CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM 11 DIGNITARIES AS IT CONTINUES WITH ITS HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued with its high-level segment, hearing statements by dignitaries from Kazakhstan, Latvia, Argentina, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Japan, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Nigeria and Italy.

Kairat Abdrakhmanov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, reminded that, more than two decades ago, Kazakhstan had willingly renounced the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. A nuclear weapons free world would be the highest possible achievement for humanity.

Edgars Rinkēvičs, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, stated that Latvia shared the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, and it believed that a new legally binding instrument on the prohibition of nuclear weapons could only be the final step of the disarmament process to seal the global zero.

Pedro Raul Villagra Delgado, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, said that nuclear weapons States ought to assume the leadership and fulfill the commitments made in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review process would provide a unique opportunity to overcome divisions in the international community.

Ioannis Amanatidis, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, reminded that Greece was the longest-standing observer of the Conference, since 1982, and it was anachronistic to restrict participation in negotiations on disarmament issues to only 65 countries.

Yun Byung-Se, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, stated that “North Korea” was the first country in this century to have conducted nuclear tests, while the assassination of the brother of the current “North Korean” leader in Malaysia with the internationally banned VX nerve agent was another major cause of concern.

Alfonso Dastis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that Spain attached great importance to possible humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Undiminished security for all was an important principle which needed to be endorsed. Small arms and light weapons claimed more victims than any other types of weapons.

Motome Takisawa, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, stressed that, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, Japan would continue to make every effort to promote nuclear disarmament. There needed to be a clear understanding of humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.

Gennadiy Gatilov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, reminded that the Russian Federation had been undertaking efforts to find possible compromises on the draft programme of work, including a proposal for the Conference to develop an international convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism.

Valentin Rybakov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that complete nuclear disarmament remained a priority for Belarus, which was something to be achieved through a set of concrete steps, including through an adoption of legally binding instruments on the banning of the production of fissile materials.

Geoffrey Onyeama, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, stated that one atomic bomb could wipe out millions of people in seconds, but nations seemed to have abdicated their responsibility to free it of nuclear weapons. Nigeria recommended revisiting the Conference’s Rules of Procedure and, in particular, the consensus rule which had haunted the Conference.

Benedetto della Vedova, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, said that Italy believed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty would be a crucial step for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The Conference on Disarmament will continue with the high-level segment at 3 p.m. this afternoon.

High-Level Segment

KAIRAT ABDRAKHMANOV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, noted that disarmament was one of the pillars on which the United Nations was built. Initiatives from individual States had slowed down, likely due to the lack of political commitment. The President of Kazakhstan, addressing the seventieth session of the General Assembly in 2015, had urged the international community to build a world free of nuclear weapons. In 2016, at a nuclear summit in Washington, the President’s manifesto had asked for cooperation rather than rivalry, and called for the strengthening of trust between regional groups. More than two decades ago, Kazakhstan had willingly renounced the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Kazakhstan considered the Conference as the only permanent multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Dialogue between the Conference and civil society ought to be further strengthened and supported. 2017 could be a landmark year for negotiations on nuclear disarmament; in less than a month there would be a conference on a legally binding ban on nuclear weapons, but that was not sufficient; appropriate mechanisms could be developed only within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament. All immediate actions needed to be taken to create nuclear weapons free zones around the world, including in the Middle East, Northeast Asia, etc. Mr. Abdrakhmanov stated that the arms race in outer space also ought to be prevented. Kazakhstan supported the commencement of negotiations on conventions to suppress the acts of chemical and biological terrorism. On 1 January, Kazakhstan had become a non-permanent member of the Security Council, which was a great responsibility; Kazakhstan would use that position to further promote peace and security in the world. A nuclear weapons free world would be the highest possible achievement for the humanity, concluded Mr. Abdrakhmanov.

EDGARS RINKĒVIČS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, welcomed the decision of the Conference to establish a working group on the way ahead and wished the working group every success in fulfilling its highly demanding task. Latvia was committed to effective multilateral arms control, and considered the Conference on Disarmament to be the main representative forum for negotiations of global disarmament issues. Latvia placed high hopes in strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention regime, and regretted that the 2016 Review Conference had fallen short of expectations. Latvia was concerned about the prolonged stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament. The creation of parallel processes and negotiations diminished the importance of the Conference.

