CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES NEGATIVE SECURITY ASSURANCES

The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed the issue of negative security assurances. It heard an address, possibly for the last time, by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom on the occasion of International Women’s Day. The outgoing Conference President, Vaanchig Purevdori of Mongolia, also made a concluding statement upon the end of his presidency.

Mia Gandenberger, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said their annual statement to the Conference on Disarmament was the only civil society voice heard inside the Conference Chamber and spoke about the indignities in being the only civil society organisation that still paid attention to it. She announced that due to the Conference’s continued inability to engage in substantive work the Women’s League had decided to cease its engagement with the Conference. Maintaining the structures that reinforced deadlock had become more important than fulfilling the objective for which it was created —negotiating disarmament treaties.

In the discussion States set out their national positions on negative security assurances, and nuclear-weapon States discussed the role of such weapons in their military doctrines. Many States called for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a credible and legally-binding instrument on negative security assurances. One State said negotiations on such an instrument should take place under the Non-Proliferation Treaty framework and not in the Conference on Disarmament. Other States called for a more practical, step-by-step approach, which was proven to be the most effective means to increase stability, reduce nuclear danger and advance the disarmament objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. A State commented that the insufficient response regarding security assurances was one reason that compelled it to develop a nuclear deterrent of its own, which in retrospect turned out to be the right decision. Unilateral agreements and the role of nuclear-weapon-free zones, particularly the question of establishing one in the Middle East, were also discussed.

Vaanchig Purevdori, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Mongolia), took the floor to summarize events under his presidency, noting that the Conference had held substantive discussions on the four core issues on its agenda. He spoke about the extensive consultations he had undertaken on the three proposals relating to a programme of work, a review of methods of work of and a schedule of activities for the 2015 Session. He hoped that the incoming Presidency of Morocco would continue from where he had left off.

The following States spoke in today’s plenary: Egypt on behalf of the Group of 21, Pakistan, South Africa, China, Algeria, France, United States, United Kingdom, Iran, Myanmar, India, Ethiopia, Brazil, New Zealand, Kazakhstan and Russia.
The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom also addressed the Conference.

The Conference on Disarmament’s next plenary meeting will take place on Tuesday 17 March at 10 a.m. under the Presidency of Morocco.

Statement by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom on the occasion of International Women’s Day

MIA GANDENBERGER, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said their annual statement to the Conference on Disarmament, which for many years was read out by the sitting president, was the only time of year any civil society voice was allowed inside the Conference Chamber. This year may be the last time, said Ms. Gandenberger. The Conference had not done any substantive work for 17 years, because a very small minority of States blocked the adoption or implementation of a programme of work. Yet many other members refused to allow a change in working methods, rules of procedure, enlargement of membership, or engagement of civil society. Ms. Gandenberger spoke about the indignities in being the only civil society organisation that still paid attention to the Conference; difficulties that civil society did not experience in any other disarmament forums, such as the United Nations First Committee, meetings of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons or meetings of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Women’s League was delighted when Ambassador Lomónaco of Mexico tabled the draft decision to increase civil society access to and engagement with the Conference; and disappointed by the discussions on that draft decision. The sexist and degrading remark about “topless ladies throwing bottles of mayonnaise” aside, the level of disrespect to civil society and disconnection from the outside world demonstrated by the debate over this proposal was astounding, said Ms. Gandenberger. Many Member States had repeatedly expressed their appreciation for the League’s work, but at the moment that it mattered, many put process over progress. Member States that prided themselves to be open, democratic societies said they needed more time, had some more questions, wanted some changes, and in the end could not agree to what was smaller than the smallest common denominator. Consequently the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom decided that it was finally time to cease its engagement with the Conference on Disarmament.

