First Committee 2012 civil society presentations Disarmament machinery and the rule of consensus

As many member states have pointed out during this Committee's meetings, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) has just ended yet another year without any substantive work. The Disarmament Commission flounders. The arms trade treaty negotiations held in July failed to reach agreement even on a significantly watered-down text. Even where agreement has been reached, such as the small arms review conference in September, the contents are weak or perfunctory-especially considering the non-legally-binding nature of the Programme ofAction.

What is the common denominator at all of these fora and processes? The abuse of consensus.

When ordinary people think of the word "consensus," we conjure up images of effective and concerted action, people, and institutions committed to forward movement to solve some of the most intractable problems plaguing local communities or the community ofnations. Sadly, as many of you know from the long hours you spend in often frustrating meetings on disarmament and arms control issues, "consensus" at the UN is often more a barrier to commitment than the engine of its development.

During the past fifteen years of deadlock in the CD, countless diplomats have come and gone. Their farewell statements are typically full of laments and frustration at what might have been. Many have invested incredible efforts in the CD, employing all their skills of practical diplomacy to overcome the challenges of the stalemate. Their governments have spent millions in tax-payer revenue to fund their posts. But their efforts have been fruitless as the rule of consensus has solidified into a veto.

Some in civil society along with governments have repeatedly warned that blind faith in, and strict interpretation of, the consensus rule have badly damaged UN-affiliated disarmament machinery. The abuse of the consensus rule in combination with lack of political will has ensured that no real negotiations are taking place.

The blame for failure to achieve consensus in these meetings is usually placed on the so-called "spoilers" or "blockers". However, the "spoilers" are usually those that benefit from the status quo in some way and/or that are suspicious of the international community setting norms and rules that could affect the way they conduct business.

The failure to reach agreement or truly substantive outcomes in each of these processes privileges the interests of each of those states that do not want to eliminate their nuclear weapons, that want to preserve the possibility of putting weapons in space, that want to continue to buy or sell conventional arms regardless oftheir intended or probable use, that that don't want stricter regulation ofthe licit arms trade or to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The current stalemates therefore only further the interests ofthe very few.

While some governments argue that the rule of consensus protects their security interests, it in fact functions to undermine the security of the majority-both governments and peoples-that must rely on the rule oflaw rather than the balance of terror to protect them. In the CD, for example, the nuclear weapon possessors are the only states using the rule of consensus as a veto. Thus it protects those that possess nuclear weapons, which they use as an instrument ofpower in their relations with other states.

This state of affairs negates a basic principle of the UN and especially its General Assembly­the sovereign equality of states-by allowing the interest ofone or more states trump the interests of all the others. The proper exercise of sovereign choice is when a state decides whether or not to adhere to an international agreement, not in being allowed to prevent that agreement from ever being achieved.

This misuse of consensus also results in increased investment in military-industrial complexes. The trend of growing military expenditure has been rightly criticized by many delegations at this session of First Committee, but many of these same delegations do not support initiatives to get the CD back to work or to negotiate an arms trade treaty without a unanimous consensus rule. Without multilateral development of the rule of law on disarmament and arms control, the nuclear weapon possessors and other major arms producers and exporters will continue to pour massive funds into weapons and war while poverty and inequality increase throughout the world. The militaries and weapons industries will continue to consume the resources that could otherwise be spent on developing viable mechanisms for collective security and socioeconomic development.

The current situation also undermines the security ofconflict-affected people, not to mention civil society's capacity to engage on behalf of the citizens ofthese sovereign states. What security do ordinary people threatened by the existence of nuclear weapons, the use of conventional weapons, and situations of armed violence have? How do they exercise their right to security and safety? Is there a way for civil society to participate more substantively in UN disarmament and arms control processes? It has been possible outside of the UN-why not inside?

Creativity and new approaches must be a requirement from all those states that say they are in favour of nuclear disarmament or an arms trade treaty. Continued discussion on whether or not the problem is the machinery itself or lack of political will is pointless. Many states do not seem interested in changing the status quo and the existing machinery is incapable of pushing ahead. This cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing. It is not acceptable to sit back and wait for political will to magically appear.

Unanimous agreements are important to strive for, but cannot be a pre-condition that prevents any progress for decades. Moving forward outside deadlocked fora to advance disarmament and protection of civilians is not to undermine the international system. At this point, it's the only

way to protect the security interests of the ordinary people everywhere that are being threatened by the status quo. Given the plethora of current disannament and arms control challenges demanding urgent action, the UN machinery must evolve or it will eventually-soon-become obsolete.

