CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT MARKS ANNIVERSARY OF MINE BAN CONVENTION, CONTINUES DEBATE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament today marked the seventh anniversary of the entry into force of the Mine Ban Convention before continuing its thematic debate on nuclear disarmament.

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, which was commemorated on 8 March, the Conference also heard the statement by a number of women’s non-governmental organizations on the work of the Conference. A number of speakers congratulated women of the occasion of International Women’s Day and expressed regret that a representative of women’s non-governmental organizations was not able to personally address the Conference.

Ambassador Gordan Markotic of Croatia, whose country hosted the Sixth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines in 2005, also known as the Ottawa Convention, said that, broadly speaking, the Mine Ban Convention was in very good shape. Meeting security challenges set forth in the Convention required all States parties to put the concepts of responsibility and cooperation at the forefront. As sovereign States, States parties were responsible for what happened within their borders, particularly the well being of their citizens. That meant that States parties like Croatia were ultimately responsible for ensuring the rehabilitation and reintegration of mine survivors, as well as for clearing all mines under their jurisdiction or control. At the same time, under article 6 of the Convention, those States in a position to do so should provide the necessary assistance to those mine-affected States that needed it. Only by accepting joint responsibility and working in cooperation could States reach the goal of achieving a more secure world, free of anti-personnel mines.

The Convention, which came into force on 1 March 1999, had ensured many achievements, but speakers also stressed the importance of continuing the struggle in order to ensure that all anti-personnel landmines were no longer in use around the world and that they no longer caused human victims. The lack of resources for demining and for helping victims was also raised, with speakers urging the international community to help developing countries with these costly tasks.

Also speaking about the Ottawa Convention were Algeria, Australia, Austria, Malaysia, South Africa, Argentina, Canada, Switzerland, the United States, Norway, Belarus, Egypt, Colombia, Kenya and Italy.

Moving on to the thematic debate on nuclear disarmament, Japan spoke about the highlights of a working paper that it intended to submit on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) which it hoped would make the focused and structured debate on an FMCT were as fruitful as possible. Other speakers spoke about the link between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and other related issues.

Also taking the floor on the issue of nuclear disarmament were South Africa, Syria, Israel, France and Iran.

Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden also took the floor.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Park In-kook of the Republic of Korea, said that a compilation of the proposals and ideas made by Member States during the last few meetings on agenda items 1 and 2 of the Conference would be ready and distributed to delegations at the next plenary.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 March.

Statements

GORDAN MARKOTIC (Croatia), noting that 1 March marked the seventh anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, said that, broadly speaking, the Mine Ban Convention was in very good shape. He attributed that state of affairs to the able guidance of the Austrian Presidency of the Commission's efforts towards achieving a mine-free world in the past year, and said that his delegation would do its best to continue along that same path. Some three quarters of the world's States -- 149 -- were parties to the Convention, and there were signs that at the next meeting of the States parties, to be held in September in Geneva, more would join. Although 45 countries had not yet signed the Convention, the treaty had established a new international norm that was equally observed by the majority of States not yet party to the Convention. As a result, the use of anti-personnel mines had been significantly reduced, their production was increasingly slowing down, and trade in those weapons had almost completely ceased.

At the Sixth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention, held in Zagreb in November and December 2005, the implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan -- formulated at the First Review Conference held in 2004 in Nairobi -- was reviewed. Since the Review Conference, five additional States had ratified or acceded to the Convention; two additional States parties had completed their destruction of stockpiles of anti-personnel mines; Suriname had fulfilled its Article 5 obligation to clear all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control and Guatemala had announced that it had done so, becoming the sixth State party to do so; and 24 States parties with a significant number of landmine survivors had developed concrete and time-bound victim assistance objectives to guide their efforts in rehabilitation and reintegration of landmine survivors in 2005.

