United Kingdom Tells Conference on Disarmament it Intends to Increase the Limit of its Overall Nuclear Weapons Stockpile because of the Deteriorating Nuclear Security Environment
The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a plenary meeting under the Presidency of Bulgaria, in which it heard the United Kingdom brief the Conference on its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Foreign and Development Policy that was published last week.
James Cleverly, MP, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom, said the review was about building resilience at home and overseas; strengthening defence and security partnerships; contributing to scientific and technological innovation; and shaping the open international order of the future that allowed all countries, and all peoples, to be secure, prosperous and free.
Mr. Cleverly said the Integrated Review also served as an official statement of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrence policy. The United Kingdom intended to maintain its nuclear deterrent, for as long as it needed it, as the ultimate guarantee of its security and that of its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. It also remained committed to, and would actively pursue, the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The nuclear security environment had deteriorated over the past decade. In this context, the United Kingdom intended to increase the limit of its overall weapons stockpile from 225, to no more than 260 warheads.
Ambassador Yuri Borissov Sterk of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said it was an honour for Bulgaria to be presiding over the Conference. After two weeks of intensive consultations he regretted that at present, conditions were not right for bringing divergent positions of Member States close enough to create the necessary common grounds that would allow the Conference to adopt a programme of work and start fulfilling its mandate. The Conference should now assume its responsibility and make the maximum use of the remaining time of the 2021 session. The P6 believed that under the current circumstances, the best way forward was to turn to thematic debates as a means of providing for a more substantive work of the Conference.
Presenting the P6’s plan for thematic debates, the President said the six rotating presidencies of the Conference for 2021 had decided to address the seven agenda items of the Conference. The Bulgarian Presidency would schedule thematic debates on agenda items 1 and 2. The subsequent agenda items and related thematic debates would be considered by the subsequent presidencies. The main goal was to make the maximum use of the available resources and provide for substantive discussions on the topics on the agenda of the Conference. The Bulgarian Presidency was considering, for the time being tentatively, 11 May 2021 for the agenda item 1 on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament and 18 May for agenda item 2 on prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.
The Conference also heard from Iraq, Iran, Argentina, Russian Federation, United States, Cuba, Syria and the United Kingdom.
This was the last plenary for the Conference during the first part of its 2021 session. The second part of the session will be held from 10 May to 25 June. The President said that the date of the next plenary would be communicated by the secretariat at a later date.
Statements
Ambassador YURI BORISSOV STERK of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, on the occasion of the first plenary under the Presidency of Bulgaria, said building on and continuing the diligent work and relentless efforts of the previous Belgium and Brazilian presidencies of the Conference, and having conducted for almost two weeks intensive consultations with all regional groups, he had reached the regretful conclusion that at present, conditions were not right for bringing divergent positions of Member States close enough to create the necessary common grounds that would allow the Conference to adopt a programme of work and start fulfilling its mandate. This was the reality and the Conference had to face it. The Conference should now assume its responsibility and make the maximum use of the remaining time of the 2021 session. Against the backdrop of this reality, one of ever-growing international tensions and overall deterioration of the international security environment, the P6 believed that under the current circumstances, the best way forward was to turn to thematic debates as a means of providing for a more substantive work of the Conference.
JAMES CLEVERLY, MP, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom, briefing the Conference on the United Kingdom’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Foreign and Development Policy that was published last week, said the review was about building resilience at home and overseas; strengthening defence and security partnerships; contributing to scientific and technological innovation; and shaping the open international order of the future that allowed all countries, and all peoples, to be secure, prosperous and free. Through all these objectives ran the United Kingdom’s enduring commitment to solving problems with its partners through multilateral channels.
The Integrated Review also served as an official statement of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrence policy. The United Kingdom intended to maintain its nuclear deterrent, for as long as it needed it, as the ultimate guarantee of its security and that of its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. It also remained committed to, and would actively pursue, the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The nuclear security environment had deteriorated over the past decade. In this context, the United Kingdom intended to increase the limit of its overall weapons stockpile from 225, to no more than 260 warheads. The United Kingdom would continue to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament and this included the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and successful negotiations at this Conference on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
On the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the Integrated Review recognised the centrality of space systems to security and prosperity. It also highlighted the growing range of threats to space systems, and the risk that those threats could lead to miscalculation and, in turn, escalation. The open international order must extend to outer space, to tackle these threats to international peace and security.
