CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND UNITED STATES ON NEWLY SIGNED STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon held the first plenary of the second part of its 2010 session, hearing statements from the Russian Federation and the United States about the newly signed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The Conference also heard statements on the outcome of the eighth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) held in New York last month and its impact on the Conference on Disarmament, the situation in the Korean peninsula, and the work of the Conference.

Anatoly Antonov, Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament of the Russian Federation, said in preparing that treaty, the 15 years of experience in implementing the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty had been taken into account. While many provisions of the initial treaty had needed serious review, the two parties had attempted to maintain the good elements it contained.

Rose Gottemoeller, United States Assistant Secretary of State, said the treaty was not just about Washington and Moscow; it was about the entire world. The spirit of negotiations had been one of mutual respect. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty reflected the willingness of their Governments to engage mutually in enhancing their nuclear non-proliferation goals.

Brazil, in its presentation on the outcome of the eighth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which had taken place at the United Nations in New York this May, said that the final document read that the Conference on Disarmament should, within the context of an agreed, comprehensive and balanced Programme of Work, immediately establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament; immediately begin discussion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and immediately begin negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons of other nuclear explosive devices.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea drew attention to the grave situation prevailing in the Korean peninsula. That situation was caused by the “South Korean” regime, in collaboration with its ally, the United States, over the sinking of the “South Korean” warship “Cheonan”. The present situation of the Korean peninsula was so grave that a war could break out at any moment.

The Republic of Korea said it was very unfortunate that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had denounced another Member State without presenting substantiated evidence. The Republic of Korea had presented undeniable evidence on the act that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had committed, which was a clear breach of the United Nations Charter and other instruments.

Pakistan noted that the President planned to conduct informal meetings on fissile material during the last week of his Presidency. While informal meetings formed an important part of the Conference’s work, the application of the Conference’s rules of procedures was essential in this regard. As there was no agreement on the President’s proposal, the Rules of the Conference did not allow for its implementation. The President could not implement his proposal when there was no agreement for this among the membership. The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty was being pushed as a test of the Conference’s credibility. This could not be done at the cost of Pakistan’s security.

Alex Van Meeuwen, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that, on the consultations with regard to the Programme of Work, he had continued to meet with delegations during the intersessional period and that he would continue until the end of his Presidency. For the moment he had no new elements to notify the conference with. Next week informal meetings on items one and two of the Agenda would be held. He would also continue his informal consultations with the delegations. Organizing informal meetings was fully under the purview of the Presidency in his opinion.

Also speaking this afternoon were Germany, Indonesia, Sweden, Syria, Ireland, Brazil, Egypt on behalf of the Group of 21, the Philippines, Belarus, United States, Cuba, Algeria and France.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced at a later date. On Friday, 11 June, the Ukrainian Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the Conference.

Statements

ANATOLY ANTONOV, Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament of the Russian Federation, said President Medvedev and President Obama had signed the treaty on additional measures and further reducing and limiting strategic nuclear weapons on 8 April 2010 in Prague. In preparing that treaty, the 15 years of experience in implementing the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty had been taken into account. While many provisions of the initial treaty had needed serious review, the two parties had attempted to maintain the good elements it contained. President Medvedev of the Russian Federation had been directly involved in finding solutions to those issues and had held more than a dozen personal contacts with President Obama. The new treaty was the foundation for creating a totally new atmosphere of trust, Mr. Antonov said.

Turning to the content of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Mr. Antonov said both parties agreed to reduce by 30 per cent the number of warheads. Their position was clear and based on a reduction of strategic offensive weapons that allowed each side to keep its interests. The new treaty included a very strong verification mechanism that had been adapted to current realities and would allow monitoring of the entire life-cycle of bombers. New bilateral bodies would also be created so as to discuss problems that might occur during the implementation of the treaty. Mr. Antonov went on to say that the new treaty was a very balanced document as a result of which both the United States and the Russian Federation would win in security.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, said that she and Mr. Antonov had spent many hours spent together at the negotiating table. She acknowledged the willingness of the Russian Federation to work hard towards their common goal. The treaty was not just about Washington and Moscow; it was about the entire world. Many years of implementing former treaties had guided them in drafting the latest one. She highlighted the vital role Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan had played in the drafting of the Treaty.