The Conference’s debate over civil society engagement was important in timing, but not the key reason the Women’s League decided to cease engagement, said Ms. Gandenberger. Rather, it was because the Conference had firmly established that it operated in a vacuum; that it was disconnected from the outside world; and that it had lost perspective of the bigger picture of human suffering and global injustice. Maintaining the structures that reinforced deadlock had become more important than fulfilling the objective for which it was created —negotiating disarmament treaties. The Women’s League could no longer invest effort into such a body. Instead it would continue its work elsewhere. Yesterday the Women’s League held an International Women’s Day seminar focusing on gender and disarmament, a subject receiving increased attention. Weapons were considered to be men’s business. Framing women as weak and in need of protection as “innocent civilians” continued to enable their exclusion from authoritative social and political roles, and weakened the effectiveness of those processes. Ms. Gandenberger referred to Security Council resolution 1325 on women in peace and security, and landmark provisions within the Arms Trade Treaty on the prevention of arms transfers that could facilitate gender-based violence. Much remained to be done in disarmament and demilitarization and such work was worthy of the efforts of the Women’s League.

Discussion on Negative Security Assurances

Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, stressed the urgent need to commence negotiations on nuclear disarmament in the Conference without delay and said at a matter of highest priority the Conference should start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the possession, development, production, stockpiling, transfer and use of nuclear weapons, leading to the global non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe. The Group expressed its deepest concern about the immediate, indiscriminate and massive death and destruction and long-term catastrophic consequences on human health, environment and other economic resources that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation. The Group called on all nuclear-weapon States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to implement their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The Group reiterated the importance of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and deeply regretted the delay of concrete actions to that end. Regarding deadlock in the Conference, the Group reaffirmed its support for an early convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament. Finally, the Group continued to support the strengthening of the Conference’s interaction with civil society and welcomed the convening of the Conference on Disarmament Civil Society Forum on 19 March 2015, hosted by its Acting Secretary-General.

Pakistan recalled its long history of support and activism on the issue of negative security assurances. Since the late 1960s, as a non-nuclear-weapon State, Pakistan sought legally-binding negative security assurances to safeguard its security from the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons against it. Unfortunately the ineffective and insufficient response from some key members of the international community was part of the reasons that compelled Pakistan to develop a nuclear deterrent of its own, which in retrospect turned out to be the right decision. As a responsible nuclear-weapon State, Pakistan’s strategic doctrine was based on maintaining credible minimum deterrence. Pakistan had given its unilateral and unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any State not possessing nuclear weapons, and was ready to transform that pledge into a legally binding international instrument. Apart from China, which had given unconditional negative security assurances, the unilateral declarations of other States contained qualifiers, the interpretation of which lay with the States giving or making those declarations. They thus could not substitute the need for a credible and legally-binding instrument on negative security assurances. Regarding provisions in such unilateral declarations for ‘immediate action by the Security Council’, Pakistan asked how the Security Council could ‘act immediately’ if the perpetrator of the act was a veto-wielding member that could block any joint action by the Council. The Permanent Members of the Security Council could not act as the judge, jury and executioner at the same time. Commencing negotiations on negative security assurances would have many benefits, said Pakistan, not least meeting the demands of all Member States advocating for the Conference to undertake substantive negotiations, and would also end its deadlock.

South Africa said until such time nuclear weapons had been completed eliminated it believed that legally binding security assurances would enhance stability and contribute to international confidence, peace and security. The issue of security assurances had a long history and continued to remain important to South Africa, as indeed it did to all non-nuclear-weapon States. South Africa had always argued that negative security assurances should be provided in the form of an international legally-binding instrument, which either could be a separate agreement reached in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or as a protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. South Africa did not believe that the unilateral declarations made by nuclear-weapon States or the assurances provided in the context of the nuclear-weapons-free-zone treaties were sufficient. Furthermore, South Africa said it believed that negotiations on such an instrument should take place under the Non-Proliferation Treaty framework and not in the Conference on Disarmament. However, discussions on a legally-binding framework within the Conference, which South Africa had agreed to as part of the 2010 Action Plan, were very different to negotiations in the Conference.

