CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FIRST PUBLIC PLENARIES SINCE THE THIRD AND LAST PART OF ITS 2017 SESSION STARTED ON 31 JULY

The Conference on Disarmament today held two public plenaries in which many States outlined their national positions on disarmament issues. Other issues that were raised included the latest ballistic missile tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the draft annual report of the Conference on its 2017 session, and the absence of public plenary meetings under the Presidency of South Africa since the third and last part of the Conference’s 2017 session started on 31 July.

Ambassador Julio Herraiz of Spain, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said
the Conference continued to be a very valuable tool in bringing together all the nuclear powers and it was a forum where through dialogue and exchange they could put forward measures which allowed them to envisage disarmament despite all of the difficulties. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a cornerstone of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime. There was no longer a place for nuclear testing and a full entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty must be ensured. He emphasized the extreme concern of the whole international community as a result of the crisis caused by the nuclear and ballistic programme of the “DPRK”, which at the moment was the greatest threat to international peace and security. He urged the “DPRK” to implement all the resolutions of the Security Council and hoped that this would result in a settlement through dialogue.

The President said that the first draft of the Conference had been circulated informally by the secretariat. Written comments by delegations should be sent by Friday, 25 August.
He was ready to continue informal consultations with all.

Speaking in the morning and afternoon plenaries were the Netherlands, Slovakia, South Africa, Iraq, United States, United Kingdom, France, Sri Lanka on behalf of the Group of 21, Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21, Cuba on behalf of the Group of 21, India, Colombia, Estonia on behalf of the European Union, Austria, Peru, Italy, Switzerland, Indonesia, Sweden, Republic of Korea, Australia, Canada, Ecuador, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Russian Federation, China, Finland, Turkey, Pakistan, Poland, Israel, Norway, Bulgaria, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, and Iran.

Speaking in right of reply were South Africa, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, United States, Republic of Korea and China.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference accepted to allow Brunei to participate in the 2017 session of the Conference as an Observer State.

Many speakers expressed their condolences to Spain for the recent terrorist attacks there, as well as to other States which had faced attacks.

Several speakers also welcomed the Youth Communicators for a world without nuclear weapons from Japan who were attending the plenary.

The President said that States will be informed about the next public plenary of the Conference on Disarmament, which would either be on Friday, 25 August at 10 a.m., or on Tuesday, 29 August at 10 a.m.

Statements

Ambassador JULIO HERRAIZ of Spain, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said Spain was committed to multilateralism and the United Nations and to treaties fostering disarmament. He stressed Spain’s support of the Conference on Disarmament which had adopted highly relevant treaties in the past. They must not do nothing and feel resigned. They all knew the difficulties that the Conference had been beset by. A new negotiating mandate was needed. The Conference on Disarmament continued to be a very valuable tool in bringing together all the nuclear powers and it was a forum where through dialogue and exchange they could put forward measures which allowed them to envisage disarmament despite all of the difficulties. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a cornerstone of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime. There must be compliance with all the provisions of article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament. There was no longer a place for nuclear testing and a full entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty must be ensured. He emphasized the extreme concern of the whole international community as a result of the crisis caused by the nuclear and ballistic programme of the “DPRK”, which at the moment was the greatest threat to international peace and security. He urged it to implement all the resolutions of the Security Council and hoped that this would result in a settlement through dialogue. The Conference on Disarmament must respond with consistency with its mission to negotiate disarmament treaties. That was why the work of the Working Group on “the way ahead” should be renewed in 2018 so that they could continue the work already begun.

The President said that the first draft of the Conference had been circulated informally by the secretariat. Written comments by delegations should be sent by Friday, 25 August.
He was ready to continue the informal consultations with all.

