CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS 2016 SESSION, HEARS MESSAGE FROM UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON

The Conference on Disarmament today opened its 2016 session, hearing a message from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and broad condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent nuclear test.

In the message, which was delivered by Kim Won-Soo, Acting High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, the Secretary-General regretted the lack of progress achieved by the Conference and its inability to negotiate. As a result, two goals he had outlined almost a decade ago had become more urgent than ever. First, the world must do more to prevent the expansion or the development of the nuclear arsenals. The recent nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea seriously undermined international non-proliferation efforts, and was a stark reminder of the urgent need to permanently codify the global law against nuclear tests. Second, the international community must accelerate the reduction of existing stockpiles. A treaty on fissile materials would render the nuclear disarmament process irreversible and would also help deny terrorists from accessing or stealing weapons-useable material. Without such concrete action, the Conference risked becoming completely marginalized.

In his own statement, Mr. Kim said that it was not impossible to contemplate a nightmare scenario of the use of nuclear materials by non-State actors. In this context, negotiating multilateral legally binding instruments that addressed fissile materials would continue to contribute a lot to the fight against nuclear terrorism as well as to the broader objective of nuclear non-proliferation. The Conference should seize the opportunity to demonstrate its relevance and break the current impasse.

The President of the Conference, Peters Emuze of Nigeria, underlined the joint responsibility of members of the Conference to advance its work. The Conference remained the sole negotiating body that could achieve nuclear disarmament. It was regrettable that negotiations in the Conference had remained deadlocked for two decades because of a lack of political will and a lack of appreciation of the legitimate security concerns of some. The world must commit to a nuclear disarmament programme, he concluded.

During the general debate that followed, speakers noted the importance of redoubled efforts to put the Conference back to work, and stressed the need to engage in a spirit of constructiveness and compromise in efforts to adopt a programme of work. Several speakers expressed the view that the adoption of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the next logical step for the Conference, while others regretted the lack of discussions on threats posed by new technologies. Most speakers strongly condemned the recent nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and urged it to respect its international obligations and dismantle its nuclear programme. That test, they said, demonstrated the importance of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the hostile policy of the United States for over a half a century compelled it to pursue nuclear possession to bolster its nuclear deterrent capability to cope with the ever-increasing nuclear threat of the United States. The “DPRK” would neither be the first to use nuclear weapons nor transfer relevant means and technology under any circumstances as already declared as long as the hostile forces for aggression did not encroach upon its sovereignty.

Speaking in the general debate today were United States, Republic of Korea, Canada, Germany, Poland, Finland, Morocco, Spain, Australia, Japan, France, Germany on behalf of the Members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, and United Arab Emirates), Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, United Kingdom, Romania, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and India.

Syria, United States, Republic of Korea and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in right of reply.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference adopted its agenda and agreed on requests by a number of countries to participate in the 2016 session of the Conference as observers. The countries are Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Jordan, Holy See, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Malta, Oman, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovenia, Sudan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Arab Emirates.

The next public plenary will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 February.

Opening Statement

PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affairs of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the session and proposed that the order of business of their meeting this morning. The Conference adopted its agenda for the 2016 session and invited States upon their request to participate as non-Member States in the work of the 2016 session.

In his opening statement, Mr. Emuze said that Nigeria was honoured to assume the Presidency of the Conference, and underlined the joint responsibility of its members to advance its work. Nigeria had engaged broadly in bilateral consultations with delegations, to seek wise counsel on how to progress on issues on the core agenda of the Conference. That process of engagement would continue under the Nigerian Presidency, he said, until consensus on the way ahead would be reached. The Conference on Disarmament remained the sole negotiating body that could achieve nuclear disarmament. It was regrettable that negotiations in the Conference had remained deadlocked for two decades. The deadlock resulted from a lack of political will and a lack of appreciation of the legitimate security concerns of some. The world must commit to a nuclear disarmament programme, he concluded.