Meeting security challenges set forth in the Mine Ban Convention required all States parties to put the concepts of responsibility and cooperation at the forefront, Mr. Markotic said. As sovereign States, States parties were responsible for what happened within their borders, particularly the well being of their citizens. That meant that States parties like Croatia were ultimately responsible for ensuring the rehabilitation and reintegration of mine survivors, as well as for clearing all mines under the jurisdiction or control. At the same time, under article 6 of the Convention, those States in a position to do so should provide the necessary assistance to those mine-affected States that needed it. The funds generated up to now for mine action had not been sufficient. As the mine clearance deadline of 1 March 2009 approached for the first States that had joined the Convention, renewed efforts had to be undertaken. Only by accepting joint responsibility and working in cooperation could States achieve the goal of achieving a more secure world, free of anti-personnel mines.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), President of the Conference, reading out the Non-Governmental Organization statement on behalf of Working Group on Peace, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and International Alliance of Women, said the NGOs had been hoping to be able to read out this statement to the Conference in 2006 for the first time in the more than 20 years that they had been presenting it to the Conference. However, despite all the support that they had heard over the past several weeks, apparently it was not yet possible to have a female civil society leader address the Conference from the floor in a statement delivered once a year on the occasion of International Women’s Day. NGOs had long been called the conscience of the international community, but they also served practical functions. Every week, they were in the gallery, listening to the public debates and then sharing them with concerned people around the world. They acted as a liaison to the public, as a source for technical expertise and as archives and an institutional memory.

Having watched this forum for decades, the NGOs said they wanted to share some observations from the gallery. On the programme of work that had eluded the Conference for the past nine years, they had only heard the most governmental support for the Five Ambassadors proposal to establish Ad Hoc Committees on a Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), prevention of an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances. The NGOs had not yet heard a single plenary statement opposing it. They were told that the Conference was no closer to consensus, but were not told why. The world would like to know who opposed the Five Ambassadors proposal and why and what alternative suggestions would be made to achieve consensus on a programme of work. They had also not heard a single State publicly oppose an FMT. NGOs were ready to support and encourage all pre-negotiations and negotiations of an FMT. The International Women’s Day seminar this year had paid attention to an FMT, linking it to making progress on non-proliferation and disarmament. The NGOs wanted the Conference to begin negotiations as soon as possible and if they began before consensus could be reached on verification, they were confident that these issues could and would be worked out during negotiations.

NGOs believed nuclear disarmament could and would be achieved. They recognized that there were challenges and setbacks in the process of achieving true international peace and security, but their confidence in this body to overcome those obstacles remained strong.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said that before addressing the issue of anti-personnel mines, he would like to address the situation of the non-governmental organizations delivering their statement before the Conference on Disarmament. It was sad that situation had not changed within the Conference to allow NGOs to address even one word directly to the body. The Conference was thus not able to effectively benefit from their experience and their commitment to peace and security.

Turning to the issue of anti-personnel mines, Mr. Khelif said that such mines were blind weapons, and as such they posed a grave danger to civilians. Mine explosions, he noted, did not end with the end of conflicts, but continued for tens of years, as long as the mines remained in the ground. In his report on assistance to demining, the Secretary-General had observed that landmines were highly injurious in an exceptional manner since they were an obstacle to long-term sustainable development, prevented short-term humanitarian assistance, and posed a true and permanent danger. Such weapons were no longer justified, especially in view of their very limited strategic effects. The Ottawa Convention was a shining example of multilateral, international cooperation, and it was a true humanitarian effort to eliminate this weapon from the dictionary of humankind. Algeria, stemming from its constant commitment to peace and security, adhered to the Ottawa Convention, as it did to most other international instruments in the sphere of peace and disarmament. For Algeria the subject had particular significance, as the colonial powers had drawn two main lines of demarcation through the country with landmines. Since independence, Algeria has worked continuously to eliminate these weapons from its territory. In January 2005, in advance of the deadline, Algeria had completed destruction of its stockpiles, as required under the Convention, which showed the importance Algeria attached to it commitments under the Treaty.

Achievements under the Convention had been many, but they were not enough. Forty-six States still remained outside the framework of the Convention, and there was an increase in the number of victims every year. There were some 15,000 to 20,000 victims annually throughout the world, 69 per cent of them civilians. There were reasons for optimism, for example, the reduction in the number of mines worldwide, including in those countries which were not parties to the Convention. In that regard, he hoped that the many positive steps taken by States not parties to the Convention would lead them to become signatories to it. Most of the countries affected by landmines were developing countries. There was a significant lack of resources to address the problems stemming from landmines, and he called on all States to provide more resources for that work. He hoped that all of the members of the Conference on Disarmament would work together on the basis of the Ottawa Convention to break the stalemate in the Conference and cooperate in achieving peace and security for all.

