CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS PRESENTATIONS BY RUSSIAN AND CHINESE EXPERTS ON THE UNITED STATES’ ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard presentations by experts from the Russian Federation and China on the capabilities of the United States’ anti-ballistic missile systems. The United States rejected the claims. A number of States condemned the latest ballistic missile launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Youssoupha Ndiaye, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, regretted that Ambassador Coly Seck of Senegal, the President of the Conference, was not with them today as he was in Bern presenting his credentials to the Swiss Government. He said experts from Russia and China would be giving presentations on the question of anti-ballistic missile defence systems.

Russia said that by using anti-ballistic missiles capability, the United States was trying to achieve strategic supremacy by undermining the containment capacity of Russia and China. Russia was forced to take appropriate measures in response designed to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of forces in the area of strategic arms and in order to minimize the possible damage to the security of the State.

China said that the United States missile defence system in the Asia Pacific region seriously jeopardized the strategic interests of Russia and China. Both Russia and China would take further actions to cope with the situation for the sake of their security interests and strategic balance in the region.

The United States said that what was just presented in this forum was for the most part pure science fiction. Russia, and to a certain extent China, had made it appear that the United States was capable of threatening their strategic nuclear forces. That was just patently false.

The Republic of Korea said that it had repeated many times that THAAD (missile defence system) was solely defensive in nature to face the serious and direct threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Japan, Italy, Australia, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden and Spain condemned the most recent ballistic missile launch conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on 21 March as well as the ballistic missile engine test on 19 March.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, responding to what it said were unacceptable allegations made against it, expressed strong disappointment and frustration that this chamber was turning into a highly politicized platform where countries were finger blaming. It was the right of a sovereign State to keep high alert and strengthen its defence capabilities under grave situations where the nation’s security was under threat by large-scale military exercises at its doorstep.

India said that it was not participating in the work of the conference on the prohibition of nuclear weapons that had started this week in New York, but was ready to begin work on nuclear disarmament through the establishment of a subsidiary body of the Conference on Disarmament with an agreed mandate as part of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work.

Myanmar, chair of the working group on the way ahead, said altogether it had met with 36 Member States, including the P6 and the regional coordinators, and it would hold consultations on Friday, 31 March starting 10 a.m. with the regional coordinators.

Youssoupha Ndiaye, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the first part of the 2017 session of the Conference would end on Friday, 31 March. They would resume their work during the week of 15 May 2017. In the interim period, the Senegalese delegation remained available for any bilateral consultations. The working group on the way ahead would hold consultations on Friday, 31 March.

The Secretary of the Conference said that the next plenary of the Conference would be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 May.

Statements

YOUSSOUPHA NDIAYE, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, regretted that Ambassador Coly Seck of Senegal, the President of the Conference, was not with them today as he was in Bern presenting his credentials to the Swiss Government. Senegal reiterated its will and desire to work continually and remained open to any suggestions so that they could reach a turning point and take up the work of the Conference in a positive fashion. He said experts from Russia and China would be giving presentations on the question of anti-ballistic missile defence issues. Myanmar would also speak at the end of the meeting to inform the Conference about headway made in consultations by the working group on the way forward.

RUSSIA said that the development of the situation in the area of anti-ballistic missiles was a key question of international security, which had a direct impact on the arms race, nuclear disarmament and ensuring strategic stability because of the direct link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. The Union of Soviet Social Republics and the United States in 1972 signed the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, which ensured maintaining a military strategic parity between the two leading nuclear powers in terms of nuclear deterrent. On the basis of the so-called Iranian and “North Korean” missile threat, in 2002, the United States exited from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty and decided on large-scale deployment of mobile and stationary anti-ballistic missile systems which previously fell under the limitation of that treaty. As things stood right now, elements of the American anti-ballistic missile systems were deployed on the continental part of the United States, Europe and the Asian Pacific region, and maritime systems for the interception of ballistic missile were deployed near the shores of Russia and China. According to the American Administration, the anti-ballistic missile system was already capable of being operational and it intended to increase its potential. The gradual deployment of global anti-ballistic missiles was currently undermining the international security system.

By using anti-ballistic missiles capability, the United States was trying to achieve strategic supremacy by undermining the containment capacity of Russia and China. This could lead to serious consequences in terms of security. First, the presence of anti-ballistic missiles lowered the threshold for the implementation of the deployment of nuclear weapons because the United States would have the illusion of impunity in terms of the anti-ballistic missiles umbrella. Secondly, the anti-ballistic missiles undermined the current deterrent system. Thirdly, the anti-ballistic missiles constituted a threat to international outer space activity because it undermined achieving agreement on the non-placement of weapons in outer space. Fourthly, the anti-ballistic missiles were a stimulus for increasing missile capacity and therefore prompting a new arms race. As a military expert, this was his sincere analysis of the situation.

