CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning concluded the High-Level Segment of its 2016 session after hearing statements by dignitaries from Colombia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Venezuela, Japan, New Zealand, Italy and Spain.

Maria Angela Holguin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, said that the Government, the guerrillas and civil society organizations were currently working side by side on clearing two rural areas of anti-personnel mines. Colombia would continue supporting the process of the universalization of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, informed that Canada would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and the Government was working diligently in that regard. For the Conference on Disarmament to contribute to peace in a tangible way, realistic objectives needed to be set, and strategic realities had to be taken into account.

Alexei Volkov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, stated that Kazakhstan gave priority to the issue of nuclear disarmament, as the most crucial and topical challenge faced by the planet. The creation of a global anti-nuclear movement was crucial in that regard.

Yun Byung-se, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea, stressed that, for the sake of the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, urgent measures should be taken to roll back “North Korea’s” nuclear capabilities. What was happening in “North Korea” could fuel a vicious circle of nuclear arms race in the region.

Delcy Rodriguez Gómez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, said that Venezuela had supported all initiatives that would bring about total nuclear disarmament. International legal norms to do away with threats against peace were thwarted because of the double standards of some war-mongering countries.

Masakazu Hamachi, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, argued that practical and concrete measures between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapon States were necessary. The series of provocations by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea seriously undermined the peace and security of Northeast Asia.

Dell Higgie, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the Conference on Disarmament, stated that the Conference’s working methods needed to be reviewed and updated, its membership expanded and better account taken of the beneficial contributions that civil society could make to the work of the Conference.

Benedetto Della Vedova, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy, said that Italy continued to support the convening of a conference on the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. All States were called upon to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Ignacio Ybañez Rubio, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Spain, informed that Spain’s priority was to work on negotiating a treaty on fissile materials for nuclear weapons. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was asked to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and put an end to its tests.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and the United States exercised their right of reply.

The Conference will next meet in public on Tuesday, 8 March at 10 a.m.

Statements

MARIA ANGELA HOLGUIN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, informed that the Convention on Cluster Munitions was coming into force in Colombia. Colombia restated its domestic commitment to the international disarmament regime, which was also part of the country’s transition towards peace-building. The Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines had played a central role in reaching an agreement between the Government and the FARC rebel group. The Government, the guerrillas and civil society organizations were currently working side by side on clearing two rural areas of the country. There were many areas across the country in which such activities would be undertaken in the coming period. Colombia had generated technical capacities to deal with the explosive remnants of war, and was also hoping to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty in medium term.

As the country which had been yearning for peace, Colombia was disappointed to see the deadlock in the Conference in the course of its 20-year membership in that body. Colombia was working tirelessly with partners to strengthen national capacities for the control of radioactive elements, chemical substances and biological agents. The country had an integral strategy in that regard and would continue supporting the process of the universalization of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Colombia persisted on the goal of restarting negotiations in the Conference, but that was not easy when some of its virtues had been turned into obstacles. The Conference could not continue to escape its responsibilities as the single negotiating forum on disarmament. Colombia believed that it was urgent to broaden the membership of the Conference and provide for true participation of civil society. Colombia also supported the General Assembly resolution 70/33 on the establishment of the Open-Ended Working Group to substantively address concrete effective legal measures, legal provisions and norms that would need to be concluded to attain and maintain a world without nuclear weapons, and believed in complimentary processes between the Group and the Conference. All Member States were invited to participate in the work of the Working Group. The sole goal for the humanity remained achieving the world free of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

STÉPHANE DION, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, expressed satisfaction that a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada was addressing the Conference after a five-year hiatus. The Conference had been paralyzed for 20 years, which was a sad state of affairs. The international community had, nonetheless, managed to keep working together, but outside of the Conference, and one of the major achievements was the Joint Action Plan between P5+1 and Iran. Efforts on conventional weapons had been of great importance, including the conclusion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which testified of a favourable atmosphere. Canada would accede to the Treaty and the Government was working diligently in that regard. The fact that the Conference had not played any role whatsoever in major breakthroughs over the previous two decades, showed that the Conference could lose all relevance. The Conference thus had to exit from the current paralysis and get back to work. Mr. Dion stated that the irresponsible and imprudent acts of “North Korea” had cast a dark shadow over the security situation in North Asia.

For the Conference on Disarmament to contribute to peace in a tangible way, realistic objectives needed to be set, and strategic realities had to be taken into account. Preaching total disarmament was not one of those realistic objectives. An immediate outright ban on nuclear weapons might be an appealing gesture, but its practical impact would be highly questionable. Progress towards the collective goal of complete and verifiable disarmament could be achieved if it was incremental, concrete, realistic and verifiable. The time was also ripe to pursue further political and legal steps within the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including increased transparency, moratoria on nuclear tests and the production of fissile materials, security assurances and the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones. The Group of Governmental Experts, chaired by Canada, had produced a robust, in-depth assessment of aspects of a future Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which was a realistic, achievable step forward, and the one which should move forward without further delay. The Open-Ended Working Group instituted by the General Assembly in 2015 was another example of a concrete objective which could be achieved. Steady, incremental progress on disarmament could be made with patience, flexibility and courageous leadership.

