CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT FROM BRAZIL’S MINISTER OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held its first plenary under the Presidency of Brazil and heard a statement from Brazil’s Minister of External Relations. Colombia on behalf of the Latin American Members and Observers of the Conference, Iraq, Iran, Chile, Egypt and Mexico also addressed the meeting.

Celso Amorim, Minster of External Relations of Brazil, said that, for too long, the Conference had had failure and frustration as part of its routine. The environment was now favourable for the Conference to be instrumental in this crucial area of international security. The unfortunate identification of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the five nuclear-weapons States recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty rendered decisions on such matters the object of a kind of “market reserve”. Decisive action by the Conference on Disarmament on nuclear disarmament could help change this anachronistic reality. The most effective way to reduce the risks of misuse of nuclear materials by non-state actors was the irreversible elimination of all nuclear arsenals. Nuclear weapons diminished the security of all States, including those which possessed them. The impetus given by the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference also encouraged putting an end to the paralysis of the Conference.

Turning to the recent Teheran Declaration signed by Brazil, Turkey and Iran on questions relating to the Iranian nuclear programme, Mr. Amorim said that Turkey and Brazil had been chiefly guided by the aim of finding a formula that would ensure the exercise of Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while providing assurances that Iran’s nuclear programme had exclusively peaceful purposes. It was difficult to understand why this new initiative had not been at least given a chance to bear its fruits. One could only hope that the most promising opportunity to engage Iran in a dialogue about its nuclear programme was not missed.

Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Latin American Members and Observers of the Conference on Disarmament, said that they were confident that with Brazil’s leadership they would make progress in the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament should undertake its responsibility and adopt as soon as possible a programme of work, taking into account all the priorities on its agenda.

Iraq said it believed in the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, as their elimination was the best guarantee against their use or the threat of use. The Conference on Disarmament was at a turning point, it had to reach consensus to adopt a programme of work and to advance the agenda items.

Iran said that multilateralism was a key element in its foreign policy and that it attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Nuclear disarmament remained Iran’s highest priority. Nuclear weapons were the most inhumane weapons ever created. The international community could not wait forever to witness the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Chile said the Conference on Disarmament needed to resume its role as a negotiating body. They had to seek space to strengthen multilateral diplomacy and avoid the increasing trend of frustrations. The main challenge for the Conference now was to adopt a programme of work for 2010 and to start negotiations on all agenda items.

Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares of Brazil, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks, said that the next step to be taken was undoubtedly to adopt a programme of work for the current annual session. The Conference would address this matter in its plenary meetings. He would try to facilitate the deliberations by holding consultations with every delegation.

Egypt and Mexico also took the floor to express their support for Brazil’s presidency.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 June.

Statements

CELSO AMORIM, Minister of External Relations of Brazil, said that, for too long, the Conference had had failure and frustration as part of its routine. The environment was now favourable for the Conference to be instrumental in this crucial area of international security. The Conference could spearhead an even more profound change: the effective participation of developing countries and non-nuclear weapon States, in such matters. A consensus was emerging that legitimacy and efficacy in international relations demanded decisions that were taken democratically, with the participation of a broad and representative group of countries. Global governance was being rebuilt; the world could not be run by clubs of self-appointed decision-makers. The unfortunate identification of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the five nuclear-weapons States recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty rendered decisions on such matters the object of a kind of “market reserve”. Decisive action by the Conference on Disarmament on nuclear disarmament could help change this anachronistic reality. Further, the most effective way to reduce the risks of misuse of nuclear materials by non-state actors was the irreversible elimination of all nuclear arsenals. Nuclear weapons had no role in the more peaceful, democratic and prosperous world they all wanted to build. A change in mentality was needed; the Cold War logic of the ability of mutual destruction had to be left behind. Nuclear weapons diminished the security of all States, including those which possessed them.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference’s relative positive results entitled one to hope that they might be entering a new phase in nuclear disarmament. Of highest importance had been the decision to convene, in two year’s time, a conference on the establishment of a zone free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, said Mr. Amorim. The positive moves in relation to some aspects should not blind the international community from the lack of progress in other areas, such as de-alerting and modernization of arsenals. Cuts in arsenals had been offset by qualitative improvement in nuclear forces, by the modernization of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and by the roles ascribed for nuclear weapons in national defence doctrines. A more stringent timeline for nuclear disarmament was also essential. The impetus given by the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference encouraged putting an end to the paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament. If the Conference on Disarmament was to retake its place as a relevant negotiating body, immediate action had to be taken. Also, a fissile material treaty should not only ensure the verifiable ban on the production of materials for nuclear devices; it also had to address the existing stocks of weapons-usable material. Brazil would present a working document on ways to overcome the present difficulties to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Treaty. Progress on a legally binding international instrument related to negative security assurances also remained an important goal for the Conference and outer space had to be preserved from weaponization.

