CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESS FROM FOREIGN MINISTER OF GEORGIA AND OBSERVES INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it heard an address from Gregory Vashadze, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, and a statement from Adilia Caravaca of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom in observance of the International Day of Women. The Conference also held a discussion on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Gregory Vashadze, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said that occasionally they had been distracted from disarmament issues, but he would like to see the Conference busy elaborating new agreements on disarmament. There were still major challenges in non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control and they needed to be addressed through the combined efforts of the international community. They all had to spare no effort to promote this unique forum for negotiations which had played a crucial role in elaborating several important disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. The issue of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing treaties had been repeatedly questioned and they should certainly work together to amend and update treaties when needed. While negotiating new treaties, special attention should be paid to make the existing mechanisms as universal as possible and to enforce compliance; the non-compliance of some States could have severe negative implications.

Adilia Caravaca of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom noted that women’s participation in international disarmament and arms control was still very low, and the negotiations too often tended to ignore the importance of women’s participation and experiences. The consequence of this was biased outcomes, with a disproportional and narrow focus on the experiences of a very limited number of men. The Beijing Platform for Action of 1995 specifically addressed the importance of including a gender perspective in disarmament policies as well as reducing military expenditures and allocating those funds to social and economic development. Sixteen years after the Beijing Platform, the international arms trade was still big business with estimated annual global arms sales of $ 50 billion per year. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council accounted for about 76 per cent of the arms sold each year. Despite the global economic crisis, global military expenditures had continued to increase, totalling $ 1.5 trillion in 2009. In addition to this, huge investments in the modernization of nuclear arsenals were being planned around the world.

Following these addresses the Conference then turned to the topic of the prevention of an arms race in outer space. During the discussion speakers reiterated yet again that the Conference on Disarmament would not be able to commence substantive work until it had adopted a programme of work. Conference members were reminded of the fact that they were there not only to engage in “discussions” on the relevant issues on the international disarmament and arms control agenda, but to actually negotiate and conclude binding agreements which could make a meaningful contribution towards strengthening peace and international security.

It was also noted that while transparency and confidence building measures were a good start, they were no substitute for a legally binding treaty. It was worth noting that establishing a subsidiary body in the Conference on Disarmament to discuss the prevention of an arms race in outer space did not imply nuclear disarmament or, as a matter of fact, any disarmament at all. It simply implied that outer space could not be used for the placement of weapons. An instrument with that purpose would only be a legally binding preventive regulation, to ensure that outer space did not become a battle field. Preventing an arms race in outer space meant, in fact, the creation of a weapons free zone. Numerous speakers said that the draft treaty put forward by the Russian Federation and China provided an excellent basis for their work in this area, while several speakers also expressed the desire for the Conference on Disarmament to have more interaction with civil society as it could enrich their work with new perspectives.

Speaking on the prevention of an arms race in outer space were Brazil, China, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Japan and Iran.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 March 2011 when the Conference will discuss negative security assurances.

Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), welcomed the guest speaker and said that his presence paid testament to the importance that Georgia attached to disarmament. He then gave the floor to the Mr. Vashadze.

GREGORY VASHADZE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said it was a privilege and honour to address the Conference on Disarmament as he started his diplomatic career here in 1981 as part of the Soviet delegation. Occasionally they had been distracted from disarmament issues, but he would like to see the Conference busy elaborating new agreements on disarmament. There were still major challenges in non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control and they needed to be addressed through the combined efforts of the international community. They all had to spare no effort to promote this unique forum for negotiations which had played a crucial role in elaborating several important disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. The issue of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing treaties had been repeatedly questioned and they should certainly work together to amend and update treaties when needed. While negotiating new treaties, special attention should be paid to make the existing mechanisms as universal as possible and enforce compliance; the non-compliance of some States could have severe negative implications.

Mr. Vashadze stressed that nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was an issue, not just for Georgia, but for everyone’s common security. He drew special attention to the “black holes” in the occupied regions of Georgia which were fertile ground for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials as well as the transfer of arms. There were several recorded attempts of nuclear smuggling in the Georgian occupied territories. Over the last years there had been eight such attempts. There was no way to conduct inspections on the ground and the chances of proliferation in these areas had markedly increased. Georgia had undertaken a legal pledge of non-use of force, but Russia’s response to this was to introduce more weapons to the occupied territories. There were more than 10,000 occupying forces on their territory that were heavily armed with no international control. The time had come for the international community to stand up for the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and other international law.

Mr. Vashadze said the Conference on Disarmament had the ability and opportunity to address the challenges that confronted them and they had sufficient instruments at their disposal.

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), welcomed the next guest speaker by saying that too often women’s contributions and issues were not considered in the field of disarmament. He then gave the floor to the Ms. Caravaca.

