FOREIGN MINISTER OF BANGLADESH ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning was addressed by Dipu Moni, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh. The Conference also heard from the President of the Conference that agreement had been reached for the 2009 Presidency to appoint Coordinators for each substantive item on the agenda. Subsequently, speakers addressed a range of issues, including the situation in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali, and the responsibility of the Conference to meaningfully respond to growing international opinion in favour of nuclear disarmament.

Speaking to the Conference, Dipu Moni, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, said that it was estimated that the world spent a staggering $ 1.4 trillion in 2007 on armament - at a time when the global financial crisis threatened to roll back development gains, pushing millions below the poverty line and making Millennium Development Goal attainment extremely difficult, such mindless expenditure had to be reversed. All countries, especially the major armament producing and procuring countries, should recognise that the world could ill afford to continue such spending when people were hungry, without basic needs and vulnerable to disease, climate change and natural disasters. All members should work to arrive at an early consensus on beginning substantive disarmament negotiations in the Conference.

The President of the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Le Hoai Trang of Viet Nam, said while there were some different views on procedures, consultations with Member States and the exchange with the regional coordinators showed that no principal opposition existed to the appointment by the Presidency of Coordinators for each substantive item on the agenda. The Conference thus agreed with the appointment of Coordinators by the 2009 Presidents, without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work. The Coordinators would organise and chair deliberations dealing with the substantive agenda items, in a comprehensive manner, without preconditions. The 2009 Presidents thus appointed as Coordinators the representatives of Chile, Italy, Senegal, Canada, Bulgaria, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia for the different agenda items. The President also expressed the Conference's deep condolences to India over the passing away of the former President of India.

Speaking in the course of the debate, the representative of Georgia said that currently Russia was engaged in the militarization of the occupied Georgian territories at an accelerated pace. In violation of all international norms, principles and international obligations assumed, it was setting up a broad military infrastructure. All the actions of Russia directed against Georgia served the goal of providing a solid bridgehead for Russian military bases.

Responding to this statement, the representative of Russia said the most important thought in the statement made by Russia on 27 January was that the Conference needed to deal with questions that were in its purview. It was counterproductive to try to divert the Conference from this - and today, there had been a further attempt to divert the Conference from the real subjects that were on its agenda. Soon, on 17 and 18 February, there would be another round of the Geneva discussions, and it would be possible to discuss a wide variety of subjects and put forward such views as those that had been expressed by Georgia, in the appropriate location, time and format.

On other matters, the representative of India said that even among those nuclear weapon States that were reluctant supporters of nuclear reductions, there appeared to be a new willingness to ponder the relevance and future of nuclear weapons. These trends should be further strengthened with the effort to achieve complete elimination of nuclear weapons, rather than ad-hoc steps on non-proliferation: there was a responsibility on the Conference to meaningfully respond to growing international opinion in favour of nuclear disarmament.

Referring to the appointment by the Presidency of Coordinators, the representative of Iran said the efforts to mobilise the Conference to make an important first step to appoint special Coordinators were appreciated - these would have an important role in leading the thematic discussions. The representative of Pakistan noted that the Coordinators would work informally under the responsibility of the Presidents - their reports would have no status as part of the work of the Conference.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Georgia, India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan.


The next meeting of the Conference will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 5 February.


Statements

DIPU MONI, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, said Bangladesh attached great importance to general and complete disarmament - it was its constitutional commitment. Armaments were not a solution towards attaining a secure and peaceful world. Bangladesh was thus a member of all the major international disarmament and armament treaties, and emphasised the need for strict adherence, non-discriminatory enforcement, and full transparency in their implementation. Bangladesh's commitment to international peace and security was also reflected in its strong participation in United Nations peace-keeping operations. Weapons of mass destruction posed the greatest threat to mankind. For over four decades, the Non Proliferation Treaty had been the most important instrument for preventing the spread of nuclear arms - today it faced serious challenges, which, if not attended to, could jeopardise the whole process.

While Bangladesh abhorred nuclear weapons, it valued the potential of nuclear energy to boost under-developed economies. The continued production of fissile material was a threat to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Bangladesh supported a negotiating mandate for a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. Space was the common heritage of humankind - it should be explored for peaceful purposes only. Militarization of outer space could spiral into an arms race, which had to be prevented.

The Conference should not be allowed to become redundant by failing to deliver on its mandated responsibility. A creative consensus among members would allow the Conference to embark on substantive negotiations; for that, all members had to demonstrate flexibility and strong political will. There was also a need to look at the Conference itself, and see what could be done to bring global voices for disarmament into the chamber. It was estimated that the world spent a staggering $ 1.4 trillion in 2007 on armament - at a time when the global financial crisis threatened to roll back development gains, pushing millions below the poverty line and making Millennium Development Goal attainment extremely difficult, such mindless expenditure had to be reversed. All countries, especially the major armament producing and procuring countries, should recognise that the world could ill afford to continue such spending when people were hungry, without basic needs and vulnerable to disease, climate change and natural disasters. All members should work to arrive at an early consensus on beginning substantive disarmament negotiations in the Conference.

LE HOAI TRUNG, President of the Conference, said that informal consultations showed that no consensus existed yet on a programme of work on the basis of a formal or informal proposal to commence negotiations on any one issue. A good start had been made in adopting the Agenda expeditiously, allowing the Conference to address all issues relevant to international security. While there were some different views on procedures, consultations with Member States and the exchange with the regional coordinators showed that no principled opposition existed to the appointment by the Presidency of Coordinators for each substantive item on the agenda. The Conference thus agreed with the appointment of Coordinators by the 2009 Presidents of the Conference, without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work.

