The Head of State or Government of he movement of the Non-Aligned countries met in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, from 24-25 February 2003 to address the crucial global issues affecting their people with the view of agreeing to a set of actions in the promotion of peace, security, justice, equality, democracy and development conducive for a multilateral system of relations based on principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of state. The right of people to self determination and non-intervention in maters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and International Law.

According to the United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs (UNDA), the Heads of State or Government emphasized that the international situation continues to be marked by rapid and dramatic evolution, presenting numerous opportunities and challenges to the international community and the Non-Aligned Movement. However, recent events have again demonstrated that a peaceful, just and secure world continues to elude human kind. Accordingly simmering disputes, violent conflicts aggression and foreign occupation, interference in the domestic affairs of states , policies of hegemony and domination, unilateral and conceive measures, ethnic strife religious intolerances, xenophobia, new forms of racism narrowly conceived nationalism pose major and dangerous obstacles to harmonious coexistence among states and people and have even led to the disintegration of states and societies. According to Jeffrey S (1995;11), the Heads of State or Government expressed their rejection of unilateralism, which is increasing leading to erosion and violation of international law, to the use and threat of use of force and to pressure and coercion by certain countries as a means of achieving their policy objectives. In this context, the Heads of States stressed their commitment to multilateralism.

The Heads of State or Government therefore reiterated the importance of addressing the challenges and problems by strictly abiding to the United Nations Charter and the principles of he International Law. Perkovic G postulates that the Heads of State or Government stressed the vital role of United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security and strengthening the international co-operation. They also reiterated their firm condemnation of all unilateral military actions including those made without proper authorization from the United Nation Security Council, as well as threats of military action against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Member States of the Movement which constitutes acts of aggression and blatant violation of the principles of non-intervention and non-interference. According to Jeffrey S (1995;15), the Heads of State or Government underscored the inherent dangers in the emerging trends towards unipolar world, where unilateral and hegemonic policies could violate basic principles of the Non-Aligned Movement of the United Nation Charter. They strongly condemned any labelling of countries as good or evil and repressive based on unilateral and unjustified criteria and reiterated their firm condemnation of all unilateral military action threat of against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any state. United Nations Institute for Disarmament (1996;6) (UNID), asserts that the Heads of State or Government expressed their strong concern at the growing resort of unilateralism and unilaterally imposed prescription and in this context strongly underlined and affirmed that multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions in accordance with the United Nations Charter, provided the only sustainable method of disarmament and international security issues. In this regard, they welcomed the adoption of the Resolution 57/63 by the General Assembly on the promotion of the multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.

The Heads of State or Government remain deeply concerned at strategic defence doctrines that set out rationales for the use of nuclear weapons. They remained deeply concerned over the Alliance Strategic Concepts adopted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in April 1999, which not only maintain unjustifiable concepts on the international security based on promoting and developing military alliances and policies of nuclear deterrence, but also includes new elements aimed at openly even more the scope for possible use or threat of use of force by NATO. According to Akaki Dvali (2004), in the context of Nuclear Posture Review that has been undertaken by the United States of America, the Heads of State or Government expressed serious concern that the development of new types nuclear weapons being considered and reiterated that the provision of use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear weapon states is in contravention of the negative assurances that have been provided by the Nuclear Weapons States. They restated that the development of new types of nuclear weapons is in contravention with the assurance provided by the Nuclear Weapons States at the time of the Conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that the treaty would prevent the improvement of the existing nuclear weapons and the development of new type’s nuclear weapons.

Akaki D (2004), postulates that the Heads of States or Government reiterated their principled positions on nuclear disarmament and the related issue of nuclear non-proliferation. They also reiterated their deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament which remains their highest priority. They also expressed their concern about lack of progress by the Nuclear Weapons States to accomplish the elimination of their Arsenal leading to nuclear disarmament. Accordingly the Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government stressed their concern at the threat to humanity derived from the continued existence of nuclear weapons and of the possible use or threat of use. The Heads of State or Government understood the need to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons and emphasized, in this regard the urgent need to commence negotiations without delay.

According to Maddox J (1975), the Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government continued to consider the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free-zone (NWFZs) created by the treaties of Tlatelolco, Bangkok Pelindaba as a positive step towards attaining the objective of global nuclear disarmament. The Movement welcomed the efforts aimed at establishing new nuclear-weapons-free-zone, it is essential that Nuclear Weapons States should provide unconditional assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons to all states of the zone. They urged states to conclude agreements with a view to establish new nuclear-weapons-free-zone in regions where they do not exist in accordance with the provisions of the Final Document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSODI) and the principles and guidelines adopted by the United Nations Disarmament Commission at its 1999 substantive session. According to Carl F (1999; 4), the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement they welcomed the ratification by Cuba of the Tlatelolco Treaty which by making all the Latin American and Caribbean States parties to the Treaty, brought it into full force in the area of application.

Accordingly, the Heads of State or government welcomed the on-going consolation between ASEAN and the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) on the Protocol of South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty, and urged the NWS to become parties to the protocol of the treaty as soon as possible. Rivers M (2004;6) argued that the Heads of State or government welcomed the decision by all five central Asian States to sign the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty as soon as possible. They all expressed their support to the initiative of convening an international conference of the state parties ratifies and expressed their support to the initiative of convening an international conference of state parties ratifies and signatories to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba to discuss and implement further ways and means of co-operation among themselves, their treaty agencies and other interested states at an appropriate time,.