China said it was entirely legitimate and reasonable for non-nuclear weapons States to require legally-binding negative security assurances. China spoke about security guarantees it had made to non-nuclear-weapon States who had signed protocols associated with nuclear-weapon-free zones. China called on the Conference on Disarmament to begin conducting substantive work on the subject as soon as possible on the basis of an agreed programme of work. The complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons was the only way to realize negative security assurances, said China; in the meantime nuclear-weapon States should commit to reducing their stocks. In April 1995 China issued a declaration in which it undertook to agree negative security assurances, recalled China, emphasizing that since the first day of its possession of nuclear weapons China had solemnly undertaken not to use nor threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, nor in nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Algeria welcomed the statement by the Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom, and sincerely congratulated its female colleagues on the occasion of International Women’s Day. Women as sisters could provide an extremely valuable contribution to the cause of disarmament and international peace and security, in accordance with the various United Nations resolutions, emphasized Algeria. Algeria said it associated with the statement made by Egypt on the behalf of the Group of 21. Algeria spoke about the importance of negative security assurances and urged the Conference on Disarmament to reach an international legally binding convention on the issue as soon as possible.

France said as a nuclear-weapon State it fully undertook its commitments in terms of security assurances, both negative and positive, provided to all non-nuclear-weapon States that were party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Francois Hollande of France, for the first time at that level, made a speech three weeks ago in which he reminded everybody of those security assurances, which were only for States that respected their non-proliferation obligations. Such security assurances must be taken together with the other French deterrence regime which stated its defensive goal. The French deterrent aimed to protect the country from any aggression from a State against its vital interests, wherever the aggression came from and in whatever form it took. The use of a nuclear weapon was only conceivable in legitimate situations of self-defence, a right that was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nuclear weapons had no place within an offensive strategy, it was only conceived in a defensive strategy, affirmed France. France’s doctrines rested on nuclear capacity which was limited to what was strictly necessary, the principle of ‘strict sufficiency’. France also spoke about its long support for nuclear-weapon-free zones, and said it was ready to sign the principle to the Bangkok Treaty on the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in South-East Asia as soon as possible. France had supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East from the outset, and said it was important to convene the conference on it as soon as possible.

United States said it recognized the importance of security assurances to States which had forsworn nuclear weapons and abided by their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Reflecting that understanding the United States updated and strengthened its long-standing security assurances in the United States Nuclear Posture Review of April 2010. That Review also made it clear that the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States and its allies or partners. Such negative security assurances were one of the benefits that non-nuclear-weapon States could derive from being party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and fulfilling their non-proliferation obligations. The Nuclear Posture Review also made it clear that it was in the interests of the United States and all other nations that the nearly 70-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons be extended forever. A practical step-by-step approach, as set out by President Obama in his 2009 Prague speech, had proven to be the most effective means to increase stability, reduce nuclear danger and advance the disarmament objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Among those steps the role of nuclear weapons in United States national security and military strategy had been reduced significantly in recent decades. The United States was pleased that the nuclear-weapon States had signed the Protocol to the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty on 6 May 2014. It had ratified the Protocol to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and signed the protocols to the African and South Pacific nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. The United States continued its efforts towards signing the revised Protocol to the Southeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone. Finally, the United States continued its regional diplomacy to convene the proposed Helsinki Conference to discuss establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East.

United Kingdom noted that Baroness Ainley set out the United Kingdom’s negative security assurances in her Ministerial statement last week. The United Kingdom said it did not wish Ms. Gandenberger’s statement on behalf of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom to go undignified by an absence of comment on its substance. The United Kingdom recognized that the world had moved on since the establishment of the Conference on Disarmament and that vibrant civil society comment on the proceedings of any forum was a good indicator of its relevance. It was therefore with sadness that the United Kingdom listened to the messages within Ms. Gandenberger’s statement. The United Kingdom wished to put on record again that the United Kingdom opposed on process grounds alone the draft decision put forward under the Mexican presidency covering civil society engagement. The United Kingdom would welcome a discussion on that issue by the proposed working group on working methods, and hoped that proposal, along with the proposals to re-establish a working group on a programme of work, and the schedule of activities, could promptly be agreed as a single package.