Netherlands underlined the strong belief of the Government of the Netherlands in multilateralism and working with a broad coalition of different actors, albeit States, civil society or the private sector, to move their agenda forward. Disarmament in this context was a cornerstone of their security policy. The Non-Proliferation Treaty was central to the international regime of disarmament and non-proliferation and it was a regime with near universal application. It continued to need full support and further strengthening. The fact that 120 countries had reached an agreement on a nuclear ban treaty was something that could not be ignored and the Netherlands believed that it was ready to be brought to the negotiating table. Good progress had been made on the FMCT and the Netherlands believed that it was ready to be brought to the negotiating table. The issue of cluster munitions and landmines had witnessed substantial progress and the Netherlands would continue to support mine action worldwide. The insecurity caused by the illegal arms trade did not stop at their borders and neither should their efforts to combat it. This was why the effective implementation and universalization of the Arms Trade Treaty was crucial.

Slovakia said it continued to attach great value to the work of the Conference. It was the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community and was an indispensable element of the disarmament machinery and an essential vehicle for the promotion of international peace and security. It was central for multilateral disarmament negotiations. The only way to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was through effective, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament. Slovakia also continued to support the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). Unfortunately, the Conference had been in a deadlock for the last two decades and its revitalization was a crucial task. The negotiation role of the Conference needed to be restored.

South Africa said it would like to reconfirm its unwavering commitment to the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. It was a responsible global player whose commitment was incontestable. South Africa was not selective and choosy on which instruments to join, as long as they fit into the larger scheme and contributed towards a world free of nuclear weapons. What was of grave concern to South African were the premeditated actions to debilitate structures meant to further nuclear disarmament. South Africa continued to be committed to a functioning Conference on Disarmament. In South Africa’s view, the continued impasse in the Conference was not only unsustainable, it increasingly affected its relevance and therefore eroded international confidence in the Conference as a multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. South Africa remained firmly committed to multilateralism and would always do what was necessary to strengthen multilateralism, especially in the field of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. In addition, it would pursue all possible options for taking multilateral disarmament negotiations forward with the aim of achieving their goal of a world free from nuclear weapons.

Iraq said the fight against terrorism required cooperation at the international level. As Chair of the First Committee dealing with disarmament and international security of the General Assembly, Iraq would submit to the next General Assembly session the summary of the work of the Committee in October 2017. He hoped to hear from all about their views on how to facilitate the work of the First Committee in order to reach tangible results that would consolidate and strengthen the disarmament regime and improve international security.

United States said the previous four weeks of the Conference on Disarmament had brought them to a “Presidency in absentia” as the previous President refused to convene even one single plenary meeting and they had yet to hear an official explanation as to why. The unwillingness of the previous President to convene a plenary meeting or to carry out consultations on a programme of work was not acceptable to the United States and raised a number of questions about whether the rules of procedure were complied with. The United States hoped that the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs would look into this matter. Attempts to try to undermine the Conference on Disarmament or to try to shut down its work in pursuit of some other agenda should not be accepted by this Chamber. “North Korea’s” ballistic missile tests and nuclear weapons programmes posed grave threats to the entire world. “North Korea” openly stated that its ballistic missiles were intended to strike cities in the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan. Its recent inter-continental ballistic missile tests were another example of the dangerous and reckless behaviour of the North that was destabilizing the region and beyond. While the path to dialogue remained an option, the United States remained undeterred in defending against the threat that “North Korea” posed. It remained prepared to use the full range of capabilities at its disposal against the growing threat from “North Korea”. The United States read out a joint statement with the United Kingdom and France following the recent adoption of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, noting that they did not intend to sign or ratify or ever become party to this treaty.

United Kingdom said he did not take the floor to comment on the Presidency, or the lack of Presidency last month, but having listened to the statement of South Africa, he found it big on rhetoric and empty on substance. Fundamentally, however, it was the hypocrisy in that statement that had made the United Kingdom take the floor. A member that had not fulfilled its Presidential responsibilities, neither holding consultations on a programme of work nor holding plenary meetings to allow Members to provide their views publicly, had little moral standing to preach about the role of the Conference on Disarmament or the conduct of disarmament. The United Kingdom read out a statement saying it was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but that it would not sign the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.

