Final Document of the XIII Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement Kuala Lumpur, 24 - 25 February 2003

Introduction

1. The Heads of State or Government of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries met in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 24 – 25 February 2003, to address the crucial global issues affecting their peoples with the view to agreeing to a set of actions in the promotion of peace, security, justice, equality, democracy and development, conducive for a multilateral system of relations based on the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States, the rights of peoples to self-determination and non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

 2. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their determination to preserve intact the noble ideals and principles of the Movement as initiated by its founders so as to further consolidate and make the Movement a leading force in the 21st century. In this regard, they expressed their full satisfaction and appreciation to the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the excellent organisation in 2002 of the celebration to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Movement, an event of great significance, which demonstrated the continued relevance, and effectiveness of the Movement.

CHAPTER I: GLOBAL ISSUES

Review of the International Situation

3. The Heads of State or Government emphasised that the international situation continues to be marked by rapid and dramatic evolution, presenting numerous opportunities and challenges to the international community and the Non-Aligned Movement. Recent events have again demonstrated that a peaceful, just and secure world continues to elude human kind. Simmering disputes, violent conflicts, aggression and foreign occupation, interference in the domestic affairs of States, policies of hegemony and domination, unilateral and coercive measures, ethnic strife, religious intolerance, xenophobia, new forms of racism and narrowly conceived nationalism pose major and dangerous obstacles to harmonious coexistence among States and peoples and have even led to the disintegration of States and societies.

4. In this context, the Heads of State or Government expressed their rejection of unilateralism, which is increasingly leading to the erosion and violation of international law, to the use and threat of use of force and to pressure and coercion by certain countries as a means to achieving their policy objectives. The Heads of State or Government stressed their commitment to multilateralism.

5. The Heads of State or Government therefore reiterated the importance of addressing the challenges and problems by strictly abiding the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law. In this regard, they stressed the vital role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security and the strengthening of international co-operation. They also reiterated their firm condemnation of all unilateral military actions including those made without proper authorisation from the United Nations Security Council, as well as of threats of military action against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Member States of the Movement which constitute acts of aggression and blatant violations of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference.

6. The Heads of State or Government acknowledged that the global economy continues to be characterised by vastly different levels of development while developing countries continue to confront problems of access to markets, capital and technology, and many still grapple with the institutional transformation necessary for meaningful integration into the world economy. They also noted that many developing countries have taken significant steps to liberalise and integrate further into the world economy. However, anticipated benefits have not been realised and the economic gaps between rich and poor countries have not diminished. They recognised that the globalised economy offers great opportunities, but expressed concern that its benefits are very unevenly shared and its costs unfairly distributed, and that developing countries face difficulties in responding to that central challenge.

7. The Heads of State or Government underscored the importance of revitalising international development co-operation and multilateral negotiations with a North-South or development orientation. They also welcomed the recognition by developed countries that the needs of the developing countries cannot be met solely by a focus on the market economy, and called for a recommitment to and an urgent resumption of international actions aimed specifically at improving the global environment for development, such as aid on concessional terms, measures to counter the instability and weakness of commodity markets, preferential tariffs for developing country exports, debt reduction, mechanisms for the transfer of technology and basic reforms in the international financial architecture.

8. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the outcome of the South Summit, held in Havana from 10 - 14 April 2000, in particular the decision adopted on strengthening of co-ordination and co-operation between the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China through the Joint Co-ordinating Committee (JCC) in the promotion and defence of the common interest of the developing countries, and called on the Group of 77 and China to take steps to accelerate the implementation of the Plan of Action adopted therein. They noted the growing importance of Economic Co-operation among Developing Countries/Technical Co-operation among Developing Countries (ECDC/TCDC) for the enhancement of people-centred development as well as capitalising of local resources through interaction among development actors and partnership. In this context, while recognising that developing countries have the primary responsibilities for expanding ECDC/TCDC, through the strengthening of South-South Co-operation, the Heads of State or Government stressed the role that development partners, particularly donor countries, can play in supporting these endeavours, facilitating triangular co-operation and strengthening South institutions.

9. The Heads of State or Government noted that the gap between the developed and developing countries, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), continues to widen, and the problems deriving from poverty and social injustices, have been significantly aggravated. They expressed particular concern over the economic situation in the LDCs, the majority of which are in Africa. They reiterated that economic under-development, poverty and social injustice constitute a source of frustration and a cause of new conflicts and that democracy, stability, security, and peace cannot be consolidated without rectifying the growing international inequalities.

10. The Heads of State or Government therefore reaffirmed the Movement’s commitment to continue to work in co-operation with all countries towards the establishment of an international system based on peace, justice, equality, democracy and full respect of all human rights and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law.

11. In this regard, the Heads of State or Government reiterated their determination to make every effort to further strengthen the Movement’s capacity for action and to develop concrete modalities to enhance the influence and impact of its decisions on world affairs. They recognised that the Movement should take up the challenge of fundamentally transforming international relations so as to eradicate aggression, the use of force, unilateral coercive measures, foreign occupation, unfair economic practices, racism and xenophobia in order to achieve world of peace, justice and dignity for all.

12. The Heads of State or Government considered that the damage to the environment in times of armed conflict impairs ecosystems and natural resources long beyond the periods of conflict, and often extends beyond the limits of national territories and the present generation. In this context, they emphasised the necessity to increase international awareness in the field of environment preventing the exploitation of environment in war and armed conflict.

13. The Heads of State or Government recalled the decision of the Organisation of African Union (OAU) Summit in Algiers in July 1999, calling for the restoration of constitutional legality in States whose governments had come to power through unconstitutional means. They noted that other intergovernmental organisations had also taken similar decisions. They encouraged Member States to continue to uphold the democratic ideals consistent with the principles of the Movement.

14. The Heads of State or Government took note of the forthcoming V International Conference of New or Restored Democracies to be held from 18 - 20 June 2003 in Mongolia to which all Member States of the United Nations had been invited. They called upon the Member States to actively participate in the Conference pursuant to all relevant United Nations resolutions and to project the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement.

15. The Heads of State or Government underscored the inherent dangers in the emerging trends towards a unipolar world, where unilateral and hegemonic policies could violate the basic principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations Charter. They strongly condemned any labelling of countries as good or evil and repressive based on unilateral and unjustified criteria and reiterated their firm condemnation of all unilateral military actions or threat of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any State. They also firmly condemned unfounded biased accusations by certain countries against members of the Movement and underscored the dangers those accusations might entail for peace, security and stability.

16. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the rejection by the Non-Aligned Movement of the so-called “right” of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis either in United Nations Charter or in international law and requested the Co-ordinating Bureau in New York to continue to be seized with this issue as well as other related matters in accordance with the principled position of the Non-Aligned Movement; they also observed similarities between the new expression “responsibility to protect” and “humanitarian intervention” and requested the Co-ordinating Bureau to carefully study and consider the expression “the responsibility to protect” and its implications on the basis of the principles of non-interference and non-intervention as well as the respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty of States.

17. The Heads of State or Government emphasised the Movement’s support for the United Nations Millennium Declaration as an important step in addressing the urgent needs of developing countries.

The Role of the Non-Aligned Movement

18. In order for the Movement to enhance its role at an international level, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the positions of the NAM Summits and Ministerial Meetings on the Role of the Non-Aligned Movement. They took note of the roundtable discussion at the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Durban on 27 - 29 April 2002, which, among others, addressed this issue. They also took note of the deliberations in the Interactive Ministerial Session held on 22 February 2003 in Kuala Lumpur on the theme “Continuing the Revitalisation of the Non-Aligned Movement”.