Keynote Statement

KIM WON-SOO, Acting High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, reading out the message of BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said the Secretary-General was pleased to send his greetings to all those taking part in the Conference on Disarmament as it began its 2016 session. In his first message to this body as Secretary-General nine years ago, he had emphasised the importance of re-invigorating disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. He had looked to this Conference to rise to the challenge. However, they had seen little progress and the inability to negotiate had been business as usual. As a result, two goals he had outlined almost a decade ago had become more urgent than ever. First, the world must do more to prevent the expansion or the development of the nuclear arsenals. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty CTBT had been designed for that purpose and negotiated in this body. This year marked 20 years since it had been opened for signature. The recent nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was deeply destabilizing for regional security and seriously undermined international non-proliferation efforts. As the fourth such test to break the de-facto moratorium in this century, it was a stark reminder of the urgent need to permanently codify the global law against nuclear tests. Now was the time to make the final push to secure the CTBT’s entry into force as well as to achieve its universality. In the interim, States should consider how to strengthen the de facto moratorium on nuclear tests so that no State could use the current status of the CTBT as an excuse to conduct a nuclear test. Second, the international community must accelerate the reduction of existing stockpiles. Nuclear-armed States should continue to reduce deployed arsenals and improve transparency. A treaty on fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices would be a prerequisite for sustainable nuclear disarmament. It would render the nuclear disarmament process irreversible. This would also help deny terrorists from accessing or stealing weapons-useable material.

The Secretary-General’s message said that this month marked the seventieth anniversary of the first resolution ever adopted by the General Assembly. That resolution sought specific measures for the elimination of atomic weapons and all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction. Despite some progress, that objective remained unfulfilled. Growing awareness of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons had created a new sense of urgency. Yet, as their efforts to adopt effective measures for disarmament continued to be frustrated, the gap between the positions had grown wider. They must work together to fill this gap. While this Conference had not been able to break its deadlock, States had made use of other forums to negotiate important new legal instruments -- including rules for the responsible trade in conventional arms, prohibiting anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, and addressing the explosive remnants of war. Yet every day they confronted new challenges posed by nuclear weapons and the over-accumulation of conventional arms. During his tenure as Secretary-General, he had done his best to help reinvigorate this body and to advance multilateral disarmament negotiations. This included his Five-Point Plan of 2008 and the high-level meeting he had convened in 2010. He would continue to spare no effort, but the ultimate burden rested on the members of this Conference to bridge the gaps and find an urgent solution to the chronic impasse. Without such concrete action, the Conference risked becoming completely marginalized. He encouraged the Conference to live up to its responsibility as the single multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament.

In his capacity as Acting High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Kim said that they needed to reflect on the fast moving security landscape in which the Conference on Disarmament was working. It was not impossible to contemplate a nightmare scenario of the use of nuclear materials by non-State actors. In this context, negotiating multilateral legally binding instruments that addressed the vital component of nuclear disarmament, that was fissile materials, would continue to contribute a lot to the fight against nuclear terrorism as well as to the broader objective of nuclear non-proliferation and of a world free of nuclear weapons. He urged the Conference to positively consider any proposal to take forward a substantive programme of work, including negotiations on a treaty on fissile materials. A significant opportunity lay ahead of this body during this new session. The Conference should and could re-assert itself as the indispensable negotiating component of the United Nations disarmament machinery. Non-the-less, with this opportunity also came the danger of yet another annual session during which no negotiations commenced. He counted on the collective wisdom of the Conference to avoid this danger, seize the opportunity to demonstrate the Conference’s relevance and break the current impasse.

Statements

United States said it continued to have faith in the Conference on Disarmament. In the past, it had been able to negotiate on substance and to adopt landmark agreements. It was capable of doing that again, and had to get back to work. That required flexibility from all. The United States was ready to play its part in a spirit of constructiveness. The Conference on Disarmament should strengthen its engagement with civil society organizations. The United States had reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads by 85 per cent since its peak during the Cold War, and continued to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed with the Russian Federation. Adopting a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was the next logical step for the Conference on Disarmament, alongside with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Further, it was important to find ways for nuclear and non-nuclear States to engage and explore ways to work towards common goals. Restrictions, reduction and elimination by themselves did not, however, ensure more security and stability. The United States would maintain a safe and secure arsenal to defend its security and its allies’. The United States then condemned the recent nuclear test by “North Korea”, and called on that country to abide by its international obligations. The United States welcomed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report that Iran was abiding by the agreement it had committed to, and said the it would continue to make sure that Iran’s nuclear programme remained entirely peaceful.