France said the President could count on the constructive support of France so that they could adopt the annual report of the Conference, which it hoped that would be on terms that were balanced and acceptable to all. France welcomed the resumption of the Conference meeting in plenary after a longer summer break than they were accustomed to and which France regretted. It was everyone’s responsibility to ensure that the work of the Conference was effective and fully operational. France endorsed the statement just read out by the United States on behalf of the United States, the United Kingdom and France on the adoption of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on 7 July in New York. France read out another statement by its Representative in New York on the same day, saying the treaty was not binding to France. France also endorsed the statement to be made later on “North Korea” by the European Union. France condemned the inter-continental ballistic missile launches which “North Korea” undertook in July. These showed the “DPRK’s” commitment to defy the international community and were a threat to all. It was an unacceptable and direct threat for all. The increase of nuclear and ballistic activities in “North Korea” and the rapid scaling up of these programmes showed that they were facing a series of provocations. It was clear that “North Korea” was not aiming to take part in negotiations but was aiming to become a nuclear weapon State and everyone was not affected by this threat. France called on partners to unite to bring pressure to bear and to create the appropriate conditions for negotiations on the nuclear and ballistic programme in “North Korea”, which must bring about a firm commitment to de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

Sri Lanka, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, said that outer space and other celestial bodies were the common heritage of humankind and must be used, explored and utilized for the benefit of all humankind in a spirit of cooperation. The growing use of outer space required all States to take actions to ensure greater transparency, confidence building measures and better information. All States with major space capabilities had a special responsibility to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Group of 21 emphasized the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the paramount importance of strict compliance with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space. The Group of 21 believed that the Conference on Disarmament should start negotiations on matters related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space without delay. The Group of 21 also welcomed the updated draft treaty text submitted jointly by the Russian Federation and China on the prevention of the placement on weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objections. It was a good basis for discussions toward adopting an international binding instrument.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on negative security assurances, said
the Group of 21 reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Group of 21 remained convinced that as long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their use and proliferation persisted. The Conference should start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending the achievement of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, the Group of 21 reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional, irrevocable and legally binding instrument to effectively assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under all circumstances as a high priority. The Group reaffirmed the right of non-nuclear-weapon States not to be attacked by or threatened by the nuclear weapons States with the use of nuclear weapons and strongly called upon the nuclear-weapon States to refrain from any such action or threat, whether implicit or explicit.

In the context of nuclear-weapons-free zones, it was essential that nuclear-weapon States provided unconditional assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons to all States of the zones. The Group of 21 reiterated its strong support for the early establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all nuclear weapons and expressed their disappointment and deep concern that three States parties had blocked consensus on the draft outcome document of the Ninth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, including the process to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The Group of 21 believed that the nuclear-weapon-free-zones were positive towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, but it did not subscribe to the arguments that declarations that had been made by the nuclear weapon States were sufficient, or that their security assurances should only be granted in the context of nuclear-weapon free zones.

The Group of 21 believed that the conclusion of a universal and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States would be an important step towards achieving the objectives of arms control, nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects.

Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on follow-up to the 2013 high-level meeting of the General Assembly on nuclear disarmament, noted that the General Assembly had decided to convene a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament no later than 2018 to review progress made in this regard. The persistent existence of nuclear weapons posed a grave threat to humanity and all life on earth and the only defence against the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a nuclear detonation was the total and irreversible legally binding elimination of nuclear weapons and the maintenance of a nuclear free world. Nuclear disarmament was the highest priority of the Conference on Disarmament. The Group of 21 was deeply concerned by the persistent reluctance of nuclear-weapon-States to approach their treaty obligations as an urgent commitment to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons by providing pretexts unacceptable due to the urgency of making concrete actions to avert the adverse consequences of nuclear weapons. The Group of 21 called for the urgent commencement of negotiations on nuclear disarmament in the Conference, in particular on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of to provide for their destruction. The Group of 21 took note of the adoption of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons on 7 July 2017.

India read out the response by the official spokesperson of the Government of India to a media query regarding India’s view on the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons adopted in New York on 7 July this year, which stated that India did not participate in the negotiations on a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and that none of the other States possessing nuclear weapons had participated in the negotiations. India therefore could not be party to the treaty and should not be bound by any of the obligations that may arise from it. India also read out another statement by the Spokesperson on India’s concern about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent missile tests, saying that this posed a grave threat to international peace and security and had also adversely impacted India’s national security. India called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to refrain from such actions that undermined international peace and stability.