Ms. Gottemoeller then gave an in-depth powerpoint presentation on the specificities of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the innovations it brought compared to the former Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Moscow Treaty. She highlighted the mutual, verifiable weapons limits both countries had agreed upon concerning warheads deployed on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles and counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers; deployed and non-deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles launchers and Heavy Bombers; and deployed Strategic Ballistic Missiles and Heavy Bombers.

The spirit of negotiations had been one of mutual respect, said Ms. Gottemoeller. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty reflected the willingness of their Governments to engage mutually in enhancing their nuclear non-proliferation goals. However, as long as nuclear arms existed, the United States would continue to keep a nuclear deterrence capacity.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said Germany very much welcomed the conclusion of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The timing of that Treaty was just perfect; ahead of the Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it had contributed to the positive spirit of that Conference. It was also laudable that the Treaty had been concluded within one year, and not within eight or nine years, as in the past. That gave hope for the future and for getting closer to a world without nuclear weapons. The German Government had a particular interest in substituting technical nuclear weapons and would make its contribution to advancing that objective. Germany requested further information on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to get a sense of the reductions to come: how many warheads and delivery systems would actually be destroyed as a result of the new limits? And what was the material impact of the new limitations in terms of actual destruction compared to present holdings?

DESRA PERCAYA (Indonesia) said that Indonesia welcomed the signing of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, Indonesia was also looking for further reduction of nuclear warheads than that contained in the new Treaty. Had the parties to the Treaty foreseen how they would handle the most difficult parts of the Treaty, i.e. implementation, monitoring and transparency? Also what was the place of the new Treaty in the context of establishing a world free of nuclear weapons?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, responding to the question asked by Indonesia, said the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was a transitional treaty between the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and deeper reduction negotiations leading to a world free of nuclear weapons. As such, the Treaty would establish a firm baseline for further reductions and put in place the predictability needed to go lower. Predictability and mutual confidence were in fact the necessary factors for moving lower. As for Germany’s question, the Treaty did not call for the elimination of warheads; the system to be eliminated was not warheads but delivery vehicles which were relatively easy to monitor. Many warheads that would be removed under the Treaty would be stored, but that would not be verified. In contrast several hundred delivery vehicles would be eliminated on both sides.

ANATOLY ANTONOV, Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament of the Russian Federation, said on the question of the future direction of their work that they were now working with their parliaments to get an immediate ratification of the Treaty. In the Duma, many serious questions had been raised and the whole team of the Russian negotiators will engage in discussions with the Parliamentarians to explain the specificities of the Treaty. Russian Deputies were not happy with the fact that there were no limits set in the development of the United States’ Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles system. The main focus in the negotiations had been to reduce strategic offensive weapons, as had been agreed by both Presidents. Another point that was difficult to understand for the parliamentarians was the prospects of collaboration for the exchange of telemetric data. The whole problem of verification had also been discussed in the Duma and the Senate. They were however confident that the Treaty would be ratified in both parliaments in parallel.

Turning to the definition of tactical weapons, Mr. Antonov said that this issue had also been discussed during the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and that he had had the same discussion at the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization yesterday. Looking at States’ various defence doctrines, they had noted that countries used different definitions. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was addressing air-to-surface nuclear weapons and nuclear bombs that were considered as strategic weapons. However these same systems could be defined as being tactical weapons. There was a need for the Nuclear Five Group to sit down to define what was meant under strategic weapons and tactical weapons.