19. In order to address the challenges facing the Movement, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the need to continue the process of revitalisation of the Movement and the strengthening and creation of mechanism that would facilitate their actions in the new international scenario. In this regard, they stressed the need for the identification of concrete actions to be carried out by the Movement in order to pursue its aims and objectives in all fields. They decided that the Co-ordinating Bureau prepare a Plan of Action for adoption by the Ministers at their Annual Meeting at the 58th Session of the General Assembly. They also welcomed Malaysia’s offer to organise a meeting at Senior Officials level on Methodology to prepare recommendations for adoption by the Ministers.

20. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their irrevocable political and moral commitment to, and full respect for, the founding principles of the Movement as well as the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter. In order for the Movement to enhance its role at the international level, they agreed that the Movement must continue to work on expanding and reinforcing its ability and capacity for initiative, representation and negotiation, as well as its ethical, political and moral strength as the principal forum representing the interests and aspirations of the developing world. Furthermore, they recognised that the attainment of the objectives of the Movement hinges upon the solidarity of its Members, its unity and cohesion, founded on a culture of peace, development and co-operation.

21. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that the solidarity among its members is a must for the Movement, mainly when NAM countries are threatened from abroad through acts of aggression, the threat to use force or unilateral coercive measures, all of which are, by nature, contrary to the principles of the Movement and of the international law.

22. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the initiative of the Government of Indonesia, to hold in co-operation with the Government of South Africa, the commemoration of the golden jubilee of the Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung, Indonesia in 2005, to be preceded by the First Conference of the Asia-Africa Sub Regional Organisation in Bandung, on 16 – 17 April 2003 and the Second Conference to be held in South Africa, in April 2004. They believed that such an occasion could further strengthen good relations and solidarity among developing countries.

North-South Dialogue

23. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their intention to pursue effective North-South dialogue based on the mutuality of interest and benefits, shared responsibilities and genuine interdependence. They called for an increased and constructive dialogue with the developed countries, in particular, the Group of 8, in forging a common effort in dealing with international issues.

Dialogue among Civilisations

24. The Heads of State or Government recalled the positions of the NAM adopted at both the XII Durban Summit and the XIII Cartagena Ministerial Conference stressing that the Dialogue among Civilisations should be a durable process, and reaffirmed their support for the strengthening and institutionalisation of these processes at regional and international levels. They emphasised that in the current international environment, dialogue among civilisations is not an option but an imperative. In this connection, they recalled the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000, which underscored tolerance as a fundamental value of international relations in the 21st Century, and which called for the promotion of a culture of peace and dialogue among civilisations. They further welcomed the adoption by the General Assembly of a Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilisations contained in Resolution A/56/6, and are convinced that implementation of its programme of action positively contributes to international efforts to attain universal peace, welfare and stability.



United Nations Millennium Declaration

25. The Heads of State or Government acknowledged their collective responsibility to uphold the principles and implement the commitments of the Millennium Declaration. They emphasised that the focus should now be on the implementation by all of the Declaration and took note of all relevant resolutions on the follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit adopted by the General Assembly.


Strengthening, Restructuring, Revitalising and Democratising the United Nations

26. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the Movement’s commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and underscored the need to preserve and promote the centrality and sanctity of its principles and purposes.

27. The Heads of State or Government expressed their concern that the impact of the United Nations reforms on the developing countries is yet to be felt, given the continuous decline in the resources made available to the United Nations for multilateral development co-operation as well as the impasse in the appropriation of new resources for the development account. They considered that the success of the reform of the United Nations can only be judged in terms of the improvements in its functioning and due consideration of the interests of the developing countries. They recognised the need for further reform of the United Nations to make it a more effective instrument for pursuing the purposes and principles as enshrined in its Charter, especially the promotion of economic development and the maintenance of international peace and security notably the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force in international relations as reaffirmed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/40/70 on 11 December 1985. In this regard, they noted the relevant United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the strengthening, restructuring, reform and revitalising the United Nations.

28. In the ongoing reform that should be actively accelerated to strengthen the United Nations, the Heads of State or Government underlined the need to preserve and promote the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and General Assembly mandates. They also underscored the need to keep under 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. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the proposal calling for the establishment of the International Committee of Personalities to support the role of the United Nations in resolving crisis and to promote the ideals of understanding, co-operation, and peace among religions, peoples and nations.

29. The Heads of State or Government again stressed that any further efforts with regard to the reform of the United Nations should focus on strengthening the role of the Organisation in promoting international co-operation for development and in implementing the Development Goals through enhanced mechanisms, adequate resources and effective follow-up activities, as well as in the maintenance of international peace and security. In this context, they proposed that the resources released as a result of the implementation of new reformed measures as approved by the General Assembly should be devoted to activities and programmes related to international co-operation for development.

30. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the adoption of decisions aimed at strengthening and revitalising the role of the General Assembly as the highest deliberative and decision-making organ of the United Nations. They also noted the ongoing discussions to improve the working methods and procedures of the General Assembly, and reaffirmed the Movement’s readiness to continue to participate actively in that process and to ensure that the General Assembly resolutions are being implemented since it is the highest deliberative and decision making organ of the United Nations.

31. The Heads of State or Government underscored the inter-governmental character of the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. They welcomed efforts to strengthen the contribution of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to the work of the United Nations and its bodies through the consultative arrangements of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). They also emphasised that the contribution of the private sector, NGOs and civil society in the realisation of the United Nations’ goals and programmes should be in accordance with the appropriate United Nations General Assembly resolutions and should serve the purposes and principles laid out in the United Nations Charter. This contribution should also seek to address the obstacles that developing countries face in mobilising the resources needed to finance their sustainable development.

32. The Heads of State or Government noted with concern the lack of progress in the discussions in the General Assembly on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council, and other matters related to the Security Council. These discussions have shown that while a convergence of views has emerged on a number of issues, major differences still exist on many others. They called on the Permanent Representatives of the NAM Member States in New York to continue, in the ensuing negotiations in the Open-Ended Working Group, to pursue NAM directives adopted during the XI and XII Summits, which have been contained in the Movement's position and negotiating papers and the decisions of the Ministerial Conference and Ministerial Meetings since the XII Ministerial Conference. They requested the working group to continue its consideration of the issue.

33. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the Movement’s position that the imposition of sanctions is an issue of serious concern for Non-Aligned Countries. They reaffirmed that the imposition of sanctions in accordance with the United Nations Charter should be considered only after all means of peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the United Nations 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. In this regard, they reiterated that the objectives of sanctions regimes should be clearly defined. These should be imposed for a specified time frame and be based on tenable legal grounds and should be lifted as soon as the objectives are achieved. The conditions demanded of the country or party on which sanctions are imposed should be clearly defined and subject to periodic review. Attempts to impose or to prolong the application of sanctions to achieve political ends should be rejected.


Financial Situation of the United Nations

34. The Heads of State or Government noted the recent improvement in the financial situation of the United Nations. However, they agreed that the financial situation of the Organisation continues to be a cause for concern, as a result of the failure on the part of some Member States, especially the major contributor to meet their assessed contributions in full, on time and without conditions, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the relevant General Assembly resolutions. They therefore urged all countries in arrears, in particular the major contributor to settle their outstanding dues without further delay and to pay their future assessments in full, on time and without imposing preconditions. They also expressed their concern over the continuing practice of cross-borrowing from the Peacekeeping Budget to the Regular Budget of the United Nations, and the delay in reimbursement of troop and equipment contributing countries, and affirmed the principle of capacity to pay as a fundamental criterion in the apportionment of the expenses of the Organisation. They recognised the special situation faced by some developing countries that hamper the ability to pay their assessed contributions.

35. The Heads of State or Government recognised the special situation faced by some developing countries that hamper the ability to pay their assessed contributions and affirmed the principle of capacity to pay as a fundamental criteria in the apportionment of the expenses of the Organisation.

36. The Heads of State or Government noted the introduction in the United Nations of a result-based budgeting system and expressed their expectation that it would contribute to ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of all mandated programmes and activities, and will be implemented in accordance with General Assembly resolutions.