Iran said the credibility of the Non-Proliferation regime depended upon the degree of the fulfilment of the promises of the nuclear-weapon States as the highest beneficiaries of that international regime. They had made some unilateral declarations. However, those assurances remained partial, declarative and without legal burden on their part. The reluctance of some nuclear-weapon States to start negotiations on negative security assurances was marked. Iran said it was deplorable that the issue of negative security assurances was still elusive after years of proposals presented to the Conference on Disarmament. Recent developments were not at all conducive to the goal of negative security assurances and resistance was indicative of scenarios for possible use of nuclear weapons. While the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones were positive steps forward, Iran rejected arguments that security assurances should only be granted in the context of such zones. Insistence on such weak arguments only further weakened the package of conditions for conclusion and extensions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and put its credibility into jeopardy. Since 1974 Iran had firmly supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It was a serious concern that due to the highest level of double standards by some nuclear-weapon States, rewarding the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the region, the only obstacle to the creation of such a zone was the non-Non-Proliferation Treaty that felt no pressure to create such a zone. The only absolute guarantee of the non-use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination, said Iran, proposing that the Conference establish a subsidiary body to commence negotiations on a draft treaty to that end.

Myanmar said as a Member State of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) it associated itself with the joint statement of 26 March 2013 at the Conference stating that it was necessary the nuclear-weapon States provide unconditional assurances not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any States in nuclear-weapon-free zones. As a non-nuclear-weapon State Myanmar was committed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. As a matter of reciprocity Myanmar believed it was entitled to receive negative security assurances from nuclear-weapon States. Since the 1990s the General Assembly had called annually on the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiations on an international legal instrument on negative security assurances. The work of the Ad Hoc Committees established by the Conference had laid a strong foundation for the negotiation of a relevant legal instrument on negative security assurances, said Myanmar, calling on the Conference to start substantive work on the issue.

India said it associated itself with the statement of the Group of 21 delivered by Egypt. India believed that non-nuclear-weapon States had a legitimate right to be assured against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The history of negative security assurances was largely of unfulfilled aspirations for legally binding assurances. As part of its doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence India had espoused the policy of “No First Use” against nuclear-weapon States and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon States. India was prepared to convert those undertakings into multilateral legal agreements. India drew the Conference’s attention to the important study produced last year by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) on the impact of nuclear weapons. The study was a sombre and important read, especially against the background of earlier assurances, including in Security Council resolutions, to provide assistance to victims of nuclear weapons. India called for an agreed multilateral framework that wold bring together all nuclear-weapon States to discuss measures to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and policies. India remained committed to work towards the objective of the establishment of a subsidiary body to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Ethiopia, associating itself with the Group of 21 statement delivered by Egypt, said it welcomed efforts by nuclear-weapon States to conclude both negative and positive security assurances. Ethiopia noted that no specific security assurances were included in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The establishment of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones was a fundamental step allowing the enhancement of global and regional peace and security, contributing to the objectives of nuclear disarmament. The negotiation of a binding treaty on negative security assurances was imperative, said Ethiopia. Nuclear weapons endangered the security of all and should be abolished so they could never be used again, under any circumstances.

Brazil associated with the Group of 21 statement made by Egypt, and said negative security assurances would reinforce the notion that international security was based on the rule of law rather than the rule of force. However, some nuclear-weapon States were not interested in a universal legally-binding treaty containing negative security assurances because they felt assured by their participation in military alliances, based on their nuclear weapons. Other States believed that the matter should be confined to the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear-weapon States still considered using their weapons in “extreme cases”. They believed their right to possess nuclear weapons deterred aggression and increased security, as stated by some delegations today. The Tlatelolco Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, which Brazil was very proud to have been part of, had inspired four other regions to follow suit and establish nuclear-weapon-free-zones. Together with New Zealand, Brazil had repeatedly called for at the United Nations the establishment of a ‘Southern Hemisphere Nuclear Weapon Free Zone” given that most nuclear-weapon States were in the northern hemisphere. The immediate negotiation of a legally binding instrument on negative security assurances was imperative, said Brazil, as positive security assurances and non-binding political declarations were not enough. Brazil asked nuclear-weapons States for their contemporary arguments as to why they were not willing to join common efforts for such a legally-binding instrument, because most of their arguments dated back to the 1980s and were very much related to outdated circumstances, such as the Cold War.

