CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESSES FROM DIGNITARIES

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning hearing addresses from Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; Aliakbar Salehi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran; Iurie Leanca, Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova; Kevin Rudd, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia; Samuel Zbogar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia; Kasit Piromya, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand; Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba; Dipu Moni, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh; and Min Dong-seok, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea.

During his intervention, Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, said the question asked by many was, “what is next?” It was clear that Washington and Moscow still possessed the largest nuclear arsenals, but they did not live in a vacuum. The involvement of all nuclear weapons States without exception in the process of the limitation and reduction of their own arsenals was more and more pressing. This understanding was becoming part of a wider social and political discussion. Meanwhile, the disarmament agenda included a number of priority issues which should and could be resolved today. This meant in particular ensuring the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and he encouraged all countries that had not yet done so to ratify it. Unilateral moratoriums on nuclear tests were useful, but they could not substitute for enshrining this key obligation for global security in international law.

Aliakbar Salehi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, told the Conference that it was regrettable that long after the end of the Cold War, military alliances based on nuclear umbrellas existed, nuclear sharing continued and deployment of nuclear weapons in the territory of non-nuclear weapons States was exercised. It was high time that the Conference on Disarmament established an ad hoc committee to start its negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention as a matter of priority. At the regional level, the situation in the Middle East was alarming indeed. It stemmed from the possession of nuclear weapons by the Zionist regime, which made it a serious threat to the stability of the entire region and international peace and security. The constant use of inhumane weapons by this regime against civilians had further intensified the security concerns in the region; thus the desire for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons.

Iurie Leanca, Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, stressed that facing the realties in a changing world meant they could no longer permit themselves the luxury of staying inert and sitting back to watch the evolution of new threats and menaces to international security. They had to be frank and recognize that they were already behind schedule; some disarmament issues from the last century were still waiting to be addressed by the Conference on Disarmament. There were two possibilities: to wait inactively, hoping that the threats would also be patient, or taking concrete actions to prevent humanity from an uncontrolled arms disaster. The Republic of Moldova shared the existing concerns that if the current stalemate was prolonged they might lose the only multilateral treaty developer the international community had in the field of security and disarmament.

Kevin Rudd, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, said that the Conference on Disarmament found itself at a similar juncture as the old League of Nations Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments in 1937: either it got down to the business of negotiating or it too would be washed away by history. The recent global push on nuclear disarmament presented them with a unique opportunity to achieve their common goal of making a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. Australia wanted to see the Conference working again, negotiating multilateral disarmament treaties. Right now Australia was frustrated with the impasse at this Conference, but it remained active and committed to finding solutions.

Samuel Zbogar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia, reiterated Slovenia’s long standing view that the 2009 programme of work of the Conference on Disarmament was a credible way forward in the revitalization of the Conference. They remained convinced that negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty should start as soon as possible, concurrently with full discussions on the remaining three core items of the Conference on Disarmament agenda. In this context, they welcomed the efforts of some Members of the Conference to launch informal preparatory discussions for future negotiations. Slovenia believed that the issue of expanding the Conference on Disarmament deserved more attention. More than a decade had passed since the last expansion in 1996 and they believed this issue should be addressed comprehensively and in an appropriate manner.

Kasit Piromya, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, said that although Thailand was not a member of the Conference on Disarmament, they shared the aspiration of seeing progress in the body. The continued stalemate in the work of the Conference endangered its credibility and raised questions about its relevance in the fast evolving international security environment. The apparent deadlock was contrary to recent positive developments in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. These developments should give political impetus to the Conference to commence substantive work and conduct multilateral disarmament negotiations as mandated by the General Assembly. It was time for them to turn this momentum into practical measures and achieve concrete results.

Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, noted that in the last 10 years, military spending had increased 49 per cent; with this money dedicated to weapons they could have combated the extreme poverty and hunger that affected millions of people or prevented the deaths of the 11 million children who die each year due to hunger and preventable diseases or taught millions of illiterate adults to read and write. The Conference on Disarmament, with its mandate, could make an important contribution to changing the status quo that only benefited the powerful. They had the power to contribute to a new world order based on human solidarity and justice in which the solutions to problems were based on dialogue and cooperation, rather than nuclear weapons and the use of force.

Dipu Moni, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, said that they needed to spend less on armaments and divert the dividend to development, especially when the amounts needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals were only a fraction of the current global military spending. According to a World Bank estimate, 40 to 60 billion USD per year over the next five years would enable them to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; this represented only 3 to 4 per cent of annual global military spending. They could not afford to continue to deploy such huge resources for armaments when people remained hungry and unemployed, vulnerable to disease, climate change and natural disasters and could not afford essential services.

