CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM DIGNITARIES FROM ROMANIA, GUATEMALA AND THAILAND
The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon continued with its high-level segment, hearing addresses by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand.
George Ciamba, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, reminded that Romania, as the first President of the Conference of the current session, had made efforts to identify a procedural solution, by which a fresh start could be given to the jammed engine of the disarmament machinery.
Carlos Raúl Morales Moscoso, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, said that Guatemala believed that the best way to deal with the threat of nuclear weapons was through their complete prohibition and elimination. A legally binding document on negative security assurances was also a necessity.
Virasakdi Futrakul, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, believed that the negotiations process in the Conference should be more inclusive and transparent, and engage all stakeholders. Ways had to be found to move forward on issues where consensus was hard to reach.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and the United States spoke in right of reply.
The Conference will meet again on Wednesday, 1 March at 11 a.m. to continue with its high-level segment.
High-Level Segment
GEORGE CIAMBA, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, emphasized Romania’s support for the revitalization of the Conference as a unique forum in the field of disarmament and proliferation negotiations. It was regrettable that the Conference was still unable to start real work and genuine negotiations, and there was a need for moving forward and engaging more politically.
Romania, as a founding member of the Conference, continued to attach great value to the work of that august body. The Conference had a unique role and place in the framework of multilateral bodies to deal with arms control, non-proliferation, disarmament and all the related issues. Romania, as the first President of the Conference in the current session, had made efforts to identify a procedural solution, by which a fresh start could be given to the jammed engine of the disarmament machinery. Mr. Ciamba stressed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference remained at the core of the current disarmament and non-proliferation regime and an essential instrument of collective security during the current review cycle. In that regard, the most important challenge was to avoid the failure of the 2020 Review Conference. The commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty was the next logical step for advancing nuclear disarmament and preventing nuclear proliferation. Specific security concerns could be defended during negotiations. Further efforts were needed to achieve universal adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Romania fully supported the transition of the Nuclear Security Summit process towards a more inclusive format, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr. Ciamba also said that there was no alternative to the Biological Weapons Convention regime, while the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Protocols thereto remained a unique forum to gather diplomatic, legal and military expertise.
CARLOS RAÚL MORALES MOSCOSO, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, noted that the world was finding itself at a point of time with multiple threats to international peace and security. The expenditure for weapons continued to rise, while it was being claimed that there were no sufficient resources to combat poverty and diseases. The lack of progress in the area of nuclear disarmament was regrettable. The fact that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had not entered into force 20 years after its opening for signature was also a matter of concern, as was the blockage of the Conference on Disarmament.
The Conference had a significant mandate and it had to fulfil it. Guatemala believed that the best way to deal with the threat of nuclear weapons was through their complete prohibition and elimination. Tests and detonations of nuclear weapons could lead to serious humanitarian consequences, stressed Mr. Morales Moscoso. Guatemala supported the convening of a United Nations conference on a legally binding document to prohibit nuclear weapons, with the objective of their total elimination. In the meantime, it was vital to maintain a moratorium on nuclear tests, in which context Guatemala strongly condemned recent nuclear tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Guatemala was proud of be party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which had made South America and the Caribbean an area free of nuclear weapons. A legally binding document on negative security assurances was also a necessity. Guatemala firmly condemned the use of cluster munitions and anti-personal mines. Concern was expressed over the use of explosive weapons in populated areas; States should remember their duty to protect civilian populations. The Conference had not reviewed its membership over the past 18 years, noted Mr. Morales Moscoso; the composition of the Conference should ensure universality, transparency, multilateralism and commitment to the norms and process of the United Nations.
VIRASAKDI FUTRAKUL, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, said that Thailand strongly supported effective multilateralism to address the issues of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control, which were all crucial elements in creating an environment conducive to sustainable peace and development. In that context, Thailand was honoured to have chaired the open-ended working group taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations in 2016.
Although Thailand was not a member of the Conference on Disarmament, it shared the aspiration in seeing the Conference move forward. It believed that the negotiations process in the Conference should be more inclusive and transparent, and engage all stakeholders. Ways had to be found to move forward on issues where consensus was hard to reach. Thailand also acknowledged and highlighted the contributions of civil society and academia in the field of disarmament, particularly in mobilizing public support and shaping public perception based on international normative values. The progress made in other parallel fora on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation amidst prolonged stagnation in the Conference affected the credibility of the Conference. In order to remain relevant in the realm of security and disarmament, the Conference undeniably needed to overcome the present stalemate and come up with a viable programme of work. Progress in the field of disarmament required strong political will, continued determination and concerted effort by all countries. Those collective endeavours could substantively complement the achievement of the people-centred Sustainable Development Goals, concluded Mr. Futrakul.
Right of Reply
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, said that its nuclear deterrence was a legitimate way of its self-defence against threats by outside forces. It totally rejected the remarks by the “South Korean” Foreign Minister made this morning, which had been delivered as part of a sinister defamation campaign. The Minister ought to be careful about when and where to raise the issue of membership of countries in various United Nations bodies. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected the allegations by the Minister putting it in connection with the events in Malaysia. The United States had clearly never abandoned plans to wage another war against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Next month, the United States would conduct the largest-ever military exercise at the doorstep of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Such destabilizing activities ought to be discussed in the Conference. Countries including European Union States should raise their voices against such provocations by the United States.
Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, emphasized that “North Korea’s” continuous nuclear tests were in contravention of numerous United Nations resolutions. The recent heinous act of using chemical weapons in Malaysia was a sign that the “North Korean” regime was ready to use the most deadly and prohibited weapons. “North Korea” was called upon to immediately dismantle its programme of weapons of mass destruction. The annual joint Republic of Korea-United States exercises were non-aggressive in nature.
United States, in a right of reply, said that the United States rejected the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s accusations. It would never accept “North Korea” as a nuclear State, and would respond resolutely to its defiance of international norms and conventions. The Republic of Korea and the United States’ annual exercise would take place in March and April 2017; those exercises were transparent and defence-oriented, and were designed to protect the Republic of Korea.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, said that “South Koreans” should bear in mind that their ridiculous efforts of blaming other Member States would end up in failure. They could take action, even if belatedly, to diffuse tensions. The United States should make a bold decision to stop saber rattling, which was only hardening the determination of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, reiterated that the international community had made it clear that it would not sit back and allow “North Korea” to disregard international norms and rules. “North Korea” casted groundless criticism on international institutions, including the Security Council. It should be questioned whether “North Korea” was a worthy member of the Conference on Disarmament, where such rules were created.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, repeated that “South Korea” was not in a position to discuss the membership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the Conference. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had never acknowledged the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
For use of the information media; not an official record