There are a few resolutions at this First Committee that attempt to stimulate progress and move disarmament processes forward.

Austria, Mexico, and Norway have tabled a resolution that calls for the establishment of an open­ended working group that would convene in Geneva for up to three weeks during 2013 in order to "develop concrete proposals to take forward multilateral negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons."

This is a strong option for moving forward with multilateral nuclear disarmament: it meets the demand ofthe vast majority ofgovernments for tangible work on this issue and it is in fact a more robust multilateral option than any that could be offered within the confines of the CD, where only 65 governments can participate. An open-ended working group would invite the full participation ofall UN member states and perhaps civil society participation.

The NAM has called for a high-level meeting on 26 September 2013 in the margins of the next General Assembly session. While it will good to bring the same high-level attention to disarmament as the GA has previously brought to other issues, this meeting will need to have tangible outcomes in order to add any value to the multiple discussion forums currently available.

Canada has tabled a resolution that would establish a 25-member Group ofGovernmental Experts to study elements of a fissile materials treaty. A GGE could address technical issues that could in tum contribute to effective fissile material control within a dedicated treaty, or a convention or framework agreement on nuclear disarmament. However, establishment of a GGE, and more broadly negotiation ofa fissile materials treaty, must not serve as a pretext for delaying work on the larger imperative ofelimination of nuclear weapons.

The bottom line is that initiatives like the Austria-Mexico-Norway proposal and the NAM proposal that shake up the status quo will benefit the majority of people and governments of the world over the few states that seek to retain their tools ofviolence.

On the other hand, we are disappointed that the resolution tabled on extending the negotiations for the ATT stipulates that the conference will continue working under the rule ofconsensus. In July, operating under the rule ofconsensus meant that the treaty text was weakened to accommodate the concerns of a small minority, who were in the end still unprepared to accept the treaty. Operating under the same rules of procedure next March risks another failure, or a weak treaty. It must be the views of the vast maj ority of states that win out, not the few who seek to block, weaken, or delay an outcome.

A handful of countries should no longer be allowed to hold back the rest of the international community in tackling some of the most dramatic problems of our age. Stalemate and watered­down outcomes must urgently be replaced by alternatives that can proudly be deemed "successful" for genuine human security and social and economic justice. Governments and civil society alike should not continue to settle for less.

Statement drafted by Ms. Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will ofthe Women's International

League for Peace and Freedom, with the input ofother civil society representatives.

Statement endorsed by:

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Article 36 Control Arms Global Action to Prevent War IKV Pax Christi Instituto Sou da Paz International Action Network on Small Arms (JANSA) International Physicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War (JPPNW) Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy Mayors for Peace NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Oxfam International Pax Christi International Peace Action New York State Permanent Peace Movement Project Ploughshares Protection Soka Gakkai International The Simons Foundation Western States Legal Foundation Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

First Committee 2012 civil society presentations Outer space security

Mr. Chair, Distinguished delegates:

Since the dawn of the space age more than 50 years ago, humankind has become increasingly reliant on outer space for a wide range of benefits. The end of the Cold War, the emergence of a highly profitable space services industry, and a sharp decrease in the financial and technological barriers to entry have all contributed to a dramatic growth in the number of actors with space­based assets and in the types and availability of space-based applications. It is incumbent upon the international community to ensure that current use and access to outer space do not compromise the ability of present and future generations to benefit from this domain.

Despite the rapid advancement and expansion of space activities, however, the international legal regime for outer space has stagnated for over four decades. It has become apparent that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, although still valuable, is not sufficient to address the plethora of space governance challenges that have emerged since its adoption.

Today, nearly one thousand satellites provide concrete social, scientific, and economic benefits to billions of individuals. From satellite navigation to weather forecasting, from treaty verification to news and entertainment broadcasts, international dependence on the benefits derived from outer space has steadily expanded and will continue to grow. But the continued enjoyment of the benefits of space is anything but guaranteed. As the number of space users and applications has increased, so too have the threats to the long-term sustainability of the space domain.

There is an ever-growing risk of unintentional harm to space assets, which may collide with one another or with a piece oforbital debris. As outer space becomes more congested, the likelihood of such events increases, making all spacecraft vulnerable, regardless of the nation or entity to which they belong.