Addressing the North Korean nuclear issue, Min Dong-seok, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, said that North Korea’s disregard for the international community’s repeated calls for denuclearization had been long standing and blatant. Over the years, North Korea had announced its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and conducted two nuclear tests, and last November it revealed that it had built and was running a uranium enrichment facility. This was a clear violation of relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and it was regrettable that until this day, North Korea had not displayed any willingness to abandon its nuclear program. The Republic of Korea was committed to realizing the denuclearization of North Korea in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. To that end, they were making efforts on two levels: implementing relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions to send a firm message that the international community would not stand idly by while they pursued nuclear weapons and leaving the door open for dialogue and creating the appropriate circumstances for the resumption of Six-Party talks.

Speaking in response to the statement made by the speaker from the Republic of Korea, So Se Pyong of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation categorically resented the allegations made by the speaker from South Korea. Mr. So said that the South Korean speaker undoubtedly understood the issues at stake and that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula should be settled between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea since it was the hostile policies of the United States that created the situation. South Korea had absolutely nothing to say in the matter and this was not the right forum to bring up such issues, especially without addressing the policies of the United States.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 3 p.m. when it will hear from the State Secretary of Global Affairs of Romania and the Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan.


Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), welcomed the guest speakers and gave them the floor.

SERGEY LAVROV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the Conference on Disarmament was a unique forum, both for the number of States participating and the scale of tasks it faced. It was apparent that everyone there clearly understood the imperative of combining efforts in a joint search for solutions to global challenges and threats. This required a positive and unifying agenda that would allow them to find a sustainable balance of interests based on the legitimate concerns of every State. This was key to strengthening peace and stability and the understanding of this reality was already yielding results. The discussions on Euro-Atlantic security were characterized by lower incidences of confrontation, suspicion and prejudice and a greater desire for cooperation and increased mutual confidence. Sound trends were also making their way into the sphere of disarmament and arms control. Among the most important recent achievements was the entry into force of the Russian-United States Treaty on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and a successful 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The New START was the contribution of Russia and the United States to strengthening the global security and non-proliferation regime and promoting nuclear disarmament under article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The reductions of strategic offensive arms provided for in the treaty would be irreversible, verifiable, and transparent. The principles of equality, parity and equal and indivisible security stipulated in the treaty made it the “golden standard” of achieving agreements in the military and political dimension of international relations.

The question asked by many was, “what is next?” It was clear that Washington and Moscow still possessed the largest nuclear arsenals, but they did not live in a vacuum. The involvement of all nuclear weapons States without exception in the process of the limitation and reduction of their own arsenals was more and more pressing. This understanding was becoming part of a wider social and political discussion. Meanwhile, the disarmament agenda included a number of priority issues which should and could be resolved today. This meant in particular ensuring the entry into force of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and Mr. Lavrov encouraged all countries which had not yet done so to ratify this treaty. Unilateral moratoriums on nuclear tests were useful, but they could not substitute for enshrining this key obligation for global security in international law.

Mr. Lavrov went on to say that the rule of consensus was a fundamental principle of the disarmament mechanisms. No other approach was acceptable in the field of security, where each State had its legitimate interests. They could not be ignored. On the contrary, they should patiently continue their search for mutually acceptable solutions. This presumed, among other things, that there should be no abuse of the consensus rule, and that the attempts to turn it into a veto right should be rejected. But in any case, no matter how difficult it might be, they needed to search for compromises rather than try to find an easy way out by launching parallel negotiations processes outside of the Conference on Disarmament. Otherwise, they would witness further degradation of the whole multilateral disarmament system.

The Conference on Disarmament had an impressive record; some of the treaties that constituted the basis of the modern system of international relations had been worked out within its framework. Their task was to confirm and strengthen the viability of the Conference. This was the focus of the objective realities of the newly formed polycentric world order in which any problems could be resolved only on a common basis.

ALIAKBAR SALEHI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that the international community was faced with serious challenges today such as nuclear weapons, climate change, the outbreak of infectious diseases and poverty. These were some of the common predicaments many States were faced with and this dire situation required all nations to join hands so as to curb the situation and make the world a more prosperous place for the current and future generations. In a situation of insecurity it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for States and international organizations to pursue their socio-economic and cultural goals. Security was the basic need and right of all human beings and the prerequisite of all nations for development. Achieving a reliable and lasting peace and sustainable security based on justice and respect for international law in the world was assumed to be the prime aim of the United Nations.