New Zealand took the floor in response to the statement delivered by Ms. Gandenberger on behalf of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. New Zealand said as today may be the last time it could engage directly in the Conference on Disarmament with that valued member of civil society, it wished to put on record how much it deeply appreciated the Women’s League’s work; sharing what happened in the Conference on Disarmament with the outside world, providing commentary explaining its arcane procedures and translating for the real world the consequences of the Conference’s ongoing failure to fulfil its negotiating mandate. The Women’s League would be missed, and New Zealand looked forward to continuing its engagement pursuing a world without nuclear weapons in more progressive fora. It was surely a wake-up call when even the indefatigable Women’s League tired of the Conference on Disarmament and left. The situation brought to mind a famous proverb of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand “What is the most important thing – it is people, it is people, it is people”. New Zealand said it was regrettable although not surprising that the efforts of some in the Conference to exclude people from its deliberations led the one group that was still interested in its work to lose hope, not only in its ability but in its willingness to change for the better. With the departure of the last civil society representative paying regular attention to the Conference on Disarmament we must all strive to ensure we do not forget on whose behalf we were here and for whose benefit we must get back to work, concluded New Zealand.

Kazakhstan, making remarks regarding the nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, and thanked France and the United Kingdom for ratification of the protocol to the Treaty of Semipalatinsk. It also thanked China for the information concerning its progress towards ratification. Kazakhstan awaited information on Russia and the United States’ ratification process, saying the signing of the protocol by those countries would be a significant contribution towards the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in April this year.

Russia said such a pleasant day as International Women’s Day should not be used as a pretext for controversy at the Conference on Disarmament, which touched on quite important agenda items. The Conference dealt with disarmament issues, said Russia, asking what was the relationship between disarmament and gender-related violence, which could be carried out without any weapons at all. Let us keep to the agreed agenda and get down to business, said Russia. On the issue of negative security assurances, Russia recognized their importance and spoke about its bilateral agreements and protocols associated with nuclear-weapon-free zones it had signed. Russia had given legally-binding security assurances to more than 100 States. It supported the broadening of nuclear-weapon-free zones and efforts to establish a zone in south-east Asia; and stood ready to sign the protocol to the Bangkok Treaty, said Russia. Russia supported the rapid conclusion of the preparatory phase and the convening of the Conference for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, saying the mere fact of having initiated that process represented a major commitment. Russia was prepared to participate in negotiations in the Conference on a global agreement on negative security assurances, taking into account the provisions of its military doctrine. Russia explained that it was not bound by protocol assurances if there was constant or temporary nuclear weapons on its territory or in a nuclear-weapon-free zone, if a non-nuclear-weapon State participated jointly with any nuclear-weapon State an act of aggression against Russia, or if an aggression using conventional weapons threatened the very existence of Russia. That deserved further consideration, and Russia hoped to continue the dialogue through thematic discussions in the Conference.

Statement by the President of the Conference on Disarmament

VAANCHIG PUREVDORI, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Mongolia), said as today was the last plenary meeting under the Mongolian Presidency, he would summarize events. The Conference on Disarmament had held substantive discussions on the four core issues on its agenda. The President was hopeful that those, and other ideas explored, would contribute to its revitalization. The Conference had a successful High Level Segment, where the Conference heard from many dignitaries. That demonstrated the importance that many States attached to the Conference on Disarmament, and highlighted the urgency that it restart substantive work. He said he had consulted extensively on the three proposals relating to the re-establishment of an informal working group to produce a programme of work, the establishment of another informal working group to review the methods of work of the Conference, and a schedule of activities for the 2015 Session. He regretted that his Presidency was ending without a conclusion on these proposals but hoped that the incoming Presidency of Morocco would continue from where he had left off.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/021E