Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part II (Full Text)

79.5 Oppose the tendency to equate reform of the UN with greater empowerment of the Security Council, mindful of the need to keep the balance among the functions and powers of the principal organs of the UN;

79.6 Ensure that the UN is provided with sufficient resources and on a timely basis needed to fully implement all mandated programmes and activities, in accordance with relevant General Assembly resolutions, including evolving a mechanism to monitor their effective implementation;

79.7 Promote, in close cooperation with the Group of 77 and China, the allocations of additional resources to further strengthen the development pillar of the United Nations;

79.8 Maintain close inter-governmental oversight and review of all proposals, which are yet to be considered and acted upon by the General Assembly, as well as those, which are being implemented; and

79.9 Preserve the unity of purpose and action achieved by NAM and the G-77 and China through the JCC in following up on the various aspects of the UN reform in order for the interests and concerns of developing countries to be adequately reflected in the final outcome of this process.

B. Relationship among the Principal Organs of the United Nations

80. The Heads of State or Government underscored the need for UN Member States to fully respect the functions and powers of each principal organ of the UN, in particular the General Assembly, and to maintain the balance among these organs within their respective Charter-based functions and powers. They stressed that the Security Council must fully observe all Charter provisions as well as all General Assembly resolutions, which clarify its relationship with the latter organ and other principal organs. In this context, they affirmed that Article 24 of the Charter does not necessarily provide the Security Council with the competence to address issues which fall within the functions and powers of the General Assembly and the ECOSOC, including in the areas of norm-setting, legislation, administrative and budgetary matters, and establishing definitions, bearing in mind that the Assembly is primarily tasked with the progressive development of international law and its codification.18 The Heads of State or Government expressed their grave concern over the increasing and continuing encroachment by the Council on issues which clearly fall within the functions and powers of other principal organs of the UN and their subsidiary bodies. They further stressed that close cooperation and coordination among all principal organs is highly indispensable in order to enable the UN to remain relevant and capable of meeting the existing, new and emerging threats and challenges.

81. The Heads of State or Government stressed that while Member States have conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security pursuant to Article 24 (1) of the UN Charter and in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Council acts on their behalf. In

18 In accordance with Article 13 (1) of the UN Charter.

33

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

this context, they further stressed that the Council should report and be accountable to the General Assembly in accordance with Article 24 (3) of the Charter.

82. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their concern over the continuing encroachment by the Security Council on the functions and powers of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council through addressing issues which traditionally fall within the competence of the latter organs, and the attempts to enter areas of norm-setting, administrative and budgetary matters and establishing definitions which fall within the purview of the Assembly. They further expressed concern over the constant attempts by the Security Council to use thematic issues under its consideration to expand its mandate into areas which do not pose a threat to international peace and security, and further urged the Council to confine to its mandate in accordance with the Charter provisions.

83. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to defend, preserve and promote these positions, the Heads of State or Government will continue to undertake the following measures, among others:


83.1 Urge all States to uphold the primacy of and full respect for the provisions of the UN Charter pertaining to the functions and powers of the Assembly, call on the Presidents of the General Assembly, the ECOSOC and the Security Council to conduct regular discussions and coordination among themselves regarding the agenda and programme of work of the respective principal organs that they represent in order to establish increased coherence and complementarity among these organs in a mutually reinforcing manner, respectful of each others’ mandates, and with a view to generating a mutual understanding among them, with whom the members of the respective organs that they represent have vested in good faith their trust and confidence;

83.2 Welcome as a step forward the informal meetings between the July’s Presidents of the Council, and UN Member States on the preparation of the annual report of the Security Council, including those convened by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 2008, Uganda in 2009, Nigeria in 2010, Germany in 2011 and Colombia in 2012, and call for more regular interactions between future July’s Presidency of the Security Council and the wider membership of the United Nations, which can help enhance the quality of such reports;

83.3 Call on the Security Council to submit a more explanatory, comprehensive and analytical annual report to the General Assembly, assessing the work of the Council, including such cases in which the Council has failed to act, and the views expressed by its members during the consideration of the agenda items under its consideration. Further call on the Security Council to elaborate the circumstances under which it adopts different outcomes whether resolutions, presidential statements, press statements or elements to the press;

83.4 Call on the Security Council, pursuant to Articles 15 (1) and 24 (3) of the UN Charter, to submit special reports for the consideration of the General Assembly;

83.5 Call on the Security Council to ensure that its monthly assessments are comprehensive and analytical, and issued in a timely fashion. The General Assembly may consider proposing parameters for the elaboration of such assessments;

83.6 Call on the Security Council to fully take into account the recommendations of the General Assembly on matters relating to international peace and security, consistent with Article 11 (2) of the Charter; and

83.7 Oppose and stop ongoing attempts to shift issues under the agenda of the General Assembly or the ECOSOC to the Security Council, and the encroachment by the latter on the functions and powers of the Assembly.


34

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2


C. Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly

84. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the principled positions of the Movement concerning the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, as follows:

84.1 The role and authority of the General Assembly, including in questions related to international peace and security, as the chief deliberative, policy- making and representative organ of the UN,19 and its inter-governmental and democratic character as well as that of its subsidiary bodies, which have immensely contributed to the promotion of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the goals of the Organization, must be respected. Its prerogative as the chief oversight organ of the UN, including on management and procurement for peacekeeping operations, must also be respected;

84.2 The revitalization of the work of the General Assembly – which must be guided by the principles of democracy, transparency and accountability and achieved through open-ended and inclusive consultations – is a critical component of the comprehensive reform of the UN, and its objectives should continue to strengthen the role and position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nation, bearing in mind that the improvement of its procedural and working methods is only a first step towards a more substantive improvements and revitalization of the Assembly; and to restore and enhance the role and authority of the General Assembly, including in the maintenance of international peace and security as provided for in the Charter, through, inter alia, fully respecting its functions and powers and strengthening its relationship and coordination with other principal organs, in particular the Security Council.

85. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to defend, preserve and promote these positions, the Heads of State or Government agreed to continue to implement the following measures, among others:

85.1 Support all ongoing and continuous efforts to strengthen the central role and authority of the Assembly, taking into account the criteria of relevance and efficiency; oppose any reform proposal that seeks to challenge the central role and authority of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the UN; and oppose any approach that seeks to or could result in undermining or minimizing the achievements of the General Assembly or the mandates of its main committees, diminishing its current role and functioning, or raising questions about its relevance and credibility;

85.2 Stress the importance of implementing all previous resolutions on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, as well as the continuous follow-up on the effective implementation of these resolutions;

85.3 Call on UN Member States to renew their commitment and political will to implement General Assembly decisions and resolutions on a non-selective and non-discriminatory basis, since the failure to do so is at the root of many unresolved questions;

85.4 Ensure that the UN is provided with the resources needed to fully implement all mandated programmes and activities, in accordance with relevant General Assembly resolutions;

85.5 Reaffirm the role and authority of the General Assembly, including on questions relating to international peace and security, as stipulated in Articles

19 As affirmed in the Millennium Declaration, and reaffirmed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document as well as in other relevant General Assembly resolutions.

35

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 35 of the Charter of the UN, where appropriate using the procedures set forth in rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, which enable swift and urgent action by the Assembly, bearing in mind that the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter;

85.6 The Heads of State or Government reiterated the role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and security and expressed grave concern at instances wherein the Security Council fails to address cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or ceasefire between belligerent parties, in fulfilment of its primary responsibility in this regard;

85.7 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that in such instances where the Security Council has not fulfilled its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly should take appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter to address the issue. To this extent, the Heads of State or Government recalled the decision taken at the 14th NAM Summit authorizing representatives of the Movement Member States to the UN in New York to work on an appropriate draft resolution to be submitted to the General Assembly on this issue;

85.8 Promote and preserve the role and mandate of the General Assembly in setting the priorities of the UN and in considering all budgetary and administrative issues and reform, including its absolute authority to allocate and reallocate financial and human resources, and in the appointment of senior officials in the Secretariat in accordance with the Charter and General Assembly resolutions thereof, through ensuring, inter alia, the full adherence by UN Member States to such resolutions;

85.9 In this regard, the Heads of State or Government underlined that in exercising its role, the General Assembly should ensure that the respective mandates and areas of competencies of all its main Committees be fully respected by all relevant stakeholders.

85.10 Ensure that that the General Assembly should remain the principal organ that reviews the work of all its subsidiary organs and bodies.

85.11 Identify measures to simplify the Uniting for Peace procedure to enable swifter and urgent action by the General Assembly, in recognition of its role on issues relating to international peace and security as set out in the Charter;

85.12 Strengthen the role of the General Assembly in accordance with article 97 of the UN Charter in the selection of the Secretary General of the Organization. In this regard, the role of the General Assembly is imperative in ensuring the transparency, accountability and competitiveness of the process. This requires the Assembly’s involvement at early stage of the selection process when identifying candidates for this post;

85.13 Stress the need to enhance and strengthen the role of the Office of the President of the General Assembly, through the allocation of sufficient human and financial resources from the regular budget of the United Nations, and to provide the President of the General Assembly with adequate protocol and security services, as well as adequate office space, with a view to enabling the President to carry out his/her functions in a manner commensurate with the dignity and stature of the Office.

85.14 The Heads of State or Government commended the ongoing work of the NAM Working Group on the revitalization of the General Assembly under the chairmanship of Algeria, in coordinating issues of common concern to the Movement. They encouraged all NAM delegations to continue to actively


36

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

participate in the Working Group with a view to promote and achieve the objectives of the Movement.

D. Selection and Appointment of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

86. The Heads of State or Government underlined the central role of the General Assembly in the process of selecting and appointing the Secretary-General of the UN, and expressed support for efforts aimed at reinforcing and strengthening the role of the Assembly in this regard, and agreed that all Non-Aligned Countries shall engage actively in these efforts.

87. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the need for greater transparency and inclusiveness in the selection and appointment process of the SG. In this regard, they noted the outdated nature of resolution 11(1) of January 1946 on the terms of appointments of the Secretary General, and emphasized that it is the General Assembly's prerogative and ability to debate and to vote on the appointment of the SG, and in this context, called upon the General Assembly to address both the nomination and appointment of the SG in accordance with resolutions 51/241, 60/286 and
64/301.

88. Recalling the role of the principal organs as enshrined in Article 97 of the UN Charter, the Heads of State or Government called upon the President of the General Assembly to consult with Member States to identify potential candidates endorsed by a Member State and, upon informing all Member States of the results, forward these results to the Security Council.