In terms of sustainable security, Mr. Salehi said that it had a non-discriminatory character, served the common security interest of all based on equal footing and relied on a realistic threat perception by avoiding the creation of artificial phobias. In a viable system benefiting from sustainable security, there was not a county or group of countries that defined their security at the cost of the security of others. The rule of law would overcome the use of force. Justice and equality were the main principles, but they should also bear in mind that such a security could only be achieved through political will and provision of the necessary mechanisms. Currently, the gravest threat to sustainable security was the existence of thousands of nuclear warheads in the stockpiles of nuclear weapons States. The threat would be doubled when some of these countries felt free to threaten others, including non-nuclear weapons States, with the use of these immoral and illegitimate weapons. It was a matter of serious concern that humankind continued to live under the shadow of the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. Iran believed that the use of these weapons was a crime against humanity and thus the international community should react collectively by redoubling its efforts to get rid of the threat posed by such weapons once and for all. In this context, Iran believed that the destruction of chemical weapons remained the most fundamental bedrock of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament and increased global military expenditures had increased security concerns everywhere. The strategic shift and unilateral approach adopted by a major power had paralyzed the disarmament machinery. Consequently, the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to embark upon meaningful negotiations on the most urgent security requirement in the world today, namely nuclear disarmament. It was regrettable that long after the end of the Cold War, military alliances based on nuclear umbrellas existed, nuclear sharing continued and deployment of nuclear weapons in the territory of non-nuclear weapons States was exercised. It was high time that the Conference on Disarmament established an ad hoc committee to start its negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention as a matter of priority. At the regional level, the situation in the Middle East was alarming indeed. It stemmed from the possession of nuclear weapons by the Zionist regime, which made it a serious threat to the stability of the entire region and international peace and security. The constant use of inhumane weapons by this regime against civilians had further intensified the security concerns in the region; thus the desire for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons.

IURIE LEANCA, Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, stressed that facing the realties in a changing world meant they could no longer permit themselves the luxury of staying inert and sitting back to witness the evolution of new threats and menaces to international security. They had to be frank and recognize that they were already behind schedule. Some disarmament issues from the last century were still waiting to be addressed by the Conference on Disarmament. There were two possibilities: to wait inactively, hoping that the threats would also be patient, or taking concrete actions to prevent humanity from an uncontrolled arms disaster. The Republic of Moldova shared the existing concerns that if the current stalemate was prolonged they might lose the only multilateral treaty developer the international community had in the field of security and disarmament. Much needed and effective multilateral legal instruments could be generated using other ad hoc negotiating formats. The Cluster Munitions Convention and its predecessor, the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Convention, were often referred to in this regard. Yet, they continued to believe that the Conference on Disarmament should remain the central multilateral body with responsibility for negotiating agreements, particularly those that were critical to international security.

Obviously, treaties were not a panacea for international security and stability. Nevertheless, they were the basis of their collective security. Small States that lacked military power, such as the Republic of Moldova, had no choice but to rely on building and strengthening a rule based international system. One of the Republic of Moldova’s expectations was that rule based international system, with functional and strong institutions, would prevent the uncontrolled expansion of armaments, including in conflict prone regions, and would encourage transparency and concrete disarmament measures. In this context, Mr. Leanca underscored the need for adequate transparency and control over the significant military potential retained by the self-proclaimed regime in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. The presence of heavily equipped armed forces in this part of Europe must be a grave concern to all of them. It was also imperative to find a solution to the issue of the withdrawal of foreign troops and ammunitions stationed in Moldova without the host nation’s consent.

In the Republic of Moldova’s view, there were no convincing arguments for further delaying negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty based on the so-called Shannon Mandate. The imperative to advance constructive work on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, on negative security assurances and on nuclear disarmament were also evident. In order to make all this possible the Conference on Disarmament needed a programme of work. From this perspective, document CD/1864 or any other similar proposal may offer a platform that would enable Conference Members to address their national interests at various stages of negotiations and substantive discussions. The Republic of Moldova hoped that Members of the Conference on Disarmament would be able to bridge their differences and embark on constructive and effective work. By doing so, the Conference on Disarmament would meet the expectations of the international community, namely making the world a more peaceful and secure place.