ADILIA CARAVACA, of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said that United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security clearly highlighted the importance of women’s participation in all levels of decision-making in the sphere of peace and security. However, women’s participation in international disarmament and arms control was still very low, and the negotiations too often tended to ignore the importance of women’s participation and experiences. The consequence of this was biased outcomes, with a disproportional and narrow focus on the experiences of a very limited number of men. The Beijing Platform for Action of 1995 also specifically addressed the importance of including a gender perspective in disarmament policies as well as reducing military expenditures and allocating those funds to social and economic development. Sixteen years after the Beijing Platform, the international arms trade was still big business with estimated annual global arms sales of $ 50 billion per year. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council accounted for about 76 per cent of arms sold each year. Despite the global economic crisis, global military expenditures had continued to increase, totalling $ 1.5 trillion in 2009. In addition to this, huge investments in the modernization of nuclear arsenals were being planned around the world.

As the weapons spread, so did their use. Armed conflict, war, terrorism, and occupation were cause and consequence to the ever increasing levels of militarism and military spending around the world. While military expenditures increased, investments in conflict resolution, peace building and development lagged far behind. Armed conflict and excessive militarism prevented economic stability and sustainable livelihoods and absorbed vast amounts of funding that could otherwise be spent on human security, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Funds reserved for development initiatives were increasingly spent on emergency relief and rehabilitation operations to clean up after violent conflict. The high level of militarism was also inextricably linked to reported human rights violations and the failure of peace processes. The Conference on Disarmament should have been contributing to this objective throughout its history, but instead it had remained deadlocked for more than a decade and no progress on its four core issues had taken place. The Conference on Disarmament must return to work, and when it did, it must recognize that in reality it only had one core issue: disarmament.

Turning to the topic of the day’s discussion, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that a previous debate on this issue had been held under the Canadian presidency on 8 February 2011. There was a shared awareness of the need to improve the international framework to regulate activities in outer space. He drew attention to transparency and confidence building measures as necessary steps as well as the European Union’s proposed code of conduct and the group of governmental experts set up after a General Assembly resolution on the matter. As was repeatedly emphasized, voluntary guidelines did not replace legally binding initiatives. Several countries had put forth possible elements for a binding agreement or draft treaty.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), said that it was regrettable that the Conference on Disarmament could not agree so far on the establishment of a subsidiary body on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It was ironic that according to the mandate given by General Assembly resolution 65/68, the Group of Governmental Experts on transparency and confidence building measures could take into account, among other elements, “substantive discussions on the prevention of an arms race in outer space within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament.” It was worth noting that establishing a subsidiary body in the Conference on Disarmament to discuss the prevention of an arms race in outer space did not imply nuclear disarmament or, as a matter of fact, any disarmament at all. It simply implied that outer space could not be used for the placement of weapons. An instrument with that purpose would only be a legally binding preventive regulation, to ensure that outer space did not become a battle field. Preventing an arms race in outer space meant, in fact, the creation of a weapons free zone.

The Conference on Disarmament should negotiate a legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Such a treaty should be ample enough not to interfere with unimpeded peaceful use of outer space, but on the other hand, sufficiently clear to ban the placement of weapons and the use of satellites as weapons and prohibit any sort of attack on devices in orbit. The concrete proposal put forward by China and the Russian Federation was an initial contribution, a framework that could constitute the basis for work. Transparency and confidence building measures could not replace a legal instrument. They aimed at helping to lower tensions, but they would not concretely deal with the threat of the placement of weapons in outer space. If a State could not commit itself to a legal instrument, it increased mistrust. Confidence, which was based on transparency, among other things, was like water: essential, but not sufficient.

WANG QUN, (China), noted that the prevention of an arms race in outer space was a priority of the Conference’s work and he hoped that it would begin work on a treaty governing this. The draft treaty put forth by China and the Russian Federation could serve as the basis for such work. Many important issues related to the treaty such as definitions, scope and verification had been further clarified and consensus on relevant issues was increasing.

HAERYONG KWON, (Republic of Korea), said that transparency and confidence building measures were highly important elements for ensuring multilateral cooperation for the peaceful uses of outer space. There was an urgent call to increase transparency and confidence among the major powers when it came to the use of outer space, both in the absence and presence of strategic motives, including the pre-notification of any launch or test of objects in outer space. With regards to efforts to seek a new legally binding instrument, the Republic of Korea welcomed the draft treaty put forward by the Russian Federation and China as a meaningful basis for discussions in the Conference on Disarmament. His delegation believed the draft treaty would contribute to their exploration of the complex and abstract concepts related to outer space. In this regard, they looked forward to starting the review of the draft to get a clearer picture of the various views on the issue.

ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), said they welcomed the chance to discuss the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which had been on the agenda since 1982. The obligation under the UN Charter to not use force also applied to outer space. Weapons in space were not a science fiction concept, they were a reality. The Conference on Disarmament had the primary responsibility to negotiate and conclude multilateral treaties on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. In the view of the vast majority of the UN membership, space security was an imperative, not an option. The existing regime had numerous shortcomings which could only be filled by a new instrument and the time was ripe for negotiations on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Regarding codes of conduct and transparency and confidence building measures, Mr. Akram reiterated that these were good interim measures, but they were no substitute for a legally binding treaty.