Colombia said the draft report was an opportunity to think of the form in which they could focus their efforts in the near-term future on nuclear disarmament through the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. They must face the reality that they saw outside the Conference. The adoption of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on 7 July with a mandate to negotiate such an instrument required them to have a discussion on the objectives and the goals of their work. It was necessary to look at the whole picture as they looked at their work. Colombia referred to the report of the working group on nuclear weapons, which met in 2016, and only one of its recommendations had been implemented. All the recommendations were in line with the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament and Colombia would like to respectably suggest that the Conference appropriate this document and quickly implement the relevant recommendations. Colombia realized that recognizing the differences in positions was a step forward toward bridging the gap. Colombia observed that the rational use of the generous resources that the Conference on Disarmament had, including time allocated for discussions, was the heritage of United Nations Member States and was given to reach effective measures to preserve the very existence of their planet. The lack of resources affecting other disarmament instruments that made positive contributions should lead to a reflection on their part.

Estonia, speaking on behalf of the European Union and a number of other countries, said
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had continued to accelerate its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, notably with the launches of ballistic missiles of intercontinental range in July. The European Union strongly condemned these actions which constituted outright violations of the “DPRK’s” international obligations as set out in United Nations Security Council resolutions and which represented a serious threat to international peace and security. The European Union urged the “DPRK” to comply fully and unconditionally with its obligations under all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and refrain from any further provocative action that could increase regional and global tensions. The European Union supported diplomatic efforts with its partners aimed at the de-escalation of the situation and achieving the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula through peaceful means.

Austria condemned the latest ballistic missile launches by the “DPRK” in the strongest possible terms. Austria urged the “DPRK” to immediately refrain from any further breaches of international law and cease all provocations. It was high time to leave the path of confrontation and embark on cooperation. The “DPRK’s” quest to develop nuclear weapons was a severe threat to regional and international peace and security, including its own national security. On 7 July 2017, the international community had adopted the text of the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. Austria strongly encouraged all States to make use of the broad and practical opportunities provided for in the new treaty and to sign and ratify it. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their use by design, miscalculation, accident or falling into the hands of terrorists remained real. The Conference was called upon to end its self-instilled blockage so that it could again discharge its mandate to negotiate disarmament instruments.

Peru said that despite the stagnation in the work of the Conference for 21 years, Peru continued to believe that as a body it was necessary in making a contribution to maintaining global peace and security. The Conference was the only multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament and gave the appropriate space for an ongoing dialogue between Member States. Peru welcomed the fact that under the Presidency of Spain, they once again were holding plenary sessions. During the absence of plenary sessions, they had seen new launches of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The launching of these missiles were a flagrant violation of international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions. Peru urged the “DPRK” to put a stop to these launches, to withdraw from its nuclear weapons, to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency so that there could be an inspection of nuclear facilities.

Italy joined other delegations in reiterating with utmost determination Italy’s strong condemnation of the ballistic missile launches conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The “DPRK’s” missile and nuclear programmes represented a severe threat to the global non-proliferation policy, as well as to international peace and security. The “DPRK” must abide by all its international obligations and make credible progress on its obligations to denuclearize, thus enabling negotiations leading to peaceful solution. The current crisis in the Korean peninsula added a sense of urgency to their work and was one of the reasons why they welcomed the resumption of the plenary meetings of the Conference. Italy maintained some reservations on whether not convening the Conference despite the explicit request of a relevant part of its membership was among the presidency’s prerogatives as per the rules of procedure. It would like it to be put on record that for Italy, as a Member State of the Conference, this did not constitute a precedent for future sessions of the Conference.

Switzerland condemned the new intercontinental ballistic missile launches by the “DPRK”, which were connected to that country’s nuclear programme and were a major danger to peace in the region. Switzerland was also concerned about the verbal escalation as a result of these attacks. Statements on the possible use of nuclear weapons undermined the discourse which was the underpinning of the non-nuclear and non-proliferation efforts. Switzerland urged the “DPRK” to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to abandon its ballistic and nuclear weapons programme. This crisis and a solution to it could only be found with a diplomatic and negotiated solution. On the progress of work in the Conference on Disarmament, particularly the work of the Working Group on the way ahead, they had various options open to them. They could begin from scratch again at the beginning of the 2018 session in the hope that they would come to an agreement on a programme of work, or they could try to infuse some continuity in their efforts. This latter approach would be more likely to yield fruit. Holding regular plenary meetings and regular consultations among the P6 were important for the Conference to remain functional.