The Russian Federation also believed that countries should renounce the concept of nuclear sharing. This policy had also been discussed during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Disarmament did not exist in a vacuum; it should lead towards the strengthening of the security of all countries. Even though disarmament was costing more than rearming, disarmament was their decision and they would stick to it, said Mr. Antonov.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, responded to Indonesia’s question about what would be most difficult in implementing the Treaty by saying that the implementation of the new Treaty would be a well-worn path. Thanks to the implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, relevant experience had been gained and would be able to implement the new treaty in a smooth manner. The more complicated tasks were the next stage of reductions and, regarding non-strategic nuclear weapons, proceeding into future stages while going step with NATO’s process of reviewing its own strategic processes.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden) congratulated both parties for the Treaty. As a non-nuclear country, Sweden had never been really convinced by the necessity to divide nuclear weapons within specific categories of range or types. Concerning the ratification and implementation of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Sweden understood that the next phases would be even more challenging than the past one year-long drafting process.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ-HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria very much welcomed this treaty although it did not fully respond to the aspirations and dreams of the international community, namely to completely rid the world of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it was a very good step forward that gave great hope for the future. Had the parties thought of how to eliminate the huge amount of warheads, bombers, and submarines in terms environment, health, and security, and would the two parties work unilaterally or jointly?

JAMES O'SHEA (Ireland) said that, like Sweden, Ireland also saw nuclear weapons as being part of one and the same category. Given the fact that there was no agreed upon verification procedures during the transitioning period from the old to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, he wondered whether there were any transitionary measures that had been agreed upon by both parties, pending the ratification of the Treaty.

ANATOLY ANTONOV, Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament of the Russian Federation, said he understood the concerns about the need for speeding up nuclear disarmament with the final goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Russian Federation was ready and willing to continue its policy aimed at the elimination of nuclear weapons; there were no intentions to destroy one type of nuclear weapons and keep others for special occasions. In contrast, the Russian Federation had also discussed the elimination of all types of nuclear weapons with the United States.

Responding to Syria’s question, Mr. Antonov said the Russian Federation was against illusory projects for the future. Rather, it was for a step-by-step elimination of all types of nuclear weapons and had at this stage agreed with the United States to go ahead with some serious reductions. The Russian Federation had significant budget problems but would find the funds to comply with its commitments in that area. As for the questions on health and environmental safety when destroying materials, Mr. Antonov reassured that those would be central questions and that the Russian Federation had experience on this from the previous treaty.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, said that it was correct to say that there was currently no agreed verification regime in the transitional period. However, certain provisions of the Treaty were already applicable under a provisional agreement, particularly allowing notifications between both countries. On the role of the Conference on Disarmament, she noted that the scope of action of the Conference was wide-ranging. She highlighted the need to begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The United States was ready to discuss all agenda items. She also noted that there was a sense of revived consensus that had come out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that the eighth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons had taken place at the United Nations in New York this May. The results of the Review Conference were of great significance to the Conference on Disarmament. The conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions of the final document that was adopted by consensus at the end of the Review Conference referred to the Conference on Disarmament in three different actions.

Action 6, Action 7 and Action 15 of the final document read that all States had agreed that the Conference on Disarmament should, within the context of an agreed, comprehensive and balanced Programme of Work, immediately establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament; immediately begin discussion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, to discuss substantively, without limitation, with a view to elaborating recommendations dealing with all aspects of this issue, not excluding an internationally binding instrument; and immediately begin negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons of other nuclear explosive devices. The Review Conference also invited the United Nations Secretary-General to convene a high-level meeting in September 2010 in support of the work of the Conference on Disarmament, said Mr. Macedo Soares.

All Members of the Conference on Disarmament which were also Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty had joined the consensus around those texts. Consequently, all those States were politically bound to seek, without delay, together with the entire membership of the Conference, the adoption of a Programme of Work that would allow the carrying out of those Actions.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Group of 21 was eager for the adoption of the balanced and comprehensive programme of action and stressed the need to maintain a constructive atmosphere in the Conference on Disarmament.

