CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON THE ENDING OF THE INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements concerning the withdrawal of the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and on the situation in the Korean Peninsula. In an informal setting, the Conference discussed the President’s draft decision on the possible elements for a programme of work.

President of the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Duong Chi Dung of Viet Nam, presenting the revised “Draft decision on the possible elements for a programme of work”, said that it reflected the ongoing discussions and consultations. The Presidency stressed that all Member States shared the common objective of finding ways to overcome the two decades of stalemate in the Conference and hoped that a consensus on this decision would lay the ground for future work in 2020. The document would provide clarity as to the work planning and timetable, promote the effective and balanced work on substantive agenda items of the Conference, and provide continuity, without prejudice, to the work of future presidencies, concluded the President.

The Conference discussed the proposed document in an informal setting.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference heard statements on the ending of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The United States read out the statement issued by the Secretary of State on its withdrawal from the Treaty due to the Russia’s continuing and deliberate violations, which had taken effect on 2 August 2019. Russia said that by destroying the Treaty, the United States opened a new page in the history of mankind, linked to a new arms race in nuclear weapons. China was very concerned by the United States’ withdrawal which was an irresponsible unilateral measure that would severely undermine global strategic balance and stability and disrupt international nuclear disarmament and arms control processes. Ukraine pointed to the direct connection between the Treaty and the work of the Conference on Disarmament and expressed its disappointment at the coming to an end of this Treaty, due to Russia’s noncompliance.

As for the situation in the Korean Peninsula, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea denounced the aggressive nature of the United States-Republic of Korea joint military exercises, that were diminishing prospects for future constructive dialogue. The United States stressed its commitment to the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as agreed by Chairman Kim and President Trump during their first Summit meeting in Singapore last year. The Republic of Korea stressed the importance of the early resumption of dialogue and the respect of inter-Korean, as well as the agreements between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

With regards to a programme of work, the Netherlands introduced a working paper “Back to basics: the programme of work” which argued for a return to organizing the work in the Conference as intended by the rules of procedures and delinking of the establishment of subsidiary bodies from a programme of work. China said that it would be entirely unfair to blame the stalemate in the Conference on its rules of procedure or its Member States, since its ability to work and achieve progress depended ultimately on the world’s political and security situation, which currently was at a critical juncture.

This morning, the President said that he had informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the Member States of the Conference on Disarmament concurred with the appointment of Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, as the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament.

The President of the Conference on Disarmament expressed his deepest condolences to the United States and its people and the families of the victims of the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio. Russia and China also expressed their condolences and emphatically condemned terrorism and extremist ideologies in any form.

Speaking this morning were the United States, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Russia, Netherlands, China, Ukraine, and the Republic of Korea.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place 10 a.m. on Thursday 8 August and will focus on the prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.

Statements

United States read out the statement issued by the Secretary of State concerning the withdrawal of the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty due to the Russia’s continuing violation of the Treaty, which had taken effect on 2 August 2019. Russia was solely responsible for the Treaty’s demise, said the United States noting that since at least mid-2000s, Russia had developed, produced, flight tested, and fielded multiple battalions of its non-compliant missile system, the SSC-8 or 9M729 ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise missile. Over the past six months, the United States had provided Russia a final opportunity to correct its non-compliance, but Russia had chosen to keep its noncompliant missile rather than to comply with its Treaty obligations.

The United States would not remain a party to a treaty deliberately violated by Russia, the United States stressed and emphasized that Russia’s noncompliance jeopardized its supreme interests and that Russia’s development and fielding of a treaty-violating missile system represented a direct threat to the United States and its allies and partners. The United States remained committed to an effective arms control that advanced its security and the security of its allies and partners, was verifiable and enforceable, and included partners that complied responsibly with their obligations.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that despite repeated warnings, the United States and the Republic of Korea had started military exercises targeting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in flagrant violation of the Joint Statement of 12 June and the last year’s Inter-Korean Declarations, which were agreements to establish new relations and build a durable and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. The United States and the Republic of Korea could not whitewash the aggressive nature of the joint military exercise and it was clear that those countries did not have any political will to implement the Joint Statement and that their position which viewed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as an enemy had not changed. Joint military exercises would drive the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to reconsider the major steps taken so far, although it remained unchanged in its position to resolve the issue through dialogue. However, the prevailing situation was dramatically reducing its desire to implement agreements with the United States and the Republic of Korea and was diminishing prospects for future constructive dialogue, which were impossible under the ongoing war games.

Netherlands introduced a working paper titled “Back to basics: the programme of work” and said that since the Conference on Disarmament had hit a dead end in terms of the organization of its work, it was useful to collectively retrace steps that had lead to the current situation. To move the Conference forward, the working paper argued for a return to its origins and to organizing the work as intended by the rules of procedures. During the first 50 years of the Conference on Disarmament’s existence, the programme of work had merely served as a planning tool, in which the allocation of time for each agenda item had been set for the session ahead. The decisions on the establishment of subsidiary bodies and their respective mandates had been taken separately from the programme of work.