Indonesia reiterated that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Indonesia reaffirmed its principled position on nuclear disarmament, which remained its highest priority. Pending the achievement of a total global nuclear disarmament, and as a State which had renounced the nuclear weapons option, Indonesia would like to emphasize that their demand for security assurances remained prevalent. Indonesia was highly committed to advance a balanced Fissile Material Treaty which addressed the concerns of nuclear-weapons States as well as non-nuclear-weapons States. The substantive discussion conducted in the Working Group on the way ahead could serve as a means of confidence building measure among Member States and lay a foundation towards efforts to produce a balanced and comprehensive programme of work in an environment which was conducive to the promotion of international commitments on arms control and disarmament.

Sweden thanked the Ambassador of Myanmar for his work in the Working Group on the way ahead and encouraged him to continue his work. Today, they were not yet ready to start work on negotiating disarmament instruments, which was the main purpose of the Conference. It was regretful that this had continued for two decades. However, this did not mean that they should not continue their efforts to reach agreement on a programme of work with a negotiating mandate or mandates, however dire the situation may seem today. The prospect of putting all the work they had done into a drawer, and trying to reinvent the wheel again in the next session, was even direr. The Conference had to continue to build on the work already done. Continuity was the key word, and Sweden regretted the lack of continuity in holding plenary meetings of the Conference lately.

Republic of Korea said they were very pleased to be back here to discuss important issues after a long break, and they still did not know the reason why. The Republic of Korea strongly condemned the two launches of missiles by the “DPRK” in July, which had been condemned unanimously. The violations of the resolutions of the Security Council would only see a more and more stronger response by the international community. The Republic of Korea repeated its appeal to the “DPRK” to listen to the fact that there was no alternative to stopping the violations and returning to negotiations. The Republic of Korea had never promoted the use of force and would always be open to dialogue.

Australia regretted that public plenaries had not been held in the Conference in recent weeks. It was the responsibility of the President of the Conference to hold them to allow those Conference members who wished to address the plenary to do so. It did not see recent practise as creating a precedent for the Conference’s operations. Reports that the “DPRK” had acquired the ability to develop a miniaturised nuclear device were deeply unsettling, as were the recent ballistic missile tests. The instability and current tension on the Korean peninsula were the result of the illegal actions by the “DPRK” in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions. “DPRK” had shown that it had no regard for the welfare of its own people, no regard for its good relations with its neighbours, and no regard for international law.

Canada said with regard to the extended vacation of the Conference over the past few months, Canada regretted that the Conference had not met in plenary in the past four weeks of this session. This gap was unfortunate, especially as there had been an express request from the Western Group for a plenary to be held. Concerning the “DPRK”, Canada was seriously concerned by the actions of the “DPRK”, particularly the recent launches of inter-continental ballistic missiles and the threat to use nuclear weapons against States of the region and in other parts of the world. An international answer that was strong was necessary to counter this growing threat. Canada was also concerned about the capacity of “DPRK” in terms of weapons of mass destructions and that these could make it possible for other actors to benefit from this technology and expertise. The effective implementation of the United Nations sanctions were the best possible way to convince the “DPRK” to review its current position. Canada was committed to work with its international partners to pave the way to a peaceful resolution of the situation.

Ecuador reiterated its firm commitment to peace and disarmament and to strengthening multilateralism within the United Nations. Ecuador supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it was the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and it hoped that the efforts of the facilitators would lead to results aimed at convening a diplomatic conference for negotiating a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. This was important for the success of the 2020 NPT Review Conference. Nuclear tests should not be taking place and Ecuador condemned all nuclear tests in whatever part of the world. The treaty banning nuclear weapons which was adopted in July was a step that reflected effective and positive progress on the path of nuclear disarmament. Ecuador had always supported the work of the Conference. They should try to bring together the will of States to promote consensus on their programme of work. All issues should remain on the agenda of the Conference and should continue to be discussed. In conclusion, Peru believed that they should work together towards strengthening political multilateralism in order to give the Conference impetus.