In this regard, we applaud several initiatives aimed at codifying transparency and confidence­building measures for space activities. Their intent is to reduce misperceptions and miscommunications and to forge much needed agreements on the sort of responsible behavior that will contribute to a sustainable space environment.

A proposal such as the International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, championed by the European Union along with other international partners, constitutes a welcome development. We encourage the drafters of the Code to facilitate transparent and inclusive consultations with various stakeholders-including advanced and emerging spacefaring nations as well as civil society-so that the input and concerns of all interested actors are reflected in the final version of the Code, thereby increasing the likelihood ofwidespread adoption.

As well, we view with optimism the establishment ofgroups specifically tasked with examining measures and recommendations for best practices in the conduct of outer space activities. Two notable examples are the Group of Governmental Experts on space TCBMs established by the UN General Assembly and the Working Group on the Long Term Sustainability of Outer Space, established by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Distinguished delegates,

Although the multilateral processes on space TCBMs just mentioned should be welcomed and supported, the international community cannot and should not be content with addressing only some of the challenges facing the space domain, while turning a blind eye to others just as critical. We are greatly concerned that discussions related to space weaponization and the prevention ofan arms race in outer space (P AROS) have yet to gain sufficient traction. In the past decade alone, ground-based anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) have been tested; several communications satellites have been deliberately jammed; missile defense systems have been used as ASA Ts; and precursor technologies that would allow space-to-space offensive capabilities have been developed. In addition, nations that have not yet employed ASATs have openly expressed an interest in developing them.

P AROS is neither an unfounded concern nor a naIve diplomatic proposition. It is a fundamental prerequisite for the long-term sustainability ofouter space, which merits the attention of international policymakers. Initiatives like the proposed Code ofConduct are undoubtedly valuable. But addressing the issue of space weapons and the concomitant prevention ofan arms race in outer space was not the intent ofthe drafters of the Code, which focuses on issues such as debris mitigation, collision avoidance, and data sharing-all important in their own right.

The reality is that some space actors believe that orbital debris should command the most urgent international attention, because of the indiscriminate nature and immediacy of the threat. Others, however, see the prevention of an arms race in outer space as the most important issue to tackle, given the destabilizing effect that space weapons would have for all spacefaring nations. Neither should be dismissed out ofhand.

We recognize that the pursuit of TCBMs for space activities can contribute to a climate of trust and common understanding that is favorable for tackling the complex issue of P AROS. However, while various diplomatic processes that deal with various challenges related to peaceful space activities are advancing, efforts to address P AROS head-on have unfortunately been relegated to a diplomatic limbo. At the UN General Assembly, the annual PAROS resolution has not once been supported by the most advanced spacefaring nation in history. At COPUOS, any efforts to discuss PAROS are routinely dismissed as falling outside the jurisdiction of this body. And at the Conference on Disarmament, where P AROS is a core agenda item, member states have been unable to agree on even a Program of Work for over a decade.

The development and deployment ofmissile defense systems with ASAT capabilities is also highly troubling as they could be employed against space assets. To be sure: the ability to use missile defense systems as anti-satellite weapons is not dormant, potential, or eventual. It is an actual and proven capability. Relying upon the unilateral restraint of states not to use ASATs is not a viable long-term solution. Furthermore, the development of such systems may hinder progress in other areas of disarmament and international security. The fact that the deployment and expansion of missile defense systems could prevent further nuclear arsenal reductions has been repeatedly emphasized by civil society and national governments as recently as this First Committee session.

Distinguished delegates,

Several obstacles are routinely cited in discussions relating to the development of an effective arms control mechanism that prevents the weaponization of space. Of particular note is the notion that, since there is no agreement on a precise definition for a space weapon, it is not possible to develop international norms to protect space assets from hostile interference.

Notwithstanding this lack ofdefinitional precision, a viable approach to start addressing these challenges is to regulate certain conduct in outer space in order to prevent intentional harmful interference with space assets. From this perspective, spacefaring nations could pledge, at a minimum:

Not to use any space- or ground-based capabilities to physically damage ordestroy space assets.

Such a pledge-which should be codified in a multilateral policy arrangement-would not require a precise definition of space weapon. The primary focus would be on protecting the physical and operational integrity of space assets. Verification of compliance, which is also a typical stumbling block in space security discussions, would be resolved with existing technical means that would make the destruction of space assets without clear attribution virtually impossible. Regrettably, the unwillingness to embrace such a pledge may signal an ongoing desire to maintain the option of attacking space assets.