ALEXEI VOLKOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that Kazakhstan supported the start of negotiations on four core issues simultaneously and as soon as possible. The very idea of negotiating included seeking a common ground. Kazakhstan gave priority to the issue of nuclear disarmament, as the most crucial and topical challenge faced by our planet. The creation of a global anti-nuclear movement was crucial in that regard. Kazakhstan also stood for a speedy development of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and had supported the creation of the Group of Governmental Experts on the preparatory work for negotiations on the Treaty. Taking into account the fast development of space technologies, it was very important to foster further discussions on the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, using existing developments, including a draft treaty proposed by the Russian Federation and China, which had the potential of being further strengthened. Kazakhstan was the first country in the world to have closed a nuclear test site and voluntarily withdrawn the fourth largest nuclear arsenal, as well as created a nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia.

Mr. Volkov stated that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear test had not only undermined global efforts, but could also trigger a new spiral of nuclear arms races. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was one of the most essential and significant requirements for nuclear disarmament. Kazakhstan would spare no efforts to make the Treaty effective in accordance with its Article 14. To support the common efforts of Kazakhstan, a project ATOM (Abolish Testing. Our Mission) had been initiated by Astana; its objective was to consolidate the global civil society by signing a petition in order to take active measures against the nuclear threat. One of the bricks for the building a safe world was an initiative of Kazakhstan regarding the allocation of one percent of each country’s defence budget to the Sustainable Development Goals Fund, which would provide substantial support for the successful implementation of the Goals. Kazakhstan clearly saw the common goal of humanity – a whole planet as one nuclear weapon free zone and a world free of nuclear weapons.

YUN BYUNG-SE, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea, said that the Conference had not lost its potential to revive the good old practice of producing treaties. The Republic of Korea supported the Secretary-General’s efforts for revitalizing the Conference, and stood ready to contribute to that end. Over the previous four decades, the Conference had made serious contributions to disarmament, at times crafting ground-breaking agreements; it was thus proven capable of playing a crucial role. Since 1998, though, the Conference had lost its steam, which seemed to have become a new normal and was emanating a considerable cost. It was sending a wrong message on the global non-proliferation climate. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a member of the Conference, had an unmatched notorious track record and was the first country to conduct consecutive nuclear tests in the twenty-first century. It was the first country to have developed a nuclear weapons programme within the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, and the first country to have declared itself as a nuclear weapon State in its constitution. It had also threatened destruction of another Conference member – the Republic of Korea. It was a serious offender and there was no wonder that the Security Council would adopt a resolution in a clear resolve to punish “North Korea” for its provocations. “North Korea” was defying the international condemnation and sanctions by declaring that it would continue with nuclear tests, and even take revenge.

For the sake of the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, urgent measures should be taken to roll back “North Korea’s” nuclear capabilities. Pyongyang was currently accelerating its nuclear programme and had officially stated its intention not only to develop, but also to use a nuclear weapon. The rule of law on the global disarmament regime had to be strengthened. “North Korea’s” tests were a direct challenge to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Another important means to strengthen the rule of law was to start negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty without a further delay. Individual countries should be encouraged to take practical steps towards global zero – a world free of nuclear weapons. The Government of the Republic of Korea had been promoting that idea around the world. Kazakhstan was a good model of non-proliferation, and a success story in stark contrast to what was happening in “North Korea”. What was happening there could fuel a vicious circle of nuclear arms race in the region. In the current times, with multiple problems and challenges, the Conference had to fulfil its mandate and arm itself with the spirit of flexibility and compromise so that it could break the deadlock.

DELCY RODRIGUEZ GÓMEZ, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, said that arms were one of the sources of global wealth, which was acquired both through legal and illegal trade. The production and trade in weapons did not help protect lives, but was a perverse capitalistic phenomenon denying the basic premise of the United Nations – human rights. The twenty-year paralysis of the Conference needed to end. The Conference was an ideal multilateral and irreplaceable forum for negotiations which had made significant contributions in its history. Venezuela had supported all initiatives that would bring about a total nuclear disarmament. International legal norms to do away with threats against peace were thwarted because of the double standards of some war-mongering countries. It was thus vital to create worldwide areas free of nuclear weapons with the same energy used for some other initiatives, such as, for example, the fight against smoking. While nuclear weapon States continued to use huge resources for nuclear research, other States, such as Venezuela, were still waiting to see complete nuclear disarmament and the strengthening of relevant international mechanisms. Destructive power of nuclear weapons had terrible consequences, proven in history. Very worryingly, those weapons could be acquired by terrorist groups, which was why the primary responsibility fell onto those States which owned such weapons.

