CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT BY THE GROUP OF 21 ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a statement by Indonesia on behalf of the Group of 21 on nuclear disarmament and closing remarks by the Netherlands as President of the Conference. It also heard from Myanmar, the United States, New Zealand, India, Nigeria and the Republic of Korea.

Ambassador Henk Cor Van Der Kwast of the Netherlands, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in the formal and informal meetings held under the Presidency of the Netherlands, many suggestions had been made by delegations and experts on possible ways forward in the Conference. They had for example identified that in the absence of agreement on which treaty should be negotiated first, the Conference could consider the possibility of elaborating elements of treaties that had to be negotiated in the future, for example, issues relating to transparency or verification. Second, consideration by the Conference of First Committee resolutions that contained an action to be taken by the Conference or were related to the Conference. Third, consideration of negotiating political binding measures, which they had discussed before. Fourth, as suggested in the informal working group report, the Conference, if it agreed, could continue to consider holding structured and in-depth deliberations with greater specifity and allocation of time on agenda items, including through the participation of scientific and technical experts on specific topics to enhance understanding and common ground beneficial to future negotiations that the Conference could undertake. Many more suggestions had been made. As this was the last session under the Presidency of the Netherlands, he would like to discuss suggestions on a possible way forward in an informal meeting following this plenary.

Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, while noting steps taken by nuclear-weapon States for the reduction of their arsenals, reiterated its deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress by the nuclear-weapon States towards accomplishing the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The Group of 21 stressed the importance of the effective implementation of concrete measures leading to a nuclear weapons free world. This required renewed political will by the international community towards accelerated progress on nuclear disarmament. The Group of 21 stressed its strong commitment to nuclear disarmament, and underscored the urgent need to commence negotiations on this issue in the Conference without delay.

Myanmar, United States, New Zealand, India, Nigeria and the Republic of Korea also took the floor.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 25 August, under the Presidency of New Zealand.

Statements

Ambassador HENK COR VAN DER KWAST of the Netherlands, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in the formal and informal meetings held under the Presidency of the Netherlands, many suggestions had been made by delegations and experts on possible ways forward in the Conference. They had for example identified that in the absence of agreement on which treaty should be negotiated first, the Conference could consider the possibility of elaborating elements of treaties that had to be negotiated in the future, for example, issues relating to transparency or verification. Second, consideration by the Conference of First Committee resolutions that contained an action to be taken by the Conference or were related to the Conference. Third, consideration of negotiating political binding measures, which they had discussed before. Fourth, as suggested in the informal working group report, the Conference, if it agreed, could continue to consider holding structured and in-depth deliberations with greater specifity and allocation of time on agenda items, including through the participation of scientific and technical experts on specific topics to enhance understanding and common ground beneficial to future negotiations that the Conference could undertake. Many more suggestions had been made. As this was the last session under the Presidency of the Netherlands, he would like to discuss suggestions on a possible way forward in an informal meeting following this plenary.

Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, while noting steps taken by nuclear-weapon States for the reduction of their arsenals, reiterated its deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress by the nuclear-weapon States towards accomplishing the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The Group of 21 stressed the importance of the effective implementation of concrete measures leading to a nuclear weapons free world. This required renewed political will by the international community towards accelerated progress on nuclear disarmament. The Group of 21 stressed its strong commitment to nuclear disarmament, and underscored the urgent need to commence negotiations on this issue in the Conference without delay. In this context, the Group of 21 reaffirmed its full readiness to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, leading to the global, non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, with a specified framework of time. Pending the achievement of the complete elimination of such weapons, the Group reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

The States parties of the Group of 21 to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) expressed their disappointment and deep concern that three States parties , including two States that bore special responsibility as NPT depositary and co-sponsor States of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference Resolution on the Middle East, blocked consensus on the draft outcome document of the ninth NPT Review Conference, including the process to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. This could undermine efforts towards strengthening the NPT regime as a whole. The persistent lack of implementation of the 1995 resolution eroded the credibility of the NPT and disrupted the delicate balance among its three pillars, taking into account that the indefinite extension of the treaty was inextricably linked to the implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East.

In the view of the Group of 21’s strong commitment to nuclear disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons, the Group reiterated the following concrete steps: reaffirmation of the unequivocal commitment of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the complete elimination of nuclear weapons; elimination of the role of nuclear weapons in the security doctrines; adoption of measures by nuclear-weapon States to reduce nuclear danger, such as de-alerting of nuclear weapons and decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems; negotiation of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; negotiation of a convention on the complete prohibition of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, leading to the global, non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time.

Myanmar thanked the President and his delegation for their work during the Presidency of the Netherlands. The Presidency had been a success in terms of outreach, coordination, dedication, focus and vision. The President had contributed considerably in all these areas.

United States thanked the President for his leadership, saying that the United States had found the additional informal discussions particularly useful to advancing their work. The United States wished to respond to the statement of the Group of 21, specifically with regard to their assessment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference outcome. The United States shared the disappointment of many States that the NPT Review Conference ended without agreement, and in particular did not identify a consensus-based approach toward convening a conference on a Middle East weapons of mass destruction free zone. This was not for lack of intensive efforts by the United States and others. Such zones could only succeed if they were based on arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region. Coercive measures were not a productive avenue to advance that goal. The United States remained unwavering in its support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for achieving peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

New Zealand thanked the Netherlands for its Presidency and thanked all the other P6 members. New Zealand would be taking over the Presidency next Monday and looked forward to this. In New Zealand’s forthcoming role to draft and adopt the report of the Conference, it counted on the support of all the delegations and thanked them in advance for their help.

India thanked the President for the letter that the President had circulated on his impressions on the informal discussions. These discussions had been useful and allowed the delegations to benefit from a useful exchange of views. However, India pointed out that these were non-binding and without prejudice to the position of delegations in the Conference. The points that the President had elaborated in his letter were his own perceptions on what transpired and were not binding. The Conference had an opportunity to take a decision in adopting the report of the Co-Chair of the Informal Working Group. That in India’s view constituted the shared understanding of the Conference on how they should move forward in the future.

Nigeria thanked the President for his work and appreciated how he had handled the discussions. They had learnt a lot from them and Nigeria would be in that hot seat early next year.

Republic of Korea thanked the President for his efforts. Through the discussions, they could now have better understanding on the content of issues and the positions of delegations. The way the Netherlands had framed the discussions had been very useful. The President had pointed out in his email yesterday that they could have more in-depth exchange of views with the participation of scientific and technical experts on specific topics. If they drew up their schedule of activities well in advance, it would be helpful to plan out the participation of each delegation with experts from capitals or academia. On other issues, like the elaboration of certain elements of treaties, or negotiating politically binding measures, or considering First Committee resolutions, such discussions were already taking place in the context of informal discussions according to the schedule of activities.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/039E