MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF MYANMAR ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard an address by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar and continued its structured discussion on item five on the agenda, namely new types of weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons.

U Nyan Win, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, said the achievements of the Conference and its predecessors were not insignificant, however, a long way remained to go to reach the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority on the international agenda of arms control and disarmament. The continued existence of nuclear weapons posed a grave danger to mankind, and Myanmar firmly believed that the only effective defence against nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of those weapons.

Myanmar also considered that outer space and other celestial bodies were the common heritage of mankind, and the exploration and use of outer space should be carried out only for peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind, and in the interest of all countries. The consequences of placing weapons in this last frontier could be destructive, and could lead to an arms race and the proliferation of other weapons, which would bring ongoing arms control and disarmament efforts to naught, and therefore, all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, should contribute effectively towards the attainment of the objectives of peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race therein.

Other speakers also took up the issue of arms in outer space, saying, among other things, that States were ever more dependent on outer space, as it was today a critical infrastructure similar to the transport network. If the goal was to stop weapons from being placed in space or being directed at space, intermediate steps towards such a goal were today necessary due to the different perceptions of States with regards to a reinforcement of security in outer space, Switzerland said. China pointed out that common grounds on the arms race in outer space were expanding, and this had been achieved thanks to remarkable efforts.

Nuclear terrorism was also of concern to many speakers, who said that in past years, all had become painfully aware of the growing terrorist threat to security. The consequences if terrorists were to access and use weapons of mass destruction were no longer an imaginary threat, but a looming possibility, India said. The United States said Governments should work with partner nations and international organizations to develop a global defence in-depth approach against this threat. The Conference could make a direct and meaningful contribution this year to strengthening the international framework to combat terrorism relating to weapons of mass destruction through the immediate negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation, the outgoing President of the Conference, said the unique intellectual and professional potential in the Conference had been actively used over the last four weeks. The discussions had clearly demonstrated a positive will to work seriously and productively. The main task had been to move towards a compromise on the programme of work, and he believed that a step had been made in this direction. It was clear that the compromise that was sought could only be found if it took into account the views of all members. It was important to move towards each other, and find substantive agreements. For centuries, the main concern of humankind was how to achieve durable and lasting peace, and there were clearly no quick and easy solutions. The Conference had established itself as a unique international negotiating forum in this context.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of China, Norway, India, Switzerland, France, the United States of America, and Italy.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 29 June at 10 a.m.

Statements

U NYAN WIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, said while recognising the depth of the difficulty that the Conference was facing in settling long-standing differences, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his address to the Conference the previous day, had noted that the Conference appeared much readier than it had been in recent years to make a contribution, and had urged it to rise to the task. The Conference should respond to his expectation with significant results. The achievements of the Conference and its predecessors were not insignificant, however, a long way remained to go to reach the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority on the international agenda of arms control and disarmament. The continued existence of nuclear weapons posed a grave danger to mankind, and Myanmar firmly believed that the only effective defence against nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of those weapons.

Myanmar had consistently maintained that the two processes of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were substantively interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and that those two processes should go hand in hand in a sustainable, balanced, coherent and effective manner. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were not just bilateral or regional issues; they were global issues affecting all. They could not be solved by one nation alone, or by a group of nations. It was the task of the international community as a whole to face these challenges and find ways and means to overcome them.

Myanmar also considered that outer space and other celestial bodies were the common heritage of mankind, and the exploration and use of outer space should be carried out only for peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind, and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic and scientific development. The consequences of placing weapons in this last frontier could be destructive, and could lead to an arms race and the proliferation of other weapons, which would bring ongoing arms control and disarmament efforts to naught, and therefore, all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, should contribute effectively towards the attainment of the objectives of peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race therein.

Myanmar reaffirmed the importance of the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, however, it was disappointed and concerned by its failure to reach an agreement on the programme of work for substantive issues. The forum and its predecessors had produced very important results, significantly benefiting mankind. All should prove themselves that they were also capable of achieving the common objective of building a nuclear-weapon-free world.

