Explanation of Position of the Islamic Republic of Iran

on behalf of Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Syria and Venezuela

At the Seventh Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of

the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA)

On the Final Outcome Document

New York, 30 July 2021

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Mr. Chair,

I have the honor to speak on behalf of Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and Iran.

Please let me begin by expressing our appreciation to you, the vice-chairs, and the secretariate for all of your efforts in leading and supporting the Seventh Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

We have always supported the PoA and the ITI as well as their effective, complete, and indiscriminate implementation. This understanding has led us to participate with a constructive approach in the biennial and other relevant meetings of the PoA.  Our active participation through four series of written submissions and a lot of interventions before and during BMS 7 are proof of our attempts to promote the PoA.

However, after twenty years of implementation of the PoA, its goals are yet to be fully realized. Now it is gloomy to hear about the mounting challenges of its implementation from different aspects. We believe that among other reasons, the current situation is owing specially to a lack of enough political will and decreasing trend of international cooperation.

The past trend of the biennials indicates another unfortunate fact. Numerous suggestions to lower down the number and level of commitments in line with the provisions of the PoA on one hand and trying to expand legal or financial burdens or attempts to add non-consensual issues in the outcome documents of these meetings on the other is just an example. The attempts that have been increasingly divisive and result of which are shown in leaving the long-lasting value of consensus. 

The BMS 7 was the last witness to these kinds of attempts. Aware of them, we repeatedly requested to continue to work by consensus on all issues of procedure and substance. Therefore, we repeatedly mentioned our preference that the non-consensual issues like adding ammunition to the outcome document, and synergy with the non-globally accepted instruments should refrain. Paragraphs 24, 35, 53, and many other paragraphs on gender issues are concrete cases in this regard.

In the same vein, we highlighted that SDG-specific indicators, human rights, and gender approaches within the context of the PoA and the ITI should not be over-emphasized.

Additionally, while the main thrust of agenda item 7 was to exchange views on the implications of the developments in small arms and light weapons manufacturing, technology and design, the reflected paragraphs and especially paragraph 92 with exactly action-oriented nature are far beyond the accepted mandate of this meeting as envisaged in the PoA. This authority is clearly given to the Review Conference according to the same document. This happened against our goodwill and the clear condition to only discussing it by the interested delegations. 

It is bewildering that with all insists on the above subjects, the NAM proposal to establish a dedicated fellowship training program on small arms and light weapons is somehow deferred and postponed. 

Likewise, the PoA and its biennials are a state-driven process, however, the proposals to support state sovereignty and the legitimate right of self-defense according to article 51 of the United Nations Charter were not reflected in the current outcome document.

All in all, the voted document speaks for itself and it will not have the influence of a consensual document.  This should be seriously considered with a satisfactory result for all.  We are warning that the more non-consensual issues are raised, the more possibility of voting will raise at the cost of a weak PoA.

The modalities and specially the obstacles in participation of some of the Capital experts in the virtual meetings, due to the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the USA on some countries, were another unacceptable feature of the BMS 7.

In closing, keeping in mind the voluntary and non-binding nature of the outcome documents of the BMS processes, our delegations would like to put on the record that we would agree with inly those non-contentious provisions of the outcome document that are consistent and compatible with our respective countries’ domestic policies, laws, regulations, priorities, and values.

Thank You!