CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS BY NORWAY, CHINA, ITALY, PAKISTAN, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements by Norway on its priorities within the Conference, China on a joint seminar on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and Pakistan on the stalemate within the Conference. Italy provided a general statement which touched on the announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that it possessed nuclear weapons. It was rejected by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands, said that last week, he had circulated a text on a possible announcement by the President on the identification of Special Coordinators for four subsidiary bodies and their mandates within the Conference. After informal consultations and careful consideration of the various views of the Members of the Conference, he had decided not to make this announcement. However, he wished to go on record that this decision had no legal interpretation for the question on whether the President had the authority to identify a Special Coordinator. It remained his view that the President of the Conference indeed had this authority.

Norway suggested that the Conference seriously consider organizing plenary meetings only when there was a real need, and said that it believed that it should be possible for the Conference to establish three or four subsidiary bodies and mandates. Norway’s first priority remained the start of negotiations with a view to achieving a verifiable treaty to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes.

Pakistan said that there had been calls to suspend the Conference. He respected this idea but begged to differ with it. In order to revive a body, it should not be put to sleep. The objective should be to remain engaged; the process of exploration, effort and endeavour must continue. If the Conference continued this way, there would be a total vacuum, and multilateralism like nature abhorred vacuum. So the duties of the Conference would be taken over by other forums and this would be a collective misfortune for everyone.

China said that in order to consolidate the international community's common understanding on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, Chine, Russia, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and Canada's Simons Foundation would jointly hold an international conference on "Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space" on 21 and 22 March at the Palais des Nations.

Italy was pleased that an agreement had been reached on the agenda, and that on that basis, the Conference would now seek to proceed in its institutional tasks. The Conference should be in tune with issues which were relevant with the current international security environment. In this connection, Italy wished to refer to the recent announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the possession of nuclear weapons. Italy recalled the statement made in this respect by the Presidency of the European Union which, inter alia, expressed its strong preoccupation with the declaration and its regret for the announcement of the suspension of the participation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the multilateral negotiations on its nuclear programme.

In response, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that while the Conference had not held any substantive discussions for eight years, suddenly, an irrelevant issue was brought up by Italy on the nuclear issue which was between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. The concern of Italy should be based on a correct and proper stance to help resolve this issue. However, the concern of Italy had been off track. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had a very big obstacle in the holding of the six-way talks, and it had found that the obstacles facing the Conference came from the same source.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 17 February. The Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan, Kassymzhomart Tokaev, will address that meeting.

Statements

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said Norway was interested by South Africa’s statement on 1 February where it was pointed out that it might become necessary to consider an alternative course of action if the Conference failed to start negotiations this year. This question was discussed at a workshop organized in Oslo in December of 2003 on revitalizing the disarmament machinery and the conclusions referred to the possibility of organizing plenary meetings only when there was a real need. The conclusions also included a reference to lack of political will to use the conference as intended as the cause of the present situation. If there was indeed no activity in sight for the Conference, consequences should be drawn. The possibility that he had set out merited serious consideration. No decisions were required, and there would be no practical obstacle to convening meetings as soon as there was reason to do so.

Ambassador Strommen said that for the sake of transparency, he wanted to brief the Conference on Norway’s positions. Norway believed that it should be possible for the Conference to establish three or four subsidiary bodies and mandates. Norway’s first priority remained the start of negotiations with a view to achieving a verifiable treaty to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes. On issues relating to landmines, Norway did not consider the Conference to be the right forum, as many of the mine-affected countries were not represented. Discussion mandates on, respectively, prevention of an arms race in outer space and nuclear disarmament would be a logical step.

In conclusion, Ambassador Strommen said that there was a limit to what could be achieved by efforts in the Council Chamber, the solution to the current situation would only come from capitals. The demand for action by the Conference on Disarmament was increasing.

HU XIAODI (China) said the traditional Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rooster, had arrived and he wished everyone good health and all the best in all their endeavours He did not wish to make a general statement but instead would speak about a seminar. Progress in science and technology had put the peaceful uses and development of outer space within the reach of more and more countries in their efforts to benefit the people. At the same time however, the research on and development of outer space weapons had also intensified, theories of outer space war were being contemplated and the threat of the weaponization of outer space had increased. Given the obvious inadequacies in the international legal system for outer space, it was of utmost necessity and urgency for the international community to prevent the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.