Republic of Korea said the Conference was entering the twentieth year of its stalemate. The Republic of Korea was concerned that the Conference had continuously failed to live up to its stated purpose. As the Secretary-General had said, the effectiveness of the Conference would be judged ultimately on a single criterion, its ability to conclude disarmament treaties. They must not have another year of inaction in the Conference. In light of the deteriorating international security and disarmament environment, they could not afford to indulge in inaction any longer. The Republic of Korea sincerely hoped that they would be able to make progress this year on a programme of work, which would allow the Conference to immediately start work on negotiations. In 2015, the group of governmental experts on fissile materials adopted their report which contained concrete recommendations that could contribute to a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Now, they should try to use this momentum to produce a programme of work. Taking into account that the Conference served as a forum for disarmament, including non-proliferation, the Republic of Korea was compelled to raise the issue of “DPRK’s” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s) fourth nuclear test, conducted on 6 January in the face of the international community’s serious warning. “North Korea” insisted that it would escalate its nuclear deterrence capability in both quality and quantity. Such a blatant action ran in direct contrast to the common goals and objectives of the Conference on Disarmament. “North Korea” was the only country to have conducted a nuclear weapons test in the twenty-first century.

In spite of the Security Council resolutions, “DPRK” had continued to strengthen its relevant nuclear and ballistic missile activities. “North Korea” must pay the corresponding price for its irresponsible behaviour. “DPRK’s” flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions was without a doubt a genuine threat to the peace and security of the international community as a whole, not just of north-east Asia. The Republic of Korea strongly condemned “North Korea’s” nuclear test and demanded that it abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner in accordance with Security Council resolutions. “DPRK” must realize that it could not have the status of a nuclear weapon State under any circumstances. “DPRK” should listen carefully to the strong and wide-spread condemnation by the international community as well as by members of the Conference on Disarmament. “DPRK” must realize its misconduct and promptly take the right decision of de-nuclearization in response to the strong and united calls from the international community.

Canada strongly condemned “North Korea’s” January 6 nuclear test which violated successive United Nations Security Council resolutions and undermined global security. Canada would not accept “North Korea” as a nuclear weapon State, and called on it to abandon its illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. In this climate, the impasse in the Conference was lamentable. Starting today, she hoped to be part of a collective effort to reset the Conference’s wayward compass and focus on the urgency of its mandate. This was their collective responsibility. Differences must be solved through negotiations, not procedural wrangling. More efficient use of their time and resources must be made. The Conference must move beyond the discussion and debate. If the Conference continued to be unable to agree on a programme of work, Canada predicted that the Conference’s credibility would soon be irretrievably and irreparably damaged. For Canada, the start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices remained the most important element of a programme of work because it was already ripe for negotiation. Canada stood ready to support a programme of work proposing a new mandate for negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive purposes. This new proposal was an extremely significant compromise and Canada was prepared to be flexible and hoped the President would conduct informal consultations in order to advance such a promising new programme of work.

Germany underlined the importance of urgently improving the Conference’s working methods in order to overcome the stalemate. Germany welcomed the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran, remarkable development in the context of the Arms Trade Treaty, as well as the successful destruction of the officially-declared Syrian Chemical Weapons – although it expressed concerns that the “Assad regime” was still using such weapons. In spite of those successes, the overall security situation remained very problematic, particularly as a result of ongoing conflicts in the Near and Middle East and the global threat posed by terrorist organizations. Given the failure of the Conference to produce substantial results in the last years, and the amount of time and energy already invested into the project of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, it would not appear inappropriate to look into options outside of the Conference if the stalemate continued. Germany strongly condemned the nuclear test by “North Korea”, which was a stern reminder of the importance of a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Germany referred to threats posed by new technologies such as lethal autonomous weapon systems and information security, and said it would keep actively working on addressing those issues.

Poland said that for Poland the Conference on Disarmament was the main and indispensable forum for debate and negotiations on global disarmament issues. Today, it was their common goal and responsibility to revive and to bring the Conference back on track with negotiations and substantive discussion. Listing as threats the longstanding conflict in Syria and the terrorist ISIS organizations, the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian Federation, and the nuclear test conducted by the “DPRK” which posed a threat to the peace and security of East Asia, Poland said that it considered a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to be the next logical step on the way to nuclear disarmament. It was also the most ripe for negotiations. The Conference should build on the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts. Poland hoped that together, they would be able to break the stalemate in the Conference and move on with substantive discussions on all the items on their agenda.

Finland considered the Conference to be a unique disarmament negotiation forum, which bore special responsibility not only to disarmament, but also in broader terms of world peace and security. Therefore, Finland strongly condemned the announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) that it had conducted a nuclear explosive test. It represented a severe violation of “DPRK’s” international obligations, including numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. Finland urged “North Korea” to refrain from additional actions that undermined the stability and security of the Korean Peninsula. “North Korea” should re-engage in a credible and meaningful dialogue with the international community, in particular in the framework of the Six-Party Talks aimed at verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. With pressing urgency, it was their responsibility to search every avenue that could lead to substantive work in the Conference. Finland welcomed the report of the Group of Governmental Experts on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and trusted that its elements could be utilized in the work of the Conference.

