CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM FOREIGN MINISTERS OF PERU, FINLAND, NETHERLANDS, SWEDEN AND UKRAINE
The Conference on Disarmament this morning was addressed by the Foreign Ministers of Peru, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine who outlined their national positions on disarmament issues. The Ministers also stressed the importance of the Conference reaching consensus on its programme of work and spoke about the upcoming Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Manuel Rodríguez-Cuadros, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru, said there was a need for a rational response to ensure the effective respect for international treaties related to disarmament. The Government of Peru considered that the NPT was the basic instrument to avoid proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament and therefore it was urgent to fulfil the legitimacy of this instrument. Moreover, the Peruvian Government urged the Conference to find a solution to adopt its programme of work on the basis on the "A5 proposal".
Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery was the major threat to global security and that collective efforts were required to halt the advance of this phenomenon worldwide. The Government of Finland believed that progress in the destruction of chemical weapons was an essential element of non-proliferation, and that States should jointly contribute to the carrying out of this task.
Bernard Bot, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said in his opinion the upcoming NPT Review Conference was one of the major challenges for diplomacy in 2005. Concerning nuclear disarmament, the Minister said that for the Netherlands, the benchmark for progress towards nuclear disarmament was the "Thirteen Steps" approach agreed to at the Sixth NPT Review Conference in 2000. Moreover, the Netherlands urged nuclear weapon States to report regularly on their aggregate number of warheads, delivery systems and stocks of fissile materials.
Laila Freivalds, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, stated that multilateralism, disarmament and non-proliferation were key dimensions of her country’s foreign policy. Political leaders must realize that in the twenty-first century, legitimate security concerns of all States must be acknowledged, respected and addressed. Progress must be made to understand that the inertia in the Conference was doing damage to both their own security and to a common global security.
Borys Tarasyuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, noted that the international community continued to be challenged by threats caused by the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery means as well as the illicit trafficking in, uncontrolled accumulation and a widespread use of certain conventional weapons. The events of 11 September 2001 and continuous regional conflicts over the globe had given an even greater sense of urgency to the intensification of international efforts in the field of arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with a view to enhancing collective security.
Also addressing the Conference today was Naela Gabr, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations Office at Geneva, who spoke on behalf of the Group of 21. Among other things, the Group of 21 expressed its concern that the Conference had been unable to start its substantive work on the basis of an agreed programme of work since 1999, in spite of the demonstrated flexibility shown by the Group towards a number of formal and informal proposals introduced.
Iran said it wished to exercise its right of reply in reaction to statements made at the Conference both today and yesterday. The Government of Iran was cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors and it did not believe that the Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate forum to discuss this issue.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 17 March, when it is scheduled to hear statements from the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan, the Foreign Minister of Slovakia, the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan and the Foreign Minister of Poland.
Statements
MANUEL RODRÍGUEZ-CUADROS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru, referred to the Madrid agenda adopted in the Spanish capital on 11 March to combat national and international terrorism including the possibility of nuclear terrorism and expressed his Government’s solidarity for the people and Government of Spain and its full support for the agenda. New threats were causing challenges and were testing the political determination of governments to avoid a collapse of the Conference on Disarmament. The international community had become aware over the past years of illicit programmes of weapons of mass destruction and programmes of nuclear proliferation. There were also rising threats in regard to terrorism.
The Minister said there was a need for a rational response to ensure the effective respect for international treaties related to disarmament. There should be a solid framework of multilateral security based on international law. There had been a gradual weakening of the regime underpinning nuclear non-proliferation and certain States were attempting to escape their treaty obligations.
The Government of Peru considered that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the basic instrument to avoid proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament and therefore it was urgent to fulfil the legitimacy of this instrument. In that regard, it was essential to implement the "13 Steps" adopted at the NPT Review Conference, which took place in 2000. Moreover, Peru considered the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) to be absolutely essential. An essential item on the agenda of the Conference was to set up a binding legal instrument that gave non-nuclear States assurances that they would not be threatened by nuclear States.
Peru considered that outer space must be completely devoid of military activities and fully supported a universal and legally binding treaty to ensure that as well as the start of relevant negotiations within the Conference to that end. While noting that his country had ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1997, the Minister said Peru considered the entry into force of the Treaty to be an extremely important step and urged those States who had not already done so to ratify the Treaty.
The Government of Peru underlined the importance of creating a register, as called for by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, for weapons, including small arms and light weapons. Peru had fulfilled its obligation to destroy its stocks of anti-personnel mines prior to the deadline indicated by the Ottawa Convention and had undertaken a joint programme with Ecuador to de-mine the zone along their common border. Moreover, Peru affirmed that a cooperative vision was needed to achieve global security.