CRAIG MACLACHLAN (Australia) said that in the seven years since the entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty, the international community had made great progress in ridding the world of these heinous weapons. At the heart of this success lay the partnership between the 149 States parties and the global NGO community. Working together, they had eliminated more than 63 million stockpiled mines in recent years, cleared lands vital to the development of impoverished regions and assisted victims in rebuilding lives shattered by the violence of a misplaced step. Australia was greatly encouraged that a norm against landmines was becoming increasingly evident in the declining use of landmines by states and non-State actors. But too many States were not party to the treaty, and too much land remained affected by landmines. Innocents were still falling victim to landmines.

Australia had renewed its commitment to the campaign against landmines with an increased pledge of $ 75 million over the next five years. These funds would be directed through a new mine action strategy focusing on assisting mine affected countries in their region and supporting landmine survivors and affected communities. As President Designate of the Seventh Meeting of States parties, Australia hoped to build on the success of Croatia’s Presidency, in bringing the world closer to ending the suffering caused by landmines.

MARKUS REITERER (Austria) said on 1 March, the world had celebrated the seventh anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines. This Convention was a prime example of how civil society and States could work together in a spirit of partnership, transparency and cooperation. The remarkable success of the Convention showed that multilateral cooperation could yield results if it was done with a clear focus and in a cooperative spirit.

Today, the world could celebrate considerable progress. Not only had the use of anti-personnel mines been markedly reduced in recent years, besides fewer anti-personnel mines were being produced and trade with this perilous weapon had almost completely ceased. The annual number of new mine victims was once more significantly reduced and many landmine survivors were now receiving better care and assistance. Austria remained determined to secure the achievements to date, to contribute to further strengthening the cooperation under the Convention and to spare no effort to meet the challenges ahead. He called upon all States that were not yet party to the Convention to do so as soon as possible.

WAN YUSRI WAN ABDUL RASHID (Malaysia) said that the Ottawa Convention was important because it provided the legal basis for the prohibition of all anti-personnel landmines internationally, as well as providing the global community with a framework for international cooperation in mine clearance and destruction and in the economic and social rehabilitation of the victims of that inhumane weapon. Since its entry into force seven years ago, significant progress had been witnessed. It was encouraging that 38 million mines had been destroyed, a considerable amount of land had been cleared of mines, mines-action funding had been increasing significantly and public awareness had been raised tremendously since the Convention entered into force.

Malaysia remained committed to the attainment of a truly universal ban on anti-personnel mines and the universalization of the Ottawa Convention and reiterated its strong call to all non-State parties that continued to use, develop and produce anti-personnel mines, especially those in the Asia-Pacific region, to cease doing so immediately and to join the Ottawa Convention. That action would significantly contribute to international peace and stability.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said the United Nations Security Council had recognized the important role of women in conflict situations. It was very disappointing that within the Conference, and despite wide support given, a different decision was reached. South Africa would continue to encourage a more inclusive approach concerning civil society within the Conference. The question of anti-personnel landmines had been an important issue for South Africa, even before the entry into force of the Convention in 1999. Despite numerous challenges associated with the landmine problem, experience had taught that the many difficulties were not insurmountable and that measurable success could be achieved through careful planning, dedication and the necessary political will. Universalisation of the Convention still remained a priority and South Africa called upon all States that had not yet banned anti-personnel mines to demonstrate the necessary political will to do so.

The future challenge was to ensure that the high profile of the Mine Ban Treaty was maintained. Failure to maintain the momentum would in all probability lead to a focus on other issues not related to anti-personnel landmines. South Africa viewed the 2006 meeting of States parties later this year as an opportunity to further highlight the importance of the Mine Ban Treaty and to accelerate its implementation and universalization to achieve the vision of a world free from anti-personnel mines.