Ms. Rodriguez Gómez stressed that Venezuela was not against the peaceful use of nuclear energy. She emphasized the historic role played by the Non-Aligned Movement in promoting the necessity of commencing negotiations on a treaty on total elimination of nuclear arms. Latin America and the Caribbean was a zone of peace, which had been declared already through a number of regional integration communities. Such nuclear weapon free areas could help promote the non-proliferation policies globally. Venezuela condemned terrorism in all of its manifestations, which, in its new form, threatened human rights of peoples and could sometimes undermine the sovereignty of States. The situation in Syria was an example of the perversity of terrorism, being supported by some war-mongering States, and ignoring the legitimately expressed will of the Syrian people. Palestine was another example of a State suffering from a terrorist and genocidal treatment. The Conference’s challenge now was to achieve a legally binding treaty in the area of nuclear disarmament. Peace was something we all aspired and that goal was embraced by Venezuela in the Bolivarian spirit.

MASAKAZU HAMACHI, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that Japan, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, had placed nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation as one of the central pillars of its foreign policy. Considering the fact that the mandate given to the Conference on Disarmament was not a “discussion”, but a “negotiation” of a disarmament treaty, the work of the Conference should lead to the early commencement of a negotiation of a disarmament treaty. Japan would spare no effort in that regard. The 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had not been able to adopt a final document, and it was Japan’s concern that the rift between the nuclear weapon States and non-nuclear weapon States seemed to have widened. Japan had consistently stated that, in order to promote nuclear disarmament, practical and concrete measures between the two groups of States were necessary. Practical and concrete measures could include enhanced transparency of nuclear forces, early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and early commencement and conclusion of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Among the four core issues of the Conference, the early commencement of negotiations on such a treaty was vital as one of the important building blocks towards the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.

It was Japan’s understanding that nuclear disarmament had to be promoted based on two understandings – a clear understanding of the humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons and the objective assessment of the reality of the security situation. Japan had long been working very hard to spread the awareness of the reality of the devastation that had occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite the repeated calls by the international community, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had conducted its fourth nuclear test in January 2016, and had launched a ballistic missile a month later. The series of provocations in short time seriously undermined the peace and security of Northeast Asia, representing a serious challenge to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thus, Japan lodged a serious protest against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and reiterated its strong demand that the country immediately and fully implement relevant Security Council resolutions and other commitments. It was imperative to maintain and strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, which remained the cornerstone of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The longer the stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament continued, the more its raison d’etre would be questioned, which was why Japan urged the Conference to achieve a meaningful decision on a programme of work.

DELL HIGGIE, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the Conference on Disarmament, noted that the efforts of the current and more than 100 previous Presidencies of the Conference had not yielded fruit when it came to moving the Conference ahead. In the nearly 40 years of its existence, the Conference had managed to conclude negotiations on only two treaties – on chemical weapons and the comprehensive test ban. United Nations members could be forgiven for thinking that one treaty text for every 20 years was a rather poor return on their investment. Efforts from many generations had come to nothing. New Zealand praised the innovative approach by the United Kingdom, which, unfortunately, did not seem likely to bring the Conference to a programme of work which would enable the Conference to live up to its mandate.

New Zealand welcomed all efforts aimed at advancing a programme of work, but that should never be an end in itself. A lower common denominator approach to the selection of a topic for negotiation did not respond well to the very real security concerns and humanitarian interests of all. New Zealand’s views on nuclear disarmament and its aspiration for a world without nuclear weapons were often stated, and it was looking forward to its continued engagement on that issue at the Open-Ended Working Group on multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. At the start of this week, the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty had met to work through the issues surrounding, inter alia, the establishment of the Treaty’s Secretariat. The entry into force of that Treaty was an excellent illustration of what the international community could do when a genuine spirit of multilateralism was able to prevail. The Conference’s Rules of Procedure, on the other hand, continued to load the dice against genuine multilateralism. The Conference’s working methods needed to be reviewed and updated, its membership had to be expanded and better account ought to be taken of the beneficial contributions that civil society and the academia could make to the work of the Conference.