RI JANG GON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) drew attention to the grave situation prevailing in the Korean peninsula. That situation was caused by the “South Korean” regime, in collaboration with its ally, the United States, over the sinking of the “South Korean” warship “Cheonan”. The present situation of the Korean peninsula was so grave that a war may break out at any moment. The “South Korean” authorities, with full backing of the United States, had announced arbitrary “results of investigation” and asserted that the warship had been sunken by a torpedo attack from a Northern submarine. At the same time, they had been foolishly manoeuvring for “punishment” or “retaliation” and had sought to apply additional “sanctions” against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had nothing to do with the sinking of the “South Korean” warship and its entire people were making efforts to attain a powerful and prosperous country by 2012. It was none other than the “South Korean” authorities who were in desperate need of creating a shocking incident to ignite a campaign against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The “results of investigation” by the “South Korean” regime were a sheer fabrication based on assumptions, guesses and suppositions. The open support of the United States and “South Korea” for the deadly raid on the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla was just one of the many examples that proved who really was a peace-breaker. The Korean peninsula was the only region that had been in a state of war for over half a century and the only reasonable and realistic way for its successful denuclearization was to conclude a peace treaty on the Korean peninsula.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) welcomed the statements made by the United States and the Russian Federation on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, in Pakistan’s view much more needed to be done in order to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Today was the first plenary of the second part of the 2010 Session. Their task ahead was the adoption of a balanced programme of work. Could the President update the Conference on the status of the informal consultations he had conducted during the inter-sessional period?

Mr. Akram noted that the President planned to conduct informal meetings on fissile material during the last week of his Presidency. The President’s proposal was however containing language not agreed upon in the agenda of the Conference. While informal meetings formed an important part of the Conference’s work, the application of the Conference’s rules of procedures was essential in this regard. Quoting from Rules 19 and 18 of the Rules of Procedures, he noted that as there was no agreement on the President’s proposal, the Rules of the Conference did not allow for its implementation. The President could not implement his proposal when there was no agreement for this among the membership. The rule of consensus had been fully respected in the past; it should continue to be done so. Today, as in the past, delegations had the right to make use of the rule of consensus to make sure that their national security was being protected.

Turning to the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, Mr. Akram said that he had outlined the position of his country last February. The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty was being pushed as a test of the Conference’s credibility. This could not be done at the cost of Pakistan’s security. He also noted that all non-nuclear weapons States under the Non-Proliferation Treaty were obliged not to produce fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes. Thus, fissile material cutoff was already in place for them in legal terms. Five nuclear States under the Non-Proliferation Treaty had formally declared or informally pursued moratoria on production of fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes. For them, fissile material cutoff was also in place. These countries had declared moratoria after determining that the stocks of fissile material had been sufficient to ensure their security, as well as that of their allies.

This meant that the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty was only made to target one country: Pakistan. This was unacceptable. They, as other Conference Members, had an equal right to define, determine and protect their national security interests. In Pakistan’s view, the President’s proposal for informal discussions, which would focus exclusively on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, was an attempt to start work on the issue through the back door. Other issues on the agenda were equally important, said Mr. Akram. If there was no consensus on this issue, how was it possible even to consider holding debates on sub-themes of this topic?

EVAN P. GARCIA (Philippines) said while the achievements made at the Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty gave hope for a complete nuclear disarmament, the international community should not rest on its laurels; the final document of the Review Conference called for concrete action. In fact, the Conference on Disarmament must begin its substantive work without further delay with an agreed, comprehensive and balanced programme of work. In particular, the Conference was called upon to immediately establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament; begin discussion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapon; to discuss substantively, without limitation, with a view to elaborating recommendations dealing with all aspects of this issue; and begin negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives.