According to Akaki D (2004) the Heads of State or government reiterated the support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. To this end, they reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and the paragraph 14 of the Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and the relevant General Assembly Resolution adopted by consensus. Accordingly they called all the members concerned to take urgent and practical steps towards the fulfilment of the proposal initiated by Iran in 1974 for the establishment of such a zone and pending establishment they demanded on Israel, the only country in the region that has not joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) nor declared its intention to do so, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, to accede to the NPT without delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under the IAEA full scope safeguard according to the Security Council Resolution 487 (1981)and to conduct its related nuclear activities in conformity with the non-proliferation regime.

The Heads of State or Government continued to note with concern that undue restrictions on exports developing countries of material equipment and technology, for peaceful purposes persists. They again emphasized that proliferation concerns are best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory agreements. According to Jeffrey S (1995; 17), the Heads of State or Government of State parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) reaffirmed their conviction that the convention on the prohibition of the development production and stockpiling of Bacteriological ( biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction is essential for the maintenance of the international and regional peace and security. They reaffirmed the movement continued determination for the sake of humankind, that the possibility of any use of bacteriological agents and toxins weapons should be completely excluded and the conviction that such use would be repugnant to the conscience of mankind.

The heads of state or government of the state parties to the Biological and toxins Weapons Conventions(BWC) reaffirmed their conviction that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (biological) Toxins Weapons and on their Destruction is essential for the maintenance of international and regional peace and security. They reaffirmed the Movement’s continued determination, for the sake of humankind, that the possibility of any use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins as weapons should be completely be excluded, and the conviction of such use would be repugnant to the conscience of humankind. They believed that the effective contribution of the Convention to international peace and security will be enhanced through universal adherence to the Convention. They stressed the importance of all States Parties to pursue the objectives that were set by the Forth Review of the Conference and underlined that the only sustainable method of strengthening the Convention is through multilateral negotiations aimed to concluding a non-discriminatory legally binding agreement. They have been deeply disappointed at the inability that has been demonstrated at the endeavours of the State parties of the BWC to successful undertake initiatives to strengthen the implementation of the convention. They further regretted the limited nature of the decision that has been taken during the resumed session of the Fifth Review Conference held from 11-15 in Geneva and were disappointed that the opportunity to strengthen the convention was foregone and the limited work which at best only has the potential of enhancing the implementation of the convention, is all that could be achieved despite the Movement’s best endeavours. They believed that, however, the Movement has succeeded in preventing any attempt to foreclose the option of more meaningful work in the future. In this regard the Movement succeeded in preserving multilateralism as the only vehicle for preventing reprehensible use disease as instruments of terror and war in a sustainable way. They further noted that the 2004 meeting of States Parties to the BWC is to be chaired by a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Heads of States or Government to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) welcomed the increasing number of ratifications of the Convention and invited all States who have not still ratified it to do so as soon as possible with the view to its universality. They also underlined the urgency of satisfactorily resolving the unresolved issues in the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with a view of paving the way for the effective, full and non-discriminatory implementation of the Convention. In this context, they reiterated their call on the developed countries to promote international co-operation through the transfer of technology, material and equipment for peaceful purposes in the chemical field and the removal of all any discriminatory restrictions that are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the convention. They also called upon States having declared possession of chemical weapons to bring about the destruction of their chemical weapons at the earliest possible date. While recognising the financial and the technical challenges for some possessors, they called upon those state parties in a position to do so, and were requested, to assist such possessor States in the achievement of the ultimate goal of the convention-the total elimination of chemical weapons. They noted that the First Review Conference of the CWC will be convened in The Hague, from 28 April to 9 May 2003 and looked forward to a significant outcome towards the strengthening of the implementation of the Convention.

In conclusion the Head of State or Government of he movement of the Non-Aligned countries met in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, from 24-25 February 2003 to address the crucial global issues affecting their people with the view of agreeing to a set of actions in the promotion of peace, security, justice, equality, democracy and development conducive for a multilateral system of relations based on principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of state. The right of people to self determination and non-intervention in maters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and International Law.

References

The United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs. Occasional Papers.

Jeffrey S. Administration Debates Pentagon Proposal to resume Nuclear Test, Washington Post. June 18, 1995.

Perkovic G. Strengthening Nuclear Proliferation Regime. The 3-State Problem.

United Nations Institute for Disarmament. A zone of Free of weapons of Mass Destruction on the Middle East: 1996.

Akaki Dvali. Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies (nti.com) (March 2004).

Maddox. J. Prospects for Nuclear Proliferation. IISS, Adelphi Papers, 1975.

Carl Franz. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, 1999.

Rivers Matt. Fact Sheet: Comparison of U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaties, 2004.

NAME: BONIFACE MAHAMBE

REG. NO: R069685A

PROGRAMME: MSc INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

COURSE: INTERNATONAL RELATIONS

DEPARTMENT POLITICAL AND ADMINSTRATIVE STUDIES

LECTURER: PROFESSOR PATEL

COLLEGE: UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE

QUESTION Discuss the main aims of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit Declaration held in Kuala Lumpur, February 25.

DUE DATE: 28 June 2010