CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FOCUSED DEBATE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a focused debate on nuclear disarmament, with speakers outlining national positions and measures they were taking in support of nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Vaanchig Purevdori of Mongolia, President of the Conference, said they would devote their meeting today to general statements on agenda items 1 and 2, with special focus on nuclear disarmament. To advance the agenda of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was one of the main priorities of the Conference and substantive and focused discussion on the issue would be timely and relevant when they were preparing for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference.

Speaking in the discussion was Pakistan, United Kingdom on behalf of the P5, South Africa, Russia, Bulgaria, India, Indonesia, Japan, France, Algeria, United States, Iraq and Netherlands.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference accepted the request of Bahrain to participate in the 2015 session of the Conference as an Observer State.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 26 February, when it will hold a focused debate on Fissile Material (Cut-off) Treaty.


Statements

VAANCHIG PUREVDORI (Mongolia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said they would devote their meeting today to general statements on agenda items 1 and 2, with special focus on nuclear disarmament. He sincerely appreciated that the Conference had accepted his suggestion to have a focused debate and to exchange views on the four core issues. To advance the agenda of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was one of the main priorities of the Conference and substantive and focused discussion on the issue would be timely and relevant when they were preparing for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference.

Pakistan said the reasons for the inaction on nuclear disarmament and the ongoing stalemate of the United Nations disarmament machinery lay in the lack of political will among significant military States to address the relevant issues on an equitable basis with due regard for the security of all States. Nuclear weapon States must announce a renewed commitment to achieve nuclear disarmament within a reasonable timeframe. Most States, including members of the Non-Aligned Movement, preferred a direct and comprehensive approach for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe. A comprehensive nuclear weapons convention would prohibit the possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and provide for their destruction. While Pakistan favoured a comprehensive approach to nuclear disarmament, it was, for the sake of facilitating progress, open to considering all options as long as they were in agreement that the end goal was complete nuclear disarmament within a specified timeframe, with equal and undiminished security for all States. Pakistan could not accept that this ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament was derailed by the pursuit of discriminatory and deceptive interim agreements. Nuclear disarmament was being delayed by diverting the Conference’s focus to partial non-proliferation measures like an FMCT. An FMCT that did not address the existing stockpiles of fissile materials would make no contribution towards nuclear disarmament. Pakistan hoped that the discussions today would facilitate the start of negotiations in the Conference on nuclear disarmament.

United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the P5 China, France, Russia, United States and United Kingdom, said the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear-Weapon States or P5 met in London on 4 and 5 February for the sixth P5 conference to review progress towards fulfilling the commitments made at the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and to discuss the next steps for the P5process. They restated their belief that the NPT remained the essential cornerstone for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and was an essential contribution to international security and stability. The P5 reaffirmed that a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament that promoted international stability, peace and undiminished and increasing security for all remained the only realistic and practical route to achieving a world without nuclear weapons. To this end, the P5 discussed issues related to international security and strategic stability and their nuclear doctrines in order to enhance mutual understanding in these areas. The P5 all affirmed the importance of full compliance with existing, legally-binding arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament agreements and obligations as an essential element of international peace and security. The P5 stressed that addressing further prospects for nuclear disarmament would require taking into account all factors that could affect global strategic stability. In doing so they stressed the importance of engaging in frank and constructive dialogue to that end.

South Africa said it was concerned about the continuing stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament despite recent intensive efforts to get the Conference back to work. As the world’s single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, the prolonged impasse in the Conference not only undermined its credibility but also raised questions about its continued relevance. Nuclear disarmament remained South Africa’s highest priority and it remained concerned about the lack of progress on this important issue. As long as nuclear weapons existed, vertical and horizontal proliferation would persist and the threat to humanity would remain. The continued retention of nuclear weapons on the basis of the perceived security interests of some States came at the expense of the rest of humanity. It was simply not sustainable for some States to argue that nuclear weapons were central to their own security, while expecting others not to argue the same. It was also regrettable that vast public resources were diverted towards the modernization of nuclear weapons while basic human needs could not be met. Measurable progress on nuclear disarmament was a major determinant in achieving and in sustaining international peace and security. Nuclear weapons had no place in today’s world.

Russia said Russia had been fully complying with its international obligations in the area of nuclear disarmament. It had concluded a number of agreements and treaties that were the foundation of its policy in the area of nuclear disarmament and strengthening strategic stability. From the very beginning, since 1987 and until today, Russia had reduced its nuclear deterrent force several times, in comparison to the times of the Cold War, and had fully complied with its obligation to put an end to the arms race. As President Putin had said, Russia was ready for a serious discussion on questions of nuclear disarmament. This could only be based on assurances of equal security for all, and with consideration of all factors that had an impact on global stability. Today, the capabilities of many precision weapons were very close to nuclear weapons and if countries renounced their nuclear potential, countries that had an advantage in the creation and production of high precision weapons would achieve a significant military advantage. As for the plans of the United States and its allies to deploy an anti- ballistic system, Russia would speak about this later. Russia’s assessment of the destabilizing nature a global anti-ballistic system was shared by the majority of United Nations Member States. Another serious challenge that may undermine the foundation of global stability was related to the deployment of weapons in space. The Conference on Disarmament as the only multilateral negotiating forum could and should make its contribution to resolving these matters. Russia was ready to participate in direct and detailed discussions and was ready to negotiate on these issues.