Morocco said the Conference’s infallibility to agree on a balanced and consensual programme of work remained a major concern. The proliferation of terrorism and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction made it crucial to make progress on non-proliferation and arms control. If the Conference wished to maintain its leading role, all had to work together in a proactive and collective way. The Conference risked to become obsolete. Political will was required to put an end to the dreadlock and to engage constructively in negotiations. Morocco believed that collective security relied on renouncing weapons of mass destruction. Morocco regretted that the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had not been able to reach an agreement on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which would represent a historical step towards strengthening peace and security in the region. Morocco remained convinced that a multilateral approach was important to combat nuclear threats. Hence, Morocco had always engaged constructively in global and regional efforts to combat nuclear terrorism, and had for example organized, together with Spain and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a joint exercise on maritime transport security of radioactive materials.


Spain said they were starting the work in the Conference faced with the recurrent challenge on the need to get over the negotiating paralysis. All needed to be constructive after hearing the encouraging words of the Secretary-General, which were a pressing call for action. Spain was convinced that the sensitive and strategic security context globally could benefit from the Conference, which could act as a centre for the exchange of views, boosting mutual trust and confidence in the area of disarmament. Spain was aware that the Conference had a clear mandate to negotiate multilateral disarmament treaties. They needed to continue to promote a programme of work with the necessary patience and a degree of realism. Spain believed this could be done by the creation of a new informal working group to draft a programme of work, giving continuity to the task started in 2015. Spain believed that they should also continue informal discussions on the main items of the agenda as well as to create another informal working group to discuss working methods, in line with the basic rule of consensus. They needed to make progress on increasing the members of the Conference and on broadening the participation of civil society. The negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty had reached political maturity vis a vis other items on the agenda. This would enable the Conference to exercise its real role. Spain was convinced that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was one of the underpinnings of a multilateral regime running to the benefit of peace and international safety and security. All needed to renew their commitment to implement those commitments entered into the various review conferences. Their final goal was achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Spain desired that as soon as possible a conference to create a nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East could be convened. Spain energetically condemned the nuclear test by the “DPRK” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) that was a serious threat to peace and security internationally and violated Security Council resolutions.

Australia said it was determined to see the Conference on Disarmament return to work and fulfil its mandate to negotiate multilateral disarmament treaties. It was vital that all ensured that the work of the Conference remained relevant to current international security challenges and opportunities. Australia strongly condemned the nuclear test conducted by “DPRK” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) on 6 January, in direct violation of four United Nations Security Council resolutions. “DPRK” needed to realise that the international community was united in its opposition to such behaviour and regarded such nuclear tests as a direct challenge to the crucial international norm against testing created by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Australia was only too aware of the problems that the Conference had faced in adopting and implementing a programme of work. The impasse in the Conference was a consequence of political and security realities outside this chamber. Australia had long advocated that the Conference’s immediate focus should be on an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty), which was the next logical step in the nuclear disarmament process.

Japan said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear test on 6 January 2016 was unacceptable as it constituted a grave threat to Japan’s security and seriously undermined the peace and security of north-east Asia. That test was a clear violation of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, and represented a grave challenge to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime and efforts to accelerate the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Japan therefore strongly condemned that nuclear test, and reiterated its strong demand for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately and fully implement the relevant Security Council resolutions. Regarding the 2016 session of the Conference on Disarmament, Japan said that members should exhaust efforts with a sense of urgency to agree on a programme of work. Further, the Conference should immediately commence negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which aimed at quantity capping by banning production of fissile materials for use of nuclear weapons.

France said that the strategic and security environment related to disarmament was increasingly unpredictable and complex. Only consistent efforts to reduce international tensions and promote dialogue at all levels would rend credible the international community’s commitment to disarmament. Progress was possible, France said. The agreement with Iran represented key progress towards renewed trust into its nuclear programme. France would remain vigilant to the implementation of that agreement. France welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 2235 (2015) establishing an inquiry mechanism on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, as well as the resolution 2254 (2015) establishing a roadmap towards putting an end to the conflict there. France also pointed at the first conference of States parties to the Arms Trade Treaty, held in Cancun (Mexico). France firmly condemned the nuclear test recently conducted by “North Korea”, and called on that country to immediately comply with its international obligations and to fully, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear and ballistic programmes. As regards nuclear disarmament, France regretted increased polarization of debates, whereas real cooperation efforts were actually needed. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the launch of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty remained France’s top priorities.