89. In this context, the Heads of State or Government agreed that formal presentation of candidatures for the position of Secretary-General should be done in a manner that allows sufficient time for interaction with Member States in the General Assembly and the Security Council, and requested that, during the selection process of the Secretary General, the President of the General Assembly convenes a meeting of the General Assembly for an exchange of views and dialogue with all candidates.

90. The Heads of State or Government acknowledged the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU/REP/2009/8) which noted that conducting hearings/meetings with candidates running for the post of executive heads of the organizations of the United Nations common system, could improve their selection processes, in order to enhance transparency and credibility of the selection process and to make the process more inclusive of all nationalities.

E. Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the
Security Council, and other Matters Related to the Security Council

91. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, and other matters related to the Security Council, in particular the directives of the Movement adopted during its 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th Summits, which have been reflected in the Movement’s position and negotiating papers, and the decisions of the Ministerial Conferences and Meetings, as follows:

91.1 The Movement, while noting with appreciation efforts undertaken, notes with concern the lack of concrete results in the intergovernmental negotiations in the informal plenary of the General Assembly on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, and other matters related to the Council, based on General Assembly decisions
62/557, 63/565, 64/568 and 65/554, and notes that the negotiations have
shown that while a convergence of views has emerged, major differences still exist, and while there have been some improvements made to the working methods of the Council, they have not satisfied even the minimum expectations of the general membership of the UN, leaving much room for improvement;

37

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2


91.2 In this context, the Heads of State or Government reiterated that General Assembly Decision 62/557 is and shall continue to be the basis of Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Security Council reform;

91.3 Reform of the Security Council should be comprehensive, addressing all substantive issues relating, inter alia, to the question of the membership, regional representation, the Council’s agenda, its working methods and decision-making process, including the veto, and should garner the widest possible political acceptance by Member States in line with the provisions of the Charter and relevant General Assembly decisions particularly 62/557;

91.4 In recent years, the Security Council has been too quick to threaten or authorize enforcement action in some cases while being silent and inactive in others. Furthermore, the Council has been increasingly resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose an immediate threat to international peace and security. A careful review of these trends indicates that the Council could have opted for alternative provisions to respond more appropriately to particular cases. Instead of excessive and quick use of Chapter VII, efforts should be made to fully utilize the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter VII should be invoked, as intended, as a measure of last resort. Unfortunately, provisions of Articles 41 and
42 in some cases have been too quickly resorted to while the other options had not been fully exhausted;

91.5 The Security Council-imposed sanctions remain an issue of serious concern to Non-Aligned Countries. In accordance with the UN Charter, sanctions should be considered to be imposed only after all means of peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter have been exhausted and a thorough consideration undertaken of the short-term and long-term effects of such sanctions. Sanctions are a blunt instrument, the use of which raises fundamental ethical questions of whether sufferings inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country are legitimate means of exerting pressure. The objectives of sanctions are not to punish or otherwise exact retribution on the populace. In this regard, the objectives of sanctions regimes should be clearly defined, and that its imposition should be for a specified timeframe and be based on tenable legal grounds, and that it should be lifted as soon as the objectives are achieved. The conditions demanded of the State or party on which sanctions are imposed should be clearly defined and subject to periodic review. Sanctions should be imposed only when there exists a threat to international peace and security or an act of aggression, in accordance with the Charter, and that it is not applicable “preventively” in instances of mere violation of international law, norms or standards. Targeted sanctions may be a better alternative so long as the population of targeted State concerned is not victimised whether directly or indirectly;

91.6 Transparency, openness and consistency are key elements that the Security Council should observe in all its activities, approaches and procedures. Regrettably, the Council has neglected these important factors on numerous occasions. Such instances include unscheduled open debates with selective notification, reluctance in convening open debates on some issues of high significance, repeatedly restricting participation in some of the open debates and discriminating between members and non-members of the Council particularly with regard to sequencing and time limits of statements during the open debates, failure to submit special reports to the General Assembly as required under Article
24 of the Charter, submission of annual reports still lacking sufficient information and analytical content, and lack of minimal parameters for the elaboration of the monthly assessment by the Security Council Presidencies. The Council must comply with the provisions of Article 31 of the Charter, which allow any non- Council member to participate in discussions on matters affecting it. Rule 48 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Council should be thoroughly observed.


38

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

Closed meetings and informal consultations should be kept to a minimum and as the exception they were meant to be;

91.7 The reform of the Security Council should be addressed in an early, comprehensive, transparent and balanced manner, without setting artificial deadlines. It should ensure that the agenda of the Council reflects the needs and interests of both developing and developed countries, in an objective, rational, non-selective and non-arbitrary manner;

91.8 The enlargement of the Council, as a body primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the reform of its working methods should lead to a democratic, more representative, more accountable and more effective Council;

91.9 The Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, which have remained provisional for more than 60 years, should be formalised in order to improve its transparency and accountability;

91.10 The Heads of State or Government acknowledge the historical injustices against Africa with regard to its representation in the Security Council and expressed support for increased and enhanced representation for Africa in the reformed Security Council. The Heads of State or Government took note of the African common position as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration;

91.11 The Heads of State or Government renewed the directives to the Permanent Representatives in New York to continue to develop the elements of the position of the Movement on Security Council reform, taking into account all the options and views of Member States and groups, and to present a comprehensive report to the XVI Summit of the Movement.

92. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to defend, preserve and promote these positions, the Heads of State or Government agreed to undertake the following measures, among others:

92.1 Call on the Council to increase the number of public meetings, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, and that these meetings should provide real opportunities to take into account the views and contributions of the wider membership of the UN, particularly non-Council members whose affairs are under the discussion of the Council;

92.2 Call on the Security Council to allow briefings by the Special Envoys or Representatives of the Secretary-General and the UN Secretariat to take place in public meetings, unless in exceptional circumstances;

92.3 Call on the Security Council to further enhance its relationship with the UN Secretariat and troop contributing countries (TCC), including through a sustained, regular and timely interaction. Meetings with TCCs should be held not only in the drawing up of mandates, but also in their implementation, when considering a change in, or renewal of, or completion of a mission mandate, or when there is a rapid deterioration of the situation on the ground. In this context, the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations should involve TCCs more frequently and intensively in its deliberations, especially in the very early stages of mission planning;

92.4 Call upon the Security Council to uphold the primacy of and respect for the Charter in connection with its functions and powers and stresses once again that the decision by the Security Council to initiate formal or informal discussions on the situation in any Member State of the United Nations or any issue that does not constitute a threat to international peace and security is contrary to Article 24 of the Charter;

39

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2


92.5 Call on the Council to establish its subsidiary organs in accordance with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, and that these organs should function in a manner that would provide adequate and timely information on their activities to the general UN membership;

92.6 Reject the use of the Security Council as a tool to pursue national political interests and agenda aggravating rather than alleviating situations contrary to its mission enshrined in the Charter, and stress the necessity of non-selectivity, impartiality and accountability in the work of the Council, and the need for the Council to strictly keep within the powers and functions accorded to it by the Member States under the UN Charter;

92.7 Urge the Council to avoid resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security, and to fully utilize the provisions of other relevant Chapters, where appropriate, including Chapters VI and VIII, before invoking Chapter VII which should be a measure of last resort, if necessary;

92.8 Oppose attempts through the imposition or prolongation of sanctions or their extension by the Security Council against any State under the pretext or with the aim of achieving the political objectives of one or a few States, rather than in the general interest of the international community; and

92.9 Urge the Non-Aligned Countries, which are members of the Security Council,20 to promote and defend, as deemed possible, the aforementioned positions and objectives during their tenure of membership in the Council, and to this end to, while noting with satisfaction recent positive steps in that regard, stress the need for the consolidation of the NAM Caucus in the Council with the principal objective of coordinating and defending the positions of the Movement in the Security Council, and call upon the members of the Caucus to provide timely briefings and to engage in close consultation with the Non-Aligned Countries, particularly those whose interests and concerns are under consideration by the Council, as well as to keep the Movement continuously updated of all relevant developments and issues with which the Council is actively seized.

F. Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

93. Took note of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 65/285 on 30 June
2011 on the review of the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 61/16, and
reiterated the need to strengthen the role of the ECOSOC as a principal body for the promotion of international economic cooperation, coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and formulation of recommendations on issues of economic and social development as well as for the full implementation of the international development goals agreed at the major UN conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Development Goals, and expressed their resolve and commitment to promote greater efforts geared toward this end. They particularly welcomed ECOSOC’s role in undertaking regular and periodic review and assessment of international economic and development policies and their impact on development, through its Annual Ministerial Review (AMR) and Development Cooperation Forum (DCF), and called for full implementation of this role. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that the Economic and Social Council is a principal body for policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on issues of economic and social development and for the follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals and is a central mechanism for the coordination of the United Nations system and supervision of the subsidiary bodies of the Council, in particular its functional commissions, and


20 Members of the NAM Caucus in the Security Council, comprising the Non-Aligned Countries currently members of the Security Council, are Azerbaijan (2012-2013), Colombia (2011-2012), Guatemala (2012-
2013), India (2011-2012), Morocco (2012-2013), Pakistan (2012-2013), Togo (2012-2013) and South Africa
(2011-2012).

40

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

for promoting the implementation of Agenda 21 by strengthening system-wide coherence and coordination. They also reaffirmed the major role the Council plays in the overall coordination of funds, programmes and specialized agencies, ensuring coherence among them and avoiding duplication of mandates and activities.

94. The Heads of State or Government committed to strengthen the Economic and Social Council within its mandate under the Charter, as a principal organ in the integrated and coordinated follow-up of the outcomes of all major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social, environmental and related fields, and recognize its key role in achieving a balanced integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development. They looked forward to the review of the implementation of General Assembly resolution 61/16 on the strengthening of the Economic and Social Council.

G. The Human Rights Council

95. The Heads of State or Government stressed that the Human Rights Council should provide equal treatment to both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development They further stressed that the Council should not allow confrontational approaches, exploitation of human rights for political purposes, selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations and double standards in the conduct of its work, which should comply with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions.

96. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that universality, transparency, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity should be guiding principles for the work of the Council and its method of work. The Council in performing its responsibilities should, bear in mind, in accordance with Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds of the Member States.

97. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the importance of implementing a constructive approach in the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in this regard, they urged the Human Rights Council21 to focus on constructive international dialogue and cooperation, capacity building and technical assistance to ensure the realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to development.

98. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their commitment to General Assembly Resolution 62/219 on 22 December 2007, endorsing the Human Rights Council’s decision to adopt resolution 5/1 entitled Institutional Building of the Human Rights Council and resolution 5/2 entitled Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-Holders of the Human Rights Council, including their annexes and appendices.

99. The Heads of State or Government expressed satisfaction over the conclusion of the review process of the Human Rights Council during the 65th Session of the General Assembly and expressed concern over the adoption by a vote of Assembly resolution
65/281 regarding the review of the Human Rights Council. They stressed the
importance for the Council to fully comply with General Assembly Resolution 65/281, and stressed the importance for NAM to counter all attempts and initiatives that undermine the agreement achieved in this resolution. They reaffirmed that any future review processes, unless decided otherwise by the General Assembly, should not aim at


21 The 26 Non-Aligned Countries which are currently members of the 47-member of the Human Rights Council are Angola (2010-2013), Bangladesh (2009-2012), Benin (2011-2014), Botswana (2011-2014), Burkina Faso (2011-2014), Cameroon (2009-2012), Chile (2011-2014), Congo (2011-2014), Cuba (2009-
2012), Djibouti (2009-2012), Ecuador (2010-2013), Guatemala (2010-2013), India (2011-2014), Indonesia (2011-2014), Jordan (2009-2012), Kuwait (2011-2014), Libya (2010-2013), Malaysia (2010-2013), Maldives (2010-2013), Mauritania (2010-2013), Mauritius (2009-2012), Nigeria (2009-2012), Peru (2011-2014),
Philippines (2011-2014), Qatar (2010-2013), Saudi Arabia (2009-2012), Senegal (2009-2012), Thailand
(2010-2013), Uganda (2010-2013).

41

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

reforming the council, but should be focused on taking the necessary measures to improve its work and functioning, and review its status as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, in accordance with resolutions 60/251 and 65/281.

100. The Heads of State or Government stressed the need to preserve the positive developments achieved since the establishment of the Human Rights Council in the context of its work, including its institutional building package. In this regard, they reaffirmed the need to defend the principles of non-selectivity, non-politicization, objectivity and impartiality in the consideration of human rights situations, as well as to ensure that human rights are not used for political purposes and adopting politically motivated decisions, and to avoid the problems which plagued the former Human Rights Commission.

101. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the need to develop effective working relationship between the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in line with the spirit of General Assembly resolution
48/141. They further stressed that the Human Rights Council, being the expert inter-
governmental body on human rights issues, should have an oversight role in reviewing the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including its activities under country engagement and establishing its field offices. In this connection, they welcomed the President’s statement adopted in the 15th session of the Human Rights Council (PRST 15/2).

102. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the role of the Human Rights Council as the United Nations organ responsible for consideration of human rights situations in all countries in the context of the Universal Periodic Review based on cooperation and constructive dialogue. The Heads of State or Government expressed their deep concern over the continuation and the proliferation of the practice of selective adoption of country–specific resolutions in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, as well as in the Human Rights Council, which is a tool that exploits human rights for political purposes breaches the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing human rights issues which undermine cooperation as the essential principle to effectively promote and protect all universally recognized human rights for all.

103. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the need to promote greater coherence and complementarity between the work of the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council, and avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping in their activities as well as create a working and constructive relationship between them in addressing human rights situations;

104. The Heads of State or Government stressed that the Universal Periodic Review is the main inter-governmental mechanism to review human rights issues at the national level in all countries without distinction.

105. The Heads of State or Government recalled the General Assembly resolutions
65/281 reviewing the Human Rights Council and 60/251 which established the Human Rights Council as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, and in this regard, stressed the importance of the general debate on, and interactive dialogue with the president of the Council and consideration of the report of the Council in the Third Committee.

106. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the importance of ensuring the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council as an action-oriented, cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and interactive dialogue with full involvement of the countries under review and conducted in an impartial, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non- confrontational and non-politicized manner. They further urged all NAM members to continue to coordinate their efforts to support NAM Members States under review.

 

42

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

107. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that the Non-Aligned Movement should continue to closely coordinate its position on the following priority areas:

a) Foster international cooperation and constructive dialogue in the Human Rights Council and prevent the occurrence of practices of double standards, selectivity and political manipulation which discredited the Commission on Human Rights;

b) Continue working towards the enhancement and improvement, as appropriate, of the work of human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies, special procedures, expert bodies and the confidential procedure, bearing in mind that while mandate holders exercise their functions in full respect for and strict observance of their mandate, they must observe the Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council contained in HRC Resolution 5/2 of 18 June 2007 and reaffirmed in its resolution 11/11 of 18
June 2009, and also observe HRC resolution 16/21 of 25 March 2011, including on resources and funding for special procedures, as well as the need to preserve all these mechanisms and bodies from politicization and double standards, so as to enhance the effectiveness of the system;

c) Encourage the presentation of experts from NAM countries as candidates for special procedures mandate-holders, and support candidates presented by NAM countries that are parties, to the human rights treaty bodies;

d) Develop the relationship of the Human Rights Council with other entities of the United Nations system, as appropriate, in accordance with the General Assembly resolutions 48/141, 60/251, 62/219, and 65/281;

e) Determine the Council’s reporting procedures to the United Nations General Assembly, for purposes of universal endorsement of all its programs and activities, in its capacity as subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. In this regard, initiate discussions among NAM Members to explore common grounds on the issue;

f) Engaging actively in, implementing the outcome of the review process of the Human Rights Council;

g) Ensuring that future review processes contribute to improving the efficiency of the Council in order to be able to carry out, on the basis of cooperation and non-confrontation, its mandated role to promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;

h) Preserving the Universal Periodic Review as the only mechanism to review human rights situation at the national level in all countries on equal footing;

i) Rejecting the establishment of any additional country-specific tools which would lead to politicization, double standards and selectivity in dealing with human rights issues;

j) Ensure that the Universal Periodic Review be conducted by the Human Rights Council as a result-oriented, cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country under review and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs and that such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies, bearing in mind the need to eradicate selectivity, double standards and politicisation in the consideration of human rights issues. It should aim at strengthening the Member States capacity, upon their request, to implement their obligations, on promotion and protection of human rights. It should not be used as a tool to coerce States and subject them to politically motivated country- specific resolutions;


43

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

k) Ensure also that the Universal Periodic Review be conducted in an objective manner, on the basis of credible and reliable information, and taking duly into consideration information, comments and observations of the country under review. It should not be used as a tool to interfere in the internal affairs of States or to question their political, economic, and social systems, their sovereign rights, and their national, religious and cultural particularities. It must continue to be implemented in accordance with UNGA resolutions 60/251, 62/219 and
65/281;

l) Support NGOs participation in the work of the Human Rights Council, based inter alia on ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 and the modalities established by the Human Rights Council, taking into consideration that NGOs should conform at all times to the principles governing the establishment and nature of their consultative relations with ECOSOC, and that they are responsible for the actions of their accredited representatives during their participation in the work of the Human Rights Council.

H. Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Activities and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC)

108. The Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) recalled the 14th Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Havana, Cuba September 2006 at which the Heads of State or Government of the Movement reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement’s principled positions concerning post-conflict peacebuilding activities and had welcomed the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) as by General Assembly resolution 60/180; as a coordinated, coherent and integrated institutional mechanism, to address the special needs of countries emerging from conflict, towards recovery, reintegration and reconstruction at their request in accordance with the principle of national ownership”, in laying the foundation for sustainable development.

109. In pursuit of this mandate, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the Non- Aligned Movement’s commitment to an efficient and effective Peacebuilding Commission, which fully utilises the advantages and benefits arising from the diversity of its composition. They also acknowledged the work undertaken by the Commission since it started its operations with respect to the six countries on its agenda, namely: Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, Guinea and Liberia. They also acknowledged the progress achieved so far, in the elaboration of the strategic frameworks for peacebuilding, for these countries.

110. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the role of the NAM Caucus within the Peacebuilding Commission aimed at coordinating positions of Non-Aligned countries in the Commission and to keep the Movement informed of the activities carried out by the Commission. In this connection, they lauded the efforts of the Caucus in the rapid progress of the Commission, specifically towards the entrenchment of the principle of national ownership, the need for capacity building and drawing recognition to, and signalling the importance of the economic recovery and development dimension in the peace building process.

111. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern at several instances in which the Security Council denied the coordinator of the NAM Caucus in the PBC an opportunity to address members of the Security Council on matters related to the competence of the PBC. They urged the Security Council, the General Assembly and ECOSOC to utilize the expertise of the PBC, including the coordinator of the NAM Caucus of the PBC, as the representative of the largest grouping within the PBC, by ensuring participation in discussions on all issues of relevance to, or falling within, the competence of the PBC. Furthermore, they stressed on the necessity to promote the institutional relation between the PBC and the General Assembly, the Security Council and the ECOSOC.

 

44

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

112. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that, without prejudice to the functions and powers of the other principal organs of the UN in relation to post-conflict peacebuilding activities, the General Assembly must play the key role in the formulation and implementation of such activities and functions. They underlined the central role of the PBC in providing the United Nations with policy guidance and strategies in its post-conflict peacebuilding activities. In this regard they reaffirmed the work of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission as the central organ of the Commission, with responsibilities as described in the General Assembly’s resolution 60/180. As well as considering the organizational committee a suitable platform for strategy and policy discussions to promote the rules and working methods of the Commission and to reinforce the coherence of the Commission’s Configurations and to facilitate a result oriented engagement with relevant actors and stakeholders. In this connection also, they urged the NAM Caucus in the Commission to encourage work towards the further development of rules of procedure and methods of work, suitable for the efficient and proper functioning of the Commission. They emphasized that the provisional rules of procedure of the PBC need to be regularly revisited in the light of the experience gained by the Commission since its operationalization, and the developments in the work of the Commission. They praised as well the important role played by NAM Member States in the review process of the arrangements set out in General Assembly resolution A/Res/180 which took place in 2010, to ensure that they are appropriate to fulfil the agreed functions of the Peacebuilding Commission. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the necessity to provide necessary and timely resources, in order to help ensure predictable financing for recovery activities and sustained financial investment, over the medium to long-term. They reiterated the fundamental role of the PBC in the conception, with the consent of the countries under the consideration of the PBC, and in conformity with the principle of national ownership, of integrated strategies for post conflict peacebuilding and recovery.

113. The Heads of State or Government stressed the importance of ensuring that the country specific configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission develop effective and cooperative mechanisms based on a sustained dialogue with the host countries under review. They further urged the Peacebuilding Commission to operationalize the principle of national ownership through the adoption of a demand-driven approach based on joint assessments with host countries.