Distinguished delegates,

Civil society has long supported efforts that contribute to the security and sustainability of the space domain. For example, an international space security conference hosted annually by UNIDIR receives substantial support from civil society organizations whose work is focused on the promotion of space sustainability. Likewise, the only report in the world that systematically tracks civil, commercial, military and policy developments that have an impact on the security of outer space- the Space Security Index-is produced by an international research consortium led by non-governmental organizations.

Earlier this year, a group of civil society organizations convened a roundtable in Canada to discuss pressing threats to the secure and sustainable use of outer space, which was attended by government and NGO representatives, academics, lawyers, members of the private sector and the military from the United States, Canada, India, China, and various European nations. The outcome document--or Waterloo Declaration-recommends, among other proposals, that international negotiations be pursued without delay to supplement existing space law and create a comprehensive outer space regime that will reinforce cooperative approaches to ensure the secure and sustainable use of outer space.

Mr. Chair, Distinguished delegates:

The challenges facing the space domain are multifaceted, but they are not mutually exclusive. Just as there are clear benefits to advancing multilateral initiatives to tackle congestion and collision avoidance in outer space, addressing P AROS should be understood as being in the best interest of all spacefaring nations. With this belief, we strongly urge international policymakers to pursue parallel processes that fully take into account all threats-actual and potential-to the security, stability, and sustainability of the space domain. There will be hurdles along the way, of course. But that is all the more reason to promptly move forward to develop robust space governance mechanisms. The consequences of inaction could be dire.

Thank you.

Statement drafted by Cesar Jaramillo, Project Ploughshares, with the input ofother civil society

representatives.

Statement endorsed by:

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy IKV Pax Christi NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Pax Christi International Peace Action New York State Project Ploughshares Soka Gakkai International The Simons Foundation Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

First Committee 2012 civil society presentations Preventing a humanitarian catastrophe

Distinguished delegates:

Let us take a few moments to remind you of some uncomfortable truths: Today, more than 19,000 nuclear weapons are stationed at an estimated 111 locations across the globe. Two thousand are kept on hair-trigger alert. Many hundreds are deliverable by submarines that patrol our oceans at all times. Hundreds more are mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles, ready to fly at a moment's notice. Thousands of"extras" are being held in reserve. Every one poses a direct and constant threat to people everywhere. Every one is a humanitarian catastrophe waiting to happen.

In May 2010, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, states parties to the treaty expressed their "deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences ofany use of nuclear weapons", and reaffirmed "the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law". Just last week, 35 states joined in a similar statement, calling on all states to "intensifY their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and achieve a world free ofnuclear weapons."

There is no credible scenario that warrants the use of nuclear weapons. In the halls of these United Nations, no state can justifiably dismiss the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution, or the prohibitions on causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and widespread, severe and long-term damage to the environment.

Outlawing and eliminating nuclear weapons - the most egregious weapons ofterror and mass murder ever created - is the only absolute guarantee against their use. A legally binding, non­discriminatory and comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons is long overdue, and must be pursued as a matter of urgency. This proposed treaty is the centrepiece of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki­moon's disarmament action plan. It enjoys the support of three in four nations and the overwhelming majority of the world's people. We implore you to begin negotiations now. Do not await the sight ofa city in ashes before finally mustering the will to act.

Distinguished delegates:

The US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 67 years ago remind us that nuclear abolition is a humanitarian necessity. The devices used in those attacks were small by today's standards, yet they claimed more than 210,000 lives by the end of 1945. Many thousands more have died in the decades since from radiation-related illnesses. Within moments of the detonations, ground temperatures had exceeded 4,000 degrees Celsius; shockwaves had reached a thousand kilometres an hour. Human beings were reduced to vapour, or became projectiles. The physical and emotional scars from the attacks persist to this day.

With the Doomsday Clock ticking closer to midnight, we must re-open our eyes to the threat of nuclear weapons. A repeat of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or worse - is not merely a theoretical possibility; it is a real and present danger, and must be prevented at all costs, The discourse about nuclear weapons use in recent years has focused largely on terrorists and states that do not in fact possess nuclear weapons, but by far the greatest threat comes from the existing nuclear-armed states, which continue to place nuclear weapons at the centre of their national security policies.