South Africa, speaking in a right of reply, said it was encouraged by the list of speakers. South Africa did not recall such an animated discussion in the Conference in recent times. South Africa thanked delegations which engaged on the points that it raised in its statement on the need to reinvigorate the Conference. Responding to a departure from diplomacy by the Ambassador of the United Kingdom in directly attacking South Africa, accusing it of hypocrisy, South Africa asked which aspect of abandoning the nuclear option was hypocritical. Who in 2015 had walked into the General Assembly to break consensus on the outcome of the NPT Review Conference? The United King picked and chose which aspects of multilateralism it wanted to respond to, and then it dared to seek to bully South Africa. South Africa was no longer a colony of the United Kingdom. In case the United Kingdom did not understand her speech because she was an African, she would read it out again.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply in response to statements by the United States and other countries, said there were several nuclear weapon States in the world but the United States was the only one that posed constant nuclear threats against the “DPRK”. The measures taken by the “DPRK” to strengthen its nuclear deterrence and develop inter-continental rockets were justifiable and a legitimate option for self-defence in the face of such apparent and real threat. It was to protect the country’s sovereignty from extremely hostile policies and nuclear threats posed by the United States. United Nations resolutions were the outcome of sinister attempts of the United States to isolate and stifle the “DPRK”. “DPRK” condemned and categorically rejected recent United Nations Security Council resolutions. As long as the United States’ hostile policy and nuclear threat remained unchallenged, the “DPRK” would never place its self-defensive nuclear deterrence on the negotiating table or step back an inch.

Brazil said the Conference on Disarmament was the single multilateral forum exclusively dedicated to disarmament negotiations. Brazil commended the work of the Working Group on the way ahead and hoped its efforts would bear fruit next year. The deadlock in the Conference signalled an institutional fatigue which threatened the organization at a moment when it was most needed. The current crisis in the Korean peninsula was a stark reminder of the costs of failing to reign in the nuclear arms race. Brazil called on the “DPRK” to fully comply with resolutions of the Security Council and to actively engage in the resumption of negotiations. Brazil reiterated its support to the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula and discouraged any actions that would further escalate tensions. For Brazil, nuclear disarmament must remain the top priority of the Conference on Disarmament. Brazil supported the beginning of negotiations on a treaty on fissile materials. However a treaty that did not tackle stockpiles would have no effect. Brazil also supported the start of negotiations on a treaty to stop an arms race in outer space.

Chile reiterated concern at the serious situation on the Korean Peninsula, given the insistence of the “DPRK” in maintaining its ballistic programme which threated the whole region and the international community. Chile called on “DPRK” to reconsider its stance and called on all parties to keep their discourse moderate in order to ensure that a peace solution could be reached. Chile had played an active role in the adoption of the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty on 7 July. This instrument was a historic milestone because it was the first disarmament treaty to be successfully negotiated in the past 20 years; it helped fill a legal loophole; and this successful negotiation should be understood as materialization of a process which made multilateral processes more democratic. The decision of some not to participate in this treaty did not reduce the legitimacy of this instrument. Chile hoped that countries that criticized the treaty would accede to it later.

Russian Federation said that due to the lack of plenary meetings over the last four weeks, which was regretted, there were several issues that the Russian Federation wanted to address. Russia shared the noble goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons. For three decades, Russia had been consistent in its direction. There was no shortcut to achieving nuclear zero. Russia had not participated in the conference that agreed on a treaty banning nuclear weapons and did not consider itself bound by any obligations under it. Russia did not see any legal gaps as far as nuclear disarmament was concerned as everything was spelt out under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The decision on the treaty banning nuclear weapons was taken as a result of a vote, but agreement on such an important issue needed agreement by consensus. The treaty that was accepted included some provisions that may harm the viability of the international nuclear regime. The treaty had not yet been opened for signature but the world was already seeing the negative impact of it on the situation of disarmament in the Korean peninsula. Russia read out the statement of the Foreign Ministry on this situation, saying a peaceful and diplomatic solution was needed and the efforts of all parties were required. All countries were urged to restrain themselves. Russia had been working with other parties and it urged responsible members of the international community to support them. Russia read out a joint statement with China.