BENEDETTO DELLA VEDOVA, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, said that, after a deadlock of almost two decades and in the face of the increasing tendency to conduct disarmament negotiations outside the Conference, Italy feared that the Conference’s relevance might be in danger. Preserving its primary role in promoting negotiations on disarmament and non-proliferation remained paramount. The Non-Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and an important element in the further development of nuclear energy applications for peaceful purposes. Italy looked forward to actively participating in the new PrepCom cycle, which would start in 2017 and lead to the 2020 Review Conference. Italy also continued to support the convening of a conference on the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It was of paramount importance to participate constructively in all relevant discussions on nuclear disarmament with a clear focus on practical and effective measures. A progressive approach towards nuclear disarmament represented a realistic way of reaching the Global Zero. The disarmament community had managed to achieve two landmark successes in 2015: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the E3/EU+3 and Iran, and the successful conclusion of the first Conference of the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty. Italy remained deeply committed to the full implementation of international instruments on conventional weapons.

Mr. della Vedova condemned in the strongest terms recent Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear test and the long-range missile launch, which constituted a serious violation of several Security Council resolutions and “North Korea’s” own obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was called upon to abandon all its existing nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Italy also called upon all States that had not yet done so, to sign and ratify the Treaty. Regarding the Conference on Disarmament, Mr. della Vedova said that the immediate start of negotiations without preconditions on a treaty dealing with fissile material for nuclear weapons remained a priority. Italy was ready to engage in productive work on all the Conference’s agenda items.

IGNACIO YBAÑEZ RUBIO, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Spain, expressed profound regret over the paralysis of the Conference in previous years. Spain considered the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the cornerstone of the international disarmament regime. Spain called upon the United States and the Russian Federation to restart negotiations to reduce their nuclear arsenals in the context of the new START Treaty. Spain restated its frustration that it had not yet been possible to convene a conference on establishing the Middle East as a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Tangible results in the area of disarmament were definitely needed. The Conference on Disarmament ought to foster the climate of negotiations by identifying those issues which had reached the maturity for being negotiated. Spain’s priority was to work on negotiating a treaty on fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Substantive debates on other relevant aspects of the agenda would also need to continue, as well as discussions on how to improve the Conference’s working methods and a possible enlargement of its membership and further involvement of civil society.

Spain believed that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran established clear limits to the development of the Iranian nuclear programme. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear tests and the launch of the ballistic missile constituted serious violations of Security Council resolutions and the international peace and security. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was asked to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and put an end to its tests. All States that had not done so were asked to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Spain called upon Syria to comply with Security Council resolutions 2118 and 2209, which related to chemical weapons in that country. The threat of chemical weapons also existed in Libya, where those could fall into the hands of terrorists. Mass destruction weapons – nuclear, chemical, biological – could fall into the hands of terrorists around the world, and the comprehensive review of Security Council resolution 1540 would be pushed ahead under the Spanish presidency of the committee for the implementation of that resolution. Spain welcomed the steps taken to implement the Arms Trade Treaty and emphasized the importance of combating illegal arms trade.

Right of Reply

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, stated that its delegation had made clear its principled positions on many occasions. Safe, successful tests were a just measure of self-defence of the country and of ensuring the peace on the peninsula and regional security. It was doubtful whether some statements today meant that States deliberately took sides for political reasons. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been exposed to a nuclear threat by the United States for over half a century. Concerned States should pay due attention to the root causes of the problem, if they were really concerned about the peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the world. They never criticized annual military exercises by the United States and the Republic of Korea. How would those States react if they were faced with a nuclear threat and decades-long sanctions? Would they be willing to give up and sacrifice their national interests? The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea emphasized that its satellite launch conformed to the universally agreed norms on the use of outer space, and it was not the first time the country had successfully launched satellites. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stressed that the recent tests did not have for aim harming fellow countrymen in the south. The Conference should not be taken into a politicized forum.

United States, speaking in a right of reply, said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent test and missile launch had been condemned by nations around the world. Such actions were at odds with its national interests. The United States was fully committed to the security of its allies in the region and would take all the necessary steps to protect them in the light of “North Korean” provocations. “North Korea” as a nuclear state would not be accepted.

Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, completely rejected the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s arguments. Unlawful acts could not create rights. It was explained that transparent joint exercises were conducted annually for several years in response to threats by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Everyone knew that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not entitled to exercise the right of the peaceful use of outer space because it was under sanctions against launching anything by using ballistic missiles. The country’s irresponsible behaviour was not consistent with the goals of the Conference, and the Republic of Korea continued to urge it to be a responsible member of the Conference.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a second right of reply, reiterated that it had to develop its nuclear programme because it was compelled to do so by the United States. The United States would soon again start full military exercises with the Republic of Korea. Regarding the “South Korean” delegation’s remarks, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the nuclear threat had been posed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by American weapons in “South Korea”. “South Korea” was not in a position to take individual action as they had to accept the United States’ instructions. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would be happy to resolve its internal issues with its fellow countrymen without foreign interference.

Republic of Korea, speaking in a second right of reply, said that it was an independent, sovereign State and a close ally with the United States. The international community would not accept nuclear tests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which should understand the resolute will of the international community against its disregard of international rules and norms. It should not go ahead with additional provocations.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC16/010E