The Conference should also organize a conference for 2012 that gathered all Middle Eastern States so as to discuss the establishment of a nuclear-free Middle East; it should strengthen the review process on the Non-Proliferation Treaty; continue supporting the work of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research; and ensure ongoing collaboration with the Geneva Disarmament Civil Society Community. The Philippines stood ready to participate fully in the work of the Conference and the Geneva Disarmament Community. The international community shall stand united and march together towards fulfilling the dram of a world free from nuclear weapons. The international community owed this to itself, to today’s children and to their children.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus) said Belarus was convinced that the current draft programme of work was still a viable basis for finding an agreement. Belarus also welcomed the steps that the President had undertaken during the inter-sessional period. Any informal debates should be carried out while exclusively preserving the balance of the four key issues on its agenda. On the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, he said that this was a serious measure strengthening stability in the world. They were pleased to note that the joint statement of the United States and the Russian Federation had recognized the specific role played by Belarus in the implementation of the new Treaty.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said it was very unfortunate that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea denounced another Member State without presenting substantiated evidence. The Republic of Korea had presented undeniable evidence on the act that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had committed and which was a clear breach of the United Nations Charter and other instruments. Turning to disarmament, the Republic of Korea said the Conference on Disarmament was at a critical junction. It had been stalled for many years and it was now time to move forward without opening additional issues that were not relevant to the Conference. All Member States should also join in the all-out efforts of the Conference and avoid any political impediments that could impede its smooth running.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that the Conference was not the appropriate forum to address regional issues. However, as her country had been mentioned, she wanted to say that she agreed with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea statement that the situation on the Korean peninsula was grave. However, she could not agree with the baseless accusations against her country.

Turning to the work of the Conference, the goal was now of striving to build a constructive atmosphere towards the adoption of a programme of work. She agreed with Pakistan that all Members of the Conference were equal. However, contrary to what Pakistan had said, the President was evolving within the rules of procedures by proposing informal discussions on agenda items, as the agenda had already been adopted by consensus. Similarly, the briefing made today on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that had been proposed by the President was linked to an item that was on the Conference’s agenda.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) reaffirmed the importance the Government of Cuba attached to stepping up efforts to agree on a programme of work. The discussions and consultations of the Conference should be held in a transparent manner and in strict adherence to the established procedures, and no preference should be given to any topic over another.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ-HAMOUI (Syria) said that despite the serious efforts made by the President and other P6 members, they had not yet been able to adopt a programe of work. They should not mix up the substantive work in the Conference with the Conference’s rules of procedure and procedural matters. The rules of procedure were owned by the Conference. They could not be subject to different interpretations by different parties. He noted that the Conference had adopted a consultation mechanism; the P6, which, while it was still not an official mechanism of the Conference, had been quite successful. Thus, they had no issue with possible informal consultation, as long as these did not value an item at the expense of the others.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) expressed hope that this first step would be followed by others so that a nuclear-free world would become a reality within our lifetime. Algeria understood the concerns of Pakistan and agreed that everybody needed to be on board. The Conference on Disarmament also had an obligation to keep up the positive momentum that had been created thanks to the work of all stakholders involved and it must not forget that its primary objective was to adopt a programme of work and achieve progress.

ERIC DANON (France) said that, on the situation in the Conference, the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty was not directed solely at Pakistan; it was an additional legal tool which would be of universal value. It would be of much more value for countries currently under a moratorium. For countries not member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it could help them to put a quantitative curb and decrease their nuclear arsenals. If a State did not want to be party of the negotiations of a treaty or decided not to be part of a specific treaty, a State could simply choose not to take part in the negotiations or not be a part of the treaty itself. He also proposed that the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament should provide the Conference with a strong interpretation of Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules of Procedures and define what the President could and could not do.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that, on the consultations with regard to the Programme of Work, he had continued to meet with delegations during the intersessional period and that he would continue until the end of his Presidency. For the moment he had no new elements to notify the conference with. Next week informal meetings on items one and two of the Agenda would be held. He would also continue his informal consultations with the delegations. Organizing informal meetings was fully under the purview of the Presidency in his opinion. Further, he felt like he was the President of all Members of the Conference and he wanted to ensure the well-being of all.


For use of information media; not an official record

DC10/022E