KEVIN RUDD, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, said that the Conference on Disarmament found itself at a similar juncture as the old League of Nations Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments in 1937: either it got down to the business of negotiating or it too would be washed away by history. The recent global push on nuclear disarmament presented them with a unique opportunity to achieve their common goal of making a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. Australia wanted to see the Conference working again, negotiating multilateral disarmament treaties. Right now Australia was frustrated with the impasse at this Conference, but it remained active and committed to finding solutions.

Australia’s commitment to the Conference on Disarmament extended to all its core issues. Mr. Rudd said they were proud of their strong record in promoting global engagement in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and they considered the Non-Proliferation Treaty the cornerstone of global non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. Australia also supported the provision of negative security assurances and welcomed stronger assurances with fewer caveats from nuclear weapons States. Australia also recognized that space presented shared challenges as well as opportunities. They appreciated that it had come to play a central role in the international economy and in international security and they supported a rules based approach that would protect and benefit all nations.

For Australia, negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty were the highest priority and they were unapologetic about this commitment. They believed stopping the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was fundamental to nuclear disarmament. By capping the amount of fissile material available for nuclear weapons, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty provided an essential step toward irreversible nuclear disarmament. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would further tighten controls on fissile material and complement the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty impeded the development of nuclear weapons by prohibiting testing; the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would impose a quantitative limit on the amount of fissile material available for weapons use. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was not an end in itself, but a means to a greater end: a world free of nuclear weapons. They could leave no greater legacy than reducing the risk of nuclear weapons for future generations. Differences of opinion in the Conference on Disarmament should not prevent them from commencing negotiations; these differences were the very point of negotiating.

Australia believed that there would only be a small window of opportunity to capitalize on the goodwill among countries on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives. The challenges they faced would not be solved quickly or easily. They would not be overcome without the firm commitment of all Member States, but they were optimistic and refused to succumb to fear.

SAMUEL ZBOGAR, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia, said that the current impasse in the Conference on Disarmament did not contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security, which was the main task of the United Nations. In this regard, they expected the follow-up process to the High level meeting to deliver results that would help the international community move forward. They also expected this initiative to be followed-up in a concrete manner at the next session of the United Nations General Assembly First Committee later this year.

On the broader scene, Slovenia welcomed the renewed momentum in global disarmament and non-proliferation, as illustrated by the New START Treaty and the results of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. They were also pleased that agreement was reached in the way forward in the implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference resolution on the nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. The entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions was the most important event in the field of conventional weapons, and it proved that there was still enough political will to properly address the relevant challenges. Slovenia was among the first countries to ratify this convention and was actively engaged in preparing the first meeting of States parties in Vientiane in 2010. In this regard, Mr. Zbogar underlined the importance of the concepts of human security, post-conflict rehabilitation and development in the field of disarmament. Slovenia was actively pursuing these goals and values, which were also very high on the agenda in their candidature for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2012 to 2013.

Mr. Zbogar reiterated Slovenia’s long standing view that the 2009 programme of work of the Conference on Disarmament was a credible way forward in the revitalization of the Conference. They remained convinced that negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty should start as soon as possible, concurrently with full discussions on the remaining three core items of the Conference on Disarmament agenda. In this context, they welcomed the efforts of some Members of the Conference to launch informal preparatory discussions for future negotiations. Slovenia believed that the issue of expanding the Conference on Disarmament deserved more attention. More than a decade had passed since the last expansion in 1996 and they believed this issue should be addressed comprehensively and in an appropriate manner. Today, more than ever, the expansion of the Conference was imminent and could be part of the solution rather than contributing to the problem. The expansion of the Conference should also be regarded as part of its revitalization process and would, in Slovenia’s view, enrich its work.

KASIT PIROMYA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, said that the Conference on Disarmament was created to serve as a key forum for negotiating multilateral disarmament treaties. The international community therefore had high expectations of this important body. It was therefore regrettable that there had been such a long gap between the Conference on Disarmament’s achievements, the last of which was the conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. Over the past 14 years, there had not been any progress as substantive work on critical issues had been left undone. This stagnation must not be allowed to continue. It was incumbent upon them all, especially Member States of the Conference, to revive and give life to this forum after its long inactivity.

Although Thailand was not a member of the Conference on Disarmament, they shared the aspiration of seeing progress in the body. The continued stalemate in the work of the Conference endangered its credibility and raised questions about its relevance in the fast evolving international security environment. The apparent deadlock was contrary to recent positive developments in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. These developments should give political impetus to the Conference to commence substantive work and conduct multilateral disarmament negotiations as mandated by the General Assembly. It was time for them to turn this momentum into practical measures and achieve concrete results. Thailand therefore joined others in urging Conference on Disarmament Members to exercise flexibility and demonstrate their strong political will and commitment to allowing the Conference to adopt its programme of work and start substantive work on the core issues.