China said that following the statement by Russia on problems in the Korean peninsula, it noted that on 6 August the Security Council had adopted resolution 23/71 on the recent missile launch by “North Korea”. It had been unanimously adopted. By adopting new measures targeting the “DPRK”, they were trying to avoid affecting food supplies and other activities. China sought to safeguard peace and a diplomatic solution to defuse tensions on the peninsula. China had tirelessly worked for the denuclearization of the peninsula and for peace and security. China called for mutual trust instead of this show of force.

Finland said the “DPRK” had a history of provocative missile launches in contravention with the multiple unanimously agreed United Nations Security Council resolutions. This needed to stop. The weapons and missile programmes of the “DPRK” posed a steadily increasing threat to its own region as well as other continents, including Europe. De-escalation was needed and must start from Pyongyang. The “DPRK” must take the messages coming from the Conference on Disarmament at large seriously. Finland called on “North Korea” to urgently rethink its strategy in order to prevent further devastating effects to the country.

Turkey condemned the ballistic missile launched by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in July and called on it to abide by United Nations resolutions and avoid further escalations.

Pakistan was pleased to note that the regular meetings of the Conference on Disarmament and the customary consultations with individual members as well as the regional groups had been resumed. This allowed many national delegations and regional groups to be heard as they had been waiting to address important issues . Pakistan had been surprised by a unilateral decision to set aside the responsibilities of the President of the Conference. Unravelling the Conference was not a solution. Pakistan expressed concern about the ballistic missile test conducted by the “DPRK” in July. The full text of the unambiguous statement of Pakistan was available on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

Poland said it needed more time to analyse the draft annual report. Poland regretted that no plenaries had been held in the previous four weeks.

Israel stressed the importance of the Conference on Disarmament holding orderly conduct. Plenary meetings must continue in this important platform. It was regretful that the President had refrained from calling for plenaries in August despite requests made by several delegations. Israel had not participated in the negotiations on the treaty to ban nuclear weapons and had voted against it in the First Committee and the General Assembly. Israel’s deep reservations regarding this initiative were based on substantive as well as procedural considerations. On the substantive side, Israel was concerned inter alia by arms control/disarmament processes which failed to give due regard to the security and stability context when drafting disarmament measures. Such endeavours may result in arrangements and agreements which hinder rather than reinforce disarmament processes as well as global and regional security. On the procedural aspect, Israel firmly believed that such negotiations should be undertaken in the appropriate forums, under the appropriate rules of procedure, which would not undermine national security considerations.

Norway regretted the lack of a substantial programme of work, meetings in the plenary provided all with an opportunity to exchange views and deliberate on matters related to the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament. Norway regretted that informal consultations had so far not been able to bridge some of the critical differences within the way ahead format in the Conference. Norway was deeply concerned about the “DPRK’s” nuclear weapons and missile programme, and supported efforts to find a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to this situation.

Bulgaria said it was ready to support any proposal to end the deadlock in the Conference. Bulgaria’s Foreign Ministry had issued a statement strongly condemning the “DPRK’s” ballistic missile launches, stressing that this only led to an escalation of tensions. Bulgaria called on the “DPRK” to abandon its nuclear and ballistic programme and to commit to meaningful dialogue in order to find a peaceful solution to the problem.

Japan welcomed the resumption of holding public plenaries. Many substantive statements could have been made in a timely manner if there had been plenaries. Japan echoed the statements made by speakers with regard to the “DPRK”. Despite repeated calls by the international community, the “DPRK” had conducted 14 ballistic missile launches this year. The one on 28 July had landed near Japan’s exclusive economic area. Japan welcomed the Security Council resolution in August that contained robust sanctions and urged the “DPRK” to fully comply. Japan emphasised the importance of strong cooperation between the United States, Japan, China and Russia and hoped that they could ensure the implementation of the relevant resolutions. The Conference on Disarmament continued to face serious challenges and Japan welcomed discussions on the way ahead. In order to revitalize or rejuvenate the Conference, they should continue and deepen discussions held this year. Japan hoped that the plenaries would continue.