At a time when economic and ecological crises are leading to heightened tensions over increasingly scarce resources, the potential for wars among major powers armed with nuclear weapons is real and must be acknowledged. Although it is unlikely that any such war would be initiated with a nuclear strike, we must squarely face the possibility that a conventional war among nuclear-armed states could escalate to a nuclear holocaust. We urge you not to allow a small handful ofpowerful states to hold the entire world at ransom.

Distinguished delegates:

In the 1980s, the World Health Organization declared nuclear weapons "the greatest immediate threat to the health and welfare ofmankind". More recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross has described them as "unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival ofhumanity".

Nuclear bombings eradicate the social infrastructure required for recovery from conflict. Communications and transportation systems, fire-fighting equipment, and hospitals and pharmacies all lie in rubble throughout a zone of complete destruction extending for kilometres. Those attempting to provide relief to the sick and wounded are exposed to high levels of radioactivity, risking their own lives. Nowhere in the world would it be possible to render effective relief in the event of a nuclear attack, underscoring the absolute humanitarian imperative ofprevention through elimination ofnuclear arsenals.

A limited nuclear war involving 1 00 Hiroshima-sized weapons - a tiny fraction of the total global stockpile - would cause tens of millions of immediate deaths, and disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that more than a billion people would be at risk offamine. Global temperatures and rainfall would drop abruptly, shortening growing seasons and making food inaccessible to hundreds ofmillions of the world's poorest people. A war fought using 1,000 nuclear weapons around 5 per cent of the global total would render the planet uninhabitable for all time.

Distinguished delegates:

•

Even if a nuclear weapon were never again exploded over a city, the intolerable effects of their production, testing and deployment continue to be experienced as an ongoing personal and community catastrophe around the globe. This must not be overlooked. Decades of nuclear tests carried out at more than 60 locations worldwide - often on the lands of indigenous and minority peoples - have had a staggering toll on human health and the environment. Physicians estimate that 2.4 million people will eventually die from cancers caused by atmospheric nuclear tests alone.

The production ofhighly enriched uranium and separated plutonium - the raw ingredients for all nuclear weapons - is also highly hazardous. Large volumes ofuranium waste tailings create long-lasting radioactive and chemical pollution. No uranium mine anywhere in the world has been fully cleaned up and restored environmentally after mining has finished.

Uranium is also the fuel for civilian nuclear power programmes, which are never truly peaceful. The disasters at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. The Chernobyl meltdown caused at least tens of thousands of cancer deaths and the humanitarian damage from the ongoing Fukushima catastrophe cannot yet be fully assessed. Even during normal use, nuclear reactors emit radiation into the air, water and soil, resulting in increased rates of leukaemia in children living close by. And the waste from nuclear power remains radioactive and dangerous for millennia.

Finally, we must consider the vast opportunity costs ofnuclear weapons. As millions across the globe go hungry and are denied access to clean water, basic medicines and sanitation, the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear arsenals. The entire annual budget of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs is equal to the amount spent on nuclear weapons every hour. This obscene diversion of resources away from meeting human needs is itself a form of catastrophic harm, and must be condemned.

Distinguished delegates:

Let us conclude by reissuing Kofi Annan's vital warning, in one of his final speeches as secretary-general of this esteemed organization, that we are sleepwalking towards disaster. Six years have passed since then, and precious little has been done to eradicate the unique existential threat ofnuclear weapons. We cannot simply sit back and hope that the nuclear-armed nations will one day disarm. For too long we have waited, hoping, and nothing has been done. If anything, we have slid further towards the nuclear precipice.

It is time for non-nuclear-weapon states to start a process to outlaw nuclear weapons and establish a framework for their total elimination. A ban on the world's worst weapons is long overdue, and must be the next big negotiating objective of the international community. Be among the countries that drive this process now!

Statement drafted by Tim Wright, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), with the input from several other civil society representatives.

Statement endorsed by:

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Article 36 Global Action to Prevent War IKV Pax Christi International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (lCAN) International Physicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War (IPPNW) Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy Mayors for Peace NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Pax Christi International Peace Action New York State Project Ploughshares Soka Gakkai International The Simons Foundation Western States Legal Foundation Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

Statement to UN General Assembly First Committee International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History November 1, 2012

Mr. Chainnan:

I am Ken Smith-Christmas, representing ICOMAM, The International Committee of Museums and Collections ofAnns and Military History. ICOMAM is an organization with approximately 260 institutional and individual members in some 50 countries, and includes such museums as the Royal Annouries in England, the Royal Dutch Anny Museum, the Royal Belgian Anny Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution. For the past fifty-five years, we have served as the advocate for museums around the world that specialize in anns and military history. We are an international committee ofICOM, the International Council ofMuseums, which works closely with UNESCO.