Thailand was a small country that shared the common interest for a safer and more secure world. They recognized the role they could play in promoting global disarmament and the non-proliferation regime. Thailand shared the belief that the negotiating process in the Conference should be more inclusive, transparent and engage all stakeholders given the universal and extensive impact of the negotiations’ outcomes. Thailand therefore reiterated the call to address the issue of the expansion of the Conference membership. Mr. Piromya said Thailand believed that the issue of expansion and the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament could be pursued in parallel and that the expansion of the membership was aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the Conference’s work, not hampering it.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARILLA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said the United Nations was founded after 60 million people died in the Second World War with the view of saving future generations from the scourge of war. The first resolution of the General Assembly in 1946 called for the establishment of a body for disarmament. Sixty five years later, serious dangers threaten mankind such as global warming and the existence of nuclear weapons, which was the main challenge for the survival of the human race. A tiny fraction of the available nuclear weapons could create a nuclear winter. Only the complete elimination and prohibition of these weapons would ensure they would never be used. Countries should stop using political manipulation of non-proliferation to create a privileged club of nuclear weapons States, while denying other countries the inalienable right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The concept of nuclear deterrence must come to an end in military doctrines. Cuba urged the United States to stop opposing negotiations on binding agreements which would allow them to finally rid themselves of the nuclear threat in a pre-determined period. Cuba supported the adoption of a programme of work and on various occasions had expressed its willingness to negotiate in parallel on treaties for the elimination and prohibition of nuclear weapons, a treaty for the prevention of an arms race is outer space, a treaty on negative security assurances, and a treaty that prohibited the production of fissile material. The Conference on Disarmament had the capacity to start these negotiations; the only thing it lacked was the political will. Negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty for the creation of nuclear weapons would be a positive but insufficient step if there weren’t also compromises on existing stockpiles.

In the last 10 years, military spending had increased 49 per cent to the astronomical amount of 1.5 trillion dollars. With this money dedicated to weapons, they could have combated the extreme poverty and hunger that affected millions of people or prevented the deaths of the 11 million children who die each year due to hunger and preventable diseases or taught millions of illiterate adults to read and write. The Conference on Disarmament, with its mandate, could make an important contribution to changing the status quo that only benefited the powerful. They should commence substantive work immediately to meet the goals of respect for human rights and to realize a world without nuclear weapons. They had the power to contribute to a new world order based on human solidarity and justice in which the solutions to problems were based on dialogue and cooperation rather than nuclear weapons and the use of force.

DIPU MONI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, said that she had addressed the Conference on Disarmament a year ago when hopes were running high that the Conference would soon be able to get down to substantive work. Unfortunately, those hopes had waned in a year as the Conference was still unable to adopt a programme of work. They remained concerned that despite efforts made by successive presidencies, the consensus to begin substantive work continued to elude the Conference on Disarmament. They kept talking, but they fell short of acting, and when they felt motivated to act finding common ground became most challenging. This did not mean they should give up hope. Bangladesh saw a number of positive developments, even if they were outside this Conference. They were encouraged by the ratification of the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia, however as a country unequivocally committed to a complete and general disarmament, Bangladesh believed that the world’s largest nuclear weapons possessors should be make deeper cuts to their nuclear arsenals.

As a responsible and contributing member of the international community, Bangladesh had time and again demonstrated its unflinching commitment to the maintenance of global peace and security. They were convinced that armaments were not part of the solution to attaining a secure and peaceful world. Bangladesh supported all initiatives that might lead to the ultimate goal of Global Zero: the phased, verified elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide. Bangladesh attached high priority to negative security assurances and believed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending the achievement of this ultimate goal, non-nuclear weapons States had the legitimate right to receive security assurances from nuclear weapons States. Bangladesh therefore urged the Conference for early negotiations of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument for negative security assurances. They considered the Conference on Disarmament the most appropriate forum for such negotiations as all nuclear weapons States were Members.

Bangladesh supported negotiations for a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices and believed such a treaty should be non-discriminatory, multilateral, internationally and effectively verifiable and should include all existing stockpiles. They had discerned an inclination toward exploring alternative avenues for such a treaty outside of this Conference, but Bangladesh believed that the Conference on Disarmament was the right platform for addressing this issue. They shared the view that outer space was the common heritage of mankind and it must be explored for peaceful purposes only and they supported all efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space. Bangladesh also supported the creation of nuclear weapons free zones in various parts of the world, however this solution might not be applicable in every region, including South Asia. The Conference on Disarmament should create a space for civil society and non-governmental organizations working for peace and development as they could bring additional perspectives and ideas that might enrich the Conference’s work.