In conclusion, Mr. Rodriguez-Cuadros said the Conference on Disarmament could not go through a ninth year while its activities were at a standstill. The Conference must seek and find a solution to adopt its programme of work on the basis on the "A5 proposal".
ERKKI TUOMIOJA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery was the major threat to global security. The international community as a whole was concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by terrorists and about the wish of some States to become possessors of these weapons. Collective efforts were required to halt the advance of the phenomenon worldwide. While referring to the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, he said it was essential that there were universally agreed norms and rules that set standards of behaviours to be followed by all States and non-State actors. The global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty set such standards. Finland was fully committed to promoting its success.
Mr. Tuomioja noted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had renounced its obligations as a State party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Collective action from the international community was needed to reverse this dangerous course of events. Equally worrisome was the fact that Iran was now challenging the credibility of the international non-proliferation regime. In that regard, Finland fully supported the efforts of the three NPT States, acting on behalf of the European Union, as well as those of the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure Iran’s compliance with its NPT obligations.
Finland believed that progress in the destruction of chemical weapons was an essential element of non-proliferation, and that States should jointly contribute to the carrying out of this task. The Global Partnership initiative was a concrete response to this common responsibility. Moreover, Finland was of the view that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) must enter into force and urged all States that had not yet ratified the CTBT to do so as soon as possible. The immobility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as the CTBT, was a source of growing concern for countries such as Finland that believed in a globally representative permanent forum for disarmament negotiations. The Conference on Disarmament could redeem itself by engaging in negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty for which it was by far the most natural forum due to its expertise.
Although Finland was not a party to the Ottawa Convention prohibiting the use of landmines, it had supported an effective global ban on anti-personnel landmines and had been implementing most of the provisions of the Convention. Finland did not produce or export anti-personnel landmines and, during peacetime, anti-personnel landmines were in stockpiles. There were no minefields in Finland. The Finnish Parliament had confirmed that Finland would accede to the Convention and thereby become fully committed to observing this international norm as from 2012. All anti-personnel landmines stockpiles in Finland would consequently be destroyed by 2016. Finland also supported and was actively taking part in efforts aiming at the creation of common global standards for arms exports.
BERNARD BOT, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said the upcoming Seventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference was one of the major challenges for diplomacy in 2005. There was a widening gap between different countries’ perspectives on which global security challenges were most urgent, and which ones were less important. This gap was clearly visible in the debate on the NPT. The key to success of the Treaty was the balance it struck between three concepts: non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and access to peaceful nuclear technology. Nuclear disarmament must continue, so that the international community did not create a world where only nuclear weapons could provide national security. In the long run, if the international community wanted to maintain global political support for the NPT bargain and wanted to discourage countries that might want to acquire nuclear weapons from doing so, both nuclear weapon States and non-nuclear weapon States would have to keep their end of the bargain.
Concerning nuclear disarmament, Mr. Bot said for the Netherlands, the benchmark for progress towards nuclear disarmament was the "Thirteen Steps" approach agreed to at the Sixth Review Conference in 2000. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty remained of utmost importance. There was a need for a further reduction of tactical nuclear weapons as an integral part of nuclear disarmament, and the need for a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Netherlands urged nuclear weapon States to report regularly on their aggregate number of warheads, delivery systems and stocks of fissile materials. He recalled that when the Netherlands held the presidency of the Conference it made every possible effort to resolve the remaining disagreements about the Conference’s programme of work and expressed his country’s hope that a consensus would be reached in that regard.
Mr. Bot recalled the European Union’s strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which was an expression of the Union’s commitment to the multilateral system and the rule of law. The Union recognized that to uphold the law strict enforcement was needed. The European Union would continue to set demanding conditions in its relations with third countries with respect to non-proliferation, while at the same time fostering inclusiveness and remaining receptive to countries’ security concerns.
Another component that underpinned the NPT was the transfer of nuclear knowledge, equipment and materials for peaceful uses. Compliance with the non-proliferation and verification requirements of the Treaty should be regarded as a precondition for cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Moreover, States that wanted a stable, open and transparent international security environment in which nuclear cooperation could take place should be required to adhere to the Additional Protocol, and to abstain from cooperation with States that were in non-compliance with their IAEA safeguard agreements.
In closing, the Minister called on India, Pakistan and Israel to reanalyze their positions and to reconsider the cases for joining the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States. The most productive step would be for them to start negotiations and discussions without further delay in the Conference on Disarmament on a number of issues related to nuclear disarmament – first and foremost on an FMCT, without preconditions.
LAILA FREIVALDS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, said multilateralism, disarmament and non-proliferation were key dimensions of Sweden’s foreign policy. Some 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the international community was faced with both new and old challenges to its common security. The complete elimination of all weapons of mass destruction was the only durable solution. Threats to collective security included the risk that terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction. Illegal networks of proliferation had been discovered and had been shown to be alarmingly wide-ranging; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and Iran’s nuclear programme was high on the international agenda.