MARCELO VALLE FONROUGE (Argentina) said that he wished to highlight the achievements made under the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction in his region. In that connection, he was first pleased to note Haiti's ratification of the Convention on 15 February 2006. Latin America was the region with the highest level of membership in the Convention, and only two States in that hemisphere remained outside of it. The Declaration of the Zone of Peace of MERCOSUR, Bolivia and Chile in 1998, proclaimed that area a mine-free zone and had worked to extend that throughout the hemisphere within the context of the Organization of American States (OAS) resolutions on the subject. Among Argentina's activities to strengthen the Convention at the regional level, it participated, in March 2004, in the work of the OAS programme of action against mines in Colombia; it supported the work of the United Nations and other relevant groups, such as the Red Cross, and the non-governmental organizations International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Geneva Call, so as to involve non-State actors in the joint promotion of the norms in the Convention; it held international seminars on demining, in which States of the region and others participated; and it had formed a working group with Chile to raise public awareness in frontier zones concerning the risks posed by mines.

The Convention provided a channel for cooperation between the civilian and military spheres, he said, as it mobilized them to promote a higher humanitarian goal. Argentina hoped that the experience of its region would serve as a model, so that step by step, region by region, the international community could build a world free of weapons and one that promoted international humanitarian law and the security of all.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said it was a great pleasure to join others at the Conference and around the world in marking the seventh anniversary of the entry into force of the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty (the Ottawa Convention). In December of 1997, the Convention was opened for signature in Ottawa. On that historic occasion, it was signed by 122 nations. The Convention entered into force on 1 March 1999 and seven years later 149 country, almost 80 per cent of the world’s nations, had ratified or acceded to it. Many others had adopted its norms and its implementation was well underway. Almost 40 million stockpiled mines had been destroyed, vast tracts of land had been cleared and returned to productive use, and the needs of many thousands of landmine survivors and their families had been met. Production of anti-personnel landmines had dropped dramatically and official trade in this weapon had virtually ended.

But the work was far from over. Ultimately, the promise of the Convention would not be fulfilled until anti-personnel mines had claimed their last victim, and the lethal barrier they presented to the pursuit of a better life had been eliminated in all countries and for all times. Canada reaffirmed its commitment to work with other nations and its multilateral and civil society partners to make this goal a reality.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said that the anniversary of the Ottawa Convention was a reminder that although considerable progress had been made, great challenges still remained in eliminating the scourge of landmines. To achieve its
aims -- to ensure that there were no mines in villages, on roads, near water sources, schools and hospitals or in the fields -- sufficient resources had to be allocated and used in a coordinated and targeted manner. That was why the Swiss Government pledged to continue its present efforts to help affected countries. Switzerland was hosting the Seventh Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention from 18 to 22 September 2006 in Geneva. Assistance for victims was also fundamentally important for the future and remained a priority for Switzerland. Victims required assistance for the rest of their lives; it did not end with their rehabilitation, constant support was needed to reintegrate them socially and economically. For that reason, Switzerland was to co-chair, together with Afghanistan, the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Reintegration.

Mr. Streuli noted with gratitude the significant contribution of the International Centre for Humanitarian Demining in Geneva to the development and implementation of the Convention. Another major challenge that needed to be addressed was the use of anti-personnel landmines by non-State actors. Switzerland was pursuing deliberations on the subject and wanted to stress the key role played by non-governmental organizations, such as Geneva Call and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, in persuading such groups not to use landmines.

THOMAS CYNKIN (United States) said the United States, which played a major role in global demining efforts, had proposed in the Conference a ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines. This proposal was meant to complement, not conflict with, the Mine Ban Treaty. As the Conference considered means to construct a programme of work, the United States asked that delegations seriously consider taking up this proposal.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said she wished to address the issue of nuclear disarmament now. South Africa was a proponent of nuclear disarmament and a great supporter of a nuclear weapon free world. South Africa believed that the continued possession of nuclear weapons, or the retention of the nuclear weapons option by some States, by definition created the real danger that they might be used, as well as the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors. The complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they would never be produced again remained the only assurance against their use. This should remain the ultimate goal.