Germany, in a joint statement on behalf of the Members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), strongly condemned “North Korea’s” nuclear test conducted on 6 January 2016, in clear violation of relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It represented a grave challenge to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, centred on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That test was another reminder of the urgency of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and the effective implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative strongly urged “North Korea” to refrain from conducting further provocative actions, and to fully comply with its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, to return to compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and to abandon all nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.

Italy said that the Conference had been established as the sole multilateral body to negotiate disarmament treaties and in the past had fulfilled this role very successfully. After a deadlock of almost two decades, and in the face of the increasing tendency to bring disarmament negotiations outside the Conference, they feared that its relevance may be in danger. Last year, the Conference did not agree on a negotiating mandate. Nonetheless, its activities had been intense and in Italy’s view very useful, and they looked forward to continuing to focus on these positive elements as they approached this forthcoming session. Italy had consistently voiced its strong support for the goal of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remained the cornerstone of global non-proliferation and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Italy condemned in the strongest terms the nuclear test recently announced by the “DPRK” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). This test constituted a serious violation of several United Nations Security Council resolutions. “DPRK” should return at an early date to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and IAEA safeguards and should abandon all nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes as well as all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. While nuclear disarmament and negotiations on a FMCT were a priority for Italy, it was ready to engage in productive work on all the Conference’s agenda items.

Netherlands said that the start of the 2016 session was a new chance and opportunity for all to get the Conference on Disarmament back to what it was supposed to do: negotiating disarmament treaties. The Netherlands believed that the Conference, with all its flaws, was still the best vehicle they had to deal with all of the issues which were on the agenda that they had just adopted. They needed to keep on trying. The Netherlands’ main priority remained the immediate start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. The Netherlands encouraged the President to examine via informal consultations if a more flexible mandate on an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) could get the Conference a programme of work. This year, the Conference should again look at appointing a Special Coordinator to look into the working methods of the Conference; enlargement of the Conference also deserved their serious consideration this year. The Netherlands strongly condemned the fourth nuclear test by the “DPRK” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which was a dangerous provocation, and had expressed its disapproval both bilaterally and in various multilateral fora. This nuclear test threatened regional and international security and further isolated the regime. “DPRK” should refrain from further provocations, especially nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches.

Pakistan said that although it understood frustrations emanating from the Conference’s lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, simply condemning it, or trying to find ways around it, only amounted to addressing the symptoms without tackling the root causes. Politically motivated, discriminatory revisionism of the global nuclear order continued to stand in the way of genuine progress. It was highly unrealistic to aspire for absolute security and unrestrained freedom of action for oneself, while expecting others to compromise on their peaceful existence by circumscribing their legitimate security interests. Pakistan regretted some States’ efforts to project a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty that did not address the asymmetry in fissile material stocks and that would adversely affect Pakistan’s vital security interests. Further, Pakistan regretted that the Conference had been denied the opportunity to discuss new issues such as cyber security, new types of destabilizing weapon systems or lethal autonomous weapons systems. Pakistan expressed support for the adoption of a schedule of activities providing for informal discussions on all agenda items, and underlined the need to re-establish an informal Working Group mandated to produce a programme of work.

United Kingdom joined other States in condemning in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted by the “DPRK” on 6 January, which was a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and seriously threatened regional and international security. The United Kingdom strongly supported the Security Council’s swift and robust condemnation of this nuclear test and continued to urge the “DPRK” to return to credible and authentic multilateral talks on its nuclear programme, to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to permit full access by the International Atomic Energy Agency. For the United Kingdom, the priority at the Conference had been and continued to be the negotiation of a FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty), which was seen as the next logical step. Without losing sight of the priority that they placed on an FMCT, the United Kingdom was willing to consider innovative approaches to get the Conference back to work.

