CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM NEPAL, REPUBLIC Of KOREA AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Conference Agrees to Grant Observer Status to Georgia

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from Nepal and the Republic of Korea discussing the deadlock in the Conference and calling on it to meet the international community’s expectations, as well as a statement from the Russian Federation.

Nepal said that it attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament and it wanted the Conference to be effective. At a time when the world was confronted with a series of crises including the financial crisis, Nepal found an urgent and compelling need for the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda to move ahead. Nepal hoped that the agenda for 2009 would revitalize efforts, gather momentum, lead to the release of human and economic resources for development purposes, help move towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and create a sustainable foundation of peace, security, progress and prosperity for all countries.

The Republic of Korea said that this year had gotten off to a good start with the smooth adoption of the agenda of the Conference for 2009. Despite the obstacles faced, the Conference had managed to keep the momentum alive. Paradoxically, the long-standing deadlock had raised awareness in the international community with respect to the urgent need to tackle disarmament issues. It was promising that, with changes in leadership in major countries, the prospects for international discussion on disarmament were looming on the horizon. The starting point for the Conference was to produce a consensus on the programme of work, which would enable it to embark on substantive negotiations.

The Conference this morning also took action on a request for participation in the work of the 2009 session of the Conference it had received and agreed to grant observer status to Georgia. Reacting to this, the Russian Federation said that they had consistently been in favour of broadening participation in the work of the Conference, particularly to those States that stuck to their obligations but everyone had to realize that these criteria did not apply to Georgia. He also reminded the Conference that in the last years, Georgia had increased its military budget 30 fold; this could not be in-line with the work of the Conference on Disarmament.

Ambassador Le Hoai Trung of Viet Nam, President of the Conference, also informed the Conference at the end of the meeting that they had had further consultations on the informal debate mechanism and that these had gone well. They had been preparing a framework document and would soon share it with the coordinators.

The next public meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 3 February when the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh is scheduled to address the Conference.

Statements

BHARAT RAJ PAUDAYAL speaking on behalf of Ambassador DINESH BHATTARAI of Nepal, said that Nepal attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament and they wanted it to be effective in order to overcome the longstanding deadlock. Nepal stood for general and complete disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons. They firmly believed that arms were no solution to any problem and they were for the peaceful settlement of differences and disputes. At a time when the world was confronted with a series of crises including the financial crisis, Nepal found an urgent and compelling need for the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda to move ahead.

Nepal was concerned that the issue of disarmament remained in the sideline of the main agenda in the work of this international organization. The cost of the stalemate was visibly high. It had not only escalated rivalry in disarmament, increased insecurity and held up resources but had also denied development to billions of people around the world. Nepal hoped that the agenda for 2009 would revitalize efforts, gather momentum, lead to the release of human and economic resources for development purposes, help move towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and create a sustainable foundation of peace, security, progress and prosperity for all countries. Nepal, he added, remained committed to work to advance the cause of disarmament, honouring international commitments under the related treaties and agreements.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) expressed the sincere appreciation of the Republic of Korea to the President for his tireless efforts to conduct intercessional consultations with all members, as they were seeking common ground. Thanks to his efforts, this year had gotten off to a good start with the smooth adoption of the agenda for 2009. The stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament coincided with the lack of progress in the field of multilateral disarmament. Some might believe that this had been wasted time, but the Republic of Korea believed that it had yielded progress in some way, as they had deepened their understanding of one another’s national positions and concerns through constructive discussions. Despite the obstacles faced, the Conference had managed to keep the momentum alive. Paradoxically, the long-standing deadlock had raised awareness in the international community with respect to the urgent need to tackle disarmament issues. They also welcomed the recent United Nations Secretary-General’s Five-Point Proposal for Disarmament.

It was promising that, with changes in leadership in major countries, the prospects for international discussion on disarmament were looming on the horizon. The expectations and the pressure put on the Conference on Disarmament by the international community were higher than ever, particularly with the upcoming 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the 2011 Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference. It was vital that the Conference on Disarmament did not miss the opportunity to play its unique role, said Mr. Im Han-Taek. Not rising to this opportunity would represent betrayal and a disaster for the Conference on Disarmament itself.

The starting point for the Conference was to produce a consensus on the programme of work, which would enable it to embark on substantive negotiations, said Mr. Im Han-Taek and his delegation had repeatedly expressed its support for the proposed programme of work, which they believed represented a realistic and balanced approach, recognizing that the time was ripe for the launch of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Also, the Republic of Korea had always been among the advocates of international efforts for multilateral disarmament.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation), reacting to the Conference on Disarmament’s decision to allow Georgia to participate in the work of the 2009 session of the Conference as an observer, said that the Russian delegation had consistently been in favour of broadening participation in the work of the Conference. This made sense, particularly for those States that stuck to their obligations. At the same time, everyone had to realize that these criteria did not apply to Georgia, which had been an observer in the past years but had not contributed to its work, except for making false accusations.

Georgia had been receiving weapons in large volumes, significantly increasing its defensive needs, noted Mr. Loschinin, and the request of Georgia to be an observer was somewhat surprising. He also reminded the Conference that in the last years, Georgia had increased its military budget 30 fold; this could not be in-line with the work of the Conference on Disarmament.