CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT MARKS SIXTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF NUCLEAR BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first plenary in the third and last part of its 2010 session, hearing a statement from Japan to mark the sixty-fifth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan also spoke about the current stalemate in the Conference and Cuba and Algeria took the floor to speak on the same issue. Nigeria also took the floor.

Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that during the intercessional period he had conducted bilateral consultations with a large number of delegations, on the basis of the latest draft proposal that had been tabled by Brazil earlier this year. At the moment, the Conference was still not able to reach consensus on a programme of work. He would continue his efforts towards reaching a compromise. His consultations had clearly shown an increasing interest in the High-Level Meeting on Disarmament next September. Delegations had made a number of suggestions regarding the organization and the substance of the Meeting. He would thus organize an open-ended informal meeting that would be open to members and observers of the Conference on Disarmament, in order to allow for an exchange of views on this upcoming Meeting. These views and ideas would then be submitted to the Secretary-General.

Japan said that this year marked the sixty-fifth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Japan, 6 and 9 August were days for remembering the tragedies that had befallen these two cities and for renewing the determination to realize a world free of nuclear weapons. This year, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had attended the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony and had visited Nagasaki. This had been the first trip of this kind by a United Nations Secretary-General.

Speaking on the current stalemate in the Conference, Japan said the reason for the deadlock was in the lack of a sound understanding of the rule of consensus. The rule of consensus, in his understanding, was the wisdom for building well-balanced and feasible agreements through mutual respect and mutual cooperation. However, it could not be a built-in device to allow a Member State to paralyze the very function of an international body. All needed to respect the vital interests of each Member State and, at the same time, demonstrate a cooperative spirit and flexibility, so that the Conference could engage in substantive work.

Cuba paid tribute to the victims of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But while they listened to statements on peace, the reality was different; the world was currently threatened by the danger of real wars, in which nuclear weapons could be used. The possession of nuclear weapons was an immoral act and their use would be a flagrant violation against the rules aimed at the prevention of genocide. The quest for negotiated solutions in the multilateral environment was the only way to safeguard international peace and security. Cuba appealed to all Members to ensure the necessary flexibility, based on the respect of the Rules of Procedures, to achieve a well-balanced programme of work.

Algeria said the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be of particular significance for the members of the Conference. Japan, as the only country that had been the victim of two nuclear bombs, had a special responsibility in keeping this memory alive. It was also the responsibility of those other countries, such as Algeria, which had been exposed to the radiation of nuclear devices, to keep the thought alive that they should never again let this happen. While only representing a part of the international community, the Conference had the powers to negotiate instruments to prevent these things from happening again.

Nigeria also took the floor to thank the President for his kind words that were addressed to the outgoing Ambassador of Nigeria.

Speaking this morning were Japan, Cuba, Nigeria and Algeria.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, 17 August at 10 a.m. The third and last part of the 2010 session of the Conference on Disarmament will conclude on 24 September.

Statements

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), opening the third and last part of the 2010 session of the Conference on Disarmament, said that during the intercessional period he had conducted bilateral consultations with a large number of delegations. His purpose had been to build himself a detailed picture of where the Conference stood and what steps should be taken for the adoption of a programme of work. He had conducted these bilateral consultations on the basis of the latest draft proposal that had been tabled by Brazil earlier this year. At the moment, the Conference was still not able to reach consensus on a programme of work. He would continue his efforts towards reaching a compromise.

Mr. Ganev said his consultations had clearly shown an increasing interest in the High-Level Meeting on Disarmament next September. This meeting was expected to revive the work of the Conference on Disarmament and that of the wider disarmament machinery. Delegations had made a number of suggestions regarding the organization and the substance of the High-Level Meeting. Mr. Ganev said he would organize an open-ended informal meeting that would be open to members and observers of the Conference on Disarmament, in order to allow for an exchange of views on the upcoming High-Level Meeting. The idea was not to draft a final document for the September Meeting, but simply to exchange views on its possible outcome. These views and ideas would be submitted to the Secretary-General. It would then be up to him to take or not to take these views into consideration when preparing the final document of the High-Level Meeting.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) said that this year marked the sixty-fifth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Japan, 6 and 9 August were days for remembering the tragedies that had befallen these two cities and for renewing the determination to realize a world free of nuclear weapons. This year, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had attended the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony and had visited Nagasaki. This had been the first trip of this kind by a United Nations Secretary-General.