Nearly every history museum on earth has fireanns in its collections. Most of these arms are antique, or, by their historical association, are considered to be curios. Many of them are inoperable relics, due to their physical condition. Some are excavated, archaeological, material. The ability to acquire and exchange them is essential to the scientific, cultural, and economic functioning of our museums. We are concerned that the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty will affect these types offireanns. For instance, under proposals currently being reviewed, a museum would have to seek the permission of the exporting country, the importing country, and the transit countries to acquire and transport an antique ann or weapon, even for a temporary loan or a research project.

We submit that antique anns and museum weapons pose no threat to anyone. Rather, they are part of our common cultural heritage and current regulatory structures are adequate to control them. Additionally, in today's climate ofconstrained budgets, it is an unnecessary financial burden on museums and governments to require stringent controls over the antiques, curios, and relic anns commonly found in museums.

In short, we believe that there is simply no need for antique and museum anns and weapons to be included within the scope of an Anns Trade Treaty. We therefore request that they be exempted from the scope of any Treaty.

Thank you.

Statement to UN General Assembly First Committee Maufacturers Advisory Group November 1, 2012

Mr. Chairman:

I am Ted Rowe, Chairman of the Manufacturers Advisory Group to the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA). Speaking on behalf of the world's leading manufactm:ers of civilian firearms and ammunition, we must insist on the recognition of civilian possession and ownership of firearms and ammunition in accordance with national law.

Unless and until the United Nations in its various proposals recognizes the right oflawful civilian ownership and possession of firearms, we will continue to use all efforts necessary to have civilian ownership recognized by the United Nations, and we will continue to oppose those proposals that do not recognize this right.

The Arms Trade Treaty to be negotiated in March of 20 13 should clearly indicate that the small arms included are for military use and that civilian firearms are to be excluded.

The Programme of Action as it evolves should also recognize the legitimate, legal use of firearms by civilians as well as their right to own and possess firearms within their national laws.

It is interesting to note that each and every member state of the United Nations is a legitimate importer of civilian firearms and ammunition. These imports are not for the military! These imports should not be subject to or included within an Arms Trade Treaty.

Civilian use of firearms is seen internationally in Olympic Games, in hunting around the world, in sport shooting and in recreational use.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the human right of selfprotection and self defense. This right is indisputable and is documented throughout history. Firearms are an effective means to fulfill that right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Statement to UN General Assembly First Committee Second Amendment Foundation November 1, 2012

Mr. Chairman, I am Julianne Versnel of the Second Amendment Foundation. Thank: you for this opportunity to speak today. Mr. Chairman in late August I spoke to the Programme ofAction Review Conference about an issue intimately connected with the topic of small arms and light weapons. I would like to repeat that message.

The issue I spoke of was the right of self-defense and particularly as it applied to women. Mr. Chairman, human rights are an essential part of international dialog. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, the EU Convention on Human Rights, and traditional common law all speak to a right to life. Mr. Chairman that right to life must be given real meaning. If there is a right to life there must also fundamental right to defend that life. We categorically reject the interpretation ofMs. Barbara Frey, UN Human Rights Commission Rapporteur who questioned such a right.

Mr. Chairman the right of self-defense is right that is particularly important to women. We have a right to protect our bodies, to protect o1.H"selves against assault and rape. No one questions that violence against women is endemic. Mr. Chairman there are those who say women should rely on the police, the authorities, or even the UN for protection. Mr. Chairman, I reject this idea. In fact Mr. Chairman, this concept is part of the outmoded and disproved idea that women are somehow weaker and must rely on men for their protection.

Mr. Chairman, most of the delegates here know that in the US there is extensive firearms ownership. What they do not know is that almost half of the handguns in the US are owned by women. They are used for self-defense by women. I fully endorse, as should every person in this room, the idea that women must have the means to defend themselves. Nothing that is before this this Committee, in an ATT or part of the POA should affect a woman's right to defend herself.