While Latvia shared the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, it believed that a new legally binding instrument on the prohibition of nuclear weapons could only be the final step of the disarmament process to seal the global zero. A new review cycle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was starting this year, and Latvia looked forward to the first Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2020 Review Conference, to be held in May 2017. The newly established group of governmental experts on nuclear verification to gather in Geneva would make a considerable contribution towards the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Latvia condemned the illegal nuclear tests and launches of ballistic missiles conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Along with multilateral initiatives on disarmament, the key to success was the P5 process. Mr. Rinkēvičs welcomed Iran’s efforts in the successful implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but reiterated that Latvia was deeply worried that one party had violated a number of provisions of the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances to Ukraine. Such actions significantly eroded the level of trust and undermined nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It was important to continue consultations on the expansion of the membership of the Conference.

PEDRO RAÚL VILLAGRA DELGADO, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, said that Argentina, within its framework of broad and traditional support for multilateralism, had been actively involved in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, whose marginalization should be avoided. The rule of consensus was being widely criticized, and its recovery as an advisable means for the adoption of international obligations was a collective responsibility. Argentina welcomed the Romanian Presidency’s proposal to allow the continuation of discussions related to the elements that should be contained in a programme of work, in order to be able to start negotiations.

Argentina agreed on the need to negotiate a treaty that prohibited the production of fissile material for nuclear devices. Significant work remained to be done in the field of the prevention of the arms race in outer space. A fissile material cut-off treaty would be an effective contribution to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Argentina strongly condemned the repeated nuclear tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was known that Argentina maintained a vigorous nuclear programme for exclusively peaceful purposes, and had traditionally given priority to the issue of nuclear disarmament. It was concerning that no concrete progress had been made in that regard over the last several years. Nuclear weapons States ought to assume the leadership and fulfill the commitments made in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review process would provide a suitable environment to promote joint work and a unique opportunity to overcome divisions in the international community. For Argentina, stressed Mr. Villagra Delgado, the general and complete elimination of nuclear weapons was the best guarantee against the use or threat of use of such weapons. He reminded that Latin America and the Caribbean were part of a nuclear weapon free zone, in accordance with the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It was regrettable that the 2012 conference on the Middle East nuclear weapon free zone had not been held yet.

IOANNIS AMANATIDIS, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, said that, from its inception, the Conference had set the framework for numerous important multilateral treaties that had guided the global community through détente to the post-Cold War environment. Today it was more important than ever that the longstanding deadlock be broken by restarting negotiations on pivotal issues, such as a fissile material cut-off treaty, which was the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament.

It was high time that everyone left behind the current inertia of the Conference and took advantage of important initiatives regularly tabled in the United Nations First Committee. Greece believed that, in the effort to achieve in the long run a world free of nuclear weapons, the way forward towards complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament was through a realistic step-by-step approach. Mr. Amanatidis reminded that Greece was the longest-standing observer of the Conference, since 1982, and it was anachronistic to restrict the participation in negotiations on disarmament issues to only 65 countries. It was equally counterproductive to hold enlargement hostage to bilateral issues which had absolutely no relevance to the subject matter of the Conference. The Conference could not afford to remain in a constant deadlock and should finally begin substantive work, through the adoption of a programme of work. Greece stood ready to contribute constructively to that process.

YUN BYUNG-SE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, opined that the international security environment was graver than ever since the end of the Cold War, with global challenges, including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, refugees, climate change and pandemics. The Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had a special responsibility as a norm-setter.

