, in view of the importance and complexities attendant upon the issues involved, the P-5 states have taken several months in examining and deciding on various aspects of the draft resolution. Likewise, the general membership need adequate time to assess its implications both here in New York and in our capitals. The Security Council can effectively deal with this aspect of non-proliferation by doing full justice to the predominant views of an overwhelming majority of member states.

I thank you, Mr. President.