Nuclear disarmament was not part of some ultimate objective, but a milestone to be reached on the way to the real objective of the disarmament process, namely general and complete disarmament. Furthermore, the onus to effect nuclear disarmament primarily rested on those States that possessed such weapons. The world ignored the interrelationship between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation at its own peril. There was no doubt that the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was vital in order to achieve nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. South Africa reminded the Conference of the urgent need to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons which would surely greatly enhance global peace and security. As a step towards attaining this goal, it urged the Conference to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament without further delay.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) expressed his delegation's regret that the representatives of women's non-governmental organizations did not have a chance to address the Conference directly, particularly as the States that objected to such participation were the same ones that constantly called for the greater participation of civil society in the establishment of peace and security.

Mr. Ali said that the best way of working was to work sincerely and transparently, and he decried what he described as the shilly-shallying and backdoor discussions of some delegations during recent weeks. There was a crisis of confidence as some nuclear weapons States had not only departed from their prior commitments, but had continued with their production of nuclear weapons and development of new weapons and had not upheld their commitments. That crisis of confidence had to be overcome if the Conference on Disarmament were to carry on its work. Regarding Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) discussions, he said that some countries had jumped ahead to talk about the development of fissile materials, while others held that such a treaty could not be discussed in the absence of a verification mechanism for it. The question of possession or production of fissile material, he said, was that either the acquisition should be prohibited for all or, if it were lawful, then all States should, if they wished, be able to acquire it. This was a theoretical question, he stressed, as his country did not possess such material or have any nuclear weapons programme. Nevertheless, there should, at the least, be some consensus formulation on ways of obtaining such material and it should be applied equally.

Observing that the Ambassador of the Netherlands had stated that there had recently been a narrowing of negotiations on the subject of an FMCT, he begged to differ. While a number of delegations seemed to feel that the time was ripe to consider the subject, he called on those who felt that way to outline the criteria for that belief. If an FMCT were to be incorporated on the agenda, following discussions that outlined those objective factors, an equal amount of time should be devoted to the four core items. The Conference, he stressed, could not be selective and adopt an à la carte approach in this area. Referring to opinions expressed in both rulings of the International Court of Justice, as well as in the General Assembly special session on disarmament, he acknowledged that there had been calls for beginning negotiations on an FMCT, as a first step towards nuclear disarmament. He suggested creating a single, unified Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to consider both the issue of FMCT and nuclear disarmament.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said Israel’s approach to the question of disarmament was driven from a regional and global perspective. Due to the political contingencies in the Middle East, Israel was compelled to adapt its global approach to its regional situation. Practically, Israel believed that the political circumstances in the Middle East required a step-by-step approach. The first step in the process should be modest confidence building measures, followed by the establishment of lasting peaceful relations based on reconciliation, good neighbourliness, open borders and trust among nations. This would be followed, when conditions were ripe, by negotiations on regional security arrangements and eventually complemented by conventional and non-conventional arms control measures. Unfortunately, the recent repetitive calls by the President of Iran to wipe out Israel from the map were not contributing to achieving that goal.

Israel joined every year the consensus on the resolutions regarding the creation of a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. To have such a common regional vision of disarmament and non-proliferation was a confidence building measure per se. While States and terrorist organizations in the region called for the destruction of Israel, and while proliferation and the development of weapons of mass destruction continued in the absence of any dialogue on regional security, calls for substantive discussion on disarmament were ill timed. Israel believed that more substantive weight should be given to global non-proliferation efforts. Moreover, the conceptual and traditional link between progress in the fields of disarmament and non-proliferation could be revisited. These two issues of a different nature should be conceptually and practically de-linked. The development of the last few years, primarily with Iran, in the region and also in far east Asia had clearly demonstrated that the proliferation of fuel cycle technologies could become a global danger since they could easily be diverted to illicit and clandestine military purposes. Members of the international community should ensure that States acting in bad faith should be prevented from exploiting the loopholes existing in the current regimes and norms. The right of countries to peaceful nuclear energy was not questioned.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said he would like to touch upon a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which was one of the four topics which would be taken up in the focused debate. To begin with, excluding one nuclear weapon State, four nuclear weapon States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had declared moratoria on fissile material production for nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, the worldwide stockpile of fissile materials for weapons purposes had remained the same. Appropriate control of this enormous amount of fissile material for weapons guaranteed non-proliferation and capped production ensured nuclear disarmament, increased transparency and was important for tackling the threat of fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists. An FMCT, by elaborating the contents of obligations as well as through verification or safeguards measures, could fill, to some extent, the gaps in existing treaties in relation to fissile material for nuclear weapons.