37. On the programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005, the Movement believed that the resources to be approved by the General Assembly should commensurate with all mandated programmes and activities in order to ensure their full and effective implementation, in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 41/213 of 19 December 1986. They also reaffirmed the priorities approved in General Assembly Resolution 55/234 and emphasised the need for sufficient allocation of resources.

38. The Heads of States or Government noted with concern the negative impact in the implementation of mandates and the quality of services provided to Member States of the cutback measures adopted by the General Assembly Secretariat in implementing General Assembly resolutions. In this regard, they stressed the need for providing the Organisation with the level of resources needed for the full implementation of all mandated programmes and activities as well as those required to guarantee the quality of services needed for the functioning of the inter-governmental machinery.

39. As far as peacekeeping operations are concerned, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the general principles underlying the financing of United Nations peacekeeping operations as set out in the relevant General Assembly resolutions and reiterated that the expenses of peacekeeping operations are expenses of the United Nations to be borne by Member States in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and on the basis of the scale of assessments approved by the General Assembly.

40. The Heads of State or Government were of the view that, while it is important to finance the real needs of United Nations peacekeeping expeditiously and in full, proper balance should be struck between the level and urgency with which peacekeeping activities are funded on the one hand, and availability of adequate resources for full implementation of programmes mandated by the General Assembly in the economic and social spheres on the other.

United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

41. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the guiding principles regarding peacekeeping operations adopted at the XI Ministerial Conference held in Cairo in 1994 and reiterated the Movement’s position on peacekeeping operations adopted by the XII Summit held in Durban in 1998.

42. The Heads of State or Government also reiterated the Movement’s longstanding position that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security resides with the United Nations and that the role of regional arrangements, in that regard, should be in accordance with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and should not in any way substitute the role of the United Nations, or circumvent the full application of the guiding principles of United Nations peacekeeping.

43. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that peacekeeping constitutes an important instrument at the disposal of the Organisation in fulfilling its responsibility, and stressed the need to avoid selectivity and double standards in establishing United Nations peacekeeping operations, especially in Africa.

44. The Heads of State or Government continued to believe that peacekeeping operations 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 and developmental instruments. They further maintained that consideration should be given by the United Nations to the manner by which those efforts can continue without interruption after the departure of peacekeeping operations, so as to ensure a smooth transition to lasting peace and security.

45. The Heads of State or Government emphasised that the United Nations should be able to plan and manage peacekeeping operations effectively, some of which involve complex tasks of a multidisciplinary nature, and to deploy the operation rapidly after the adoption of a United Nations mandate. They also acknowledged the recent contributions of the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations in the deliberations of the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (Brahimi Report) and in the adoption of important recommendations contained in the report.

46. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the position that the funding of United Nations peacekeeping operations through voluntary contributions should not influence United Nations Security Council decisions to establish peacekeeping operations or affect their mandates.

47. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the establishment of consultations between troop contributing countries and the Security Council, and called for their institutionalisation. In keeping with this objective, they urged the Security Council to implement, without delay, proposals for establishing a new mechanism for such co-operation, as envisaged in the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, and in the proposals made by a number of troop contributing countries. As a first step, they called for the effective implementation of the mechanisms laid down in Security Council Resolution 1353 (2001) and in the Note of the President of the Security Council dated 14 January, 2002 (S/2002/56).

48. The Heads of State or Government expressed the Movement’s belief that the Security Council should ascertain the views of prospective troop contributing countries before and during the drafting of mandates for United Nations peacekeeping operations, since these countries are primarily responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Council’s mandate on the ground. While authorising the use of force, the Security Council should adhere to the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Charter of the United Nations.

49. The Heads of State or Government underlined that planning within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations must be more transparent and effective and that troop contributing countries should be consulted at all stages of a mission. The Movement remains concerned over the staffing structure of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the United Nations Secretariat whereby NAM Member Countries are insufficiently represented, particularly at professional levels. They reiterated their belief that personnel from Non-Aligned Movement Member Countries should be sufficiently represented, without prejudice to the principle of equitable geographical representation.

50. The Heads of State or Government encouraged the participation of Non-Aligned countries in United Nations peacekeeping operations and, mindful of the difficulties faced by many countries in complying with rapid deployment timeframes, meeting deployment costs and bridging the gap between troops and equipment, they emphasised that the United Nations should work toward overcoming these difficulties.

51. In recalling the proposals by the United Nations Secretary General for procurement reform as outlined in A/52/534, the Heads of State or Government again emphasised the critical importance of timely, efficient, transparent and cost-effective procurement of goods and services in support of peacekeeping operations. The Movement remained concerned over the negligible share of Non-Aligned and other developing countries in United Nations procurement. In this regard, the Movement reiterated its view that there is a need to ensure greater United Nations procurement from developing countries, especially Non-Aligned countries, in particular through the implementation of the provision of preferential treatment.

Post Conflict Peace-Building Activities

52. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the adoption of the concept of Disarmament, Demobilisation, Reintegration and Rehabilitation (DDRR) to be implemented during United Nations peacekeeping operations and post conflict reconstruction. They also reaffirmed the importance of sustaining peace to allow time and resources required to rebuild war torn societies and states, which would promote the irreversibility of peace achieved and provide meaningful reintegration of combatants into the society.

53. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the distinction between humanitarian assistance and United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations as well as operational activities and emphasised that humanitarian assistance is designed to address the consequences and not the causes thereof. Humanitarian assistance should be kept distinct from and independent of political or military action. It must be provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality as well as guiding principles contained in General Assembly Resolution 46/182 of 12 December 1991, national legislation and international humanitarian law.

54. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that without any prejudice to the competence of the other principal organs of the United Nations’ respective roles in post conflict peace-building (PCPB) activities, the General Assembly must have the key role in the formulation of PCPB activities. In this regard, they also recognised the importance of the concerted actions of international agencies to actively support the national programmes particularly of NAM Countries, which are in the process of recovery from recent conflicts, for reconstruction and rehabilitation, including the promotion of a culture of peace, which paves the way for the achievement of economic and social development. They reaffirmed that the implementation of PCPB activities requires the full consultation and consent of the parties concerned, and should be based on the principles of international law and United Nations Charter.

55. The Heads of State or Government noted that the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations has concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enhance cooperation between them, and to seek to increase the effectiveness of peace-keeping and human rights activities. While reiterating that the General Assembly must have the key role in the formulation of PCPB activities, they expressed concern over the signing of such an MOU without any discussion on this subject in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and in the absence of inter-governmental agreement on this subject and reaffirmed that such a practice would not constitute a precedent.

Regional Organisations

56. The Heads of State or Government underscored the important role that regional arrangements and agencies, composed of Non-Aligned and other developing countries, can play in the promotion of regional peace and security as well as economic and social development through co-operation among countries in the region.

57. The Heads of State or Government called for the intensification of the process of consultations, co-operation and co-ordination between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organisations, arrangements or agencies, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, as well as on their mandates, scope and composition, which is useful and can contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Right to Self-Determination and Decolonisation

58. The Heads of State or Government underlined the continued validity of the fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination, the exercise of which, in the case of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation, is essential to ensure the eradication of all these situations and to guarantee universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Movement strongly condemned ongoing brutal suppression of the legitimate aspirations to self-determination of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in various regions of the world.

59. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the inalienable right of peoples of the non-self governing territories to self-determination and independence in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 regardless of the territory's size, geographical location, population and limited natural resources. In this regard, the Non-Aligned Movement renewed its commitment to hasten the complete elimination of colonialism and support the effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. They welcomed General Assembly Resolution 55/146, which declares the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism from 2001 to 2010. In this respect, the principle of self-determination with respect to the remaining territories within the framework of the Programme of Action of the Special Committee on Decolonisation should be implemented in accordance with the wishes of the people consistent with United Nations General Assembly resolutions and the Charter of the United Nations.