Concerning wider non-proliferation, arms control and the disarmament picture, the United Kingdom was determined to strengthen international prohibitions on the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was also determined to ensure accountability for those who used them – such as those responsible for the poisoning of Alexey Navalny, those responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury in 2018, and members of the Syrian regime responsible for the appalling use of chemical weapons against its own people. The Chemical Weapons Convention Conference of States Parties must take a stand against these incidents, and against the Syrian regime’s failure to accurately declare its chemical weapons programme. The COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the devastating effects of disease, and the need to strengthen global biosecurity. The United Kingdom had been at the forefront of international efforts to ban biological weapons for decades and would continue to champion ways of strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, at the forthcoming Ninth Review Conference.
On new technologies – threats and opportunities, the Integrated Review recognised the extraordinary potential that technology had for global prosperity, to the benefit of all. But the exploitation and proliferation of new technology posed risks too, and the international community must work together to extend the international order to cover them, supplementing domestic controls and protections. As for conventional weapons, the Integrated Review also made clear that the United Kingdom remained determined to prevent the destabilising accumulation and illicit transfers of conventional weapons. The United Kingdom had now fulfilled its legal obligations to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, by clearing all landmines from the Falkland Islands, and it would continue to uphold its moral obligation to support mine action across the globe. In conclusion, Mr. Cleverly said the Integrated Review put multilateralism, arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament at the heart of its approach to security.
Ambassador YURI BORISSOV STERK of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, presenting the P6’s plan for thematic debates, said the six rotating presidencies of the Conference for 2021 had decided to address the seven agenda items as adopted at the beginning of this year’s CD session: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments. The Bulgarian Presidency would schedule thematic debates on agenda items 1 and 2. The subsequent agenda items and related thematic debates would be considered by the subsequent presidencies.
Depending on the final confirmation of the dates of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’ Review Conference, each subsequent presidency would provide precise information for the thematic debates it would schedule during its term/tenure and respective dates. The main goal was to make the maximum use of the available resources and provide for substantive discussions on the topics on the agenda of the Conference. The Bulgarian Presidency was considering, for the time being tentatively, 11 May 2021 for the agenda item 1 on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament and 18 May for agenda item 2 on prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.
Iraq said the Conference had achieved many previous achievements by negotiating conventions that had had positive contributions to international disarmament. The Conference was presently going through a crucial juncture which, in the light of the stalemate in the disarmament field, was endangering international security and peace. This might derail the Conference from its constructive role. The Conference had failed for over two decades to undertake a negotiating role in disarmament treaties, and it needed to increase efforts to reach an agreement on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work that responded to the needs of its Member States and followed the rules of procedure of the Conference. Iraq approved of setting up nuclear weapon free zones as a step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and called on the international community to implement the decision of 1995 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. Iraq was willing to effectively participate in the second session of the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, scheduled for November 2020.
Iran supported the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body. It was regrettable that despite all efforts, the Conference had not been able to agree on a programme of work because of the lack of political will from Member States. Turning the Conference into a deliberating body would not serve the cause of nuclear disarmament. The United Kingdom had announced it would increase the number of its nuclear warheads. Ironically, the new policy claimed that the United Kingdom remained committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Iran wondered how building up a nuclear arsenal could be interpreted as a commitment of the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. This new policy constituted material breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other conferences. One could not lose sight of the utter hypocrisy when the United Kingdom expressed its concern about other States’ nuclear programmes. Iran believed that all weapons of mass destruction were barbaric and must be eradicated. The United Kingdom lacked minimum moral grounds to preach others on the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. The new nuclear policy of the United Kingdom was very detrimental to the credibility and legitimacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and also for the very survival of the treaty. Iran’s position to prioritise nuclear disarmament was more credible than ever. After listening to the United Kingdom today, it was urgent for the Conference on Disarmament to seriously consider the fundamental urgency of negative security assurances.
Argentina , referring to the statement by the United Kingdom concerning its fulfilment of its obligations under the Ottawa Convention relating to the Malvinas Islands, Argentinian territory which the United Kingdom considered to be under its control, reiterated the particular situation of these islands when Argentina ratified the Ottawa Convention in 1989. Because this part of Argentina’s territory continued to be subjected to the occupation of the United Kingdom, Argentina could not access the anti-personal mines that were laid there in order to fulfil its obligations under the Ottawa Convention. Argentina rejected the unilateral British action for mine clearance in Argentinian sovereign territory which could not be verified. Despite the United Kingdom refusing to undertake joint work, Argentina in October 2020 had once again suggested striking a bilateral agreement, which would be completely technical and humanitarian in nature, to enable both countries to complete the demining process once and for all. Argentina hoped the United Kingdom would respond positively to this issue. The Malvinas were an integral part of Argentina’s territory.