Rule 28 of the rules of procedure set out two requirements for a programme of work: it must be based on the agenda of the Conference and it must include a schedule of activities. The historical evidence showed that delinking the establishment of subsidiary bodies from a programme of work was the most productive method of organizing the work. Many of the subsidiary bodies had a negotiating mandate and two treaties had been negotiated by separately established subsidiary bodies in the Conference on Disarmament, the Netherlands recalled and suggested a return to the well-established practice of using a programme of work as a planning tool and delinking it from the establishment of subsidiary bodies.

Russia expressed sincere condolences to the United States for the loss of life and inhumane crimes in Texas and Ohio and emphatically condemned terrorism and extremism in any form, reiterating its continued commitment to multilateral efforts to combat terrorist threats. Russia had consistently been in favour of adopting a programme of work as a precondition to starting negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament and remained ready to continue a constructive approach on a renewed draft document presented by the Presidency. Russia categorically rejected the accusations by the United States that Russia was responsible for its withdrawal from the historically important Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The consistent efforts of the United States to destroy the entire architecture of modern agreements in nuclear arms control and nuclear disarmament were clear.

For over ten years, Russia had tried to convince the United States to sit down and address the concerns; instead, the United States had launched a campaign to discredit Russia as a responsible partner to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and simply destroyed the Treaty. In doing so, the United States opened a new page in the history of mankind, a page linked to a new arms race in nuclear weapons and to a serious deterioration of trust between countries. The current United States administration carried the full responsibility for the steps it had taken in this area, Russia said and reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons defined by the previous United States administration.

United States stressed its commitment to the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as agreed by Chairman Kim and President Trump during their first Summit meeting in Singapore last year and was looking forward to returning to the discussions in order to carry out the vision laid out at that Summit.

China expressed condolences for two mass shootings that had taken place in the United States and which had shown that terrorism and extreme ideologies remained major factors that affected international security. The international community must pay greatest attention to those trends. Turning to the adoption of a programme of work, China said that it would be entirely unfair to blame the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament on its rules of procedure or its Member States, since its ability to work and achieve progress depended ultimately on the world’s political and security situation that was currently at a critical juncture.

China firmly opposed the United States insistence on withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty despite the international opposition and denounced the public statements by its officials who confirmed that the United States would seek to resume the development and deployment of the intermediate-range missiles. This was a demonstration that the withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty was another move towards pursuing unilateralism and seeking military edge. The adoption of such irresponsible unilateral measures would severely undermine global strategic balance and stability, intensify tensions in international relations, undermine strategic mutual trust of major countries, and disrupt international nuclear disarmament and arms control processes.

Like the vast majority of members of international community, China was very concerned by those developments that signalled that the United States-Russia bilateral nuclear disarmament era had ended. China’s nuclear strategy for self-defence was transparent and highly responsible and its nuclear arsenal never posed a threat to international peace and security. China had not and would not engage in any nuclear arms race with any country. The international community must remain highly vigilant about the consequences of the United States’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and urged the United States to exercise restraint and not take actions that undermined the security interest of other countries.

Ukraine pointed to the direct connection between the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the work of the Conference on Disarmament and expressed its disappointment at the coming to an end of this Treaty, due to Russia’s noncompliance. Ukraine had strictly adhered to the Treaty’s provisions and had decommissioned all its nuclear facilities. It was a matter of grave concern that Russia had developed an intermediate-range missile that could reach several European countries.

United States said that over the past decade, while the United States had reduced its nuclear forces and the role of nuclear weapons in its defence doctrines, both Russia and China had moved in the opposite direction. The United States could not adhere to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty while Russia blatantly violated it. China’s military posture and the events in the South China Sea, as well as the modernization of its strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons had lead the President of the United States to call for a new dialogue on nuclear weapons that included China. It was critically important to move into a new era of arms control. The most important element of all treaties was adherence by all parties and it was unfortunate that after more than 30 meetings with Russia, this county still refused to admit that it was in non-compliance and refused to take steps to remedy that. The United States had no choice and hoped to have discussions with Russia and China through which the challenging issues could be addressed.

China strongly rejected the accusations by the United States which had been heard on many occasions and wondered about the connections between the South China Sea and nuclear disarmament and the work of the Conference on Disarmament. As for the accusations of the militarization of the South China Sea, China said that a country that had numerous naval stations and over 100,000 troops outside of its own territory, and that practiced global militarization, had no grounds to accuse others of militarization. China continued to work within the framework of P5 to promote international peace and security and discharge its own responsibilities.

The Conference then discussed the President’s draft decision in an informal setting.

Republic of Korea stressed the importance of mitigation and establishing permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. The Government expected the early resumption of dialogue and the respect of inter-Korean, as well as the agreements between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Republic of Korea should come back to the intention they showed at the last year’s Summit and fulfill their obligations through actions not just mere words. Military exercises, by nature, were not compatible with dialogue and the improvement of bilateral relations.

DUONG CHI DUNG, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Viet Nam to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the delegations for their thoughts and comments on the draft decision and the very good working paper distributed by the delegation of the Netherlands.


For use of the information media; not an official record