The Russian expert presented a number of hypothetical simulations that portrayed the American threat. According to Russian assessments, by 2022, the number of anti-ballistic missile systems would be more than 1,000 units and this constituted a serious threat to Russian restraint and deterrent capacity, especially taking into account the ongoing work to modernize the anti-ballistic missiles system. Russian was concerned about the lack of respect of international commitments on the part of the United States, which was something that it had repeatedly brought to the attention of its American partners, but it had had no reaction from them. It was also import to note the threat that anti-ballistic missile systems had for space activity. Taking into account the global character of the actions of anti-ballistic missile vessels, the space activities of any State, including the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, were any threat. Russian representatives had at various levels repeatedly drawn the attention of the American side to the danger represented by the anti-ballistic missiles global system for the strategic balance of forces in the world, but the arguments were not being taken up and the obvious facts were being ignored.

The United States had declared that no anti-missile system was directed against Russia and China. At the same time, the results of the computer modelling demonstrated that the opposite was the case and one could draw the following conclusions. Firstly, on the pretext of countering the “North Korean” and Iranian missile threat, the United States was deploying a strategic system which was designed to destroy Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles and thus disrupt the deterrent balance of forces. Secondly, the United States anti-ballistic missiles systems already had the capacity to intercept Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles and constituted a threat to the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation and China. Subsequently, this capacity could only increase. Thirdly, the presence of American anti-ballistic missile bases in Europe and anti-ballistic missile vessels in the high seas and oceans close to Russian territory constituted a huge concealed strike capability for the possible attack of a sudden missile strike against the Russian Federation. Fourthly, the deployment of an American anti-ballistic missile system undermined the parity achieved in the area of strategic arms and was a destabilizing factor which significantly decreased the opportunity for dialogue on the question of nuclear disarmament. Fifthly, the development of the potential of American anti-ballistic missiles was prompting an arms race, above all strategic arms, and forcing other States to take military measures in response. Sixthly, the United States anti-ballistic missile global system constituted a threat for the free use of space by any States. All of Russia’s initiatives had been rejected and Russia was forced to take appropriate measures in response designed to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of forces in the area of strategic arms and in order to minimize the possible damage to the security of the State as a result of the further development of United States anti-ballistic missiles capabilities. However, the world would not become a safer place as a result. Therefore, Russia called for a constructive and equally based dialogue on anti-ballistic missiles focused on seeking solutions and taking into account the interests of all interested parties.

CHINA said at present, the international strategic landscape and security environment were undergoing profound and complex changes. A growing number of new challenges in global governance necessitated consultative efforts of all countries for solutions. Among them, missile defence was an issue that bore profound and long-term influence on global strategic balance and stability, international peace and security, as well as arms control and disarmament processes. Developing global missile defence systems, which were detrimental to strategic balance and stability, would inevitably worsen the international security environment. The General Assembly had passed a number of resolutions concerning missile defence and calling on relevant countries to stop their missile defence programme. The constant expansion of missile defence systems undermined global strategic stability. Missile defence systems were designed as a means of defence. However, for a country with mass offensive strategic weapons, pursuing a pre-emptive strike strategy, missile defence systems would serve as the shield to support pre-emptive strikes and offer upgraded edges on strategic strikes. The efforts for a country to develop missile defence systems should be compatible to the actual threats that it faced, not exceeding the level of its security needs. Disregarding the shared international environment and the legitimate rights and interests of other countries, to pursue one’s unilateral deployment of global missile defence systems would severely jeopardize the political aspirations and security prospects of relevant countries to advance the international nuclear disarmament process and would lead to confrontation or even an arms race.

Global missile defence programmes severely endangered outer space security. The deployment of missile defence technologies offered capabilities not only to intercept ballistic missiles but also to strike space targets. Given the absence of international rules and laws against weaponization in outer space, certain countries were self willingly developing missile defence technologies and deploying missile defence systems. Russia and China had proposed negotiations on a treaty on prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and of the threat or use of force against outer space objects. The United States missile defence system in the Asia Pacific region seriously jeopardized the strategic interests of Russia and China. The United States and the Republic of Korea had repeatedly made emphatic statements on the system as being designed to counter the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and regular ballistic missiles for their security and not directed against any third country. However, the truth was that the radar system had a range of 3,000 kilometres which far exceeded the Republic of Korea’s defence needs. The real intention was to set the stage for the global missile defence programme of the United States, consolidate the missile defence war in the Asia Pacific region against China and Russia, and upgrade United States surveillance capabilities towards China’s strategic depth and Russia’s far east and weaken their strategic capabilities. This would severely jeopardize the strategic interests of Russia and China. Both Russia and China were against the global missile programme. They would take further actions to cope with the situation for the sake of their security interests and strategic balance in the region.