Netherlands strongly condemned the missile launches by the “DPRK” which severely destabilized the region, were a threat to the international community, and should cease immediately. The international community was obliged to fully implement the sanctions regime so that they were effective.

Belgium vehemently condemned the ballistic missile launches in July by “North Korea” which were highly destabilizing. “DPRK” continued to unacceptably defy the Security Council’s authority. Belgium urged “DPRK” to abstain from further provocations. Belgium regretted that no plenaries had been held under the outgoing President and hoped that this would not set a precedent.

Hungary shared its disappointment that the Conference on Disarmament did not meet in plenary for four weeks. It would be very useful to turn and seek legal advice on the role, rights and responsibilities of the President of the Conference.

Slovakia condemned the latest ballistic missiles by the “DPRK” and categorically regretted the irresponsible actions which were flagrant violations and a serious threat to international peace and security.

United Kingdom, speaking in a right of reply, said the head of the South African delegation had questioned his use of the term hypocrisy with respect to her statement earlier this morning. To his mind, bemoaning the lack of a programme of work at the Conference on Disarment and as President not holding consultations on such a programme of work was hypocrisy. Also saying that States should not pick and choose, when again as President South Africa had clearly chosen not to hold plenaries in the face of numerous requests to do so was also hypocrisy.

United States, speaking in a right of reply, said it had been shocked by the undiplomatic language by the Ambassador of South Africa this morning against his United Kingdom counterpart. That language in this chamber was inappropriate and only widened and deepened the divisions in the Conference. The refusal of South Africa to hold plenaries was a slap to the face of this body and its members and the United States Government would not accept this. On comments by Russia and China with regard to the so-called freeze for freeze proposal, this proposal unfortunately created a false equivalency between States that were engaged in legitimate exercises of self-defence with a regime that had violated countless Security Council resolutions with regard to its proscribed nuclear and ballistic programmes. That was a false equivalency that they could not accept.

Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, said what they had heard from “DPRK” was a repetition of the familiar threat to continue to build up its nuclear capability and to use it, which meant it would continue to break United Nations Security Council resolutions. “DPRK” was urged to rethink what had been heard here in the Conference. On the joint military exercises, they had been conducted annually for several decades to respond to the clear and present threat from “North Korea”. They were conducted in a transparent manner with early notification to the “DPRK”. There was no equivalency and it was a non-starter to link the stopping of the illicit “North Korean” provocations with stopping the annual joint military exercises, which were defence oriented and transparent. The door for dialogue remained open whenever “DPRK” chose to give up its nuclear weapons and make the right decision.

China, speaking in a right of reply in response to the remarks on the freeze for freeze proposal which China had proposed, said China was not creating equivalency between anything. China was just making a proposal to facilitate a dialogue and reduce the tension. They needed a starting point to launch the dialogue. If they had better ideas, would they please put them on the table. They were open to all kinds of proposals.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, said that whenever the United States staged its nuclear war exercises in South Korea, it said that they were defence oriented. This was no more than a deceptive excuse to shift the blame for the tensions to the “DPRK” and justify the aggressive war plan. The root cause of the current situation in the Korean peninsula was the hostile policy of the United States and its nuclear threats against “DPRK”. “DPRK” rejected Security Council sanctions.

Iran said it had not been in the Council room this morning and felt obliged to express some comments. As far as the convening of the plenaries were concerned, the rules of procedure said the President had the margin of Presidential prerogative to the extent that he would margin appreciations of delegations on the possibility to convene meetings. The Conference had been polarized for 20 years, therefore intervening in this dispute on the rules of procedure or micro management of the role of the President would not help very much. South Africa was a country with a great reputation on nuclear disarmament. They should not let this issue further polarize the Conference on Disarmament.

Ambassador JULIO HERRAIZ of Spain, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Council would now hold a meeting of the Working Group on the way ahead. As for the next plenary, States would be informed about the time of the next plenary. There was a possibility that it would be held on Friday, 25 August, at 10 a.m. If not, it would be on Tuesday, 29 August.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC17/027E