Romania expressed its commitment to engaging seriously in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, and its support to the adoption of a programme of work as soon as possible. That required a firm political will by all its Members. Despite the difficulties faced by that forum, Romania continued to attach great value to its work and strongly supported the Conference as the main framework for nuclear issues. The Conference could become once again a major source for finding solutions to the challenges and concerns faced by the international community. Romania then referred to Nicolae Titulescu, a Romanian diplomat and President of the League of Nations in 1930 and 1931, who said that peace did not mean the lack of war, but first and foremost a “state of mind made up of confidence, mutual understanding and hope in tomorrow”.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said it attached high importance to the Conference of Disarmament and was highly committed to making every effort to contribute to getting the Conference back to its work. “DPRK” was in favour of commencing as early as possible the substantive work through the adoption of a programme of work in the 2016 session. It hoped that a comprehensive and balanced programme of work could be adopted and implemented, while taking into account the security interests of all States and dealing with the core issues on an equal footing. Nuclear disarmament was now at a crossroads. The world’s estimated 16,000 nuclear weapons were still in a status quo of existence and sovereign States were often targeted, threatened or blackmailed by nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat of the United States towards “DPRK” was by no means potential or abstract, but it was a practical and physical matter. The hostile policy of the United States towards “DPRK” for over a half a century compelled “DPRK” to pursue nuclear possession to bolster it nuclear deterrent capability to cope with the ever-increasing nuclear threat of the United States. Their first successful H-bomb test was a just measure for self-defense to defend the sovereignty of the country and the right of the nation to existence. “DPRK” was a genuine peace-loving State that had made all its efforts to protect peace on the Korean peninsula and security in the region from the United States’ vicious nuclear war scenario. “DPRK” would neither be the first to use nuclear weapons nor transfer relevant means and technology under any circumstances, as already declared, as long as the hostile forces for aggression did not encroach upon its sovereignty. “DPRK” would engage actively, as it had done in the past, in the global efforts to realize nuclear disarmament out of its noble sense of responsibility.

Right of Reply

Syria said in response to Germany, that it had been addressed using terminologies that it categorically rejected. Diplomatic courtesy was essential when speaking to other countries. The “Government of Syria” was the official term, and the representative of Germany should use it, rather than using “the Assad regime”. Furthermore, it was regrettable that Germany had addressed issues that it was not an expert on. For example, “Da’esh” was not the only terrorist group that had been using chemical weapons against the Syrian people and its army. The Government of Syria had been the first to investigate alleged uses of chemical weapons in the country. Furthermore, Syria had joined the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and was applying all of its obligations in good faith and through positive cooperation with the United Nations. Syria regretted Germany’s profound ignorance of those subjects and demanded that statements were in the future made on the basis of reliable information.

United States said it felt it needed to reply to the charges made by the representative of the “DPRK” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). The delegation of the DPRK could not but have been struck by the chorus of condemnation of its recent nuclear test. “DPRK” knew what it needed to do with regard to its international responsibilities. It liked to reflect attention from its provocative acts by steering the debate towards the United States, and what the United States had or had not done. The United States did not threaten “North Korea” at all. “DPRK” needed to stop its provocative acts and needed to take meaningful steps toward the verified denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The Security Council was looking to see what further steps could be taken to prevent “North Korea” from continuing its provocative behaviour.

India underlined the importance of redoubled efforts to address current security threats, and hoped that the impasse faced by the Conference would be broken this year. India recalled a series of United Nations resolutions pertaining to disarmament and called on the Conference on Disarmament to take action and reach agreements on related issues. India requested the President of the Conference to take those resolutions into account when seeking the elaboration of a programme of work. The Conference on Disarmament should seek to conserve the gains of its past sessions, while encouraging dialogue and cooperation. India noted that many delegations had condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent nuclear test, and took note also of the statement delivered by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. For its part, India was concerned about that country’s nuclear activities and called on its authorities to implement their international obligations.

Republic of Korea said he would not go through the statement of “DPRK” point by point. The fundamental truth was that the “DPRK” was violating multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions as long as it possessed a nuclear weapons programme. The international community had repeatedly made it clear that “North Korea” could not have the status of nuclear weapon State. Abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing ballistic missile programmes, including its uranium enrichment programme, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner was the only course that could lead to prosperity for the “DPRK”. This was what had been said by almost all Member States and the Republic of Korea hoped that the representative of “DPRK” would convey this message to his capital.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, said that it was not interested in aggravating the situation, and felt no need to provoke anyone. Its primary task was to develop a prosperous economy. But the threats posed to the country gave the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea no choice but to elaborate the tools necessary for its self-defence. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was committed to promote stability in the Korean Peninsula, which had been threatened by joint exercises. The United States’ provocative activities in the region had increased the tension. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had a legitimate right of self-defence against threats to its sovereignty.

United States said it would be very brief. The international community as represented here spoke very loudly to the “DPRK’s” test. The “DPRK” should take heed from the signal that was just sent from the international community.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC16/002E