LI YANG (China) said in the last week, useful discussions had been held on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which had shown that common grounds on the arms race in outer space were expanding. This had been achieved thanks to remarkable efforts. New types of weapons of mass destruction and the new systems of such weapons had been on the agenda of the Conference for years, and the discussion had been going on for decades. The Chinese Government attached great importance to the protection of nuclear materials, and several national control legislations on this topic had been promulgated. China supported the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prevent nuclear terrorism, and strictly abided by the IAEA code of safety. China supported continued discussion in the Conference to explore further issues related to radiological weapons, such as the commitment not to create or stockpile such weapons, and to stop non-State actors from illicit use of radiological materials. The issue of critical civil infrastructures, as proposed by the French and Swiss delegations, had been taken note of and would be examined further.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said the minimisation of the use of highly enriched uranium in the civilian nuclear sector could greatly reduce the risk for nuclear terrorism. Conversion of nuclear reactors to the use of low enriched uranium had, in addition, an important nuclear disarmament dimension, since such a process would reduce the overall amount of weapon-grade fissile material available. Against this background, the Norwegian Government, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, had organised an international symposium in Oslo earlier this week on the minimisation of the use of highly enriched uranium in the civilian nuclear sector, and there was a wide range of policy-oriented discussions. When experts, by and large, agreed that something was doable, it was difficult to ignore by diplomats and policy makers, although they sometimes did it anyway.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said as this week the consideration of yet another item on the agenda was taken up, it was hoped that the present discussions would enable a consensus to evolve on the programme of work, and substantive work begun, keeping in view the concerns and priorities of all Member States. Over growing years, all had become painfully aware of the growing terrorist threat to security. Using conventional explosives, including improvised explosive devices, terrorists had wreaked havoc in societies. The consequences if they were to access and use weapons of mass destruction were no longer an imaginary threat, but a looming possibility. Aware of this danger, the international community had resolved to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

While terrorists gaining access to fissile material for building and using a crude nuclear device remained a distant prospect, an even more alarming and perhaps, a more likely possibility, was that of a terrorist using a dirty bomb or a radiological dispersion device, which would both kill and spread panic and terror, disrupting civic life and causing economic dislocation. The international community had recognised the need to protect and secure radiological materials because of the increasing global concern that terrorists could use these. The Conference needed to keep the issue of radiological weapons under active consideration. The last time the Conference gave this matter serious thought was in the summer of 2002. While it was unlikely that any State would resort to developing, producing and using radiological weapons, the threat of their use by terrorists was well recognised, and there would be merit in the Conference reaching an understanding on banning them and forswearing their development in the future. This would supplement the ongoing national and international efforts for ensuring effective protection and control over radioactive materials, and preventing terrorists from gaining access to them.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said security in outer space was a subject of growing importance for not only large States, but also countries like Switzerland. All States were ever more dependent on outer space, as it was today a critical infrastructure similar to the transport network. If the goal was to stop weapons from being placed in space or being directed at space, intermediate steps towards such a goal were today necessary due to the different perceptions of States with regards to a reinforcement of security in outer space. For this reason, the idea of examining further the issue of measures of confidence and security was a good one, and should be pursued. Switzerland wished for the structured debate on prevention of an arms race in outer space to be continued within the Conference.

JEAN-PHILIPPE GRELOT (France) said nobody could believe any longer that they lived in a world of theoretical threats that were circumscribed by the balance imposed by the Cold War. Today the world was confronted by permanent terrorist threats of a virtual, economic, sanitary and even meteorological nature, which were of variable intensity both in time and on the geographical level. They could affect anybody at any time, and could strike at any place. These often were not aimed against a State or its institutions and administrative structure: they aimed primarily against a population and its way of life. The question was therefore how to respond to the need to provide security and protection to populations not only during a crisis but during a prolonged period of time.
Critical infrastructures were therefore vital with regards to the prevention and management of crises, whether their origin be a natural catastrophe, an accident, or an attack. The subject did not concern just individual States, but the international community as a whole. International fora were an essential means for progress on complex subjects which linked States, and it was in such fora that technical cooperation and judicial norms were formulated, and the Conference needed to take the issue of critical civil infrastructures into account in its deliberations.