In order to consolidate the international community's common understanding on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, China, Russia, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and Canada's Simons Foundation would jointly hold an international conference on "Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space" on 21 and 22 March at the Palais des Nations. He invited all the delegates of the Conference to attend and actively participate in the discussions.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) thanked the President of the Conference for his efforts in trying to untangle the knot of the Conference. In the President's efforts to give new impetus to the work of the Conference, he and the Secretary-General of the Conference had sent a letter to the foreign ministers of all member countries, inviting them to make a statement to the Conference. He welcomed this initiative as it would be useful to upgrade the level of the deliberations of the Conference.

Italy was pleased that an agreement had been reached on the agenda, and that on that basis, the Conference would now seek to proceed in its institutional tasks. It was also satisfied that an understanding had been reached on the fact that any issue could be dealt with within the Conference. Italy believed that extending its discussions on items which were "out of the box" was a health and innovative exercise. The Conference should also be in tune with issues which were relevant with the current international security environment. In this connection, he wished to refer to the recent announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the possession of nuclear weapons. He recalled the statement made in this respect by the Presidency of the European Union which, inter alia, expressed its strong preoccupation with the declaration of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and its regret for the announcement of the suspension of its participation in the multilateral negotiations on its nuclear programme.

Ambassador Trezza said that in the meantime, the Conference had several issues "inside the box" which it should concentrate its efforts on. Over the years, the Conference had heard what the main priorities and the main security concerns were of the Member States, and the time had come to seek a compromise on them. This did not necessarily mean that the Conference must work on all of them at the same time. The priority of Italy remained the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Italy respected the other priorities which had been put forward and its position on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances were on the record. Italy also would have no objection in principle in discussing conventional disarmament at the Conference, including wider limitations on landmines, provided that these were consistent with the Ottawa Convention.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking in a farewell statement as he would be retiring soon, said that Geneva had been a short but enriching experience for him. However, he must state honestly that the Conference on Disarmament had been a disappointment. Other bodies of the United Nations passed resolutions, but the Conference created laws and disciplines which administered State relations. This had not happened for many years and it was a source of frustration for all the Members of the Conference. However it was important that in reacting to this situation, the Members should not exhibit this frustration. There had been calls to suspend the Conference. He respected this idea but begged to differ with it. In order to revive a body, it should not be put to sleep. The objective should be to remain engaged; the process of exploration, effort and endeavour must continue.

Ambassador Umer said that he wished to provide some perspective on the present situation with the Conference. If the Conference continued this way, there would be a total vacuum, and multilateralism like nature abhorred vacuum. So the duties of the Conference would be taken over by other forums and this would be a collective misfortune for everyone. There were challenges to multilateralism. But he thought that there were also challenges for multilateralism. He wondered if multilaterlism had evolved sufficiently to deal with the dynamics of this era. No one could disagree with the essence of multilateralism. But maybe the time had come to look at how it had evolved with the reality of our times. The Member States of the Conference should see how these two streams, the challenge to multilateralism and the challenge for multilateralism, could be harmonized.

AN MYONG HUN (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that it had not been the intention of his delegation to make a statement today. But after hearing the statement by Italy, he believed that his delegation needed to make a brief statement on the issues raised by Italy. First, everyone needed to remind themselves where they were and where they stood in the work of the Conference. The Conference had not held any substantive discussions for eight years. Indeed, some were questioning the fate of the Conference. And suddenly, within this context, an irrelevant issue was brought up by Italy on the nuclear issue which was between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. The concern of Italy should be based on a correct and proper stance to help resolve this issue. However, the concern of Italy had been off track. He hoped that Italy fully understood the essence of this issue, and that it understood why the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been compelled to defer from participation in the six-way talks. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had a very big obstacle in the holding of the six-way talks, and it had found that the obstacles facing the Conference came from the same source. He hoped that Italy had a proper understanding of the sources of the decisions which had compelled his country to take this kind of measure.

CHRIS SANDERS (the Netherlands), President of the Conference, said that he would be making his concluding statement as President on Thursday, but he wanted to make another statement today. Last week, he had circulated a text on a possible announcement by the President on the identification of Special Coordinators for four subsidiary bodies and their mandates. After informal consultations and careful consideration of the various views of the Members of the Conference, he had decided not to make this announcement. However, he wished to go on record that this decision had no legal interpretation for the question of whether the President had the authority to identify a Special Coordinator. It remained his view that the President of the Conference indeed had this authority. However, for the benefit of future presidents, he had requested the advice of the United Nations Legal Council on this issue. He wished to thank those who had been available to become Special Coordinators.
* *** *
DC0505E