Ms. Moni said that they needed to spend less on armaments and divert the dividend to development, especially when the amounts needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals were only a fraction of the current global military spending. According to a World Bank estimate, 40 to 60 billion USD per year over the next five years would enable them to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; this represented only 3 to 4 per cent of annual global military spending. They could not afford to continue to deploy such huge resources for armaments when people remained hungry and unemployed, vulnerable to disease, climate change and natural disasters and could not afford essential services. They were witnessing a time when profound changes were sweeping across the globe. People’s aspirations for freedom and democracy were finding expressions despite all odds. This trend would only strengthen in a networked world. At this critical hour, the Conference on Disarmament needed to make headway toward solutions for the sake of world peace and prosperity. Conference Members should engage in good faith, demonstrate string commitment and flexibility and make substantive progress towards realizing its objectives.

MIN DONG-SEOK, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, said that nuclear security required the efforts of all countries. As a non-nuclear weapons State with an active civilian nuclear programme that was in full compliance with non-proliferation obligations, the Republic of Korea had much to contribute to global efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism and enhance nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. For decades the Conference on Disarmament had undoubtedly served as the world’s single multilateral negotiating forum, giving birth to milestones such as the Biological and Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as they continued their journey to a world free of weapons of mass destruction. However, with the dormancy of the Conference on Disarmament, which had lasted more than a decade, the Conference now seemed to be falling behind recent developments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. Many delegations had repeated these concerns this year and it was clear that the patience of the international community was running out.

Against this backdrop, they once again emphasized that it was time to revive the Conference on Disarmament mechanism and proceed with tangible results. The world expected the Conference to set a new landmark for the next step on the road to disarmament. At the High Level Meeting in New York last September, ministers from all over the world said that the Conference should adopt a programme of work and promptly embark on substantive discussions in 2011. The Conference had enough potential to jumpstart discussions based on its 2009 programme of work, document CD/1864. In addition, many ideas had been suggested to break the stalemate, such as the target date for the normal functioning of the Conference on Disarmament and flexible application of the consensus rule in the Conference procedure. Along with such internal efforts to revitalize the Conference, the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters had been reviewing all available options, including the possible establishment of a high level panel of eminent persons. What was needed now was not endless debate, but action.

The Republic of Korea was of the opinion that the international community shared the view that of all the issues in the Conference on Disarmament, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for weapons was the most ripe and urgent for negotiations. The negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was indispensable not only for nuclear non-proliferation, but also for nuclear disarmament. A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would be the next logical step toward a world free of nuclear weapons, along with the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the future. A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty were of vital importance to the global disarmament and non-proliferation regime in both symbolic and substantive aspects. In this vein, the Shannon Mandate on the verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could serve as a good starting point for negotiations.

Addressing the North Korean nuclear issue, Mr. Dong-seok said that North Korea’s disregard for the international community’s repeated calls for denuclearization had been long standing and blatant. Over the years, North Korea had announced its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and conducted two nuclear tests. Last November, North Korea revealed that it had built and was running a uranium enrichment facility. This was a clear violation of relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and it was regrettable that until this day, North Korea had not displayed any willingness to abandon its nuclear program. The Republic of Korea was committed to realizing the denuclearization of North Korea in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. To that end, they were making efforts on two levels: implementing relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions to send a firm message that the international community would not stand idly by while they pursued nuclear weapons and leaving the door open for dialogue and creating the appropriate circumstances for the resumption of Six-Party talks.

Mr. Dong-seok hoped the Conference on Disarmament would produce a consensus on the programme of work, enabling it to embark on substantive negotiations as soon as possible. He emphasized that they were all in the same boat and the world was watching them to see if they could break the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament with a sense of collective wisdom and responsibility.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said he had no intention of taking the floor this morning, but the South Korean delegation had forced him to do so. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically resented the allegations made by the previous speaker from South Korea. Mr. So said that the South Korean speaker undoubtedly understood the issues at stake and that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula should be settled between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea because it was the hostile policies of the United States that created the situation. South Korea had absolutely nothing to say in the matter and this was not the right forum to bring up such issues, especially without addressing the policies of the United States. Mr. So also mentioned what he called the provocative military exercises between the United States and the Republic of Korea off the coast of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/015E