TOM CYNKIN (United States) said the idea of new types of weapons of mass destruction, beyond biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological, remained entirely hypothetical. Thus, no useful purpose was served by diverting the attention and efforts of the international community towards hypotheses when there were very grave and current threats to international security, such as terrorist acquisition and use of existing types of weapons. The international community had before it the common task of building on the already established framework through the development of a global defence against weapons of mass destruction terrorism. Requiring States to enact appropriate laws was only the first step: success in stopping illicit behaviour came only if States were willing and able to enforce their own laws. Often, enforcement neither reached where the terrorists resided, nor was it carried out in a manner sufficient to deter them. In the fight against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Governments should work with partner nations to back the objectives of, and steps taken under, Security Council Resolution 1540 with effective, integrated, and sustainable capabilities. Only then would there be success in preventing, protecting against, and responding to this growing global risk. The United States continued to view the implementation of this Resolution as a vital element in the global effort to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and keeping these deadly weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

The development of an international framework to combat weapons of mass destruction terrorism continued in 2005, and the legal basis for international cooperation to prevent and suppress acts of nuclear terrorism would be strengthened significantly once the Nuclear Terrorism Convention and the Conference to Consider and Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) Amendment had entered into force. Despite this, a careful review revealed gaps that continued to exist in the international framework. A systematic approach to combating this form of terrorism began by recognising that the increasingly decentralised nature of terrorists and terrorist facilitation networks demanded a cooperative and global response from a growing range of like-minded nations. Governments should work with partner nations and international organizations to develop a global defence in-depth approach against this threat. The Conference could make a direct and meaningful contribution this year to strengthening the international framework to combat weapons of mass destruction terrorism through the immediate negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

CARLOS TREZZA (Italy) said with regards to the presentation made by the United States on the formidable challenge of terrorism and the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, he had been struck by the concluding remarks referring to the relevance that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) negotiation would have in countering nuclear terrorism, and wished to draw the attention of the Conference to a specific working paper that Italy had presented last month on this issue and how this Treaty would be instrumental inter alia in countering nuclear terrorism. The type of fissile material which was involved in a Cut-Off Treaty was precisely that which was sought after by terrorist groups, and there was thus a convergence on views on this issue between the paper and the presentation of the United States.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation), Outgoing President of the Conference, said that this was the last plenary meeting under the Russian Presidency of the Conference, and time had come to draw some conclusions. All were thanked for their support of the Presidency, and their contributions to the work done. Over the past four weeks, work had been smooth and fruitful. The unique intellectual and professional potential in the Conference had been actively used. The discussions had clearly demonstrated a positive will to work seriously and productively. The main task had been to move towards a compromise on the programme of work, and he believed that a step had been made in this direction. It was clear that the compromise that was sought could only be found if it took into account the views of all members. It was important to move towards each other, and find substantive agreements.

Notwithstanding the pause in its work, the Conference continued to be an indispensable forum on which States placed great hopes, and the recent high-level segment illustrated this. The Presidency had sought to organise the work in a business-like manner. Discussions on agenda item 3, prevention of an arms race in outer space, had demonstrated that all States were interested in keeping outer space from becoming an arena for confrontation. It was thought that consensus on prevention of an arms race in outer space was within reach. Delegations were thanked for their interesting, meaningful and profound input on elaboration of a treaty with regards to outer space. In the course of various events during the thematic week on prevention of an arms race in outer space, more than 20 delegations took the floor, and eight working papers had been presented. There had been success in modelling the future of the Ad-Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space. In the course of interactive deliberations, there had been a deepening of understanding of the issue, but the Conference should resume its discussion on prevention of an arms race in outer space as soon as possible, the President said.

Discussions on agenda item 5 had been held. Along with traditional aspects, new issues were considered, despite a wide range of opinions as to whether such issues belonged to the Conference’s mandate and profile, but the relevance to the security of States had not been questioned in principle. Holding thematic focused debates on all items of the Conference’s agenda became possible due to a division of labour between all Presidents of the Conference for 2006. The Russian Presidency had acted in the framework of the P6 agreement. For centuries, the main concern of humankind was how to achieve durable and lasting peace, and there were clearly no quick and easy solutions. The Conference had established itself as a unique international negotiating forum. The in-depth thematic discussions provided rich food for thought, and he hoped that a sober analysis of the Conference’s session this year would help to bring it closer to an agreement on the programme of work, without breaking balances, and taking account of the real situation and the opinions of all Member States.