CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADDRESSED BY DIGNITARIES FROM REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN
Meeting Summaries
The Conference on Disarmament this morning was addressed by Ki-Moon Ban, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, and by Akiko Yamanaka, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan. Both speakers took up the issue of the stalemate in the Conference over the past decade.
Mr. Ban said he had confidence that in the longer term, the current lull would prove to be just that - a respite before the next harvest; but this would require the steadfast commitment of all to the multilateral approach, to formulating a common platform for enhancing the security of all nations. Ms. Yamanaka pointed out that as new challenges to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime amassed, the Conference on Disarmament could not even respond as it was unable to agree on its so-called programme of work.
Mr. Ban said that global engagement at the highest level would certainly be conducive to refocusing the world’s attention on the current and future threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Insecurity, real or perceived, was in many instances a key motive for the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and thus, alleviating these concerns should be an important part of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
Ms. Yamanaka noted that this year, there seemed to be the first sign of momentum, and that the substantial discussions on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons had generated new possibilities, which should be transformed into concrete action. In revitalising its work, the Conference should begin by doing what could be done, and should reconsider its approach of linkage of issues, she said. It should also avoid clinging to past approaches - the present situation should be reviewed with fresh eyes, and in this spirit, agreement to initiating negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without preconditions would suit the interests of all.
Also speaking were the representatives of Switzerland, the Russian Federation, Belarus, France and Germany, who took up a range of issues as the Conference started its thematic debate on new forms of weapons of mass destruction. Issues raised included civil critical infrastructure and the rising importance of radiological weapons. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea spoke in response to the statement made by Mr. Ban.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 June, when it will be addressed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Statements
Ki-moon Ban, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, said while the productivity of the Conference had suffered in recent years, there was confidence that in the longer term, the current lull would prove to be just that - a respite before the next harvest. But this would require the steadfast commitment of all to the multilateral approach, to formulating a common platform for enhancing the security of all nations. The failures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the United Nations World Summit last year to produce any advances for non-proliferation and disarmament were deeply disappointing, and a wake-up call should be sounded, with the best of the collective wisdom of the Conference mustered to breathe new vitality into the body. Global engagement at the highest level on these issues would certainly be conducive to refocusing the world’s attention on the current and future threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.
The Republic of Korea had, he said, fully supported the goals and objectives of all non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, and actively participated in all international efforts to secure effective compliance with the political and legal obligations of non-proliferation. Insecurity, real or perceived, was in many instances a key motive for the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Thus, alleviating these concerns should be an important part of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The “North Korean nuclear issue” was one of the most serious security challenges currently facing Northeast Asia. In recent weeks, “North Korean” missile launch preparations had alarmed the world, and there was deep concern that a launch of a long-range missile would have serious negative repercussions for stability on the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia as well as for international efforts against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
AKIKO YAMANAKA, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said the Conference on Disarmament had left for later generations an imperishable monument of the endeavours to heighten the security of countries, not by the accumulation, but through the reduction of weapons. However, it had been in stalemate over the past decade, an unexpected and disappointing result. As new challenges to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime amassed, the Conference on Disarmament could not even respond as it was unable to agree on its so-called programme of work. However, this year, there seemed to be the first sign of momentum. The substantial discussions on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons had generated new possibilities, which should be transformed into concrete action.
Structured debates had brought the substantial exchange of views back to the Conference. In revitalising its work, the Conference should begin by doing what could be done, and should reconsider its approach of linkage of issues. Each item was meritorious in its own right, and work should begin in accordance with those merits. The Conference should also avoid clinging to past approaches - the present situation should be reviewed with fresh eyes, and in this spirit, agreement to initiating negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without preconditions would suit the interests of all. Now was the time for Conference members to be flexible in their quest for a creative and pragmatic modus operandi. During the remaining months of this year’s session, it should redouble its efforts to break the long-standing stalemate.
JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said that with regards to civil critical infrastructure, the Conference should be prepared to treat every subject that was important today in its field, and to hold a permanent dialogue on the great issues of security linked to the question of disarmament. It was in this spirit that over the last two years, France and Switzerland had developed together a perspective on critical civilian infrastructure. It was in a spirit of search for consensus and contribution to the discussion in the heart of the Conference on Disarmament that France and Switzerland wished for the subject of civil critical infrastructure to be examined within the body. It was with this goal that the two countries had brought two experts whose contribution this afternoon could contribute significantly.
ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said with regards to new types of weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons, Russia would not object to the appointment of the Conference of a Special Coordinator to seek the views of the members as to the most appropriate ways of dealing with this issue. It was obvious that a possible compromise on the programme of work could be found in a balanced approach to the four core issues, but this issue was not one of them. The Conference on Disarmament should no doubt adapt itself to the new threats and challenges of today’s world, but a Conference on Disarmament that was not working would be unable to respond to any challenges, and it should therefore resume functioning as soon as possible. Effective measures should be taken to prevent the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction.
SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus) said the basis for a broad consensus on the Conference on Disarmament’s programme of work based on the Five Ambassadors proposal existed. Activating the work of the Conference on other spheres would be possible only when the key issues were solved, nevertheless, it was appropriate to maintain the current wording of item 5, new forms of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, on the Conference’s agenda. Belarus supported the proposal concerning the development of a universal international treaty on the production and development of new forms of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons that had been articulated in the Conference, as this was in the interests of the international community as a whole, and such an instrument could create a strong legal basis to combat the development and production of new weapons of mass destruction. The international community should take all possible measures to develop such an international legal instrument before the fact of production of these weapons became a reality.
RICHARD NARICH (France) said the issue of critical infrastructure could be addressed from the angle of “business continuity”, or under that of internal or national security. The idea of critical infrastructure was apt, as it covered those installations that were necessary for the normal functioning of a country, such as nuclear installations, ports, and roads. However, the issue required to be broadened, as it was sometimes restricted to physical infrastructure, and was slowly being extended to cover almost all critical functions within society. The importance of the protection of these infrastructures could not be neglected, and was today at the forefront of many countries’ security concerns in a world where risks and threats had multiplied. However, critical infrastructures were only one vulnerable point among others. A global approach was legitimate, as the approach to these problems was the same whether it was a terrorist attack, human error, or a tsunami. It should also be encouraged. Reinforcing prevention, protection, response and post-crisis treatment would be to reinforce the entirety of mechanisms through which a society could defend itself. It therefore indirectly discouraged terrorism through “other means”.
BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said for too long radiological weapons had been considered by many as a secondary issue, because use of them seemed to be a non-imminent threat. The issue of a possible prohibition of an attack on civil nuclear installations could be seen as an early precedent, and one important example of any broader concept of the protection of any critical civil infrastructure. The security environment had long changed, and so had the global challenges to international security. However, in a changed security environment, it still held true that nuclear arms control could make an important contribution to meeting security challenges, one of which was the risk of terrorists exploding a crude nuclear device.
Creating a global inventory of radioactive material under proper controls was a long-term aim and would require a sustained and concerted effort. An effective international regime to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists should be built on a structure of multilateral arms control and non-proliferation measures, as this was no longer a question of solely national responsibility, but of overwhelming international interest. Global solutions were essential, as the system of physical protection of relevant materials could only be as strong as its weakest link. A Radiological Weapons Convention could create an important international norm, which would provide a barrier against the acquisition of radiological weapons by any state, and provide a benchmark for judging state behaviour in this regard, as well as legitimising, revaluing, and giving an impetus to international efforts aimed at providing more effective protection and control of these materials.
MYONG HUN AN (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said in response to the statement made earlier, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea welcomed the practice of allowing high-level officials to make contributions to the work of the Conference, and believed and hoped they provided the forum with instructive and constructive ideas and visions that would allow the body to make progress on the agreement on a programme of work. However, the kind of statement that was made by the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea was not at all what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea expected, and it had disappointed that delegation. The statement, particularly on the Korean issue, was surprisingly aggressive and unexpected, when there were positive developments taking place between the North and South. The Foreign Minister knew what was the essence of the nuclear development in the peninsula, what were the stumbling blocks to peace, and what was the greatest threat to stability. On 19 May in the Conference, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had elaborated the essence of the stumbling block to resolution of the nuclear issue in the peninsula. If the content of the Minister’s statement was a reflection of a change of attitude by the Government of the Republic of Korea, then this was a betrayal of formerly stated policy. However, the delegation thought that if the Minister was using the Conference to push his personal aim to become a Secretary-General of the United Nations, then this was of great concern. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea delegation rejected his statement on the Korean issue, and hoped that high-level statements were helpful to the Conference on Disarmament.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC06034E
Starts Thematic Debate on New Forms of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Conference on Disarmament this morning was addressed by Ki-Moon Ban, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, and by Akiko Yamanaka, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan. Both speakers took up the issue of the stalemate in the Conference over the past decade.