INDIA said it remained committed to the ideals enshrined in the United Nations Charter and to multilateralism. The Conference on Disarmament brought States together in sovereign equality and in full responsibility to craft legally-binding instruments for the promotion of international peace and security. Its agenda was comprehensive and was flexible to accommodate contemporary challenges like terrorism and terrorist violence, deadly weapons and technologies, and biological weapons and toxins. While the so-called non-traditional security concerns were growing, traditional threats had not disappeared. Nuclear proliferation continued and new scenarios were being conjured for the use of nuclear weapons. The Conference on Disarmament was the right place for pursuing nuclear disarmament in all its essential elements. It had the mandate, the membership and the rules for embarking on the path to nuclear disarmament. Accordingly, India was not participating in the work of the conference on the prohibition of nuclear weapons that had started this week in New York. This decision had not been easy for India, which remained willing to work with the sponsors to reduce the role and military utility of nuclear weapons to prohibit their use under any circumstances and to eliminate them globally. India was ready to begin work on nuclear disarmament through the establishment of a subsidiary body of the Conference on Disarmament with an agreed mandate as part of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work.

UNITED STATES said what was just presented in this forum was for the most part pure science fiction, and frankly not very good science fiction. Russia, and to a certain extent China, had made it appear that the United States was capable of threatening their strategic nuclear forces. That was just patently false. They were using these charges as a way to justify the rapid modernization of their strategic forces. The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty contained an article that gave each party the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decided that extraordinary events had jeopardized its supreme interests. Between 1972 and 2001, a number of State or non-State entities had acquired, or were currently actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. A number of States were also developing ballistic missiles, including long-range ballistic missiles, as a means of delivering weapons of mass destruction. It was clear then that some of these entities were willing to deploy these weapons against the United States. As a result, the United States concluded that it must develop, test and deploy anti-ballistic missile systems for the defence of its national territory, of its forces outside the United States and of its friends and allies. Therefore the United States had withdrawn from the treaty, effective 2002.

The United States ballistic missile defence was defensive in nature. The United States had been open in stating that it would not threaten the strategic security of Russia and China and that its defence systems were not directed at Russia and China, nor would it undermine their strategic deterrence capabilities. Concerning Russian charges of NATO ballistic missile defence, the United States and NATO had been very clear that the system that NATO was building in Europe was not designed for or capable of undermining Russia’s strategic deterrent capabilities. Over the past 20 years, the United States and NATO had put forward numerous proposals for missile defence between the United States and Russia, as well as NATO and Russia, including the establishment of two NATO-Russian missile defence centres to enhance cooperation. It was Russia in 2013 that unilaterally terminated this cooperative dialogue with NATO. Then Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine in 2014 led to the suspension of the United States’ bilateral dialogue on missile defence cooperation. Russia and China repeatedly said that missile defences were destabilizing. The United States had explained that nothing it was doing would undercut international security. Limited ballistic missile defence capabilities were not capable of threatening Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and were not a threat to strategic stability. Understanding the universal truth of physics, the United States had demonstrated how these systems that it was deploying were not capable of doing the things that the Russian Government said that they could do. It was unfortunate that his Russian and Chinese colleagues had chosen to put forth this science-fiction based presentation because it created misinformation about United States missile defence systems and did not address some of the threats posed by the modernization of Russian and Chinese strategic forces to the United States and its allies.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA said it had repeated many times that THAAD (missile defence system) was solely defensive in nature to face the serious and direct threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The purpose and objective of THAAD was confined to the deterrence and defence of the Republic of Korea from the threat of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If and when the threat from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was no longer there, then the Republic of Korea would not need THAAD. Until then, the Republic of Korea, like any other States, had the right and duty to take all necessary measures to protect its national security from any clear and imminent threat.

UNITED STATES said on another issue concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the United States strongly condemned the 21 March ballistic missile launch conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as the 19 March ballistic missile engine test. The launch and engine test were in grave violation of multiple Security Council resolutions. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed to halt its multiple provocative acts in rhetoric, comply with its international obligations, and recommit to the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The international community would hold “North Korea” accountable. Some countries in this chamber were taking part in negotiations in New York on a so-called nuclear weapons ban treaty, which in reality would not make the world a safer place and would not contribute to further nuclear disarmament. The United States hoped that these countries would pay attention to the clear and present threat posed by the missile and nuclear programmes of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA said it would like to state the Republic of Korea’s strong condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s constant and chronic violations of Security Council resolutions which threatened international peace and security.

Japan said it would like to refer to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s ballistic missile launch conducted on 21 March as well as a ballistic missile engine test on 19 March. They were in clear violation of relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the most recent 2321. Japan strongly condemned the launch and engine test and urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and other commitments without taking further provocative actions.