Bulgaria joined others who spoke in favour of re-establishing the informal working group on a programme of work. It was timely and relevant to continue the discussion on the issue of nuclear disarmament. Bulgaria was strongly committed to the objective of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. They needed to work towards further strengthening the regime of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear (NPT) Weapons. The NPT was an irreplaceable framework for maintaining international peace and security and they had to unite efforts to secure a positive outcome of the forthcoming NPT Review Conference that would lay the groundwork for further progress in this area. Advancing nuclear disarmament was a collective responsibility. Nuclear disarmament was a complex process that did not occur in a vacuum and the strategic context could not be neglected. Both humanitarian and security considerations had to be taken into account. Bulgaria encouraged and supported a constructive and realistic gradual approach that that required, inter alia, agreeing on practical and implementable measures, building blocks that would strengthen the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime and the Conference was positioned to play a significant role in this regard. Starting negotiations in the Conference on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty , on the basis of the mandate in the document CD/1299, remained a priority for Bulgaria.

India said India had been unwavering in its commitment to universal, non-discriminatory, verifiable nuclear disarmament. India believed that nuclear disarmament could be achieved through a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed global and non-discriminatory multilateral framework. India had called for a meaningful dialogue among all States possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence and for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs and security doctrines. Without prejudice to the priority India attached to nuclear disarmament, it supported the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of an FMCT that met India’s national security interests. India hoped that the group of governmental experts on FMCT established under UNGA resolution 67/53 would strengthen international resolve for the early commencement of treaty negotiations in the Conference on the basis of the agreed mandate contained in CD/1299. India was committed to working with the international community to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, including through strong national export controls and early membership of the multilateral export control regimes.

Indonesia said it appreciated Mongolia’s plan to re-establish an informal working group on a programme of work and to work on the draft programme of activities of the 2015 session and would support any effort to produce a workable programme of work; it also supported the decision to hold public plenaries on the four core issues. The issue of nuclear disarmament remained an international priority. Indonesia emphasized the necessity to start negotiations on a programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention without further delay, and establishing and ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as soon as possible. The continuing deadlock in the Conference reflected the lack of shared commitments to the goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons as well as other core issues before the Conference. Member States of the Conference had to demonstrate flexibility and political will to agree on a balance and comprehensive programme of work.

Japan said the overall objective of nuclear disarmament was to achieve a safer world without nuclear weapons, and for that purpose it was important to take realistic and practical steps in a progressive manner. Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida had proposed that they should work towards “three reductions” in nuclear disbarment and “three preventions” in nuclear non-proliferation, namely reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, the role they played and the incentive to possess them, and prevention of the emergence of new nuclear weapon States, the proliferation of nuclear-weapons-related materials and technologies, and nuclear terrorism. Japan was determined to make further efforts to accumulate building blocks towards a world without nuclear weapons. In Geneva, the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was Japan’s highest priority. Japan also placed great emphasis on the significance of education, i.e. spreading awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian
Across national borders and generations. Japan was fully committed to achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and with this in mind, Japan intended to continue to steadily promote practical steps and effective measures for this end.

France said it would like this meeting to reflect the importance that the Treaty of Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) had as a key stone of the international non-proliferation regime and as the grounding of disarmament efforts. Just a few weeks before the NPT Review Conference their priority must be to consolidate it. This meant that they must continue to fully implement the roadmap adopted by consensus in 2010. This was the only realistic and effective way forward when it came to multilateral disarmament. Nuclear disarmament would only have a meaning if it did not lead to an arms race in other sectors. France was fully committed to disarmament and shared the long-term objective of the complete removal of all nuclear weapons when the strategic context allowed for this. In recent years, France had halved the overall number of its nuclear weapons; it had not only stopped nuclear testing but had also ceased the production of uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons purposes and had dismantled the relevant facilities. The President of France had restated France’s priorities on nuclear disarmament. The first remained the earliest possible entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The second priority was the final cessation of the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. The President called on all nuclear weapons States to begin discussions forthwith on a complete cessation of production of fissile materials and in the coming weeks France would be submitting an ambitious, realistic and verifiable draft treaty on these issues.