Mr. Ban said he had confidence that in the longer term, the current lull would prove to be just that - a respite before the next harvest; but this would require the steadfast commitment of all to the multilateral approach, to formulating a common platform for enhancing the security of all nations. Ms. Yamanaka pointed out that as new challenges to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime amassed, the Conference on Disarmament could not even respond as it was unable to agree on its so-called programme of work.
Mr. Ban said that global engagement at the highest level would certainly be conducive to refocusing the world’s attention on the current and future threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Insecurity, real or perceived, was in many instances a key motive for the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and thus, alleviating these concerns should be an important part of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
Ms. Yamanaka noted that this year, there seemed to be the first sign of momentum, and that the substantial discussions on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons had generated new possibilities, which should be transformed into concrete action. In revitalising its work, the Conference should begin by doing what could be done, and should reconsider its approach of linkage of issues, she said. It should also avoid clinging to past approaches - the present situation should be reviewed with fresh eyes, and in this spirit, agreement to initiating negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without preconditions would suit the interests of all.
Also speaking were the representatives of Switzerland, the Russian Federation, Belarus, France and Germany, who took up a range of issues as the Conference started its thematic debate on new forms of weapons of mass destruction. Issues raised included civil critical infrastructure and the rising importance of radiological weapons. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea spoke in response to the statement made by Mr. Ban.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 June, when it will be addressed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Statements
Ki-moon Ban, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, said while the productivity of the Conference had suffered in recent years, there was confidence that in the longer term, the current lull would prove to be just that - a respite before the next harvest. But this would require the steadfast commitment of all to the multilateral approach, to formulating a common platform for enhancing the security of all nations. The failures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the United Nations World Summit last year to produce any advances for non-proliferation and disarmament were deeply disappointing, and a wake-up call should be sounded, with the best of the collective wisdom of the Conference mustered to breathe new vitality into the body. Global engagement at the highest level on these issues would certainly be conducive to refocusing the world’s attention on the current and future threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.
The Republic of Korea had, he said, fully supported the goals and objectives of all non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, and actively participated in all international efforts to secure effective compliance with the political and legal obligations of non-proliferation. Insecurity, real or perceived, was in many instances a key motive for the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Thus, alleviating these concerns should be an important part of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The “North Korean nuclear issue” was one of the most serious security challenges currently facing Northeast Asia. In recent weeks, “North Korean” missile launch preparations had alarmed the world, and there was deep concern that a launch of a long-range missile would have serious negative repercussions for stability on the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia as well as for international efforts against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
AKIKO YAMANAKA, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said the Conference on Disarmament had left for later generations an imperishable monument of the endeavours to heighten the security of countries, not by the accumulation, but through the reduction of weapons. However, it had been in stalemate over the past decade, an unexpected and disappointing result. As new challenges to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime amassed, the Conference on Disarmament could not even respond as it was unable to agree on its so-called programme of work. However, this year, there seemed to be the first sign of momentum. The substantial discussions on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons had generated new possibilities, which should be transformed into concrete action.
Structured debates had brought the substantial exchange of views back to the Conference. In revitalising its work, the Conference should begin by doing what could be done, and should reconsider its approach of linkage of issues. Each item was meritorious in its own right, and work should begin in accordance with those merits. The Conference should also avoid clinging to past approaches - the present situation should be reviewed with fresh eyes, and in this spirit, agreement to initiating negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without preconditions would suit the interests of all. Now was the time for Conference members to be flexible in their quest for a creative and pragmatic modus operandi. During the remaining months of this year’s session, it should redouble its efforts to break the long-standing stalemate.
JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said that with regards to civil critical infrastructure, the Conference should be prepared to treat every subject that was important today in its field, and to hold a permanent dialogue on the great issues of security linked to the question of disarmament. It was in this spirit that over the last two years, France and Switzerland had developed together a perspective on critical civilian infrastructure. It was in a spirit of search for consensus and contribution to the discussion in the heart of the Conference on Disarmament that France and Switzerland wished for the subject of civil critical infrastructure to be examined within the body. It was with this goal that the two countries had brought two experts whose contribution this afternoon could contribute significantly.
ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said with regards to new types of weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons, Russia would not object to the appointment of the Conference of a Special Coordinator to seek the views of the members as to the most appropriate ways of dealing with this issue. It was obvious that a possible compromise on the programme of work could be found in a balanced approach to the four core issues, but this issue was not one of them. The Conference on Disarmament should no doubt adapt itself to the new threats and challenges of today’s world, but a Conference on Disarmament that was not working would be unable to respond to any challenges, and it should therefore resume functioning as soon as possible. Effective measures should be taken to prevent the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction.
SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus) said the basis for a broad consensus on the Conference on Disarmament’s programme of work based on the Five Ambassadors proposal existed. Activating the work of the Conference on other spheres would be possible only when the key issues were solved, nevertheless, it was appropriate to maintain the current wording of item 5, new forms of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, on the Conference’s agenda. Belarus supported the proposal concerning the development of a universal international treaty on the production and development of new forms of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons that had been articulated in the Conference, as this was in the interests of the international community as a whole, and such an instrument could create a strong legal basis to combat the development and production of new weapons of mass destruction. The international community should take all possible measures to develop such an international legal instrument before the fact of production of these weapons became a reality.
RICHARD NARICH (France) said the issue of critical infrastructure could be addressed from the angle of “business continuity”, or under that of internal or national security. The idea of critical infrastructure was apt, as it covered those installations that were necessary for the normal functioning of a country, such as nuclear installations, ports, and roads. However, the issue required to be broadened, as it was sometimes restricted to physical infrastructure, and was slowly being extended to cover almost all critical functions within society. The importance of the protection of these infrastructures could not be neglected, and was today at the forefront of many countries’ security concerns in a world where risks and threats had multiplied. However, critical infrastructures were only one vulnerable point among others. A global approach was legitimate, as the approach to these problems was the same whether it was a terrorist attack, human error, or a tsunami. It should also be encouraged. Reinforcing prevention, protection, response and post-crisis treatment would be to reinforce the entirety of mechanisms through which a society could defend itself. It therefore indirectly discouraged terrorism through “other means”.
BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said for too long radiological weapons had been considered by many as a secondary issue, because use of them seemed to be a non-imminent threat. The issue of a possible prohibition of an attack on civil nuclear installations could be seen as an early precedent, and one important example of any broader concept of the protection of any critical civil infrastructure. The security environment had long changed, and so had the global challenges to international security. However, in a changed security environment, it still held true that nuclear arms control could make an important contribution to meeting security challenges, one of which was the risk of terrorists exploding a crude nuclear device.
Creating a global inventory of radioactive material under proper controls was a long-term aim and would require a sustained and concerted effort. An effective international regime to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists should be built on a structure of multilateral arms control and non-proliferation measures, as this was no longer a question of solely national responsibility, but of overwhelming international interest. Global solutions were essential, as the system of physical protection of relevant materials could only be as strong as its weakest link. A Radiological Weapons Convention could create an important international norm, which would provide a barrier against the acquisition of radiological weapons by any state, and provide a benchmark for judging state behaviour in this regard, as well as legitimising, revaluing, and giving an impetus to international efforts aimed at providing more effective protection and control of these materials.
MYONG HUN AN (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said in response to the statement made earlier, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea welcomed the practice of allowing high-level officials to make contributions to the work of the Conference, and believed and hoped they provided the forum with instructive and constructive ideas and visions that would allow the body to make progress on the agreement on a programme of work. However, the kind of statement that was made by the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea was not at all what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea expected, and it had disappointed that delegation. The statement, particularly on the Korean issue, was surprisingly aggressive and unexpected, when there were positive developments taking place between the North and South. The Foreign Minister knew what was the essence of the nuclear development in the peninsula, what were the stumbling blocks to peace, and what was the greatest threat to stability. On 19 May in the Conference, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had elaborated the essence of the stumbling block to resolution of the nuclear issue in the peninsula. If the content of the Minister’s statement was a reflection of a change of attitude by the Government of the Republic of Korea, then this was a betrayal of formerly stated policy. However, the delegation thought that if the Minister was using the Conference to push his personal aim to become a Secretary-General of the United Nations, then this was of great concern. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea delegation rejected his statement on the Korean issue, and hoped that high-level statements were helpful to the Conference on Disarmament.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC06034E