CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS ON ITS AGENDA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a discussion on the first four items on its agenda: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Kazakhstan stated that it prioritized nuclear disarmament as the most pressing issue, which should be seen as a major goal of the humanity for the twenty-first century. Pakistan stressed that a treaty that did not address the asymmetries in the existing stockpiles of fissile material would adversely affect Pakistan’s vital security interests. Belarus believed that the Conference was the optimal platform to agree on a comprehensive convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

China said that, in order to maintain strategic stability, nuclear disarmament could not be pursued in vacuum; instead, it had to be approached in a wider context. Mexico, on behalf of the Group of 21, stated that nuclear disarmament was the highest priority of the Conference, and the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use. Chile believed that, until nuclear weapons were completely eliminated, talks on negative security assurances should be a priority.

For France, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was a priority on which France would focus its energy; its universalization was close, and the efforts needed to continue. Iraq argued that universal accession to all treaties and conventions on weapons of mass destruction was a cornerstone of the international security architecture. The Russian Federation stressed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty remained the cornerstone of international security and deplored the failure to adopt the outcome document at the 2015 Review Conference.

The United States informed that its concerns on the draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects were substantive, and included the definition of space weapons and the verification, which was fundamentally important. The United Kingdom reminded that back in February it had submitted a draft programme of work, which included nuclear disarmament and also allowed for discussions on all issues on the agenda.

The next public meeting of the Conference will take place on Thursday, 16 June at 10 a.m., when delegations will have a chance to speak on the other three items on the agenda: new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments.

Statements

Ambassador LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ BASAGOITIA of Peru, President of the Conference, welcomed the new Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the Conference on Disarmament.

Kazakhstan shared the serious concerns regularly expressed on the inability of the Conference to move ahead over the previous two decades. It was hoped that the Member States would demonstrate enough political will to break the deadlock. Kazakhstan knew very well what impact could be made on political decisions by civil society organizations. Kazakhstan had made a historic decision on closing the Semipalatinsk nuclear site exactly 25 year earlier. Kazakhstan was supporting efforts for the holding of another civil society forum this year. Nobody doubted that negotiations needed to commence simultaneously on all four core issues. Kazakhstan prioritized nuclear disarmament as the most pressing issue, which should be seen as a major goal of the humanity for the twenty-first century. Kazakhstan also supported an agreement on a fissile material cut-off treaty, which would significantly reduce the chance that such materials fall into the hands of terrorists. It was also highly important to facilitate discussions on the prevention of the arms race in the outer space. Nuclear-weapon free zones around the world needed to be developed, stressed Kazakhstan, the same way it had been done in Central Asia. Finding compromise was never easy, but Kazakhstan remained optimistic that the new proposals would give an impetus to the revival of the work of the Conference.

Pakistan welcomed the initiative for organizing substantive discussions on the Conference’s agenda items in formal plenaries. The prime objective of the disarmament process – the attainment of equal and undiminished security for all States – was being ignored by a select few to perpetuate the unequal status quo to their strategic advantage. The trend of granting waivers and creating exceptions in the multilateral export control regimes was undermining the global non-proliferation regime and complicating regional and global security. What was needed was a cooperative, inclusive, criteria-based and non-discriminatory architecture. Nuclear disarmament could not progress without addressing the existential security concerns of States. Anything forced outside of the Conference on a non-consensus basis, without all stakeholders on board, would create additional fissures. Pakistan was ready to join negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention in the Conference. It also supported the commencement of negotiations on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which was more than ripe for negotiations. Voluntary measures could not substitute the need for legally binding, treaty-based obligations. The issue of negative security assurances was also ripe for negotiations; so far, only China had given such assurances unconditionally. As long as the goal of nuclear disarmament was not reached, negative security assurances could bridge the security gap between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon States. Finally, Pakistan stressed that a treaty that did not address the asymmetries in the existing stockpiles of fissile material, and stipulated only a production cut-off, would adversely affect Pakistan’s vital security interests.

Belarus had consistently demonstrated its adherence to full and comprehensive rejection of nuclear weapons. Belarus considered the Conference to be the unique multilateral negotiating body on disarmament and arms control, the only one which could create consensus among key players. Creating new negotiating structures outside of the Conference would duplicate work which was already being done in the existing fora. Unfortunately, the search for ways to move forward multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament without including nuclear weapon States would not lead to any progress. The Conference was the optimal platform to agree on a comprehensive convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. A global legally binding document was also needed to provide negative security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States.

China stated that the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons and the elimination of a threat of a nuclear war were in the interest of the whole of humanity. The role of nuclear weapons in national security policies would need to be decreased first. A legally binding instrument on negative security assurances ought to be negotiated. Nuclear umbrellas and nuclear sharing policies had to be abolished, said China. In order to maintain strategic stability, nuclear disarmament could not be pursued in vacuum; instead, it had to be approached in a wider context. One could not talk about nuclear disarmament in a way disconnected from the arms race in the high-tech area. There were vast differences in the sizes of arsenals among nuclear-weapon States, which was why a unified set of measures could not be applied on all of them. The Conference played a vital role in international security. The peaceful use of the outer space was in the interest of all countries; however, the weaponization of the outer space was looming on the horizon. China and Russia had presented an updated draft proposal on that subject matter, which enjoyed broad international support. Conditions were now in place to commence negotiations.

Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, referred to the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament in September 2013, when unambiguous support had been expressed for nuclear disarmament. The Secretary-General was requested to seek the views of Member States with regard to achieving the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The Group of 21 stressed the importance of the commemoration of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, on 26 September, which should be further promoted. The proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace was welcomed. Nuclear disarmament was the highest priority of the Conference, which was why the Group reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use. Nuclear disarmament had to be pursued in a comprehensive and non-discriminatory manner. The Group strongly supported a speedy establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Finally, the Group of 21 called for the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions 68/32 and 70/34.

Chile urged Member States of the Conference to show flexibility so that the Conference could move ahead with its work. It was clear that the final objective transcended national interests. Chile regretted the fact that there had been no progress on nuclear disarmament, and stressed that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty should become a central element of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. A world free of nuclear weapons, while a common goal of the humanity, should not become a matter of utopia; instead, it required specific steps leading to concrete progress. Chile supported the call made by China that the role of nuclear weapons in national arsenals be reduced. Human security was primary in the eyes of Chile, and human beings ought to be in the centre of all actions. A majority of States supported commencement of negotiations on a legal instrument which would complement the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was admittedly just a beginning of a difficult process, but for the first time there seemed to be a real possibility to move ahead in that regard. For Chile, the prevention of an arms race in the outer space was a largely important matter; Chile thus supported initiatives to strengthen the existing legal regime. Chile reiterated that, until nuclear weapons were completely eliminated, talks on negative security assurances should be a priority. Nuclear-weapon States had to respect the conditions of the existing nuclear-weapon free zones.

France said that the security challenges of today were becoming ever more complex. France continued to support efforts in favour of nuclear disarmament. International law represented the cornerstone of international security, and the participation of all guaranteed the efficacy of standards. Since the mid-twentieth century, the international community had tirelessly worked to bring people and nations closer together, and today we all needed to think about the ways to maximize mutual comprehension and cooperation. It was only with determination that realistic progress could be achieved; the principles of reciprocity, transparency, reinforcement of verification measures and the universalization of existing instruments were all of critical importance. For France, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was a priority on which France would focus its energy; its universalization was close, and the efforts needed to continue. The difference between negotiations and discussions was a permeable one and should not be exaggerated, noted France and said that the Conference was the only multilateral body in that regard.

Iraq believed that the existing disarmament treaties ought to be respected and implemented. Iraq respected international treaties and conventions on nuclear disarmament and weapons of mass destruction. Universal accession to all treaties and conventions on weapons of mass destruction was a cornerstone of the international security architecture. The Non-Proliferation Treaty had not achieved all of its objectives as not all of its provisions were being respected. The Treaty had also failed in both vertical and horizontal verification. Iraq emphasized the importance of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the efforts to universalize it. Voluntary moratoria could not be seen as a substitute for a legally binding international system. Nuclear disarmament should be on the top of the list of priorities for the Conference on Disarmament. Creation of nuclear-weapon free zones around the world would be a welcome step in that direction.

Russian Federation noted that most members of the Conference preferred to talk about nuclear disarmament as the most important issue. Also, the General Assembly each year overwhelmingly adopted resolutions on the prevention of an arms race in the outer space. Such consensus demonstrated political will, which the Conference was frequently accused to be lacking. Over the previous decades, some good groundwork had been done on the way forward, the most recent step being the 2014 Russian-Chinese draft proposal, which had taken into consideration comments by various delegations. The problem was that some delegations criticized the draft without proposing alternatives. Back in 2004, Russia had committed to not placing any weapons in the outer space. The combination of political commitments and legal norms would help prevent a new spiral of arms race and keep the space peaceful for future delegations. Russia believed that because of the position taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, it had not been possible to adopt a final document at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2015. The Treaty nonetheless remained the cornerstone of the international security. During the Conference, Russia had been in favour of strengthening the Treaty, which was something Russia was still committed to working on. In 1991-1992, Russia had decreased by four times its arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons, and had moved its nuclear weapons to its national territory. The uncertainty of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty did not make Russia any less optimistic. Russia was ready to join efforts on achieving consensus on binding agreements on negative security assurances and fissile material cut-off treaty.

United States stated that it was committed to a peaceful world without nuclear weapons. Progress with nuclear disarmament would not be made while ignoring security issues. It was regrettable that the 2015 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference had not reached a consensus on the outcome document, but it had included some constructive discussions. The United States was not in any way violating provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The United States’ ballistic missile defence cooperation was designed to help reinforce strategic stability, and was seen as a stabilizing factor. Russia, for its part, still maintained an anti-ballistic missile system of 68 launchers around Moscow. The nuclear disarmament agenda was broad and provided ground for bilateral and multilateral efforts; the United States was ready to discuss strategic reductions, for which a willing partner and the right security environment were needed. The United States believed that talks should be held on the fissile material cut-off treaty. The United States’ concerns on the draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects were substantive, and included the definition of space weapons and the verification, which was fundamentally important. Areas of cooperation regarding weapons in outer space ought to be found in order to build confidence.

United Kingdom attached importance to all issues on the Conference agenda. In that context, it had tabled a draft programme of work in February, which included nuclear disarmament and also allowed for discussions on all issues on the agenda.

Russian Federation said that in the diplomatic practice, if one side was not happy with a proposal, it should submit its own proposal, referring to the American objections to the draft document on weapons in outer space. On the stabilizing nature of the global anti-ballistic missile system, Russia said that the first agreement in that area had been concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union. A difference had to be made between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. Recently, Russia had submitted its own draft proposal on the programme of work, which recognized that the goals of the Conference were not solely limited to the issue of nuclear disarmament.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC16/026E