In order to make the focused and structured debate on FMCT as fruitful as possible, Japan intended to submit a working paper on it which would examine the existing international treaties and frameworks while affirming the present day significance of the FMCT. Some of the highlights of the paper included that in light of the great need to strengthen control such as physical protection over nuclear materials against possible theft or use by non-State actors, an FMCT remained just as relevant to the current international security environment as ever before. Secondly, the concept of verification under an FMCT may be classified into a number of categories. Also, when discussing existing stocks, the Conference should clearly delineate between which types of existing stocks it was talking about and what obligations should be imposed on them. Considering the technical nature of this issue, it was obvious that the participation of experts was extremely important for enhancing the effectiveness of discussions on an FMCT. During the May session, Japan planned to dispatch its own experts and it encouraged other countries to do the same. Japan called on all States desiring to advance nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation to accord an FMCT their highest priority.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand), in a farewell statement, said that it had been a sobering experience attending the Conference on Disarmament during the past four years. It often seemed to him that members were often more concerned to air their differences than to find common ground. What was important was that the Conference had begun to take its own future much more squarely in its own hands. A new sense of purpose was beginning to accumulate, which he descried in the informal recognition of the need for continuity between successive Presidents of the Conference; the development of a timetable for the entire working year; an increased level of engagement and a tone of engagement that demonstrated a new readiness to move ahead; a greater frequency of meetings; a more widespread acceptance that the integrity of the Conference depended first and foremost on results; and a progressively more relaxed latitude for Presidential prerogative. He hoped those developments represented an increased level of trust among Members, and that the rhetoric that had marked earlier sessions was giving way to pragmatism.

The litmus test for the Conference, he said, would lie in the collective readiness to bring more transparency to the proceedings, to be more inclusive of civil society and to put flesh on the bones of confidence-building measures. A pragmatic programme of work, which entailed two parallel but not necessarily equal activities, was needed. First, the negotiation of a treaty dealing with fissile materials in a subsidiary body mandated to draft and adopt an effective agreement. He would not say without preconditions, because those words in themselves were conditional. Second, a parallel discussion of mandates primarily, but not exclusively, for subsidiary bodies on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. In other words, the Committee would rely on its negotiating skills after the adoption of the programme of work, rather than, as now, trying to be overly prescriptive in advance. If the energies of the Committee were not consumed in negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty then they could intensify efforts on prevention of an arms race in outer space, negative security assurances or other aspects of nuclear disarmament. The choice for the Conference was to get down to work quickly on the basis of a simple recipe or becoming irrelevant.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said he wished to make a number of brief remarks. On the Landmine Convention, which Norway was fully committed to, it was useful to recall the tireless efforts that were made to start negotiations on the Convention in the Conference which had failed solidly, but the Convention was successfully negotiated outside the Chamber. The lesson to be learned was that when there was a will, there was a way, irrespective of the Conference. Concerning the statement by women’s non-governmental organizations, once again, the Conference had experienced the bizarre practice to have the NGO statement read out by an intermediary. This was as embarrassing as the stalemate in the Conference was embarrassing.

IVAN GRINEVICH (Belarus) affirmed the commitment of Belarus to the universalization of all international treaties on the issue of mines, including the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Ottawa Convention. The universalization of those treaties and the scrupulous observation of the obligations they imposed would lead to the humanitarian objective of putting an end to the anti-personnel mine crisis. On 2 March, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus had outlined plans for dealing with mines in Belarus. Belarus planned to destroy all existing stocks of anti-personnel mines by 1 March 2008. The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had undertaken studies on the practice of other States in destruction of mines. In that connection, Belarus expressed gratitude to Canada and Lithuania, who had given support to the project, launched on 1 March 2006, to destroy anti-personnel mines. Together with NATO, Belarus was currently destroying approximately 300 such mines. The most dangerous type of such mines, the PFM-1, of which there were more than 3 million in Belarus, were targeted for destruction as part of a joint international project with the European Commission.