The European Union had stepped up its efforts by adopting a strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It was the conviction of Sweden that the implementation of this strategy, in close cooperation with others, would have a positive effect on the global level. The report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change made an excellent analysis and presentation of the task at hand in the disarmament and non-proliferation area and the international community should do its utmost to make sure that its recommendations would be as serious and dedicated as the work that went into the report. Without further delay, the Conference should negotiate a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the Minister added.
Political leaders must realize that in the twenty-first century, legitimate security concerns of all States must be acknowledged, respected and addressed. Progress must be made to understand that the inertia in the Conference was doing damage to both their own security and to a common global security.
The Minister called on the international community to increase its focus on compliance and implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The problem, she said, was not the Treaty itself, but the way States chose to comply or not comply with various commitments, as they deemed politically opportune. Compliance and implementation were necessary not only vis-à-vis all the obligations laid down in the Treaty itself, but also vis-à-vis commitments made on how to implement the Treaty.
In conclusion, the Minister said the processes towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation needed to be strengthened. International cooperation was of the essence. The Conference on Disarmament clearly had a vital role to play and the stakes were high. Moreover, the Conference had a great potential and Sweden would continue to push for this potential to be realized.
BORYS TARASYUK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, noted that his country had recently considerably reduced the number of people in uniform and had collected a huge stockpile of heavy ammunition and armaments as a result of this demobilization and in that context had successfully destroyed many of these former weapons.
The Minister noted that the international community continued to be challenged by the threats caused by the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery means as well as the illicit trafficking in, uncontrolled accumulation and a widespread use of certain conventional weapons. The events of 11 September 2001 and continuous regional conflicts over the globe had given an even greater sense of urgency to the intensification of the international efforts in the field of arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with a view to enhancing collective security.
The year 2004, he said, proved to be another year of stalemate for the Conference on Disarmament, which was unable to effectively launch its work. The beginning of 2005 had not been promising either and Ukraine deeply regretted this situation and was ready to spare no effort with a view to breaking the current impasse. Ukraine hoped that the non-paper "Food for Thought" on a Conference Programme of Work would give a renewed impetus to the Conference and that it would finally reach an agreement on its programme of work and address all the substantive issues contained therein. Moreover, the immediate commencement of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as well as dealing with both nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space within appropriate subsidiary bodies constituted the basis for an agreement for the Conference to begin its work.
Ukraine continued to attaché great importance to achieving the universality of and universal compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Also, ensuring the universality of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the strict implementation of the Convention should remain a priority of the international community. Ukraine was a firm supporter of practical efforts to ensure effective implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action and the OSCE document on small arms and light weapons and attached great importance to the issue of the destruction of excessive stockpiles of small arms and light weapons and related ammunition. Ukraine had been looking at ways to cope with the destruction of thousand of tonnes of outdated ammunition accumulated on its territory and counted upon the assistance of all interested States in the solution of this problem.
In closing, Mr. Tarasyuk affirmed his country’s full support for Ottawa process initiators to overcome the humanitarian crises caused by a large-scale proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines. In this regard, he informed the participants that the preparatory process in Ukraine for the ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty had been completed.
NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Group of 21 was deeply concerned about the progressive erosion of multilateralism, and emphasized the importance of collective international efforts and the spirit of multilateralism to enhance and maintain international non-discriminatory disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. The Group of 21 expressed its concern that the Conference had been unable to take up its substantive work on the basis of an agreed programme of work since 1999, in spite of the demonstrated flexibility shown by the Group towards a number of formal and informal proposals introduced. In this context, the Group of 21 reiterated that the A-5 proposal remained a viable basis for a programme of work and that further consultations on this matter should be continued. Moreover, the Group emphasized that nuclear disarmament remained, as before, the highest priority for the Conference on Disarmament.
The Group further expressed, among other things, its serious concern about the lack of expected progress following the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, made during the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The Group also expressed its conviction that efforts to conclude a universal and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States should be pursued.
In conclusion, she expressed the Group’s hope that the Conference would commence substantive work during 2005 and affirmed its readiness to participate constructively in all efforts aimed at reaching agreement on the programme of work.
HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran) said his country had chosen to exercise its right of reply in reaction to statements made at the Conference both today and yesterday. The Government of Iran was cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors since the first days of their engagement in Iran. Iran did not believe that the Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. After nearly two years of robust inspection carried out by the IAEA, the agency’s report reflected the fact that all the nuclear material in Iran had been accounted for and were not being diverted to prohibited activities. This was the best proof to Iran’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The challenges to the credibility of the NPT did not come from Iran but rather from the Conference which had been blocking progress in this regard by failing to conduct its work. Iran’s nuclear programme was being utilized for peaceful purposes and met security commitments, he added.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC05013E