Algeria said he did not have a prepared statement because he did not want to repeat the same rhetoric of previous years. The position of Algeria was well known and remained the same, as was that of other delegations. Every year, they had this exercise of discussion on the various items of the agenda, but this became a sort of monologue with things never changing. The Conference was mired in sluggish inactivity and this situation raised the concern of the international community. This was not only holding the Conference hostage but the whole business of disarmament. The danger of nuclear weapons was nothing new. The idea of mutual assured destruction unfortunately still seems to be alive and kicking today. The security of States could not be seen as an abstract, it could only be seen in the context of everyone. Algeria had taken note of the statement of the United Kingdom on the dialogue of the P5 and welcomed that they were still committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and had listened with respect to the statement of India. Nuclear weapons States had a particular responsibility and they must start diminishing their arsenal with a view to doing away with it entirely. France had eloquently spoken about nuclear disarmament.

As for the Conference on Disarmament, given that nuclear weapons States were still committed to their goal of nuclear disarmament, Algeria wished to share an idea, if the Conference could codify the commitment that these States made to eliminate nuclear weapons and then they would be able to put together a working group within the Conference reflecting on the measures that needed to be taken to achieve this goal. As for the President’s plans, through the G21 coordinator, Algeria had received a report on the discussion of the P6 yesterday and learned that the President intended to carry out consultations to re-establish the informal working group on the programme of work and put in time a schedule of activities as well as a working group on the methods of work of the Conference. Algeria would wait to receive these proposals; without wishing to pre-empt the President’s thinking, the Conference had to find a solution for its programme of work and the President should continue consultations on the basis of previous proposals. Putting in place again the informal working group was something that they had been doing for the past two years but Algeria was not sure that this would allow the Conference to make any headway. Algeria suggested that they make the calendar of activities a platform of discussion sanctioned by a report which would give the international community and the General Assembly a real picture of the situation on the different issues.

Russia wanted to say a few words on the issue of anti-ballistic missile defences. Russia believed that the intention of the United States and its allies to build a global anti-ballistic missile system in its regional segments, without taking into account the interests and concerns of other States, was one of the key factors that had a negative impact on international security and stability. This was exacerbated as they saw the deployment in different parts of the world of new United States anti-ballistic missile sites. Dividing lines between States were getting even deeper and mutual mistrust was growing. The planned increase of anti-ballistic missile systems that could intercept ICBMs and SLBMs created a direct threat to existing strategic parity. This harmful process was started by the United States when they withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002. As new anti-ballistic missile technologies were being developed and as new systems were being deployed in Romania, Poland and the sea areas of Europe, these plans were becoming more and more dangerous and were directly affecting Russian interests. The destabilizing effect of anti-ballistic missile systems was having an impact on other areas of the world. At the same time, information and space systems were being improved and a comprehensive programme of testing them was being carried out. These colossal efforts demonstrated that the official declared objectives of Washington were quite far from the real ones. Any step that undermined strategic stability would lead to counter steps and this was causing long-term harm to the entire system of international treaties in the area of arms control.

United States said the United States had had countless bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation on a range of issues, one of which was ballistic missile defense. The United States had always been open to having those discussions and had said the Russian Federation had nothing to fear. The ballistic defence system that the United States had been working on with allies had basically been developed to protect them from new threats that had emerged. The United States was willing to talk to Russia about these issues and about strategic stability and of course further nuclear reductions.

VAANCHIG PUREVDORI (Mongolia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he had been undertaking consultations on three issues among the P6 Members, namely, re-establishment of the informal working group on the programme of work; the schedule of activities of the 2015 session of the Conference; and establishment of an informal working group on methods of work. All members of the P6 were working very closely.
Once consultations were concluded and the draft documents were finalized, he would share the draft proposals on these three issues with the Conference through the coordinators of the regional groups for further consultations.

Iraq asked the President whether the draft proposals would be circulated this week or after the high-level segment.

VAANCHIG PUREVDORI (Mongolia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said in terms of time, they aimed to do this within this week, finalize and distribute the proposals to the coordinators of the regional groups this week. If not, then next week.

Algeria said concerning the proposal that the President intended to present to the Conference related to the three mentioned issues, Algeria was not sure what the status of these proposals would be but it would like to see these documents presented in the appropriate framework for the Conference to be able to continue with its consultations. On the main issue and the programme of work, Algeria would like to strongly encourage the President to continue consultations on this question of principle, taking into account proposals that were already on the table.

Netherlands asked if the secretariat had an indication about speakers during the high-level panel and if a list was available as it could be of interest to delegations.

The Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament said they were in the process of finalizing the list, but many delegations kept coming to change the times and dates, so it was difficult for the secretariat to finalize it. They intended to do so by early next week. At present, they had 24 dignitaries, including around 17 full Ministers.

Netherlands said that this was rather late, some Ministers, including of the Netherlands, would be speaking on Monday. An indicative list would be appreciated for planning purposes.

The Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament said they were working with individual delegations. In the past, they had only put up the high-level list when it was confirmed and finalized. The secretariat would continue to provide the Conference with information.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/011E