It was ironical that the landmark achievements of the Conference and its key objective of nuclear disarmament were being seriously challenged by one of its own members – “North Korea”. “North Korea” was a norm-breaker par excellence, unparalleled in the history of the United Nations. It was the first country in this century to have conducted nuclear tests, and the first country to have officially declared itself a “nuclear-armed state” in its constitution. In 2016 alone, “North Korea” had violated United Nations Security Council resolutions at least 26 times. However, the assassination of the brother of the current “North Korean” leader in Malaysia with VX nerve agent was another major cause of concern. VX was a chemical weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations and strictly banned by international norms and resolutions. “North Korea” was reported to have thousands of tons of chemical weapons, including VX, all over the country. The message of the recent assassination was clear: the impulsive, brutal regime was ready and willing to strike anyone, anytime, anywhere. The use of chemical weapons, stressed Mr. Yun, was in a flagrant violation of international law, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, a proud achievement of the Conference. Once the Malaysian Government released its final investigation results, the Security Council and the Chemical Weapons Convention Meeting of the States parties should take up that case as a high priority agenda. In a nutshell, “North Korea” over the last year had violated a wide range of international norms, including the United Nations Charter, Security Council resolutions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The country’s rights and privileged as a United Nations member could be suspended, as stipulated in Security Council resolution 2321, and the Conference might need to question the membership of “North Korea”, concluded Mr. Yun.

ALFONSO DASTIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that all were living in times marked by tension and uncertainty. It meant that a serene and constructive dialogue needed to be held. Cooperation in multilateral fora was needed for a stable future. In spite of the difficulties, Spain was hoping that the programme of work could be approved.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of the international system of non-proliferation and disarmament. The balance between its three pillars ought to be ensured, and next steps were to be taken in the First Preparatory Committee in Vienna in May. States parties had to be ambitious, but also realistic. Spain attached great importance to the possible humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Undiminished security for all was another principle which needed to be endorsed. It was disappointing that the conference on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East had not yet been held. Spain urged all States which had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. Dastis emphasized Spain’s commitment to the international regime of non-proliferation and disarmament. Spain was pleased with the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and Group EU3+3. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was asked to dismantle its arsenal and put an end to all tests. It was disconcerting that terrorists could have access to weapons of mass destruction. Small arms and light weapons claimed more victims than any other types of weapons, and caused devastating effected among civilians, which was why Spain reiterated its support to Security Council resolutions 2117 and 2220. Images in the Council Chamber, created by the Spanish artist Jose Maria Sert, should inspire international solidarity and cooperation, concluded Mr. Dastis.

MOTOME TAKISAWA, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, noted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had conducted its fifth nuclear test in September 2016 and launched ballistic missiles more than 20 times since the beginning of 2016. That series of provocations seriously undermined the peace and security of Northeast Asia. Japan lodged a protest against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and strongly condemned its nuclear tests and missile launches.

Japan had decided to contribute an additional USD 2.4 million to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. Mr. Takisawa urged the Member States of the Conference to make every effort to break the deadlock of the Conference, and welcomed the decisions on the establishment of a working group under the Romanian Presidency. The 2020 Non-Proliferation Treaty review process was starting this year, and it was vital to achieve a meaningful outcome at the 2020 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Japan had consistently stated that practical and concrete measures with the cooperation between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States were necessary to promote nuclear disarmament. There needed to be a clear understanding of humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and the objective assessment of the reality of the security situation. Japan had hosted a number of meetings on nuclear disarmament and promotion of a world free of nuclear weapons. Japan attached particular importance to a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, and transparency of nuclear forces. No efforts should be spared to immediately start negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Japan would also continue to promote the signing and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, Japan would continue to make every effort to promote nuclear disarmament, stressed Mr. Takisawa.

GENNADIY GATILOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that each member of the international community was seeking to ensure its national security interests were firmly secured and did not slide into dependency on instant political considerations. In the Conference, all participants could hold an insightful dialogue on equal terms dealing with the most sensitive security issues. The disarmament machinery had all the instruments necessary for its work.

A special place in the disarmament system, which had proved its efficiency, belonged to the Conference, a single negotiating body which served as the venue for elaborating a whole series of basic international agreements in the field of non-proliferation and arms control. Mistaken were those who thought that a change of venue or the rules of procedure could facilitate bridging States’ approaches to addressing arms control issues. Such misapprehensions could put the Conference decades backwards. Russia was convinced that the Conference’s negotiating potential was far from being exhausted. Russia shared serious concerns over the long-lasting deadlock of the Conference. It was encouraging that States were aware of their responsibility for the forum’s future and did not give up on seeking the way out. The Romanian Presidency’s decision to establish a working group to find effective solutions on the programme of work represented a first step towards an agreed programme of work, but it fell short of aspirations of some delegations. For its part, said Mr. Gatilov, the Russian Federation had been undertaking efforts to find possible compromises on the draft programme of work, including an elaboration in the Conference of an international convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. The Russian proposal took into account the interests of all States and had certain chances of being approved. Proceeding to effective negotiations would contribute to the revitalization of the robust functioning of the Conference not only in words, but in deeds.