DECLAN SMYTH (Ireland) said some weeks ago, Ireland had made a proposal to allow the women’s non-governmental organizations to deliver their annual statement directly to the Conference. This proposal had received broad support from many speakers, and the President had said he would do what he could to facilitate the proposal. Today, the Conference had seen a sad repetition of the same situation as before. This situation was at variance with the good practices of the United Nations and other disarmament fora. That the statement of the NGOs was read out like this and that it was regarded by the Conference as a fitting way to celebrate International Women’s Day was a travesty and an insult. The way that Ireland’s proposal was ignored, despite support from many, was also a travesty. What rule of procedure had been used to deal with this matter? Ireland assumed that some Members had told the Chair that they could not agree to this proposal. Last week, Ireland had spoken about transparency in nuclear disarmament. Transparency in the work of the Conference seemed to be even more difficult to ensure.

SAMEH ABOUL-ENEIN (Egypt) said that his delegation had been looking forward to the non-governmental organizations statement on the occasion of International Women's Day being presented by the representatives of those organizations themselves, and he hoped that next year that would be the case. Regarding the Ottawa Convention, despite its achievements on the humanitarian social level, Egypt was waiting for that instrument to take into account the particularity of many developing countries, including Egypt. Egypt suffered from about 22 million mines and remnants of the Second World War on its territory and called on those States who had left those armaments to assume their responsibility and help demine the country. Without even considering the humanitarian question, the presence of mines represented a real block to development. He asked that the Convention take due regard for all the considerations of mine-affected countries. The current international endeavours to achieve the universality of the Convention must be credible in that regard, he said.

RAFAEL QUINTERO CUBIDES (Colombia) said Colombia agreed and supported the statement by Ireland. On the Landmine Convention, Colombia had the sad privilege of being the country most affected in the western hemisphere by anti-personnel landmines and it was the fourth country worldwide affected by them. Colombia congratulated all countries where the implementation of the Convention had saved their populations from the inhuman suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines. In the past seven years since the Convention came into force, Colombia continued to suffer from two persons injured or killed daily by anti-personnel landmines. Seventy per cent of those were civilians, and 40 percent of that figure were boys and girls. Colombia could only express its envy of those who did not undergo such suffering. Until the universalization of the Convention was achieved, until anti-personnel landmines were no longer produced, and while anti-personnel landmines continued to reach non-State actors with the same apparent ease, Colombia would continue to feel the same envy.

JEAN MICHEL DESPAX (France) said he was gratified by the statements of many delegations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). He noted that throughout the room and in a number of regional groups the question had already been taken up, and that was a good sign. For France, an FMCT was the next step in the disarmament arena. One might have differing views on the priorities in nuclear disarmament in general, but the international community had given the Conference a mandate in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the substantive debates in the 2005 Review Conference, as well as the resolutions of the First Committee of the General Assembly.

There should, however, be a distinction made between the conditions or absence of them for starting negotiations, he said. France, along with the other members of the European Union, was legally bound by the position elaborated by the EU for initiating such negotiations without preconditions in the Conference. He would be particularly interested, however, to hear the different positions of other delegations in three areas related to the FMCT: cut-off, prohibition of production and future production; existing stockpiles; and verifiability. Beyond those countries that were directly involved, there appeared to him to be a consensus among the international community to begin negotiations on a FMCT with a universal scope.