While high-level support was important, one should also not forget grassroots support, said Mr. Suda. Turning to the progress that had been made to bring about the total elimination of nuclear weapons, he said that while significant steps forward had been made over the last year, 25,000 nuclear weapons were reportedly still in existence, a number of countries still remained outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapons still played a prominent role in national security strategies, a number of States still presented grave proliferation challenges, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had still not entered into force and the much awaited negotiations on an Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty had yet to start.

The Conference on Disarmament bore a special responsibility for activating substantive work on these critical issues. The reason for the present deadlock in the Conference was the lack of a sound understanding of the rule of consensus. The consensus rule, in his understanding, was the wisdom for building well-balanced and feasible agreements through mutual respect and mutual cooperation. However, it could not be a built-in device to allow a Member State to paralyze the very function of an international body. The Conference seemed trapped by the negative side effects of the rule. They should bring the Conference’s consensus rule back to its real meaning and sound functioning. To do so, all needed to respect the vital interests of each Member State and, at the same time, demonstrate a cooperative spirit and flexibility, particularly on purely procedural matters, so that the Conference could engage in substantive work. It might also be helpful if, with the help of the Secretariat, they could study and discuss the most appropriate interpretation and application of the Rules of Procedures that reflected the historical development of the Conference on Disarmament and its present situation. They could not stand still; they had to respond to the high expectations of the peoples and leaders of the world.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) paid tribute to the victims of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But while they listened to statements on peace, the reality was different; the world was currently threatened by the danger of real wars, in which nuclear weapons could be used. True political will was needed to achieve a peaceful coexistence between nations. The quest for negotiated solutions in the multilateral environment was the only way to safeguard international peace and security. They had to move away form the paralysis characterizing the Conference on Disarmament since years. The Conference was the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body and it should play its role. Cuba appealed to all Members to ensure the necessary flexibility, based on the respect of the Rules of Procedures, to achieve a well-balanced programme of work.

The possession of nuclear weapons was an immoral act and their use would be a flagrant violation against the rules aimed at the prevention of genocide, said Mr. Reyes Rodriguez. Cuba supported the idea of setting up an ad-hoc committee, tasked with the establishment of a gradual programme for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Cuba rejected the selective implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Further, the inalienable right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy should be respected fully. Cuba had no objections to discuss the issue of fissile material, but was concerned with the selective approach of this issue. Nuclear free zones represented an important progress towards the full elimination of nuclear weapons. Cuba also reiterated it concerns with the deployment of anti-ballistic missile defense systems and the threat of the deployment of weapons in outer space. The prevention of an arms race in outer space had become a global demand because of the threat weapons in outer space represented. More important steps needed to be undertaken in this area.

SYNDOPH ENDONI (Nigeria) congratulated the President and the Brazilian Presidency for their efforts in trying to move the Conference forward. He also thanked the good words of the President addressed to the outgoing Ambassador of Nigeria. While in his new position, former Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi would still be aware of developments in the Conference and would remain in contact with the Mission here in Geneva.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) congratulated the current President and the Brazilian Presidency in the way they are trying to find solutions to the charade of the programme of work. The tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be of particular significance for the members of the Conference. It was true that Japan, as the only country that had been the victim of two nuclear bombs, had a special responsibility in keeping this memory alive, so that humanity would never again be involved in such a destructive madness. It was also the responsibility of those other countries, such as Algeria, which had been exposed to the radiation of nuclear devices, to keep the thought alive that they should never again let this happen.

Mr. Jazairy said that it was the broad responsibility of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament to make sure that they met the immediate expectations of the peoples of the world for such things to never happen again. While only representing a part of the international community, the Conference had the powers to negotiate instruments to prevent these things from happening again. This was a collective responsibility. While they had had tremendous expectations that the Conference would be able to move toward the elimination of the threat posed by nuclear weapons, recent developments had given reason for concerns. Tensions were increasing in several parts of the world and the question could be asked whether they were moving forward or backward. The Conference’s role was to make sure that the world was moving forward.

Further, Mr. Jazairy said that the fact that the subject favored by some Members of the Conference was being termed as “ripe” was a way of introducing selectivity. The way out of the current impasse was not just to tinker with the consensus rule but to make an effort to move simultaneously and not selectively on the various items that were of importance to one or the other Member.


For use of the information media; not an official record


DC10/032E