114. The Heads of State or Government emphasized that the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) must continue to be used as a catalytic mechanism geared towards providing critical support during the early stages of the peace building process to avert relapse into conflict. They stressed the need for closer synergy between the PBC and the PBF, through a strengthened strategic relationship, to ensure greater coherence and coordination and the avoidance of duplication The Heads of State or Government took note of the recommendations and the revised terms of reference of the Peace Building Fund as contained in General Assembly resolution 63/282 and its annex, and reaffirmed the roles of the General Assembly and the Peacebuilding Commission to provide policy guidance on the use of the Fund to maximize its impact and improve its functioning, to make the Fund more efficient, transparent, flexible and to facilitate the disbursement of funds, particularly for quick-impact and emergency projects. They reiterated as well the importance of increasing the funding target of the PBF, to make it more capable of financing additional projects in post conflict countries. They stressed the necessity of having a mechanism to assess whether allocations from the PBF are directed to the appropriate channels leading to peacebuilding.

115. The Heads of State or Government stressed the necessity to ensure the sustainability of funding for countries in the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission. The Heads of State or Government are concerned by the lack of coordination and coherence among financial donors resulting in duplication and redundancy in particular areas and the neglect of other catalytic projects. The Heads of State or Government called for the setup of a mechanism within the PBC to review, within each country configuration, ways and means to ensure unity of efforts by donors, in close collaboration with host countries.


45

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

116. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 65/7 of 29 October 2010, on the review process of the Peacebuilding Commission, and stressed the need for the Commission in stepping up the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Co- Facilitators on the review process22.

117. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the independent report of the Senior Advisory Group on Civilian Capacity in the Aftermath of Conflict (A/65/747) and took note of the Secretary-General’s report of 19 August 2011 on Civilian Capacity in the aftermath of conflict (A/66/311), and also welcomed the General Assembly Resolution
66/255 on Civilian capacity in the aftermath of conflict, in support of national capacities for post-conflict peacebuilding, and took note that efforts to broaden and deepen the pool of experts, giving particular attention to mobilizing capacities from developing countries, in particular among women, are vital for successful United Nations peacebuilding activities. The Heads of State or Government in this regard underscored the importance of civilian capacity that exists already within the developing world and expressed readiness to support national civilian capacity development and institution building in support of peacebuilding activities in post- conflict situations, including through peacekeeping operations in accordance with their mandates, as well as enhanced regional, South-South and triangular cooperation. In this regard, they reaffirmed the fundamental principle of national ownership. The Heads of State or Government further took note with interest of the Secretary General’s intention to develop proposals in partnership and collaboration with Member States and other relevant peacebuilding stakeholders as outlined in his report (A/66/311).

118. The Heads of State or Government underlined the necessity for the UN to make full use of South-South cooperation arrangements in the development of civilian capacities in post-conflict countries. The Heads of State or Government stressed the need for the UN to draw from the expertise of leaders and practitioners from countries of the Global South who have grappled with civilian capacity challenges with the aim to deploy effective civilian expertise.

119. The Heads of State or Government commended the ongoing work of the NAM caucus in the PBC in strengthening the position and role of the Movement in the Peacebuilding Commission. In this regard, they congratulated Bangladesh for its election as Chair of the PBC for the Year 2012 representing the Asia-Pacific Region, and expressed appreciation for its efforts during its chairmanship of the NAM Caucus, and welcomed the assumption of Tunisia as coordinator of the NAM Caucus in the PBC. They further encouraged the non-aligned members of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Non-Aligned countries which are on its agenda, to actively participate in the NAM Caucus to ensure its purposeful contribution to the Peacebuilding activities of the United Nations.

120. The Heads of State or Government expressed the need for integrated peacebuilding strategies and programmes that are consistent and in line with host- country strategies and programmes to ensure national ownership.

I. United Nations Secretariat and Management Reform

121. Recognizing that the reform of the UN is a collective agenda of its membership, the Heads of State or Government stressed that the voice of every Member State must be heard and respected during the reform process, irrespective of its level of contribution to the budget of the Organisation.

122. The Heads of State or Government recognized that in order to advance the reform process of the Secretariat and Management, as approved by member states, the United Nations must be equipped with the necessary and sufficient resources to allow its full implementation, avoiding any delay in this task.


22 A/64/868.

46

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2


123. The Heads of State or Government stressed the importance of ensuring that the Secretariat meets the highest standards of accountability, transparency, integrity and ethical conduct. The Heads of State or Government, therefore, urged the Secretary- General, as a matter of priority, to fully implement General Assembly resolution
66/257 entitled “Progress towards an accountability system in the United Nations
Secretariat”.

124. The Heads of State or Government stressed the need to increase the representation of developing countries, in particular at the senior levels, and to achieve gender balance, improve geographic distribution, in particular from member States not or underrepresented, in the Secretariat, and enhance transparency in the recruitment process.

125. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that the objectives of the reform of the Secretariat of the UN and its management are as follows:
(a) to respond more efficiently and effectively to the needs of Member States; (b) to further strengthen and update the role, capacity, effectiveness and
efficiency of the UN and thus, improving its performance in order to realize
the full potential of the Organisation, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;

(c) to ensure the effective enforcement of greater accountability and transparency measures within the Secretariat as well as accountability of the Secretariat towards Member States in particular at the senior managers level, and to fully implement, in this regard General Assembly resolution 64/259;

(d) To better reflect the international character of the United Nations Secretariat as a fundamental principle through better observance of equitable geographic representation at all levels of the Secretariat, including senior managerial level, as well as to achieve the targeted gender balance among all staff members, in accordance with article 101 of the Charter;

(e) The final result of the reform process should be to ensure that the UN is able to implement all its mandates more effectively and efficiently.

126. The Heads of State or Government emphasized that the reform of the Secretariat of the UN and its management should not:

(a) change the intergovernmental nature and mechanisms of the decision- making, oversight and monitoring processes of the Organization;

(b) be a cost-cutting exercise of the Organization;

(c) affect the accomplishment of the mandates through the reduction of the budget levels of the Organization;

(d) fund more activities from within the existing pool of resources of the
Organization;

(e) Change and/or encroach on the mandate of the Fifth Committee, as the main Committee for the administrative and budgetary issues;


(f) Redefine the functions and powers of the principal organs of the
Organization; and


47

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

(g) Undermine the need to fully observe the principle of the geographical distribution of the appointment to the posts in the U.N. Secretariat, in particular the D level and above.

127. The Heads of State or Government stressed the need to submit for the consideration and prior approval of the General Assembly, through its Fifth Committee, any proposal or measure related to the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Change Management Team that fall within the purview of member states in line with the provisions contained in General Assembly Resolution 66/257.

128. The Heads of State or Government strongly rejected attempts to impose conditionalities to the reform process which negatively impact the confidence atmosphere needed for the negotiations.

129. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the adoption of the General Assembly resolutions 65/247 and 65/248 on the Human Resources Management and the United Nations Common System which finalized the establishment of the new contractual arrangements and harmonized the conditions of service in the field of the United Nations and expect that the implementation of such resolutions brings about a better and more transparent recruitment process of personnel to the secretariats of the organizations of the United Nations common system, while creating more opportunities to recruit young professional staff from developing countries.

J. United Nations System-wide Coherence

130. The Heads of State or Government recalled the adoption by the General Assembly of its resolution 64/289 of 2 July 2010 on System-Wide Coherence which provided a comprehensive review of the various aspects of the operational activities for development of the United Nations, including governance and funding, and established the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women “UN Women”. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government:

a) Reiterated their position that development cooperation should be demand- driven and be pursued on the basis of the national strategies and plans of developing countries and countries with economies in transition in accordance with established intergovernmental mandates. In this regard, they emphasized that UN development cooperation should be voluntary and grant-based in nature and that there should be no “one size-fits all” approach. Likewise, they highlighted that the nature of development cooperation should be responsive to the specific needs, priorities and conditions of each country, always under the consent of the recipient Country;

b) Acknowledged that strengthening the role and capacity of the UN development system to assist countries in achieving their development goals requires continued improvement in its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and impact, along with a significant increase in resources;

c) Noted the progress made by Pilot Countries and other volunteering countries in their own country led evaluations in implementing “the Delivering as One” approach, and looked forward to receiving the outcome of the independent evaluation of the lessons learned from pilot countries, covering all aspects of the initiative, at the 66th session of the General Assembly, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 64/289;

d) Acknowledged also that General Assembly resolution 62/208 of 19
December 2007 on the Triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system constitutes the intergovernmental agreed guiding policy framework for addressing the UN operational activities for development, and looked


48

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

forward to actively and constructively participating in the Quadrennial
Comprehensive Policy Review of these activities taking place in 2012;

e) Underscored that the fundamental characteristics of the UN operational activities for development must remain, inter alia, their universal, voluntary and grant nature, their neutrality and their multilateralism, as well as their ability to respond to the development needs of program countries in a flexible manner;

f) Called upon the United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies to harmonize and simplify their rules and procedures, wherever this can lead to a significant reduction in the administrative and procedural burden on the organizations and national partners;

g) Recognized the main role of the General Assembly and the ECOSOC in the operational activities for development.

131. The Heads of State or Government commended the effective coordination between NAM and G-77, through the Joint Coordinating Committee, in the consultations on the System-wide Coherence, and in this regard undertook to continue to work together with the G-77, through the JCC, with a view to continue defending, preserving and promoting the interests of developing countries and promoting the integrated, intergovernmental, inclusive and transparent nature of all relevant negotiation processes, without the imposition of artificial deadlines for decision-making.