PHILIP RICHARD OWADE (Kenya) said he wanted to make a brief comment on the statement that should have been delivered by the women’s non-governmental organizations on the occasion of International Women’s Day. Kenya truly regretted that the statement could not be delivered directly by those who had drafted it. Kenya had not taken the floor when this issue was being discussed, but it had supported the Irish proposal. This was truly regrettable and Kenya deplored this situation. This august body would have to revisit its rules of procedure if it were to remain credible. As the world marked the anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty, Kenya implored the Conference to borrow from the practices that characterized the Mine Ban Treaty, and the cooperation between NGOs and States. If the Conference adopted such an approach, it might be able to make progress.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) responding to the Israeli delegation’s statement that the approach of Israel to disarmament was dictated by regional insecurity or tension, said that it was Israel that was responsible for regional tension in the Middle East because of its occupation of Arab territories in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. Regional peace had to begin with a step-by-step approach. Occupation was a constant state of aggression, a crime in international law, and it was inconsistent with peace. When Israel stopped its occupation and abided by international law, then there would be no problem in establishing peaceful relations. If Israel were sincere in its claim that it wished to make the Middle East a zone free of nuclear weapons, why then did it continue to not adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? The current nuclear facilities in Israel were not just a military threat, but posed a grave health threat for the inhabitants of the region as well.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden) said he wished to thank the authors of the statement of the women’s non-governmental organizations for their useful and thought-provoking contribution. Concerning the procedural aspect, Sweden had on the record supported very clearly the wise proposal by Ireland and it joined those who felt strong dismay over the fact that the proposal had not been accepted and put in practise. The voice of women on International Women’s day being heard through an intermediary was again a reflection of the procedural problems of the Conference, its decision-making procedure which was not transparent, and the dysfunctional consultations through regional groups. Sweden hoped that this was the last year that this practise took place.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said that one area in which both nuclear and non-nuclear countries could agree was on the importance of nuclear disarmament. Declarations by both the Russian Federation and the United States on reductions in their nuclear weapons arsenals were evidence of that -- even if, from his country's standpoint, those efforts were insufficient. He was not sure that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty took priority, as compared with disarmament, as the delegation of Germany had recently suggested, but Algeria would not disregard the question of such a treaty. There were, however, other more important subjects to a number of countries, for example, negative security assurances. It was not for his country to establish a priority among issues. There were four core areas: a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), prevention of an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances, which were all equally important. To say that the issue of an FMCT was one that polarized all regional groups was a premature assertion.

There was a need to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with disarmament in the Conference. Since 1946 nuclear disarmament had been on the agenda of the international community: it was addressed in the first resolution of the first General Assembly and it was the very basis of the understanding that gave rise to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Between 1992 and 2005 the NPT Review Conferences had been calling for a subsidiary body to deal with a fissile material cut-off treaty. For his delegation, like many others, the establishment of such a subsidiary body on disarmament was a priority that should be addressed without delay, in parallel with the other three core issues.

HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran) said he had asked for the floor to exercise Iran’s right of reply to react to some of the references made to Iran by the Representative of Israel today. Israel’s policy of aggression, occupation and constantly threatening the Middle East with its arsenal of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was the main reason for insecurity and instability in the region. The fact that Israel remained outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other treaties made it the least authorized State to talk about the rights and obligations or compliance of States already parties to all of them, including Iran.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that he had listened with interest to the statement by non-governmental organizations on the occasion of International Women's Day. He believed the Conference recognized the role such organizations could play in contribution to disarmament. He also wished to express his agreement with the statement that the United States proposal was not in conflict with, but a complement to, the Ottawa Convention. Next, he paid tribute to the statement by South Africa and said his delegation shared the views that it had expressed on the transparency and centrality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Regarding the topic of the ripeness of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), his delegation felt that such a consensus did exist. The question of disciplining fissile material was more urgent than ever at this stage, he cautioned. In conclusion, he welcomed with anticipation the working paper by Japan on an FMCT.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), President of the Conference, said he wished to share some thoughts with the Conference on the participation of women’s non-governmental organizations in the work of the Conference on International Women’s Day. During this session, a large number of delegations had expressed their views that the statement by women’s NGOs should be delivered by a representative of these organizations. However, his extensive consultations had been inconclusive and consequently, the result had been that the statement had been read out by the President. On the basis of his consultations, and in light of the overwhelming support by Member States of the Conference on this issue, he believed that the Conference could explore this issue further. Against this backdrop, he would request the Friends of the Presidents to explore this practise for a more active and constructive engagement of civil society in the work of the Conference, taking into consideration the rules of the United Nations and other disarmament fora on this issue. He recommended that the Friends of the Presidents report to the Conference on the results of their consultations at the end of the session.

On the issue of the compilation of the various proposals and ideas which had been raised in the last few meetings concerning agenda items 1 and 2, he was still working on the compilation but he hoped to have it ready for the next plenary.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06014E