Turning to the recent Teheran Declaration signed by Brazil, Turkey and Iran on questions relating to the Iranian nuclear programme, Mr. Amorim said that Turkey and Brazil had been chiefly guided by the aim of finding a formula that would ensure the exercise of Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while providing assurances that Iran’s nuclear programme had exclusively peaceful purposes. They had not invented a new scheme; they had merely revived a proposal that had been originally put forward by the Vienna group. It was difficult to understand why this new initiative had not been at least given a chance to bear its fruits. It was still early to know precisely what the effects of the new sanctions would be. One could only hope that the most promising opportunity to engage Iran in a dialogue about its nuclear programme was not missed.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Brazil), in opening remarks, said that the duty of the President was to apply the rules of procedure so that the Conference could fulfil its functions. The next step to be taken was undoubtedly to adopt a programme of work for the current annual session. The Conference would address this matter in its plenary meetings. He would try to facilitate the deliberations by holding consultations with every delegation. In addition, the Conference should proceed with the informal meetings, according to the recently adopted timetable. Any agreement on a programme of work would depend exclusively on the Conference itself, that was to say all its members. Brazil alone could not achieve any results.

CLARA INES VARGAS (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Latin American Members and Observers of the Conference on Disarmament, said that they were confident that with Brazil’s leadership they would make progress in the Conference on Disarmament. On various occasions, countries of the region had taken the floor to share their views on the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Last year, they had achieved a major step by adopting a programme of work. This year, despite efforts, they were halfway through the session, and had still not achieved to adopt a programme of work. They trusted that under the Brazilian presidency they would able to continue discussing this issue so that the Conference could start its substantive work as soon as possible.

The creation of the first populated nuclear weapon free zone in the Latin American and Caribbean region had confirmed the importance that her region attached to nuclear disarmament, said Ms. Vargas. This had led to the creation of similar zones throughout the world. The Conference on Disarmament should undertake its responsibility and adopt as soon as possible a programme of work, taking into account all the priorities on its agenda, which should ultimately lead to the adoption of new disarmament instruments. The Conference could not hesitate in their efforts; this required the participation of all.

MOHAMMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq) said that it was an honour for him to join the Conference on Disarmament. Based on Iraq’s firm belief that they should rid the planet of tensions, his country had adopted a new balanced and clear policy that was founded on an Iraq that was based on satiability. They had decided to invest their resources and riches to reconstruct the country’s infrastructures. The Government of Iraq had also reaffirmed its commitment to international treaties and conventions with regard to disarmament. The Government also attached great importance to complete disarmament and was committed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the two Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, in addition to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Landmine Treaty.

Mr. Alhakim said Iraq believed in the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. Their elimination was the best guarantee against their use or the threat of use. The Conference on Disarmament was at a turning point, it had to reach consensus to adopt a programme of work and to advance the agenda items. Iraq attached great importance to the Conference. They hoped that an agreement could soon be reached on a programme of work. The continued existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to humanity and mankind. The maintenance of nuclear arsenals and the development of new delivery systems were sources of concern. Non-nuclear States should be guaranteed with the non-use of nuclear weapons against them by the nuclear States. The continued production of fissile material was also a threat. Outer space was a common heritage of mankind and its weaponization would lead to a new arms race. This should be prevented. The creation of nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East was an important step.

SEYED MOHAMMED REZA SAJJADI (Iran) said that multilateralism was a key element in the foreign policy of Iran. Promoting international and regional peace and stability, including through disarmament and non-proliferation, was a high priority for Iran. Iran attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament and they would like it to play its role in the current international affairs by adopting a programme of work. Nuclear disarmament remained Iran’s highest priority. Nuclear weapons were the most inhumane weapons ever created. It was a matter of regret that two decades after the Cold War, it legacies still remained strong.


The international community could not wait forever to witness the total elimination of nuclear weapons, said Mr. Reza Sajjadi. There existed an urgent need to commence nuclear disarmament. At the recent 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, his delegation together with the Non-Aligned Movement had proposed the adoption of a legal framework with a specified timeline for the full implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Article on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention by 2025. Iran would resolutely follow the cause of nuclear disarmament, particularly in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament. In addition to nuclear disarmament, the Conference should also be able to commence negotiations on the other three core issues under its agenda. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use and nuclear weapons should not have the capability to shape and influence world events of change the decisions of sovereign States. The Conference should establish an Ad-hoc Committee to negotiate a legally biding instrument on negative security assurances. Iran also supported starting discussions on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) reaffirmed Chile’s commitment to matters of disarmament and non-proliferation. To avoid being increasingly weakened, the Conference on Disarmament needed to resume its role as a negotiating body. This revolved around four general ideas. The first was the interdependence between the pillars of security, development and human rights. This was related to a holistic view of international security and disarmament was the central point. Next, they had to seek space to strengthen multilateral diplomacy and avoid the increasing trend of frustration. Efforts should be made to revitalize things. They should also seek consensus, which would reaffirm the balance between disarmament, non-proliferation and cooperation. The fourth idea was to continue to contribute to the eradication and prohibition of inhumane weapons. The main challenge for the Conference now was to adopt a programme of work for 2010 and to start negotiations on all agenda items. He also touched upon the issue of the importance for the Conference to increase its cooperation with civil society; this was the way modern multilateral forums worked and the Conference could not ignore this new state of affairs.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) saluted the presence today of Brazil’s Foreign Minister and expressed full confidence in the President’s leadership and ensured him of Egypt’s support.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ (Mexico) said the delegation of Mexico would fully support the activities of the new President. The Conference should make efforts to fulfil its mandate. Mexico trusted that Brazil would help the Conference to commence its work.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/025E