RI JANG GON, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said that according to the policy of development and peaceful use of outer space, all States had a legitimate right to research, develop and utilize outer space with their own strengths and technologies. Outer space could not be the field of contest for military supremacy of a certain country. However, there existed a potential danger of armed confrontation and war in outer space because of the attempts by a superpower to militarize it. Regrettably, outer space would be turned into an area where the results of advanced science and technology and huge amounts of funds were poured into military strategy. Plans were openly carried out to militarize space and incite an arms race. An example of this was the attempt by a powerful country over the years to develop a missile defence system combined with space weapons under the pretext of “threats of ballistic missiles” from other countries. If this country continued to justify and push ahead with its military actions under the pretext of “threats”, peace and security would never be ensured. It would result in compelling other countries to further strengthen their self-defence. The establishment of a new legal framework for comprehensive and effective prevention of an arms race in outer space was an urgent matter and they supported a treaty in this regard.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), began by saying that while Germany welcomed the opportunity to discuss the question of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, they would much prefer if this issue could be taken up in the framework of an agreed upon programme of work. He mentioned this to remind them of the fact that they were there not only to engage in “discussions” on the relevant issues on the international disarmament and arms control agenda, but to actually negotiate and conclude binding agreements which could make a meaningful contribution towards strengthening peace and international security. It was therefore Germany’s expectation that intensive efforts would continue to agree on a programme of work allowing the Conference on Disarmament to actually start its substantive work.

With respect to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, it should be kept in mind that the international community began to include in its agenda the item of a prevention of an arms race in outer space in the 1950s. The stupendous technological developments regarding the use of space since the 1950s had only helped strengthen the widely held conviction that more rules of the road were required for a proper management of space so as to ensure it remained a global commons, as well as strengthening the existing arms control regime in outer space. The issue was further complicated by the fact that there was a great degree of overlap between the civilian and military uses of space. It was in this field that confidence building measures could do much to mitigate risks and dangers. In this view, the European Union had been actively working on a draft code of conduct for outer space activities, which Germany fully supported. In view of this remit, the focus of the Conference on Disarmament must be on the dangers to peace and international security posed by the placement of weapons in outer space, the so called weaponization of space.

VICTOR VASILIEV, (Russian Federation), expressed the hope that the Conference on Disarmament could include non-governmental organizations and civil society more in its work. Regarding the statements made by the Georgian Foreign Minister, it was not comfortable to hear the same old tired phrases regarding occupied territories especially since they had just concluded the fifteenth round of the Geneva Discussions on these very topics. On the substance of some the statements made by the Minister, he said regarding the attempts at smuggling radioactive material through Georgian borders, all these attempts took place on Georgian soil so perhaps they should seek assistance from the international community to gain better control of their borders. If there were Georgians involved in this smuggling they should be brought to justice. In terms of the building of Russian military bases in certain territories, this was established international practice and foreign bases could be found in Europe, the Korean peninsula, the Indian Ocean and other places. In terms of the numbers of soldiers deployed in these territories, the Russian delegation said there were fewer than 7,000, not the 10,000 cited by the Georgian Foreign Minister.

Turning to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, Mr. Vasiliev said they had had many meetings discussing space security and they had heard some good ideas today. There were legal loopholes in current practice which required them to adopt a new treaty to ensure that no weapons were placed in space. In the draft treaty put forward by the Russian Federation and China they had outlined ways in which verification would work. In theory it would be possible to set up verification regimes that had already been developed for other legal instruments, but due to lack of funds or technical issues that had not actually been put into place.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), expressed satisfaction with the statement made by Adilia Caravaca of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Women and civil society needed to be included in their work and Ms. Caravaca’s statement was a reminder of that. He welcomed civil society’s contribution, the opportunity to exchange views and ideas, and keeping them accountable to citizens regarding issues on disarmament. He expressed the hope that the Conference on Disarmament would be able to begin substantive work soon, that was negotiations, and that civil society would be involved in that work. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom stayed strong in the face of the Conference’s lack of work and through their disarmament network they kept the Conference informed. In 2001 Mexico established the National Institute of Women to guarantee equal rights and harness the power of women. In 2006 they adopted a law on the right of women to a life free of violence. Disarmament should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for the development of men and women. They hoped to see more women involved in this forum as well as others and they needed to realize that without women and civil society they would not be able to bring about a better world.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), asked a procedural question about how the speakers list was decided because it would be helpful to know who was going to speak during the meetings.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), thanked Adilia Caravaca of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom for her intervention and the organization’s monitoring of the work of the Conference on Disarmament. He requested more such opportunities to interact with civil society as it would give them the chance to hear different views and think outside the box. They had to keep in mind that they were there to change the status quo so they needed to start negotiations to contribute to a safer world. Therefore, when they negotiated a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty it should be a disarmament treaty that changed the status quo.

Concluding Remarks

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that he had taken good note of the words of welcome for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Today they had discussed the multilateral considerations of this issue and the scope of resolution 65/68 had been mentioned regarding the expert group and the contribution it could make to their endeavours. There was repeated mention of confidence building measures as a necessary step, but this would not be enough from what he understood from the discussion. These elements and others indicated that the reference to establishing a working group was important and this made it important to look for inclusive criteria to bring positions closer.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/019E