United Nations: Financial Situation and Arrangement

132. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning the financial situation and arrangement of the UN, as contained in the Final Document of the 14th NAM Summit as follows:

132.1 The Movement remained concerned at the financial situation of the UN as a result of the failure on the part of some Member States, especially major contributing States, to meet their assessed contributions in full, on time and without conditions, in accordance with the Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions;

132.2 The Movement reiterated that it remains crucial to ensure that all decisions on the priority-setting of the UN are adopted in an inclusive and transparent manner in the intergovernmental bodies, and that the Organization should be provided with the resources needed for the full and effective implementation of all mandated programmes and activities as well as those required to guarantee the quality of services needed for the functioning of its inter-governmental machinery;

132.3 The principle of capacity to pay of Member States should remain as the fundamental criterion in the apportionment of the expenses of the Organization;

132.4 The general principles governing the financing of UN peacekeeping operations, as set out in the relevant General Assembly resolutions, should be adhered to. A proper balance should be struck between the level and urgency with which peacekeeping activities are funded on the one hand, and availability of resources needed for full implementation of all mandated programmes and activities by the General Assembly, in particular in the area of development, on the other;

132.5 To strike a balance in reflecting the agreed priorities of the Organization in the allocation of resources to the United Nations regular budget; which is persistently to the detriment of the development activities;

 

49

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

132.6 The existing reporting procedures on budget and financial cycle should be maintained and the role of the Member States in programme evaluation of the Organization should be strengthened. In this regard, reaffirm the functions of the Committee on Program and Coordination (CPC), as the main subsidiary organ of ECOSOC and the General Assembly for planning, programming, monitoring, evaluation and coordination and its vital role in program design by ensuring that the Secretariat accurately interprets and translates legislative mandates into programs and sub-programs.

133. The Heads of State or Government reaffirm that the financial stability of the UN should not be jeopardized by any arbitrary measure. They also stressed that measures to ensure financial discipline should be taken in full compliance with relevant General Assembly resolutions, in particular 41/213 and 42/211, as well as relevant rules and regulations of the Organization. In this regard reaffirm the financial rules and regulations of the United Nations.

134. The Heads of State or Government stressed that any efforts to use financial contributions to push for the adoption of certain proposals are counterproductive and violate the obligations of the Member States to provide resources for the Organization, as enshrined in its Charter. The Heads of State or Government, in this context, rejected all unilateral coercive measures contrary to the international law, which obstruct and sometimes impede payments of assessed contributions from Members of the Non – Aligned Movement to the budgets of the Organization.

135. The Heads of State or Government stressed that the level of resources to be approved by the General Assembly must be commensurate with all mandated programmes and activities in order to ensure their full and effective implementation. They also reaffirmed the priorities of the Organization as approved by the General Assembly and the need for the Secretary-General to reflect these priorities when presenting proposed programme budgets.

136. The Heads of State or Government stressed that the ceiling is the main distortionary element of the scale of assessments, affecting the principle of capacity to pay and noted with concern that despite the arrangement to reduce the ceiling from
25% to 22% in 2000 as a compromise, the major contributor is far from honouring its commitment to pay all its arrears. In this context, the Heads of State or Government urged the General Assembly to undertake a review of this arrangement, in accordance with paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 55/5 C.

137. The Heads of State or Government, while recalling General Assembly resolutions
64/248 and 65/246, rejected any change to the elements of the current methodology
for the preparation of the scale of assessments aimed at increasing the contributions of developing countries. In this regard, they emphasized that the core elements of the current methodology of the scale of assessments, such as base period, Gross National Income, conversion rates, low per capita income adjustment, gradient, floor, ceiling for Least Developed Countries and debt stock adjustment must be kept intact and are not negotiable.

138. The Heads of State or Government affirmed that the current principles and guidelines for the apportionment of the expenses of peacekeeping operations approved by the General Assembly in its relevant resolutions should constitute a basis for any discussion on the peacekeeping scale. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government stressed that the peacekeeping scale must clearly reflect the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council for the maintenance of peace and security. The Heads of State or Government also recalled that the economically less developed countries have limited capacity to contribute towards the budgets of peacekeeping operations. In this context, the Heads of State or Government emphasized that any discussion on the system of discounts applied to the peacekeeping scale should take into account the conditions of developing countries whose current positions must not be negatively affected. The Heads of State or


50

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

Government stressed, in this regard, that no member of the Non-Aligned Movement should therefore be categorized above level C of the peacekeeping scale of assessment.

139. The Heads of State or Government rejected the use of programmatic and budgetary documents by several authorial departments of the Secretariat and some Member States to promote concepts and approaches that are not adopted by the General Assembly or are under its review. In this context, the Heads of State or Government urged the Secretary General to ensure that, when presenting such documents, the programmatic aspects and the resources requirements are consistent with the legislative mandates of the General Assembly.

140. The Heads of State or Government took note of the exponential increase in the financial requirements and complexity of Special Political Missions over the past decade and acknowledge their unique characteristics in terms of establishment and financing, since they do not follow the regular budget cycle of the United Nations, despite being funded by this budget. In order to enhance efficiency and transparency of the budgetary process of the Organization, and taking into account the characteristics of the approval, functioning, scope and mandate of these activities, the Heads of State or Government therefore believe that Special Political Missions should be financed through the same criteria, methodology and mechanisms used to fund peacekeeping operations, including the establishment of a new separate account for Special Political Missions.

141. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to defend, preserve and promote these positions, the Heads of State or Government agreed to reiterate the following measure, among others:

141.1 Urge all UN Member States in arrears, in particular the major contributing States, to settle their outstanding dues without further delay and to pay their future assessments in full, on time and without imposing preconditions in accordance with the Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, mindful at the same time of the special situation faced by some developing countries that hamper their ability to pay their assessed contributions.

United Nations: Peacekeeping Operations

142. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the guiding principles of United Nations peacekeeping operations (UNPKOs) adopted at the 11th Ministerial Conference of NAM held in Cairo in 1994, and reiterated the Movement’s position on UNPKOs adopted by the 12th Summit held in Durban in 1998, and which have been further reiterated at the 13th Summit held in Kuala Lumpur in 2003, the 14th Ministerial Conference held in Durban in 2004, the 14th Summit held in Havana in September
2006, and the 15th Ministerial Conference in Tehran, the 15th NAM Summit in Sharm
EL Sheikh July 2009, and the 16th NAM Ministerial Conference held in Bali in 2011.

143. The Heads of State or Government commended the Movement’s significant and major contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security under the auspices of the United Nations. Noting that peacekeeping has become the flagship activity of the Organization, the Heads of State or Government expressed satisfaction that the Non-Aligned Countries currently provide more than 87% of peacekeeping personnel in the field. They reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning UNPKOs, as follows:

143.1 The Heads of State or Government reiterated that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rests with the UN and that the role of regional arrangements, in that regard, should be in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, and should not in any way substitute the role of the UN, or circumvent the full application of the guiding principles of UNPKOs;

 

51

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

143.2 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that the establishment of any peacekeeping operation or extension of mandate of existing operations should strictly observe the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and those principles that have evolved to govern such operations and have become basic principles thereof, namely the consent of the parties, the non-use of force except in self-defence and impartiality. The Heads of State or Government believed that these basic principles have guided UN peacekeeping operations over the last five decades without controversy, still remain relevant and should be preserved. The Heads of State or Government also emphasized that the respect for the principles of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity of all States and non-intervention in matters that are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction should also be upheld in this regard;

143.3 The Heads of State or Government stressed that implementation of all mandated tasks should be supported by a comprehensive peace process, provision of adequate resources, based on national ownership and the support of the international community;

143.4 The Heads of State or Government continued to emphasize that UN peacekeeping operation should be provided from the outset with political support, full and optimal human, financial and logistical resources, and clearly defined and achievable mandates and exit strategies;

143.5 The Heads of State or Government called upon the Security Council, while mandating UNPKOs, to authorize optimal troop strengths in order to achieve the mandated tasks. The Heads of State or Government also stressed the necessity for the UN to review its force generation mechanisms, taking into account the views of the TCC's, in light of complex and multi-dimensional Peacekeeping Operations;

143.6 The Heads of State or Government stressed that UNPKOs should not be used as a substitute for addressing the root causes of conflict, which should be addressed in a coherent, well-planned, coordinated and comprehensive manner, with other political, social, economic and developmental instruments. They further stressed that due consideration should be given by the UN to the manner in which those efforts can be carried out from the early stage of UN engagement in post conflict situations and continue without interruption after the departure of UNPKOs, so as to ensure a smooth transition to lasting peace and security;

143.7 The Heads of State or Government, while recognising the ongoing surge in peacekeeping which requires a genuine and concerted response by the entire membership of the UN, in particular the developed countries, called upon these countries to participate in and share the burden of UNPKOs;

143.8 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that in the context of the comprehensive approach and the objective of a lasting peace and security, UN peacekeeping operations should be accompanied by a parallel and inclusive peace process that is well planned and carefully designed, supported by the consent and adherence of the parties concerned;

143.9 The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that the General Assembly has the primary role within the UN in formulating concepts, policies and budgetary matters related to peacekeeping. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government emphasized that the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations is the only UN forum mandated to review comprehensively the whole question of UNPKOs in all their aspects. Further, the Heads of State or Government agreed to continue to promote and safeguard the collective positions and priorities of the Movement on peacekeeping;

143.10 The Heads of State or Government stressed that the UN’s engagement in increasingly demanding and complex multidimensional peacekeeping operations

52

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

should be consistent with the agreed principles, guidelines and terminology governing peacekeeping. They emphasized the importance of consistency in the use of agreed peacekeeping terminology and underlined that any discussion of the above should be done through the inter-governmental process;

143.11 The Heads of State or Government stressed that the development of concepts, policies and strategies should be an intergovernmental process, and should run parallel to similar progress in increasing capacity development, planning and Oversight. In this regard, they reaffirmed the central role of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C34). They also stressed that policy development in Peacekeeping must be matched with the necessary resources in order to guarantee the effectiveness of Peacekeeping operations;

143.12 The Heads of State or Government recognized that there is a range of important mandated tasks, including but not limited to, support to political processes, support to the restoration and extension of state authority and protection of civilians. The Heads of State or Government acknowledged that the protection of civilians is currently mandated in a number of United Nations peacekeeping missions. They stressed that the protection of civilians is the primary responsibility of the host country and, accordingly, emphasized that relevant peacekeeping missions with this mandate should conduct their tasks without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the host Government to protect civilians;

143.13 The Heads of State or Government stressed that the United Nations peacekeeping Operations, in particular, with Protection of Civilian mandates should be guided by the principles of the Charter and should not be used as means for Government change and military intervention;

143.14 The Heads of State or Government emphasized the need to continue consultations by the Secretariat with Member States on the implementation of the Global Field Support Strategy, in order to ensure effective and efficient delivery of field support services. They underscored the importance of achieving progress in the implementation of the strategy within the agreed time frame;

143.15 The Heads of State or Government, while taking note of the efforts exerted by the Department of Peacekeeping (DPKO) and the Department of Field Support (DFS), emphasized the importance of preserving unity of command in mission at all levels, as well as coherence in policy and strategy, and clear command structures in the field and up to, and including, at headquarters. They stressed the comparative advantages of Command and Control structures of the UN over other arrangements and called for effective communications by the UN on this subject to countries that have constantly refused to place their troops under UN Command;