ITALY said it would like to join other delegations in reiterating Italy’s strong condemnation of the most recent ballistic missile launch conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on 21 March as well as the ballistic missile engine test on 19 March. These ballistic missile tests as well as the development of a nuclear arsenal constituted a threat to international peace and security. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had once against openly violated existing United Nations Security Council resolutions. Italy stood ready to contribute to a firm and cohesive response of the international community.

AUSTRALIA condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continuing reckless and destabilizing behaviour, including the most recent ballistic missile test on 21 March. The ongoing pursuit by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of its nuclear programme was a clear breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions and represented an ongoing threat to regional and global peace and stability.

GERMANY said with this repeated test of ballistic missile engines in the last 10 days, “North Korea” had again sent the wrong signal to the international community. Germany condemned the engine and missile test and stressed that the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibited clearly the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Germany called on the country to stop any further provocations.

CANADA condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent missile tests and urged that country to comply fully with its international obligations, cease its pattern of illegal and destabilizing actions, and immediately and verifiably abandon its ballistic missile programme.

NETHERLANDS said it strongly condemned the recent missile launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and also the recent ballistic missile engine test. The launch on 21 March was already the second in March and the third in the span of a month. These launches severely threatened peace and stability in the region and should stop immediately. The international community had the duty to fully implement the United Nations Security Council sanctions.

SWEDEN said it strongly condemned the test carried out by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under their ballistic missile programme, which was in violation of the legal commitments of that country, and called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to bide by Security Council resolutions and engage in a dialogue to reduce tension on the Korean peninsula.

SPAIN said it echoed the condemnation of the ballistic launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on 21 March as well as the engine trial on 19 March. These were being carried out in flagrant violation of prohibition by the Security Council and jeopardized peace and security at the international level. Spain appealed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear and anti-ballistic missile system and to enter into a sincere dialogue with the international community to eliminate those weapons.

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA said before responding to the unacceptable allegations made against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by some delegations, including the United States, Japan and some western countries, he could not but express the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s strong disappointment and frustration that this chamber was turning into a highly politicized platform where countries were finger blaming. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly rejected the United States and “South Korea’s” unacceptable justification that THAAD was to prevent missile threats from the north. THAAD was clearly erected to neutralize strategic forces of neighbouring countries and secure United States military supremacy in the region. The United States could not evade its responsibility for escalating tensions forced by its military build-up and military exercises. Since Russia and China expressed their concern about the United States’ military build-up that posed a direct threat to them, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea took this opportunity to call attention of the international community’s to the current joint military exercises in “South Korea” which were another threat to regional tension. It was the right of a sovereign State to keep high alert and strengthen its defence capabilities under grave situations where the nation’s security was under threat by large-scale military exercises at its door step. Particular mention should be made that United States notorious special operation units were also taking part in these exercises with the purpose of removing the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There was no guarantee that the ongoing military provocations and such belligerent rhetoric would not lead to all-out war. The United Nations Security Council should bring its attention to these dangerous provocations.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION said since the United States decision to withdraw from the Anti-ballistic Missiles Treaty, the Russia position had clearly set out its position that this step was a mistake. They had repeatedly spoken about the repercussions of the deployment of anti-ballistic weapons on international security and had made this clear in its bilateral dealings with the United States and in relevant international fora. Russia had never been given data to refute its calculations. The United States today said that the calculations were science fiction. Quite frankly, that was not taking the presentation seriously. The calculations were based on technical data on intercontinental ballistic missiles and on the basis of information that they had. The United States said the anti-ballistic missile system was not against Russia but against reginal threats, however, this system was not proportional to the threats that existed today. There were thousands of anti-ballistic weapons systems against a small number of Iranian and “North Korean” missile systems. There was going to be an international security conference in Moscow and these issues would be the object of particular attention and all were invited to come and participate in this conference.

UNITED STATES said in reference to Russian data, that was exactly how he would characterize it, Russian data. With regard to the anti-ballistic missile systems not being proportional, the United States fundamentally disagreed with that.

MYANMAR said that being chair of the working group on the way ahead was not an easy job for a small mission. The working group was trying its best to listen to views by Member States. Altogether 36 Member States had met with the working group, including the P6 and the regional coordinators. Before the end of the first part of the 2017 session of the Conference on 31 March, the Chair of the working group would like to meet with the regional coordinators from 10 a.m. to noon on 31 March. Myanmar would continue multilateral and bilateral consultations.

YOUSSOUPHA NDIAYE, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the first part of the 2017 session of the Conference would end on Friday, 31 March. They would resume their work during the week of 15 May 2017. In the interim period, the Senegalese delegation remained available for any bilateral consultations. The working group on the way ahead would hold consultations on Friday, 31 March.

The Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament said that the next plenary of the Conference would be held on Tuesday, 16 May at 10 a.m.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC17/016E