60. In the above context, the Heads of State or Government reiterated that any attempts aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country are incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.


61. The Heads of State or Government once again reaffirmed the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence on the basis of Resolution 1514 (XV) of December 1960 by the United Nations General Assembly. The Movement took note of the resolution on Puerto Rico adopted by the Special Committee on Decolonisation by consensus in 2000, 2001 and 2002, which, inter alia, urged the United States Government to order the immediate halt of its armed forces military drills and manoeuvres on Vieques Island and to return the occupied land to the people of Puerto Rico.

62. The Heads of State or Government reiterated its strong support for the Committee of 24, which is an important subsidiary body of the General Assembly and again called upon the Administering Powers to grant their full support to the activities of the Committee.

63. The Heads of State or Government called on United Nations Members for the full implementation of the resolutions and the decisions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) concerning the return of cultural properties to the peoples who were or still under colonial rule or occupation. They also stressed the need for UNESCO to identify the stolen or illegally exported cultural properties in accordance with the relevant conventions on the subject.

64. They further emphasised the need to expedite the process of returning these properties to their countries of origin, in compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. They emphasised furthermore the right of the Non-Aligned countries to maintain and conserve their national heritage, as it constitutes the foundation of the cultural identity of these countries.

65. They reaffirmed the right of all people who were or are still subjected to colonial rule or occupation to receive fair compensation for the human and material losses they suffered as a result of colonial rule or occupation. They further reaffirmed the call made in the final document of the XII Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, that colonialist countries should shoulder their responsibility and pay full compensation for the economic, social and cultural consequences of the occupation of developing countries. They also expressed their concern at the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage, directed against cultural property in areas or armed conflict and territories that are occupied.

Mercenaries

66. The Heads of State or Government condemned the practice of recruiting, financing, training, transit, use or supporting of mercenaries as a violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. They reiterated their belief that mercenarism, in all its forms, constitutes an obstacle to peace and the exercise of sovereignty by Non-Aligned countries. This endangers the national security of States, especially small States, as well as the safety and stability of multi-ethnic States and impedes the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination. They therefore urged adherence to the provisions of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/150, especially its call on States to consider the possibility of signing and ratifying the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and reaffirmed United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/57/196 of 18 December 2002 as well as Resolution 2002/5 of the 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights.

Disarmament And International Security

67. 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 and the XIII Ministerial Conference in Cartagena.

68. The Heads of State or Government expressed their strong concern at the growing resort to unilateralism and unilaterally imposed prescriptions and in this context strongly underlined and affirmed that multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, provided the only sustainable method of addressing disarmament and international security issues. In this regard, they welcomed the adoption of Resolution 57/63 by the General Assembly on the “Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-proliferation”.

69. The Heads of State or Government remained deeply concerned at strategic defence doctrines that set out rationales for the use of nuclear weapons. They remained deeply concerned over the "Alliance Strategic Concept" adopted by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in April 1999, which not only maintain unjustifiable concepts on international security based on promoting and developing military alliances and policies of nuclear deterrence, but also includes new elements aimed at opening even more the scope for possible use or threat of use of force by NATO.

70. In the context of the Nuclear Posture Review that has been undertaken by the United States of America, the Heads of State or Government expressed serious concern that the development of new types of nuclear weapons are being considered and reiterated that the provision for the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against Non-Nuclear Weapon States is in contravention of the negative security assurances that have been provided by the Nuclear Weapons States. They restated that the development of new types of nuclear weapons is in contravention with the assurances provided by the Nuclear Weapons States at the time of the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that the Treaty would prevent the improvement of existing nuclear weapons and development of new types of nuclear weapons.

71. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their principled positions on nuclear disarmament and the related issue of nuclear non-proliferation. They also reiterated deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament which remains their highest priority. They also expressed their concern about the lack of progress by the Nuclear Weapon States to accomplish the elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament. They stressed their concern at the threat to humanity derived from the continued existence of nuclear weapons and of their possible use or threat of use. The Heads of State or Government underscored the need to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons and emphasised, in this regard, the urgent need to commence negotiations without delay.

72. The Heads of State or Government, while noting the signing of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction between the Russian Federation and the United States on 24 May 2002, stressed that reductions in deployments and in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons.

73. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that in efforts towards the objective of 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.

74. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the importance of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. They regretted that the continued inflexible postures of some of the Nuclear Weapon States continue to prevent the Conference on Disarmament from establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. They emphasised the necessity to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. They reiterated their call on the Conference on Disarmament to establish as soon as possible and as the highest priority, an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. They underlined once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice 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. In this regard, they regretted that no progress has been made in the fulfilment of this obligation despite the lapse of six years.

75. The Heads of State or Government again called for an international conference, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of arriving at an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time to eliminate all nuclear weapons, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction. In this context, they reiterated the resolve at the Millennium Summit by the Heads of State or Government as contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear dangers.

76. 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. They reiterated their conviction that pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons efforts for the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to Non-Nuclear-Weapon States should be pursued as a matter of priority by the Members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

77. The Heads of State or Government continued to be concerned over the negative implications of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile defence systems and the pursuit of advanced military technologies capable of being deployed in 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 abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-ballistic Missiles (ABM) brings new challenges to strategic stability and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. They remained concerned that the implementation of a national missile defence system could trigger an arms race(s) and the further development of advanced missile systems and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons. In accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/57, they emphasised the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work, in the Conference on Disarmament, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

78. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the report prepared by the Panel of Governmental Experts on the Issue of Missiles in all its aspects, which marked the first time the United Nations considered this issue. They noted with satisfaction the convening of another Panel of Governmental Experts to explore further the issue of missiles in all its aspects. They remained convinced of the need for a multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach towards missiles in all its aspects as a contribution to international peace and security. Pending the achievement of such a universal mechanism 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 international levels in any approach to the issue of missiles in all its aspects. In this context, they emphasised the role of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body of the international community.

79. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the Movement’s long-standing principled position for the total elimination of all nuclear testing. They stressed the significance of achieving universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), including by all the Nuclear Weapons States, which, inter alia, should contribute to the process of nuclear disarmament. They expressed their satisfaction that 166 States have signed the Treaty and 97 States have ratified it thus far. They reiterated that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realised, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the Nuclear Weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential.

80. The Heads of State or Government continued to consider the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) created by the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba as a positive step towards attaining the objective of global nuclear disarmament. The Movement welcomed the efforts aimed at establishing new nuclear-weapons-free zones in all regions of the world and calls for co-operation and broad consultation in order to achieve agreements freely arrived at between the States of the region concerned. They reiterated that in the context of nuclear-weapon-free zones, it is essential that Nuclear Weapon States should provide unconditional assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons to all States of the zone. They urged States to conclude agreements with a view to establishing new nuclear-weapon-free zones 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 and guidelines adopted by the United Nations Disarmament Commission at its 1999 substantive session. In this context, they reiterated their support for Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status and considered that the institutionalisation of that status would be an important measure towards strengthening the non-proliferation regime in that region. They welcomed the ratification by Cuba of the Tlatelolco Treaty which, by making all the Latin American and Caribbean States Parties to the Treaty, brought it into full force in its area of application. They welcomed the on-going consultations between ASEAN and the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) on the Protocol of Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty and urged the NWS to become parties to the Protocol of the Treaty as soon as possible. They also welcomed the decision by all five Central Asian States to sign the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty as soon as possible. They also expressed their support to the initiative of convening an international conference of the States parties, ratifiers and signatories to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba to discuss and implement further ways and means of co-operation among themselves, their treaty agencies and other interested States, at an appropriate time.

81. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. To this end, they reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and 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 delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under 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 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. 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 H.E. Mr. Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, on the establishment of a zone free from 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 Nuclear Weapon State. This development will have potentially serious negative implications on the regional security as well as the reliability of the global non-proliferation regime.

82. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the NPT welcomed the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty. In this regard, they reiterated their call and the firm commitment by all States parties to the Treaty and called for the full implementation of the unequivocal undertaking given by the Nuclear Weapons States to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. They expected that this undertaking be demonstrated without delay through an accelerated process of negotiations and through the full implementation of the thirteen practical steps to advance systematically and progressively towards a nuclear-weapon-free world. Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, they also recalled that the 2000 Review Conference in its Final Document reiterated that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear weapons states to the non-nuclear weapon States Parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime. They took note of the First Preparatory meeting for the 2005 NPT Review Conference and emphasised the need for a substantive interaction beyond formal exchange of views between the States Parties at these meetings. The issues raised at the Preparatory meetings need to be addressed so as to continue strengthening the implementation of the Treaty and the undertakings agreed upon at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and also to lay the necessary foundation for the development of recommendations at the Third Preparatory session for the 2005 Review Conference. They recalled that specific time was made available at the 2000 Review Conference and its Third Preparatory session for the discussion on and consideration of proposals on the provisions in Article VI of the NPT and in paragraphs 3 and 4 (C) of the 1995 decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament", dealing with nuclear disarmament, as well as on the Resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. In this context, they reaffirmed the importance to establish at the 2005 Review Conference a subsidiary body to Main Committee I to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well as a subsidiary body to Main Committee II to consider and recommend proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT. In this regard, they emphasised the need for Preparatory Committee meetings to continue to allocate specific time for deliberations on nuclear disarmament, implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, and security assurances. They also welcomed the accession of Cuba to the NPT.

83. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the NPT noted the withdrawal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from the NPT. They expressed the view that the Parties directly concerned resolve, through dialogue and negotiations, all issues related to the withdrawal of the DPRK from the NPT as an expression of their goodwill.

84. The Heads of State or Government continued to note with concern that undue restrictions on exports to developing countries of material, equipment and technology, for peaceful purposes persist. They again emphasised 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. In this regard they also expressed their strong rejection of attempts by any Member State to use the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) technical co-operation programme as a tool for political purposes in violation of the IAEA's Statute.

85. The Heads of State or Government regretted unsubstantiated allegations of non-compliance with relevant instruments on Weapons of Mass Destruction and called on States Parties to such instruments that make such allegations to follow the procedures set out in those instruments and to provide the necessary substantiation for their allegations.

86. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) reaffirmed their conviction that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction is essential for the maintenance of international and regional peace and security. They reaffirmed the Movement's continued determination, for the sake of humankind, that the possibility of any use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins as weapons should be completely excluded, and the conviction that such use would be repugnant to the conscience of humankind. They recognised the particular importance of strengthening the Convention through multilateral negotiations for a legally binding Protocol to the Convention. They believed that the effective contribution of the Convention to international and regional peace and security would be enhanced through universal adherence to the Convention. They stressed the importance for all States Parties to pursue the objectives that were set forth by the Fourth Review Conference and underlined that the only sustainable method of strengthening the Convention is through multilateral negotiations aimed at concluding a non-discriminatory legally-binding agreement. They have been deeply disappointed at the inability that has been demonstrated in the endeavours of the States Parties of the BWC to successfully undertake initiatives to strengthen the implementation of the Convention. They further regretted the limited nature of the decision that was taken during the resumed session of the Fifth Review Conference held from 11-15 November 2002 in Geneva and were disappointed that the opportunity to strengthen the Convention was foregone and that limited work, which at best only has the potential of enhancing the implementation of the Convention, is all that could be achieved despite the Movement’s best endeavours. They believed that, however, the Movement has succeeded in preventing any attempt to foreclose the option of more meaningful work in the future. In this regard, the movement has succeeded in preserving multilateralism as the only vehicle for preventing reprehensible use of disease as instruments of terror and war in a sustainable way. They further noted that the 2004 meeting of States Parties to the BWC is to be chaired by a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

87. The Heads of State or Government of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) welcomed the increasing number of ratifications of the Convention and invited all States who have still not ratified it to do so as soon as possible with the view to its universality. They also underlined the urgency of satisfactorily resolving the unresolved issues in the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with a view to paving the way for the effective, full and non-discriminatory implementation of the Convention. In this context, they reiterated their call on the developed countries to promote international co-operation through the transfer of technology, material and equipment for peaceful purposes in the chemical field and the removal of all and any discriminatory restrictions that are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Convention. They also called upon States having declared possession of chemical weapons to bring about the destruction of their chemical weapons at the earliest possible date. While recognising the financial and technical challenges for some possessors, they called upon those States Parties in a position to do so, and where requested, to assist such possessor States in the achievement of the ultimate goal of the Convention – the total elimination of chemical weapons. They noted that the First Review Conference of the CWC will be convened in The Hague, from 28 April-9 May 2003 and looked forward to a significant outcome towards the strengthening of the implementation of the Convention.

88. The Heads of State or Government expressed their concern at the use of coercive methods by some countries inside international organisations, including financial influence, in the pursuit of unilateralist interests. They also expressed their concern at the impact that such unilateral acts could have on the independence of the functioning of international organisations and the multilateral system as a whole.

89. 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 encouraged the design of an appropriate international regime for physical protection of radioactive materials during their transportation. They reaffirmed the need to continue working at the multilateral level, with the purpose of strengthening existing international regulations relating to safety and security of transportation of such materials, and provisions for liability in the case of accidents or damage, resulting in contamination of the sea and seabed. They emphasised the need for the provision of information to concerned States regarding shipment routes, the mandatory requirements for contingency plans in case of leakage, accidents or incidents, the commitment to recover the waste material in such cases, and a comprehensive regulatory framework for obtaining compensation in case of nuclear damage. They welcomed the convening of a conference on these issues to be held in 2003.

90. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the importance of Resolution 56/24 L of the United Nations General Assembly on the Prohibition of the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes and called upon States to take appropriate measures to prevent any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States. They welcomed also the resolution adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Organisation of African Unity in 1991 (CM/Res.1356 {LIV}) on the Bamako Convention on the Ban on the Import of Hazardous Wastes into Africa and on the Control of Their Trans-boundary Movement within Africa. They called for effective implementation of the Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a means of enhancing the protection of all States from the dumping of radioactive wastes on their territories.

91. 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 United Nations Charter and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They recognised the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

92. The Heads of State or Government remained deeply concerned over the illicit transfer, manufacture and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world. They welcomed the adoption by consensus of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects at the United Nations Conference held from 9 - 20 July 2001 in New York which outlines a realistic, achievable and comprehensive approach, to address the problems associated with the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons on the national, regional and global levels. They remained deeply concerned over the inability of the Conference to agree, due to the position of one State, on language recognising the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of small arms, and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups. They considered that these issues are directly related to the problems associated with the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons faced by many Members of the Movement. They reiterated their call on all States to ensure that the supply of small arms and light weapons is limited only to Governments or to entities duly authorised by Governments and to implement legal restrictions on the unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons. They emphasized the importance of early and full implementation of the Programme of Action. They welcomed the decision to convene the First United Nations Biennial Meeting of States on the Implementation of the Programme of Action of the United Nations Conference to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects in New York on 7 – 11 July 2003 to consider national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action. In this regard, they encouraged the Member States to continue to play an active role in defining and elaborating the objectives of all future Conferences. They encouraged all initiatives to mobilize resources and expertise to promote implementation of the Programme of Action and to provide assistance to States in their implementation of the Programme of Action. They also welcomed the decision of convening the Review Conference in 2006 and stressed the need for a representative of the Movement to preside over the Conference.