143.16 The Heads of State or Government called upon the UN Secretariat and concerned parties to accord the highest priority to the safety and security of UN peacekeepers in the field in light of the worsening security situation prevailing in many field missions. In this context, they condemned in the strongest terms the killing, kidnapping and targeted attacks of UN peacekeepers, and all acts of violence against them;

143.17 The Heads of State or Government underlined the need for an effective triangular cooperation between Troop Contributing Countries (TCC’s), the Secretariat and the Security Council. The Heads of State or Government stressed that Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) should be involved early and fully, in all aspects and stages of UNPKOs and called for more frequent and substantive interaction among the Security Council, the UN Secretariat and the TCCs. They called for the full and effective implementation of the existing mechanisms laid down in Security Council Resolution 1353 (2001) and in the Note of the President


53

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

of the Security Council dated 14 January 2002 (S/2002/56) and the Presidential
Statement dated 5 August 2009 (PRST/2009/24);

143.18 The Heads of State or Government expressed the view that further development of the mechanisms, referred to in paragraph 99.12 above, towards achieving peacekeeping objectives should be considered;

143.19 The Heads of State or Government underscored in particular that the experience and expertise of troop contributing countries can be drawn upon when the Security Council implements, extends or adjusts UN peacekeeping mandates. Troop contributing countries are best placed to contribute to an objective assessment of the situation on the ground. In this regard, enhanced and better interaction between Troop Contributing Countries and the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations could also contribute to a more inclusive and substantial consultation and decision making process;

143.20 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that any invitation by the UN Secretariat to the meetings on establishing a new UN peacekeeping mission or expanding an ongoing UNPKO should be transparent and encompass all current and potential Troop Contributing Countries;

143.21 The Heads of State or Government stressed that peacekeepers cannot substitute to peacebuilders and that Peacekeeping efforts should be accompanied by Peacebuilding activities, in such a manner as to facilitate the economic revitalization, development and to enable national capacity building, on the basis of national ownership, to pave the way towards a seamless exit strategy, to prevent recurrence of armed conflicts and to support critical tasks in order to achieve sustainable peace;

143.22 The Heads of State or Government expressed support for continuing efforts to strengthen African peacekeeping capabilities and emphasized the importance of implementing the 10 years plan for capacity building and the Joint Action Plan for United Nations Support to the African Union Peacekeeping in the short, medium and long terms in all relevant the areas. They further took note of the Report prepared by the AU-UN Panel on modalities for support to AU peacekeeping operations and the report by the Secretary General of the UN “Support to African Union Peacekeeping operations authorized by the United Nations”, and recommend the enhancement of an effective partnership between the UN and the African Union in order to improve planning, deployment and management of African peacekeeping operations;

143.23 The Heads of State or Government remained concerned over the staffing and structure of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field Support whereby NAM Member Countries are insufficiently represented, particularly at senior and professional levels. The Heads of State or Government urged the Secretary-General to further enhance his efforts in accordance with Article 101 of the Charter, the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules and relevant General Assembly resolutions to attain equitable geographical distributions and gender representation at all levels. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government believed that appropriate representation in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Department of Field Support and in the field should also take into account the contributions of Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs), in particular at the professional and leadership level in Headquarters as well in the field missions;

143.24 The Heads of State or Government underscored the importance of the rapid and effective deployment of the UNPKOs including their reinforcement as necessary. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government stressed upon the need for enhanced rapidly deployable capacities for any new UN peacekeeping missions or for reinforcing existing UN peacekeeping missions if in crisis the Heads of State or Government stressed on the development of such mechanisms,

54

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

including through the development of the Global Field Support Strategy, in close consultation with Troop Contributing Countries;

143.25 The Heads of State or Government expressed concern at the significant reduction of the UN Peacekeeping budget for 2012-2013 in the context of consolidation for the demand for Peacekeeping Operations. They reaffirmed that the funding of UNPKOs through voluntary contributions should not influence the UN Security Council decisions to establish UNPKOs or affect their mandates;

143.26 The Heads of State or Government expressed concern over the significant amounts of outstanding reimbursements that the United Nations currently owes to the Troop Contributing Countries, which may adversely affect the UN peacekeeping capacity;

143.27 The Heads of State or Government noted the outcome of the 2011 session of the UN Contingent Owned Equipment working group. They stressed the need for the increase in reimbursement rates of COE to be based on actual expenses and investments by Troop Contributing Countries;

143.28 The Heads of State or Government noted with concern that the last review of troop costs was in 1992, with an ad hoc increase in 2002, and express concern that this has placed a difficult financial burden on Troup Contributing Countries, which could jeopardize the sustainability of participation in peacekeeping operations. They welcomed the establishment of the Senior Advisory Group pursuant to resolution 65/289 to consider rates of reimbursement to Troop Contributing Countries and expects that the Group will complete its work as soon as possible, and considers that the supplemental payment accorded in the resolution to Troop Contributing Countries should be extended until a viable solution to the issue regarding unsustainability of current rates of troop reimbursement is implemented, including the establishment of a mechanism to conduct periodic review of these rates, so as to compensate Troop Contributing Countries against cost escalations on account of inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, and other factors;

143.29 The Heads of State or Government emphasized the need for ensuring payment of timely and adequate compensation for death and disabilities of peacekeepers while serving in UN Field Missions;

143.30 The Heads of State or Government stressed again that all UN Member States must pay their assessed contributions in full, on time and without condition. They reaffirmed the obligation of Member States, under article 17 of the UN Charter, to bear their expenses to the Organisation as apportioned by the General Assembly, bearing in mind the special responsibility of the Permanent Members of the Security Council, as indicated in General Assembly resolution
1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963;

143.31 The Heads of State or Government reemphasized the critical importance of timely, efficient, transparent and cost-effective procurement of goods and services in support of UNPKOs, and reiterated the view that there is a need to ensure greater UN procurement from Non-Aligned Countries;

143.32 The Heads of State or Government acknowledged the outstanding contribution and sacrifices of peacekeepers, and stressed that all UN peacekeeping personnel perform their duties in a manner that preserve the image, credibility, impartiality, and integrity of the UN. They stressed the importance of maintaining a policy of zero tolerance on all forms of misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse in United Nations peacekeeping missions;

143.33 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that due process and national requirements must always be observed during investigations of

55

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

misconduct. They further stressed that the UN should ensure that steps are taken to restore the image and credibility of any UN peacekeeping mission, Troop Contributing Countries or UN peacekeeping personnel when allegations of misconduct are ultimately found to be unproven;

143.34 The Heads of State or Government noted the importance of security sector reform (SSR) among other important components in the context of UN peacekeeping and post conflict situations, and stressed that SSR should be integrated in the broad framework of UN Rule of Law activities, thus ensuring that SSR activities and structures are not duplicating the work carried out in the Rule of Law area. They reaffirmed that the development of a UN approach to SSR must take place within the General Assembly, and in accordance with the principle of national ownership, and stressed that the formulation of strategies to SSR, including its scope and mandate, should be carried out through the intergovernmental process and must be context-specific;

143.35 The Heads of State or Government emphasized that SSR should be undertaken at the request of the country concerned, and underlined the primary responsibility and the sovereign right of the country concerned in determining its national priorities in this regard.

144. The Heads of State or Government commended the ongoing work of the NAM Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations in coordinating issues of common concern to the Movement in the field of peacekeeping, and expressed appreciation to Morocco for its dedicated efforts during its chairmanship of the Working Group, and welcomed the assumption by Egypt of its chairmanship. In this regard, they encouraged all NAM delegations to continue to actively participate in the working group with a view to promote and achieve the objectives of the Movement, in particular the Troop Contributing Countries, in the work of the Special committee on Peacekeeping Operations.

145. The Heads of State or Government stressed the necessity to continue improving the working methods of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations to ensure that its work be carried out in a more efficient and transparent manner.

146. The Heads of State or Government, deeply concerned on the high level of casualties among Peacekeepers in the past two years, stressed the necessity for the UN to develop effective Safety and Security arrangements for Peacekeepers. The Heads of State or Government, mindful of the risks inherent in peacekeeping, reserved their most profound thoughts and respect for those UN peacekeepers that have lost their lives while in the service of peace. They emphasized that their sacrifice should stand as an enduring testimony of the unique work carried out by them in favour of peace and stability.

Disarmament and International Security

147. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed and reiterated the long-standing principled positions of the Movement on disarmament and international security, including the decisions taken at the XII Summit in Durban in 1998, the XIII Summit in Kuala Lumpur in 2003, the XIV Summit in Havana in 2006, the XV Summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, in July 2009, the XIII Ministerial Conference in Cartagena in 2000, the XIV Ministerial Conference in Durban in 2004, the Ministerial Meeting held in Putrajaya, Malaysia, in 2006, the XV Ministerial Conference held in Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran, in 2008 and the XVI Ministerial Conference and Commemorative Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Bali, Indonesia, in May 2011.

148. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their continued concern over the current difficult and complex situation in the field of disarmament and international security. In this regard, they called for renewed efforts to resolve the current impasse in achieving nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects.


56

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

149. Reaffirming the absolute validity of multilateral diplomacy in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, the Heads of State or Government reiterated their determination to promote multilateralism as the core principle of negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. In this regard, they welcomed the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 66/32 on Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

150. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their strong concern at the growing resort to unilateralism and in this context, underlined that multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions, in accordance with the UN Charter, provide the only sustainable method of addressing disarmament and international security issues.

151. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the Movement’s principled positions on nuclear disarmament, which remains its highest priority, and on the related issue of nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects. They stressed the importance that efforts aiming at nuclear non-proliferation should be parallel to simultaneous efforts aiming at nuclear disarmament. They stressed their concern at the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and of their possible use or threat of use. They reiterated deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress by the Nuclear-Weapon States (NWS) to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals in accordance with their relevant multilateral legal obligations. They underscored the need for the NWS to implement the unequivocal undertaking that they provided in 2000 and further reiterated in 2010 so as to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and emphasized, in this regard, the urgent need to commence and to bring to a conclusion negotiations on comprehensive and complete nuclear disarmament without delay.

152. The Heads of State or Government, while noting the recent statements by NWS of their intention to pursue actions in achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, reaffirmed the need for urgent concrete actions by the NWS to achieve this goal in accordance with their nuclear disarmament legal obligations and commitments.