Russian Federation, sharing thoughts about future work, drew attention to the request from a number of delegations during the informal meetings, particularly on 25 March, requesting the Bulgarian Presidency to continue working towards achieving consensus on the two draft decisions on the work of the Conference in 2021. If the Conference managed to adopt these two draft decisions, it would still have enough time in 2021 to focus at least three meetings for each of these subsidiary bodies. The basis of the work would be based on the latest version submitted by the Brazilian Presidency. The Russian Federation hoped that these recommendations would be given due attention. The Russian Federation thanked the Bulgarian Presidency and the P6 for setting out their vision for the thematic meetings. Thematic discussions would focus on issues on the agenda and would help bring predictability and structure into the work of the Conference.
Ambassador YURI BORISSOV STERK of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted the Russian delegation’s suggestions and said they would be given due consideration by the Presidency.
United States thanked the President and his colleagues for their efforts and echoed the view that they did not reach their goal because of the lack of political will of Member States, not of the P6. In his high-level week statement, Secretary Blinken reminded the Conference that previous delegations had worked together despite their differences and negotiated landmark treaties and pledged that the United States was willing to work and cooperate and use the Conference to create bold and innovative agreements to protect. The United States had made real concessions and it was disappointed that they would not be meeting in subsidiary bodies now, instead of another plenary to decry the lack of progress in the Conference. The P6 made the right choice in ending the debate as it was clear that political will did not exist. The thematic debates were not a substitute for what the Conference should be doing, but they could advance mutual understanding. The United States welcomed the Integrated Review of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom had long been a leader in reducing nuclear risks. The current international security environment was very serious and nuclear disarmament could not be divorced from the prevailing security environment.
Cuba asked for clarification about the President’s ideas for the work of the Conference. It wished to know the form and format that the thematic debates on 11 and 18 May would be taking, and whether experts would be invited? This needed to be decided by the Conference. Also, would the Bulgarian Presidency circulate a calendar for the whole year, or would each President decide on the period of their presidency? Cuba was deeply concerned by the statement of the United Kingdom mentioning an increase of its nuclear arsenal. The obligations set forth in the Nuclear-Non-proliferation treaty were very clear about nuclear weapon States and their disarmament obligations. Nuclear weapon States must abide by their obligations with no conditions attached.
Ambassador YURI BORISSOV STERK of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in response to the questions on the format and modalities of the thematic debates, said that the presidency had ideas and was considering inviting presenters on specific topics, however, this course of action was aimed in no way to pre-empt or to narrow the focus of the forthcoming discussions, rather to provide for an objective and substantive discussion. States would be informed in due course about the specific modalities. As for the second question, each presidency would decide, mainly because of the uncertainty as to the remaining time for the Conference in view of the upcoming Nuclear Non-proliferation Review Conference.
Syria said the Minister of State of the United Kingdom had used the word regime when speaking about the Syrian Government and this was beyond the curtesy that was common in the Conference on Disarmament. The name of the Government was the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, a full-fledged Member State of the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament. The United Kingdom’s Minister also made groundless and fabricated allegation on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The United Kingdom’s increase of nuclear stockpiles was a breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The Syrian Arab Republic had met all its legal obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
United Kingdom said the United Kingdom had no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime waters. The United Kingdom had discharged its obligations under the Ottawa Convention.
Argentina said the Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas were a part of Argentina’s national territory and had been occupied by the United Kingdom since 1933. The current inhabitants of the Malvinas were not recognised as a people group in United Nations resolutions as they were British people who had been transplanted to the Malvinas Islands. When the United Kingdom took ownership of the Malvinas Islands, they had evicted the Argentinian authorities and had brought it their own colonisers and policy.
United Kingdom regretted that Argentina continued to deny the fundamental human rights of self-determination to the people of the Falkland Islands. The islands had never been administered by nor formed part of the sovereign territory of Argentina.
Argentina said the vote from 2013 in the Malvinas was a unilateral British act that was not organised under the auspices of the United Nations and did not change the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas and the legitimate right of the Argentinian people.
DC.21.017E