VALENTIN RYBAKOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that in today’s world of unpredictable developments, the role of the Conference was more than ever in demand. The most important thing was to ensure that the Conference spoke about substance because the world was tired of slogans and information noise. Points of convergence and common interests ought to be identified so that cooperation could ensue.

Only joint efforts could lead to a comprehensive nuclear disarmament and legal guarantees to those States which did not have nuclear weapons. Mr. Rybakov said that the potential of the Conference was far from being exhausted, and its Member States were taking significant steps to revitalize its work. Belarus reiterated its readiness to positively contribute to the work of the Conference. The programme of work should be a technical document to ensure the continuity of the Conference. A balanced approach to discussions and negotiations in the Conference was needed, and specific measures on building a safer world ought to be taken. Belarus was convinced that the Conference had to remain the main multilateral negotiating forum, whose mandate should not be watered down. General, complete nuclear disarmament remained a priority for Belarus, which was something to be achieved through a set of concrete steps, including through the adoption of legally binding instruments on the banning of the production of fissile materials. There were still gaps on the use of weapons in outer space; the joint Russian-Chinese proposal could be a good starting points in that regard. Twenty years ago, without any preconditions, Belarus had completed the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from its territory. That decision could serve as an example of how responsible decision-making at the national level could be a precondition for sustainable development. Responsible leadership was necessary today, when people needed to have hope in peaceful future and sustainable development.

GEOFFREY ONYEAMA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, stressed that the work of the Conference could not be more important than now that the world was increasingly confronted by the fear of the use of nuclear weapons in war. There were over 14,900 nuclear weapons in the combined arsenals of nine nuclear weapons States alone; there were also some nations that had nuclear power or reactors capable of being diverted for weapons production.

One atomic bomb could wipe out millions of people in seconds, but nations seemed to have abdicated their responsibility to free the world of nuclear weapons. While the Non-Proliferation Treaty had come into effect in 1970, the same could not be said of a comprehensive ban. The issue of nuclear weapons and their proliferation and elimination had always been of utmost concern to Nigeria, particularly post-1960. As a newly independent country, Nigeria had joined the United Nations Committee on Disarmament in 1962, later reconstituted as the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, until the formation of the Conference in 1979. The Treaty of Pelindaba of 1966 confirmed Africa’s commitment to a de-nuclearized world, with the declaration of Africa as a zone free of nuclear weapons. Consequences of a nuclear war could not be contemplated. Nigeria remained concerned about the growing threat to international peace and security and particularly the threats coming from certain nuclear possessing States and terrorists. It was of major concern that the negotiations in the Conference had remained deadlocked for over 20 years. Mr. Onyeama urged the eight countries that had not yet ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to do so. Nigeria recommended revisiting the Conference’s rules of procedure and, in particular, the consensus rule which haunted the Conference. For the Conference to progress, its programme of work should give ample space for negotiations; a fissile material cut-off treaty was also ripe for negotiations.

BENEDETTO DELLA VEDOVA, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, reminded that major multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements had been negotiated within the Conference, and they still represented a crucial contribution for a safer world. Italy welcomed the decision establishing a working group on the way ahead to identify common ground for a programme of work with a negotiating mandate.

Italy believed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The 2010 Review Conference Action Plan remained a very good basis to progress on all three pillars of the Treaty. Italy welcomed the upcoming establishment of a high-level fissile material cut-off treaty expert preparatory group, pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 71/259. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty would be a crucial step for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and Italy called upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty without further delay. Italy supported the conveying of a conference on the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons. Mr. della Vedova said that Italy condemned in the strongest terms the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent intermediate range ballistic missile, and the country was called upon to abandon all its existing nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Italy would continue to uphold the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, where clear progress had been achieved so far. Italy remained deeply concerned about the increasing risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors, and was strongly committed to the full implementation of international instruments on conventional weapons. Finally, Mr. della Vedova welcomed the efforts to actively involve civil society in the discussions of the Conference.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CD17/009E