153. The Heads of State or Government remained deeply concerned at strategic defence doctrines of NWS, including the “NATO Alliance Strategic Concept”, which not only set out rationales for the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, but also maintain unjustifiable concepts on international security based on promoting and developing military alliances and nuclear deterrence policies.

154. The Heads of State or Government reiterated, with concern, that improvements in existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types of nuclear weapons as envisaged in the United States Nuclear Posture Review contravene the security assurances provided by the NWS. They stressed once again that these improvements as well as the development of new types of such weapons violate the commitments undertaken by the NWS at the time of the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

155. The Heads of State or Government emphasized that progress in nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects is essential to strengthening international peace and security. They reaffirmed that efforts toward nuclear disarmament, global and regional approaches and confidence building measures complement each other and should, wherever possible, be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security. In this context, they stressed that nuclear disarmament, as the highest priority established by SSODI and as a multilateral legal obligation, should not be made conditional on confidence building measures or other disarmament efforts.

156. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the importance and the relevance of the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) as the sole specialized, deliberative body within the UN multilateral disarmament machinery. They continued to fully support the work of the UNDC and expressed regret that UNDC was unable to reach agreement on recommendations on its three agenda items during substantive sessions of its three-

57

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

year cycle ending in April 2011 due to the lack of political will and inflexible positions of certain Nuclear Weapons States, despite NAM’s constructive role and concrete proposals throughout the deliberations, especially in the Working Group on “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation of nuclear weapons”. The Heads of State or Government, while recalling the proposals submitted by the Movement, during the 2012 substantive session, called upon UN Member States to display the necessary political will and flexibility in order to achieve agreement on recommendations during the substantive sessions of its three- year cycle ending in 2014.

157. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the importance of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, and reiterated their call on the CD to agree on a balanced and comprehensive program of work by, inter alia, establishing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as soon as possible and as the highest priority. They emphasized the necessity to start negotiations without further delay on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. They reaffirmed the importance of the unanimous conclusion of the ICJ that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

158. The Heads of State or Government, noted the adoption of the Program of Work for the 2009 session (CD/1864) by the CD on 29 May 2009 which was not implemented. They expressed their appreciation to the Members and Presidents of the Conference, in particular Algeria, for their tireless efforts in this regard, and to those representatives of Member and Observer States of the Non-Aligned Movement who subsequently served as President of the Conference, including, mostly recently, the representative of Egypt, for his tireless efforts and for presenting a draft decision on a programme of work for the
2012 session (CD/1933/Rev.1) which was not adopted and called on the Conference on Disarmament to agree by consensus on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work without any further delay. The Heads of State or Government agreed to continue coordination of efforts at the NAM Chapter in Geneva.

159. The Heads of State or Government took note of the High Level Meeting on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament and taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations, held on September 24, 2010 and the General Assembly meeting on the follow-up to the 2010 High-Level Meeting on the Conference on Disarmament and Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations, held in New York on 27 July where NAM presented its positions, which remain valid in the way forward. The Heads of State or Government believed that any possible follow-up should be inclusive, Member States driven, and should strengthen the role and work of the CD, as mandated by the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-I) and efforts aimed at achieving nuclear disarmament.

160. The Heads of State or Government welcomed efforts of NAM Member States in advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. In this regard, they noted the convening by the Islamic Republic of Iran of the first and second International Conferences on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, in Tehran, on 17-18 April 2010 and 12-13 June,
2011, under the theme: "Nuclear Energy for everyone, Nuclear Weapon for no one."

161. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their support for the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-IV) and expressed their deep concern, over the fact that the SSOD IV is yet to be convened, despite efforts for many years in this regard. In this context, they welcomed the overwhelming support received by the Non-Aligned Movement’s UNGA resolution
65/66 entitled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament”. They urged the UN Secretary-General to make available all necessary technical, financial and human resources to implement the resolution. They stressed the importance of active participation in the open-ended working group established by the resolution to consider and reach consensus on the objectives and

58

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee for SSOD- IV.

162. The Heads of State or Government, while recalling the Statement on the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the XVI Ministerial Conference and Commemorative Meeting of the NAM in Bali, Indonesia, from 23 to 27 May 2011, reiterated their firm commitment to work for convening a high level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.

163. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed further that Non-Nuclear-Weapon States (NNWS) should be effectively assured by NWS against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, they reaffirmed the need for the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to all NNWS as a matter of high priority. They noted the lack of progress since the establishment in 1998 of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate universal, unconditional and legally binding security assurances to all NNWS. They expressed concern that despite long standing requests by NNWS to receive such legally binding assurances, no tangible progress has been achieved in this regard. The Heads of State or Government further stressed the significance and positive security implications of the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on NSAs.

164. The Heads of State or Government stressed the significance of achieving universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), including by all NWS, which, inter alia, should contribute to the process of nuclear disarmament. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the NWS, to nuclear disarmament would be essential. In this context, the ratification of the CTBT by Guatemala, Guinea and Indonesia was welcomed.

165. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the importance of the application of the principles of transparency, irreversibility and verifiability by NWS in all measures related to the fulfilment of their nuclear disarmament obligations.

166. The Heads of State or Government, while noting the conclusion and entry into force of the New START Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States, stressed that reductions in deployments and in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons. In this context they called on the United States and the Russian Federation to apply the principles of transparency, irreversibility and verifiability to such cuts, to further reduce their nuclear arsenals, both warheads and delivery systems, thus contributing to the fulfilment of their nuclear disarmament obligations and facilitating the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons at the earliest date.

167. The Heads of State or Government agreed that there remains an ever growing and most pressing need for concrete actions by Nuclear-Weapon States, to take further substantive and practical measures urgently, according to their multilaterally agreed commitments, to attain the goal of complete nuclear disarmament within a specified framework of time.

168. The Heads of State or Government continued to be concerned over the negative implications of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence systems and the threat of weaponization of outer space which have, inter alia, contributed to the further erosion of an international climate conducive to the promotion of disarmament and the strengthening of international security. The

59

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

abrogation of the ABM Treaty brought new challenges to strategic stability and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. They remained seriously concerned at the negative security consequences of the deployment of strategic missile defence systems which could trigger an arms race(s) and lead to the further development of advanced missile systems and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons.

169. The Heads of State or Government recognized the common interest of all mankind and the sovereign rights of all State in the exploration and use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes, and emphasized that prevention of an arms race in outer space, including a ban to deploy or use weapons therein, would avert a grave danger for international peace and security. They further emphasized the paramount importance of strict compliance with existing arms limitation and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space, including bilateral agreements, and with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space. They also reemphasized the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work in the CD, inter alia, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, taking note of the joint Russian-Chinese initiative of a draft treaty on the “Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects” (PPWT) presented in the Conference on Disarmament on 12 February 2008. They noted that this initiative is a constructive contribution to the work of the Conference, and is a good basis for further discussion toward adopting an international binding instrument.

170. While noting that considerable progress has been made in developing and applying the latest information technologies and means of telecommunication, the Heads of State or Government expressed concern that these technologies and means can potentially be used for purposes that are inconsistent with the objectives of maintaining international stability and security and may adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure of States to the detriment of their security in both civil and military fields. In this regard and while taking into account the ongoing efforts within the United Nations, the Heads of State or Government call upon Member States to further promote at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible strategies to address the threats emerging in this field. The Heads of State or Government emphasize that these technologies and means should be utilized by Member States in a manner consistent with international law and the principles and purposes of the UN Charter.

171. The Heads of State or Government remained convinced of the need for a multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive, transparent, and non- discriminatory approach toward the issue of missiles in all its aspects as a contribution to international peace and security. They expressed their support for efforts to be continued within the UN to explore further the issue of missiles in all its aspects. In this regard, they emphasized the contribution of peaceful uses of space technologies, including space launch vehicle technologies, to human advancement, such as for telecommunications and data gathering on natural disasters. They also emphasized the need to keep the issue of missiles in all its aspects on the agenda of the UN General Assembly and welcomed that the Panel of Governmental Experts established in accordance with Resolution 59/67 successfully concluded its work in 2008 and submitted its report to the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. While welcoming the adoption by consensus for the first time of the UNGA decision 66/516 on "Missiles", the Heads of State or Government encouraged follow up efforts to further examine the elements contained in the conclusions of the Secretary-General's Report A/63/176. Pending the achievement of such a universal approach related to delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, any initiative to address these concerns effectively and in a sustainable and comprehensive manner should be through an inclusive process of negotiations in a forum where all States could participate as equals. They stressed the importance of the security concerns of all States at regional and global levels in any approach to the issue of missiles in all its aspects.

172. The Heads of State or Government believed that the establishment of Nuclear- Weapon-Free zones (NWFZs) created by the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok, Pelindaba, the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone treaty as well as Mongolia’s

60

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

Nuclear-Weapon-Fee-Status are positive steps and important measures towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. They reiterated that in the context of NWFZs, it is essential that NWS 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 freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned with a view to establishing new NWFZs 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 (SSOD-I) and the principles adopted by the 1999 UN Disarmament Commission.

173. Recalling the convening and the outcome of the Second Conference of the States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Established Nuclear Weapon Free Zones and Mongolia held in New York, on 30 April 2010, the Heads of State or Government called on the States parties and signatories to the Treaties of NWFZs to implement further ways and means of co-operation among themselves, their treaty agencies and other interested States. They expressed their support for Mongolia’s policy aimed at institutionalizing its nuclear-weapons-free status and for the measures taken by Mongolia to consolidate and strengthen this status. In this regard they welcomed the start of the talks by Mongolia with the Nuclear Weapon States to conclude an international instrument institutionalizing the status.

174. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. As a priority step to this end, they reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and paragraph 14 of the Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and the relevant General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus. They called upon all parties 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 its 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 precondition and further delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full-scope safeguards according to Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and to conduct its nuclear related activities in conformity with the non-proliferation regime. They called for the earliest implementation of relevant IAEA resolutions on “Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East”. They expressed great concern over the acquisition of nuclear capability by Israel which poses a serious and continuing threat to the security of neighbouring and other States, and condemned Israel for continuing to develop and stockpile nuclear arsenals. In this context they also condemned the statement made by the then Prime Minister of Israel on 11 December 2006, related to the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. They urged the continued consideration of the issue of Israeli nuclear capabilities in the context of the IAEA, including at the General Conference. They were of the view that stability cannot be achieved in a region where massive imbalances in military capabilities are maintained particularly through the possession of nuclear weapons, which allow one party to threaten its neighbours, and the region. They further welcomed the initiative by the Arab Republic of Egypt, on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and in this context, they took into consideration the draft resolution tabled by the Syrian Arab Republic, on behalf of the Arab Group, before the Security Council on 29
December 2003 on the establishment of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. They stressed that necessary steps should be taken in different
international fora for the establishment of this zone. They also called for the total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear related scientific or technological fields to Israel. In this regard, they expressed their serious concern over the continuing development whereby Israeli scientists are provided access to the nuclear facilities of one NWS. This development will have potentially serious negative implications on security in the region as well as the reliability of the global non-proliferation regime.