93. The Heads of State or Government continued to deplore the use, in contravention of international humanitarian law, of anti-personnel mines in conflict situations aimed at maiming, killing and terrorising innocent civilians, denying them access to farmland, causing famine and forcing them to flee their homes eventually leading to de-population and preventing the return of civilians to their place of original residence. They again called upon the international community to provide the necessary assistance to landmine clearance operations as well as the rehabilitation of victims and their social and economic reintegration in the landmine affected countries. They further called for international assistance to ensure full access of affected countries to material equipment, technology and financial resources for mine clearance. They also called for increased humanitarian assistance for victims of landmine.

94. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction invited those States that have not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Convention. They took note of the convening of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention held from 16 - 20 September 2002 in Geneva. They also welcomed the decision to hold the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention from 15 - 19 September 2003 in Bangkok, Thailand.

95. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern about the residue of the Second World War, particularly in the form of landmines which have caused human and material damage and obstructed development plans in some Non-Aligned countries. They called on the States primarily responsible for laying the mines outside their territories to co-operate with the affected countries, provide the necessary information, and maps indicating the locations of such mines, technical assistance for their clearance and contribute towards defrayal of the costs of clearance and provide compensation for any ensuing losses.

96. The Heads of State or Government of States Parties to the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) and its Protocols encouraged States to become parties to it. They took note of the outcome of the Second Review Conference of the CCW. They also took note of the outcome of the Third Meeting of States Parties to the CCW held from 12 - 13 December 2002 in Geneva.

97. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the importance of the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) as the sole specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues, and also underlined the importance of successful conclusion during the 2003 session of the UNDC.

98. The Heads of State or Government reiterated once again their support for the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-IV). They reiterated their deep concern over the lack of consensus on the deliberations held by the United Nations Disarmament Commission in 1999 on the agenda and objectives. They continued to call for further steps leading to the Convening of the Fourth Special Session with the participation of all Member States of the United Nations as well as the need for SSOD-IV to review and assess the implementation of SSOD-I, while reaffirming its principles and priorities. They welcomed the decision by the General Assembly to establish an open-ended working group to consider the objectives and agenda including the possibility of establishing the preparatory committee, for the Special Session. In this regard, they looked forward to the substantive discussion in the open-ended working group and its positive recommendations with a view to facilitating the convening of the Special Session.

99. The Heads of State or Government stressed the importance of the reduction of military expenditures, in accordance with the principle of undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments, and urged all States to devote resources made available therefrom to economic and social development, in particular in the fight against poverty. They expressed their firm support for unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures adopted by some governments aimed at reducing military expenditures, thereby contributing to strengthening regional and international peace and security. They recognize that confidence building measures (CBMs) assist in this regard. They took note of the measures being examined by some governments such as the Andean Community of Nations.

100. The Heads of State or Government expressed their satisfaction with the consensus among states on measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. They welcomed the adoption by consensus of the General Assembly Resolution 57/83 entitled “Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction” and underlined the need for this threat to humanity to be addressed within the United Nations framework and through international NAM. While stressing that the most effective way of preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is through the total elimination of such weapons, they emphasized that progress was urgently needed in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation in order to help maintain international peace and security and to contribute to global efforts against terrorism. They called upon all member states to support international efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. They also urged all member states to take and strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and materials and technologies related to their manufacture.

101. The Heads of State or Government commended the co-ordination carried out by the NAM Working Group on Disarmament and encouraged delegations to continue their active work on issues of common concern to the Movement, particularly towards ensuring respect for the principles of multilateralism and transparency in the areas of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Indian Ocean

102. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the validity of the objectives of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. They also reaffirmed the importance of international co-operation to ensure peace, security and stability in the Indian Ocean region. They noted that greater efforts and more time are required to facilitate a focused discussion on practical measures to ensure conditions of peace, security and stability in the region. They also noted that in the light of Resolution 56/16 of the United Nations General Assembly, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Indian Ocean would continue his informal consultations on the future of the Committee.

Terrorism

103. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the Movement’s principled position concerning terrorism as adopted in the final document of the XII Summit Conference of the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement in Durban, 1998, as well as the subsequent Ministerial meetings.

104. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that terrorism cannot be attributed to religion, nationality, or civilisation.

105. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for whatever purposes, wherever and by whomever committed are, in any circumstance, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations or factors that may be invoked to justify them.

106. The Heads of State or Government rejected recent attempts to equate the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation, for self-determination and national liberation with terrorism in order to prolong occupation and oppression of the innocent people with impunity.

107. The Heads of State or Government unequivocally condemned international terrorism as a criminal act. They noted that terrorism endangers the territorial integrity, as well as national and international security. Such acts also violate human rights, in particular the right to life, destroys the physical and economic infrastructure, and attempts to de-stabilise legitimately constituted governments. They expressed their resolve to take speedy and effective measures to eliminate international terrorism including the need to address the underlying causes of terrorism and urged all States to fulfil their obligations under international law, including prosecuting or, where appropriate, extraditing the perpetrators of such acts and preventing the organisation, instigation and the financing of terrorism against other States from within or outside their territories or by organizations based in their territories. They reaffirmed their support for General Assembly Resolution 46/51 of 27 January, 1992 which unequivocally condemned as criminal and unjustifiable all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed and called upon all States to fulfil their obligations under international law and international humanitarian law to refrain from organising, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory towards the commissioning of such acts.

108. The Heads of State or Government further called on all States to endorse in principle the convening of an international Conference under the auspices of the United Nations to define terrorism, to differentiate it from the struggle for national liberation and to reach comprehensive and effective measures for concerted action. They also denounced the brutalisation of peoples kept under foreign occupation as the gravest form of terrorism. They condemned the use of State power for the suppression and violence against innocent victims struggling against foreign occupation to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination. They stressed the sanctity of this right and urged that in this era of enlarged freedom and democracy, people under foreign occupation should be allowed to freely determine their destiny. In this context, they also reaffirmed their support for General Assembly Resolution 46/51 of 27 January 1992 as well as other relevant United Nations resolutions and the principled position of the Movement that the struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination do not constitute terrorism.

109. In this regard, the Movement remained greatly concerned over acts of terrorism which, under various pretexts, result in the most flagrant violation of international law including international humanitarian law, and seek to de-stabilise the prevailing constitutional order and political unity of sovereign States. Terrorism also affects the stability of nations and the very basis of societies and impedes the full enjoyment of the human rights of peoples. The Movement reiterated its condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as unjustifiable whatever the considerations or factors that may be invoked to justify them.

110. The Heads of State or Government noted the entry into force of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and invited States that have not yet ratified the twelve international conventions relating to terrorism to do so. They reiterated the Movement’s condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved as they have adverse consequences, inter alia, on the economic and social development of States. Terrorism also affects the stability of nations and the very basis of societies.

111. While recalling the Movement’s principled position on a comprehensive convention on international terrorism, and in the light of the previous initiatives and considerations adopted by NAM, and of their conviction that multilateral co-operation under the United Nations auspices is the most effective means to combat international terrorism, the Heads of State or Government reiterated their call for an International Summit Conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organised response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including identifying its root causes. They further reiterated the need for the conclusion of a comprehensive convention for combating international terrorism and, in this respect, they noted the progress made in the Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism established by Resolution 51/210 on the negotiations for elaboration of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and called upon all States to co-operate in resolving the outstanding issues.

112. In this regard and pending the conclusion of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, the Heads of State or Government welcomed the initiative launched by Tunisia in order to elaborate by consensus an international Code of Conduct within the framework of the United Nations aimed at reinforcing co-ordination and multilateral efforts for the prevention of terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, in conformity with international law and the United Nations Charter.

113. The Heads of State or Government fully supported national, regional and international efforts and arrangements to implement the pertinent United Nations legally binding instruments as well as General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, including General Assembly Resolution 46/51 and Security Council Resolution 1373, relating to combating terrorism. In this context, they reiterated their support for regional arrangements and instruments concluded with a view to combating international terrorism.

114. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the recent adoption and entry into force of different regional conventions related to combating terrorism, in particular, the entry into force of the Convention of the Organisation of African Unity on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the OAU at the Algiers Summit in July 1999 as well as the Plan of Action adopted in Algiers at the High Level African Union Meeting held from 11 - 14 September 2002, the entry into force of the Arab Convention to Combat Terrorism on 7 May 1999 and the adoption of the Islamic Conference Convention on Combating International Terrorism in Ouagadougou on 1 July 1999. They also noted the adoption of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Declaration at the Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on Terrorism held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 1 - 3 April 2002.

115. The Heads of State or Government also reaffirmed the Movement's principled position under international law on the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for national liberation and self-determination, which does not constitute terrorism and once again called for the definition of terrorism to differentiate it from the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation, for self-determination and national liberation.

116. The Heads of State or Government urged all States to co-operate to enhance international co-operation in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and, wherever, by whoever, against whomsoever it occurs, at the national, regional and international levels, and to observe and implement the relevant international and bilateral instruments, taking into account the Final Document of the United Nations Conference on the Prevention of Crime and Criminal Justice held in Cairo in 1995.

117. The Heads of State or Government emphasised that international co-operation to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and relevant international conventions, and expressed the Movement’s opposition to selective and unilateral actions in violation of principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. In this context, they called upon the competent United Nations Organs to promote ways and means to strengthen co-operation, including the international legal regime for combating international terrorism.

118. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that all States are under the obligation pursuant to the purposes and principles and other provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant international instruments, codes of conduct and other rules of international law and Security Council and General Assembly resolutions to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in the territories of other States or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts, including allowing the use of national territories and territories under their jurisdiction for planning and training or financing for that purpose. They solemnly reaffirmed the Movement’s unequivocal condemnation of any political, diplomatic, moral or material support for terrorism. In this context, they emphasised that States should ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators organisers or facilitators of terrorist acts and that claims of political motivation are not recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists. They also encouraged all States to consider to accede to and implement existing international conventions against terrorism.

119. The Heads of State or Government rejected the use, or the threat of the use of the armed forces against any NAM country under the pretext of combating terrorism, and rejected all attempts by certain countries to use the issue of combating terrorism as a pretext to pursue their political aims against non-aligned and other developing countries and underscored the need to exercise solidarity with those affected. They affirmed the pivotal role of the United Nations in the international campaign against terrorism. They totally rejected the term "axis of evil" voiced by a certain State to target other countries under the pretext of combating terrorism, as well as its unilateral preparation of lists accusing countries of allegedly supporting terrorism, which are inconsistent with international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. These actions constitute, on their part, a form of psychological and political terrorism.



International Law

120. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that many new areas of concern have emerged which warrant the renewal of commitment of international community to uphold and defend the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law as well as a fuller utilisation and means for the peaceful settlement of disputes, as envisaged in the United Nations Charter. In this context, the Heads of State or Government committed themselves to conduct their external affairs based upon the obligations of international law.

121. The Heads of State or Government recalled the Declaration by the NAM Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC). They took note of the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 1 July 2002, the conclusion of the work of the Preparatory Commission, and the Meeting of the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC from 3 – 7 February 2003 which elected 18 judges of the ICC. They stressed the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the Statute and the need to ensure that the Court remains impartial and fully independent of political organs of the United Nations which should not direct or hinder the functions of the Court nor assume a parallel or superior role to the Court. They observed with concern actions geared at establishing a process to grant immunity to the members of the United Nations established or authorised peacekeeping operations. These actions seriously affect treaty law, are not consistent with the provision of the Rome Statute and severely damage the Court’s credibility and independence.

122. The Heads of State or Government noted with great interest the establishment of a special working group by the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC on the crime of aggression, open on an equal footing to all States Members of the United Nations or members of specialised agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for the purpose of elaborating proposals for a provision on aggression. The Heads of State or Government urged the active and consistent participation of the members of NAM in the work of the special working group and they called on all States to work together to ensure the timely completion of a provision on the crime of aggression for its inclusion in the Statute which would be acceptable, especially to members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

123. The Heads of State or Government stressed the Movement’s deep concern over the intention of a group of States to unilaterally re-interpret or re-draft the existing legal instruments in accordance with their own views and interests. The Movement again emphasised that the integrity of international legal instruments by Member States must be maintained. They further reiterated the Movement’s deep concern at the decrease of the representation of Non-Aligned countries in several treaty bodies and called upon the members of the Movement that are parties to these bodies to work collectively with a view to increasing and enhancing its representation, particularly by supporting the candidatures of experts from the Non-Aligned Countries.

124. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern at the unilateral exercise of extra-territorial criminal and civil jurisdiction of national courts not emanating from international treaties and other obligations arising from international law including international humanitarian law. In this regard, they condemned the enactment of politically motivated laws at national level concerning foreign entities, of national entities, inter alia, the selective application of sovereignty of states, they stressed the negative impact of such measures on the rule of international law as well as on international relations, and called for the cessation of all such measures.

125. The Heads of State or Government emphasised the need for a renewal of commitment by the international community to uphold and defend the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law as well as the means envisaged in the United Nations Charter for the peaceful settlement of disputes. In this regard, they encouraged the Security Council to make greater use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source of advisory opinions, and interpretation of relevant norms of international law. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that further progress is necessary to achieve full respect for international law and the International Court of Justice and, inter alia, for promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and combating crimes against humanity as well as other international offences. The Charter refers to the International Court of Justice as the Organisation’s principal judicial organ. The Security Council should make greater use of the World Court as a source of advisory opinions, and in controversial instances, use the World Court as a source of interpreting relevant international law and consider decisions to review by the World Court.

126. The Movement remained firmly opposed to evaluations, certifications and other coercive unilateral measures as a means of exerting pressure on Non-Aligned Countries and other developing countries. Coercive unilateral measures and legislation are contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States and thus are to be further decried by the international community. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the Movement’s rejection of the increasing trend in this direction. The Movement also strongly objected to the extra-territorial nature of those measures, which, in addition, threaten the sovereignty of States and call on States applying unilateral coercive measures to put an immediate end to those measures.

127. The Heads of State or Government condemned the continued unilateral application, by certain powers, of coercive economic and other measures, including the enactment of extra-territorial laws, against a number of developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, by their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems. The Movement called on all countries not to recognise the unilateral extra-territorial laws enacted by certain countries, which impose sanctions on other States and foreign companies and individuals. They reaffirmed that such legislation contradicts the norms of international law and run counter to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, as well as the basis of the “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” adopted on 24 October 1970 by the General Assembly. They further expressed their regret at the continued enforcement of these laws, in total disregard for the calls of the Movement, the General Assembly and other International Organisations.

128. The Heads of State or Government called on all States to refrain from adopting or implementing extra-territorial or unilateral measures of coercion as a means of exerting pressure on Non-Aligned and other developing countries. They noted that measures such as Helms-Burton Law, D´Amato-Kennedy Acts and other laws recently enacted related to other issues, constitute flagrant violations of international law, the established principles of the multilateral trading system and the Charter of the United Nations, and called on the international community to take effective action in order to arrest this trend.

129. The Heads of State or Government rejected all attempts to introduce new concepts of international law geared at internationalising the essential elements contained in extra-territorial laws through multilateral agreements.

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

130. The Heads of State or Government re-emphasised the need for a renewal of the commitment by the international community to uphold and defend the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, in particular, the non-use or threat of use of force as well as the means the United Nations Charter has envisaged for the peaceful settlement of disputes. In this context, the role of the Movement in promoting a just international order would largely depend on its inner strength, cohesion, solidarity and unity. It is therefore incumbent on all Member States to work earnestly towards that end.