Mr. Chairman let me close with a historical anecdote. Eleanor Roosevelt was the United States first ambassador to the UN. She also was essentially the mother of the UN's Declaration of Human rights. She was known and revered for her beliefs in woman's rights. Including the right to defend herself with firearm if necessary. And Mrs. Roosevelt practiced what she preached. In 1958 Mrs. Roosevelt drove though the American South by herself. The Klu Klux Klan had put a $25,000 bounty on her head and the Secret Service told her not to go. She went anyway and on the seat of the car was her own .38 caliber revolver.

Mr. Chairman we can learn from Mrs. Roosevelt, no one supported the UN more than she did, but at the same time she insisted on her right, as a woman and as a person to have the means to defend herself. Thank you.

Statement to UN General Assembly First Committee Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc November 1, 2012

Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to provide this statement. My name is Richard Patterson. I'm the managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute--also known as SAAMI. Since 1926 we have created the safety and reliability standards for the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and.use of firearms, ammunition and components. We are an accredited standards-setting organization. Whether you realize it or not, every country in this room benefits from our standards. Firearms and ammunition that follow SAAMI standards are being used in every corner of the world to promote peace, enhance economic stability, responsibly manage wildlife populations, provide recreation, teach life-skills, promote the camaraderie of sporting competition, and protect lives.

The small arms issue is complex, since small arms are tools that can be used for the greater good ofhumanity, and misused by those who choose to commit acts of violence. Because of this duality, uninformed decisions can cause more harm than good.

SAAMI has at its disposal many of the world's leading ballisticians, structural engineers, chemists, statisticians, logistics experts, and metallurgists specializing in firearms and ammunition. We are in the unique position of providing valuable technical, factual, and science­based input into the small arms discussion and debate. We also have access to the real-world practical knowledge of the major manufacturers of firearms, ammunition and components, meaning we can add a practical perspective to the debate.

We welcome the opportunity to share our expertise and experience. We would like to participate in any discussions resulting from the PoA call for technical and industry participation and input, and-for that matter-in any other discussions on this important issue.

###

Statement to UN General Assembly First Committee World Forum on Sport Shooting November 1, 2012

Mr. Chairman, I am Herbert Keusgen, the President of the World Forum on Shooting Activities. We represent the hundreds of millions of hunters, sport shooters and civilian firearms owners throughout the world. The WFSA is an ECOSOC NGO and has participated in UN meetings relating to small anns and light weapons for fifteen years.

Today I would like to make three brief comments, reflecting the views the civilian firearms community, on the Programme ofAction, the possible Arms Trade Treaty and ISACS.

On the Programme ofAction, Mr. Chainnan, we continue to remain disappointed that the POA has failed to recognize the legitimacy and utility of civilian fireanns ownership. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a continuing misconception on the part of the UN and supporters of the POA, that civilian firearms are a bad thing. Sixty percent of the small anns in the world are legally owned by civilians. These arms are not a problem. The problem lies with inadequate control ofmilitary arms.

Mr. Chairman, let's say something positive. At the last week's UN meeting on the UN Fireanns Protocol in Vienna there was an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of civilian firearms use. This was a positive step and we commend this action.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to a possible Arms Trade Treaty, we continue to be told that the intent of an ATT is only to control military small arms. Therefore, we request the UN to state this in such an ATT in clear and unmistakable language. For example, it could use the definition of SAL W used by Germany, and I quote:

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), are weapons and weapon systems which were originally manufactured or which were rebuilt according to military standards and reqUirements for use as war materiel.

This would clearly exclude civilian firearms from the scope of the A TT.

Mr. Chairman, the ATT has been extremely politicized in one particular jurisdiction. This is a question ofperception, Mr. Chairman. As long as the ATT is perceived, let me underline perceived, as affecting civilian firearms, it will not be accepted or ratified in that jurisdiction. This situation can be changed by the specific exclusion ofcivilian firearms that we have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on International Small Arms Control Standards or ISACS. We are extremely disappointed in the ISACS process. If the POA has had a bias against civilian :fIrearms, ISACS has been almost overtly anti-civilian fireanns. The ISACS process has failed to respond appropriately to the legitimate concerns and requirements of the civilian user community and the fireanns manufacturers. This must change, Mr. Chairman.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that notwithstanding our criticisms today we remain willing to cooperate on all fronts and venues whether it be the POA, the Firearms Protocol, the ATT or ISACS. We can be a valuable ally to efforts that address the problems of misuse or a steadfast opponent of any effort that restrict the lawful use ofcivilian firearms.

For further information contact Thomas Mason at +1 503 998 0555 or tlmorusa@ao1.com