61

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2


175. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their support for the efforts of the Arab Group in Vienna to keep the question of the Israeli nuclear capabilities under consideration of the General Conference of the IAEA.

176. The Heads of State or Government underscored the Movement’s principled position concerning non-use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity of any State. In this regard, they condemned the Israeli attack against a Syrian facility on September 6, 2007, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and welcomed Syria’s cooperation with the IAEA in this regard.

177. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the importance of the observance of environmental norms in the preparation and implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements, and in this regard, they welcomed the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 66/31 on this matter without a vote. They reaffirmed that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation and that all States, through their actions, should contribute fully to ensuring compliance with the aforementioned norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they are parties.

178. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the importance of the UN activities at the regional level to increase the stability and security of its Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional centres for peace and disarmament.

179. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while reaffirming the package of agreements of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT and the Final Document of the
2000 Review Conference of the NPT, and recognizing the crucial role of the NPT in nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, were of the view that the “Conclusions and Recommendations for Follow-on actions” of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT, represent an outcome that can be built upon and further enhanced in the near future, to fully address the priorities of the Movement, in particular to realise a world free from nuclear weapons. They called upon NWS to implement fully and effectively their obligations under the Treaty, in particular in the area of nuclear disarmament, and the outcomes of its Review Conferences, in particular the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, the 2000 Review Conference and the 2010 Review Conference.

180. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the NPT stressed the importance of the review of the operation of the Treaty in the framework of the NPT Review Conferences and in this context emphasized that the inclusion of the Review Part of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference as an opinion of the President and not as a consensus language should not be considered as a precedent to be followed in the future without prejudice to the prerogatives of the Review Conference.

181. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the NPT commended the Presidency of H.E. Libran N. Cabactulan of the Philippines, of the 2010 NPT Review Conference and the active engagement of NAM States Parties to the Treaty in its deliberations. They reiterated the importance of implementing the action plans adopted by the conference on nuclear disarmament, on nuclear non-proliferation, on peaceful uses of nuclear energy and on the implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East. The Heads of State or with concern the lack of agreement on a number of key priorities of NAM States Parties to the NPT, including inter alia, to begin negotiations on a Nuclear-Weapons-Convention and to commence negotiations on a legally binding instrument on unconditional Negative Security Assurances to Non-Nuclear-Weapon States. The Heads of State or Government of these States Parties to the NPT agreed to continue their collective efforts in pursuing the realization of the aforementioned NAM priorities in the 2015 NPT review process. While welcoming the success of the first

62

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, the NAM States Parties to the Treaty call for the full implementation of the action plans adopted in 2010 on nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle-East.

182. In this context, the Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the NPT welcomed the adoption by consensus of a detailed plan of action on “the Middle East, particularly implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East” in the “Conclusions and Recommendations for Follow-on actions” of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The Heads of State or Government urged the UN Secretary General and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution, in consultation with the States of the region, to exert utmost efforts in ensuring the success of the Conference to be convened in 2012, to be attended by all States of the Middle East on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. They stressed the importance of the full implementation of all aspects of the agreed plan of action and the active and constructive engagement of all parties concerned to allow for the success of the conference in launching a regional negotiation process aimed at fully realizing the objectives of the 1995 resolution and the establishment of the zone.

183. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the NPT expressed deep concern over the delay in the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East. They strongly urged the United Nations Secretary-General and the three cosponsors of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East to fully implement, without any further delay, in close consultation and coordination with the States of the Middle East, the measures contained in the Action Plan on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction adopted by the
2010 NPT Review Conference. They welcomed the appointment of a facilitator, and the designation of a host government for a conference in 2012, to be attended by all States of the Middle East on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. They noted the report of the facilitator to the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference and called on him to accelerate consultations with all capitals in the region. The Heads of State or Government requested the Secretary-General, in implementation of his mandate to convene the Conference, to exert maximum efforts with a view to convening the Conference at the earliest possible date in 2012, while noting the need to avoid any further delay. The Heads of State or Government further stressed the importance of availing all financial means necessary for the activities of the facilitator and convening of the Conference, as soon as possible, including from the regular budget of the United Nations.

184. The Heads of State or Government of State Parties to the NPT reaffirmed the urgency and importance of Israel’s accession to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under IAEA comprehensive safeguards according to the relevant international instruments and decisions, including operative paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 487 (1981). They called on Israel, as the only non-NPT party in the Middle East, to accede, without further delay, to the Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State.

185. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the NPT reiterated their call for the firm commitment by all States Parties to the Treaty to the full and indiscriminate implementation of all the provisions of the Treaty. They further called for the full implementation of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty, particularly an unequivocal undertaking by the NWS to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament. Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, they also recalled that the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT reiterated that legally binding, security assurances by the five NWS to the non-NWS parties to the Treaty would strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime. They underlined the agreement by consensus at the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons; the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension

63

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

Conference of the NPT; and on a legally binding international instrument on unconditional security assurances to Non Nuclear Weapon States.

186. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the NPT called upon the NWS to fully comply with their commitments not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-NWS parties to the Treaty or NWFZs at any time or under any circumstances, pending the conclusion of a legally binding instrument on security assurances.

187. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the inalienable right of developing countries to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. They continued to note with concern that undue restrictions on exports to developing countries of material, equipment and technology, for peaceful purposes persist. They again emphasized that proliferation concerns are best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non- discriminatory agreements. Non-proliferation control arrangements should be transparent and open to participation by all States, and should ensure that they do not impose restrictions on access to material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes required by developing countries for their continued development. The Heads of State or Government expressed their full confidence in the impartiality and professionalism of the IAEA and strongly rejected any politically motivated attempts by any State to politicize the work of the IAEA, including its technical co-operation programme, in violation of its Statute, as well as any undue pressure or interference in the Agency's activities which could jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of the IAEA and the inalienable right of developing countries to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.

188. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the NPT emphasized once more that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I, II, III and IV of the Treaty. They stressed that this right constitutes one of the fundamental objectives of the Treaty. In this connection, they confirmed that each country’s choices and decision in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international co-operation agreements and arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its fuel-cycle policies.

189. The Heads of State or Government stressed particularly the responsibility of developed countries to promote the legitimate need of nuclear energy of the developing countries, by allowing them to participate to the fullest extent possible in the transfer of nuclear equipment, materials, scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes with a view to achieving the largest benefits and applying pertinent elements of sustainable development in their activities.

190. The Heads of State or Government took note of the adoption, through a vote, in
2010 and 2011, of three proposals of assurance of supply mechanisms in the framework of the multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle, in the IAEA Board of Governors. They highlighted that this issue should be conducted through wide, integral and transparent consultations and negotiations, focusing on its technical, legal, political and economic implications, before any further decision is taken about this complex and sensitive matter. The Heads of State or Government emphasized that decisions should be made by consensus, with the participation of all IAEA member States, and any proposal from IAEA must be consistent with its Statute, without any prejudice to the inalienable right of its member States to research, develop and use for peaceful purposes of nuclear sciences, in all its aspects, including the inalienable right of each State Party, if it so decides, to develop, for peaceful purposes, a full national nuclear fuel cycle in accordance with its rights and obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

191. The Heads of State or Government, emphasizing the importance of the positive role played by the Non-Aligned Members in the IAEA, stressed the necessity that all

64

NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2

members of the IAEA strictly observe its Statute. They stressed that any undue pressure or interference in the Agency’s activities, especially its verification process, which could jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of the Agency, should be avoided. They recognised that the IAEA is the sole competent authority for verification of compliance with the obligations under the respective safeguard agreements of the Member States. They also reaffirmed that a clear distinction has to be made between the legal obligations of Member States under their respective safeguards agreements and their voluntary undertakings, in order to ensure that such voluntary undertakings are not turned into legal safeguards obligations. Bearing in mind the Agency’s responsibility in protecting safeguards' confidential information and given the undesirable incidents of leakage of such information, the Heads of State or Government emphasized the need for strengthening the regime for the protection of safeguards confidential information.

192. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities – operational or under construction- poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the UN Charter and regulations of the IAEA. They recognised the urgent need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument prohibiting attacks or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

193. The Heads of State or Government affirmed the need to strengthen the Radiological Safety and Protection Systems at facilities utilising radioactive materials as well as at radioactive waste management facilities, including the safe transportation of these materials. They reaffirmed the need to strengthen existing international regulations relating to safety and security of transportation of such materials. The Heads of State or Government noted efforts of the IAEA in this regard including convening an “International Conference on the safe and secure transport of radioactive material: The next fifty years- creating a safe, secure and sustainable framework” in Vienna from the 17th to the 21st of October 2011. While reiterating the need to take appropriate measures to prevent any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes, they called for effective implementation of the Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste of the IAEA as a means of enhancing the protection of all States from the dumping of radioactive waste on their territories.

194. The Heads of State or Government recognized that the primary responsibility for nuclear safety and nuclear security rests with the individual States. In that sense, the Heads of State or Government underlined that States with nuclear power programs have a central role in their own countries in ensuring the application of the highest standards of nuclear safety and the responsibility for providing a timely, transparent and adequate response to nuclear accidents in order to minimize their consequences. The Heads of State or Government stressed the need for a rapid, timely, continuous, reliable and transparent dissemination of information on nuclear accidents with significant trans-boundary radiological effects in accordance with relevant international conventions.

195. The Heads of State or Government emphasized the need to improve national, regional and international preparedness and response to nuclear accidents and calls for a strengthened role of the IAEA in emergency preparedness and response, including through assisting Member States, upon their request, on emergency preparedness and response to nuclear accidents, promoting capacity building, including education and training in the field of crisis management.

196. The Heads of State or Government emphasized that measures and initiatives aimed at strengthening nuclear safety and nuclear security must not be used as a pretext or leverage to violate, deny or restrict the inalienable right of developing countries to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.


Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part I (Full Text)
Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part II (Full Text)
Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part III (Full Text)
Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part IV (Full Text)
Final Document of 16th NAM Summit in Tehran / Part V (Full Text)