131. Recalling the decisions of the Cartagena Summit to mandate the Co-ordinating Bureau to study further the question of mechanism for peaceful settlement of disputes between Member Countries, the Heads of State or Government urged the Bureau to undertake the study as soon as possible in a transparent manner.

Culture of Peace

132. The Heads of State or Government reiterated the Movement’s support for the Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 1999. They called upon States, Governments, organisations and peoples to promote a culture of peace based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; non-interference in internal affairs of States; the right to self-determination; prevention of violence, promotion of non-violence; strict adherence to the principles of international relations enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and full realisation of the right to development. They further called for the promotion of democracy, justice, tolerance, economic and social development, human rights, gender mainstreaming and the free flow of information and correcting imbalance of such flows to and from developing countries as well as the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and foreign occupation.

133. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern that religious and cultural prejudices, misunderstanding, intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religions or beliefs or different systems of belief undermine the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms while hindering the promotion of the culture of peace. They affirmed that pluralism, tolerance, and understanding of religious and cultural diversity are essential for peace and harmony. They recognised that acts of prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, and racial, religious and sectarian profiling are affronts to human dignity and equality, and should not be condoned. Respect for democracy and human rights and the promotion of understanding and tolerance by governments as well as between and among minorities, are central to the promotion and protection of human rights. They affirmed that States are under obligation to ensure the full exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination and full equality before the law and that this would contribute to the culture of peace.

134. The Heads of State or Government emphasised that tolerance of religious and cultural diversity and pluralism are essential for peace and understanding among individuals and peoples of different culture and nations in the world. They urged that States should exert utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with commitments made by them under international human rights instruments, to ensure that all religious places, sites and shrines are fully respected and protected and that the safety and security of all worshippers are ensured. States are urged to ensure that religious and cultural diversity is fully respected in their national, political and legal system and that state machinery is not used to propagate religious or cultural hatred. They affirmed their rejection of terrorism and reiterated that it cannot be justified on religious or any other grounds. It should be ensured that religious and other identities are not used for the promotion and incitement of terrorism. Terrorism cannot be attributed to any particular religion, nationality or civilisation. They noted the efforts of the United Nations to promote a culture of peace.


CHAPTER II: ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

PALESTINE AND THE MIDDLE EAST

Palestine

135. The Heads of State or Government, recalling the historic injustices inflicted upon the Palestinian people, reiterated their traditional principled support for and longstanding solidarity with the Palestinian people. They recalled, in this regard, that in 1948 more than half of the Palestinian people were uprooted from their land, homes and properties, dispossessed and forced to live as refugees until today, awaiting the implementation of United Nations resolution 194(III). They also recalled that the establishment of the State of Palestine, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 181(II), has been obstructed for more than fifty years. They further recalled that the remainder of the Palestinian territory has been under foreign occupation of Israel since 1967, and that since that time the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, have been subjected to the continuous oppression and brutality of the occupation. They further noted that the occupying power has systematically established and expanded settlements which reflect a new and special form of settler colonialism.

136. The Heads of State or Government expressed their deep concern at the tragic situation prevailing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000. In this regard, they strongly condemned the systematic human rights violations and reported war crimes that have been committed by the Israeli occupying forces against the Palestinian people. They condemned in particular the wilful killing of Palestinian civilians, including extrajudicial executions; the wanton destruction of homes, infrastructure and agricultural lands; the detention and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians; and the imposition of collective punishment on the entire Palestinian population, including severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods and prolonged curfews, resulting in the socio economic debilitation of the Palestinian people, amounting to a dire humanitarian crisis.

137. The Heads of State or Government condemned land confiscation, settlement building and the transfer of Israeli nationals to the Occupied Territory that have been carried out by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. This settler colonialism has also aimed at negating the national rights and the existence of the Palestinian people. The Heads of State or Government affirmed and called upon all Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure the immediate end and reversal of this settler colonialism. The Heads of State or Government recalled in this regard the many relevant Security Council resolutions on all illegal Israeli measures, including measures and action taken by Israel to change the status, character and demographic composition of Jerusalem, which are null and void, and called for full implementation of those resolutions.

138. The Heads of State or Government underscored the obligations of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol 1, which are applicable to all of the territory occupied by Israel since 1967, to respect and to ensure respect of the Convention and Additional Protocol 1 in all circumstances. They reaffirmed the obligations of the High Contracting Parties with regard to penal sanctions, grave breaches and responsibilities of the High Contracting Parties. They affirmed the importance of and called for the application of legal remedies without impunity, to war crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Heads of State or Government expressed the necessity of upholding international law, international humanitarian law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations with regard to the question of Palestine.

139. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that unwavering support for the realisation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to national independence and the exercise of sovereignty in their State, Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital. They reaffirmed that the question of Palestine is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this regard, they also reaffirmed the responsibility of the international community, particularly the permanent responsibility of the United Nations, including Security Council, until the question of Palestine is resolved in all its aspects.

140. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their support for a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. In this regard, they reiterated support for the longstanding position of the international community of a two-State solution of Israel and Palestine. They stressed the imperative of the withdrawal of Israel from all of the territory occupied in 1967, bringing an effective end to its occupation, as well as the right of all States in the region to security and peace. In this regard, they reaffirmed the importance of Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397 (2002) and the principle of land for peace as the basis for a peaceful solution. While expressing grave concern about the disintegration the peace process has suffered, they reiterated their calls for an internationally-promoted peace settlement and the intensification of efforts to revitalise the process towards the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Syrian Golan

141. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed that all measures and actions taken, or to be taken by Israel, the occupying power, such as its illegal decision of 14 December 1981 that purports to alter the legal, physical and demographic status of the occupied Syrian Golan and its institutional structure, as well as the Israeli measures to apply its jurisdiction and administration there, are null and void and have no legal effect. They also reaffirmed that all such measures and actions, including the illegality of Israeli settlement construction activities in the Occupied Syrian Golan since 1967 constitute a flagrant violation of international law, international conventions, the Charter and decisions of the United Nations, particularly Security Council resolution 497 (1981), the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 on the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, and the defiance of will of the international community. They reiterated the Movement’s demand that Israel comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and withdraw fully from the occupied Syrian Golan, to the lines of 4 June 1967, in implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and that Israel adheres to the Madrid terms of reference based on the principle of land for peace, which are in their entirety considered to be a primary and basic element in the negotiation process that should be adhered to, including the immediate commencement of the demarcation of the 4 June 1967 line.

142. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the NAM’s unwavering support and solidarity with the Syrian just demand and rights to restore the full Syrian sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan on the basis of the terms of reference of the Madrid peace process, the decisions of the international legitimacy, as well as the principle of land for peace. They again demanded that Israel respects all commitments and pledges it entered into with the aim of laying down the basis for a substantive progress on the Syrian-Israeli track.

Lebanon

143. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed Lebanon’s legitimate right to defend its territories and to liberate the remaining parts under Israeli occupation and demanded that Israel puts an end to its continuous: threats, aggression and violations of the Lebanese territories, air space and territorial waters. They reiterated their support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and its right on its natural resources and for Lebanon’s demand to maintain the peacekeeping mission deployed in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) without any further reduction in the number of its troops and without any change in the nature of its mandate in accordance with Resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). They encouraged and supported all international efforts aimed at expediting the removal of landmines planted by Israel during its occupation of Southern Lebanon, and called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, detained in defiance of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its relevant protocols.

The Peace Process

144. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their support for the Middle East peace process based on Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 425 and the principle of land for peace. They reiterated the need for ending the Israeli occupation of all occupied territories since 1967 and the establishment of the State of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. The Ministers welcomed and supported the Arab peace initiative adopted by the 14th Arab Summit in Beirut. They urged the Security Council to act upon that initiative towards achieving just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

AFRICA

145. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the transition from the Organisation of African Unity to the African Union and took note of the holding of the First Summit of the African Union held in Durban, South Africa from 2