Under the authority of the 2009 Presidents, the Coordinators would organise and chair deliberations dealing with the substantive agenda items, in a comprehensive manner, without preconditions, bearing in mind all relevant views and proposals, past, present, and future. The Coordinators would report the outcome of the discussions to the 2009 Conference Presidents, who, in conjunction with the Coordinators, would finalise the progress report on each agenda item. The 2009 Presidents thus appointed as Coordinators:


- Ambassador Portales of Chile for agenda items 1 (Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament) and 2 (Prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters), with a general focus on nuclear disarmament;
- Ambassador Manfredi of Italy for Agenda items 1 and 2, with a general focus on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices;
- Ambassador Grinius of Canada for agenda item 3 (Prevention of an arms race in outer space);
- Ambassador Mbaye of Senegal for agenda item 4 (Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon State against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons);
- Ambassador Draganov of Bulgaria for agenda item 5 (New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons);
- Ambassador Jayatilleka of Sri Lanka for agenda item 6 (Comprehensive program of disarmament); and,
- Ambassador Puja of Indonsia for agenda item 7 (Transparency in armaments).


GIORGI GORGILADZE (Georgia) said at the last meeting of the 2008 session, the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament had appealed to all not to use the Conference for political propaganda. Georgia had not been the initiator of the political debates in the course of previous sessions, but when unjustified accusations were put forward, Georgia had to respond, based on facts, especially taking into account the wide experience of the same rhetoric used by the Russia side before August 2008 in order to pave the way for the future aggression. Allegedly, the Russian side was concerned about the supply of weapons to Georgia in the context of the unresolved conflict. However, the international community was well aware that the claim was groundless, and it was Russia that had been supplying its proxy regimes with modern military equipment, even under peacekeeping cover.

Currently Russia was engaged in the militarization of the occupied Georgian territories at an accelerated pace. In violation of all international norms, principles and international obligations assumed, it was setting up a broad military infrastructure. Furthermore, it was trying to eventually force international missions out of the occupied territories in order to restrict and preferably nullify the international community's access to objective information on an uncontrolled buildup of the Russian occupation troops and their military equipment. All the actions of Russia directed against Georgia served the goal of providing a solid bridgehead for Russian military bases. In this context, it had to be emphasised that it was Russia who had suspended its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, continued to supply weapons and military equipment to the conflict zones worldwide, and posed a real threat to international peace and security.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) said the 2009 Annual Session began against the backdrop of an uncertain international situation resulting from multiple challenges to global peace and security. As Member States of the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, the Conference had a responsibility to work together to fulfil the mandate of the Conference to negotiate multilateral treaties which, while addressing the challenges to international security also safeguarded vital national security interests. That the Conference had been unable to move forward on its main vocation for over a decade now was a cause for disappointment. India attached the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and welcomed the renewed and active debate among scholars and statesmen on this. Even among those nuclear weapon States that were reluctant supporters of nuclear reductions there appeared to be a new willingness to ponder the relevance and future of nuclear weapons. These trends should be further strengthened with the effort to achieve complete elimination of nuclear weapons, rather than ad-hoc steps on non-proliferation.


There was a responsibility on the Conference to meaningfully respond to growing international opinion in favour of nuclear disarmament. The Conference should consider the appointment of a special Coordinator to assist in carrying out consultations on specific measures or a set of measures that had the potential of commanding consensus which could form the basis of a mandate for a possible Ad Hod Committee on nuclear disarmament. India supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on FMCT as part of the Conference's Programme of Work. India had had a consistent position on FMCT, and believed that the Conference was the appropriate forum for negotiating it. India supported negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on effective arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. There was no legal regime of universal applicability governing the possession and use of missiles - any proposal to address the issue of missiles should be based on the principle of equal and legitimate security, and should be universal and non-discriminatory in its application.

VICTOR VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said the Conference had the opportunity to discuss issues of international peace and security, and Russia would participate fully in this debate. With regards to the statement of Georgia, the statement made by Russia on 27 January was in the plenary, in an official meeting of the Conference, and this was to ensure that States were familiar with the situation. The most important thought in the statement was that the Conference needed to deal with questions that were in its purview. It was counterproductive to try to divert the Conference from this - and today, there had been a further attempt to divert the Conference from the real subjects that were on its agenda. Soon, on 17 and 18 February, there would be another round of the Geneva discussion, and it would be possible to discuss a wide variety of subjects and put forward such views as those that had been expressed by Georgia, in the appropriate location, time and format.

HAMID BAEDI NEJAD (Iran) said the efforts to mobilise the Conference to make an important first step to appoint special Coordinators were appreciated - these would have an important role in leading the thematic discussions. With regards to document CD/WP/553 on organizational matters in the 2009 session, a reference was made to the P-6 within it, alongside other regional meetings and groupings. Although the efforts of the Presidents of the Conference and their joint efforts had always been appreciated, it had been pointed out several times that the P-6 was not a group among the formal groupings of the Conference, so any reference in the working paper should not be construed as giving any formal status to the grouping.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said despite reservations on the role and status of Coordinators, Pakistan would not oppose the decision of appointing these, to chair informal discussions on agenda items under their own responsibility. The Coordinators would work informally under the responsibility of the Presidents - their reports would have no status as part of the work of the Conference.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09005E