JAPAN, BELGIUM AND NETHERLANDS ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a general debate, hearing statements on security assurances from Japan and the Netherlands, and farewell statements from the Representative of Belgium, and the outgoing President of the Conference.

Japan raised a number of key questions regarding security assurances, including whether a global, legally binding instrument could be truly effective as opposed to regional ones, or whether a country that neither affirmed nor denied possession of nuclear weapons was eligible. Japan was of the view that security assurances should be guaranteed not just through official commitments, but also through raising awareness of the true nature of nuclear weapons, as well as through disarmament education.

The Netherlands said that having listened to the remarks of Japan on security assurances, it wished to go on record that the position of the Netherlands was largely reflected in that statement, in particular with regard to the many difficult questions Japan had raised. The subject required further reflection.

Belgium observed that the future of the Conference on Disarmament certainly looked brighter today than two years ago. The benefits of the Six Presidents initiative had been appreciable, and the Conference had come closer to an understanding of the respective positions and priorities of members that would make it possible for it to resume its place as the unique forum for multilateral disarmament negotiations.

The outgoing President of the Conference, Ambassador Ousmane Camara of Senegal, recalled that under Senegal's Presidency, delegates had discussed effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and a comprehensive programme of disarmament. The former discussion had contributed significantly to clarifying positions and to better understanding different perspectives regarding security assurances, while the latter had seen an initiative to negotiate a treaty on trade in conventional weapons.


The President also welcomed the presence of the Nagasaki Peace Messengers at the Conference today. The Peace Messengers were students from Nagasaki and Hiroshima who annually addressed petitions to the Secretary-General concerning the abolition of nuclear weapons, which had been signed by thousands of Japanese students.

The President also recalled that the Conference had extended an invitation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to address the Conference on the subject of fissile material, and said he had just received the IAEA's acceptance. It was therefore decided to hold the IAEA presentation at the Conference's plenary meeting on Thursday, 24 August at 10 a.m., in public, with an informal question-and-answer session to follow. That would constitute a precedent that would apply to future situations, the President noted.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 August.

Statements

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said security assurances had been one of the two biggest issues since the beginning of the negotiations on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). But, just as other issues related to nuclear disarmament had not been fully implemented, security assurances also remained unresolved. He wished to highlight a few issues States parties to the NPT had to be convinced of in order to advance to the next stage. It was generally assumed that there were two different types of security assurances – positive and negative. In that context, were negative security assurances better and stronger than positive? Could a global, legally binding instrument be truly effective as opposed to regional ones – such as Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones – in view of the different security environments of each country? Furthermore, was the concept of non-nuclear weapon States clear in the context of negative security assurances? Was a country that neither affirmed nor denied possession of nuclear weapons eligible? Or did quasi-nuclear status have to be granted to countries that had conducted nuclear weapon tests or that claimed to possess nuclear weapons? Those questions were beyond his capacity to answer today, but he would like to leave them there for the moment.

Ambassador Mine said that Japan was of the view that security assurances should be guaranteed not just through official commitments, but also through raising awareness of the true nature of nuclear weapons. In that connection, awareness of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons had been strongly publicized through the efforts of the "Hibakusha", living witnesses of the catastrophe caused by nuclear weapons, as well as the International Court of Justice's 1996 advisory opinion. But the Hibakusha were fast disappearing. Therefore it was an urgent task for the international community to pass down their experiences and stories to future generations. In that context, he also reiterated the importance of disarmament education.

FRANÇOIS ROUX (Belgium), in a farewell statement, said that the future of the Conference on Disarmament certainly looked brighter today than when he took the floor for the first time a little over two years ago. The benefits of the Six Presidents initiative had been appreciable, and the Conference had come closer to an understanding of the respective positions and priorities of members that would make it possible for it to resume its place as the unique forum for multilateral disarmament negotiations. Belgium had always taken a proactive approach in this forum, as it had already demonstrated through introducing, along with Algeria, Chile, Colombia and Sweden, the Five Ambassadors initiative, and Belgium would continue to participate actively in any joint initiatives likely to contribute to achieving a consensus, so as to achieve tangible results.

Ambassador Roux underscored that the Conference had an opportunity to make real progress in negotiations for a treaty on fissile materials to be used in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. While that was indeed a priority issue for Belgium, it did not diminish the significance it attached to other subjects on the Conference’s agenda. He recalled the Secretary-General’s statement that it was long past time for the Conference to abandon the all-consuming linkages that had dominated its approach in recent years and get down to substantive work. The Conference certainly had all the assets and means it needed to consolidate the forward dynamic that had been observed this year and to confirm its desire to rapidly get out of the impasse in which it had remained deadlocked for a decade now.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said the Netherlands had not yet addressed the issue of negative security assurances. Having listened to the remarks of Japan on the subject, he wished to go on record that the position of the Netherlands was largely reflected in that statement, in particular with regard to the many difficult questions Japan had raised. The subject required further reflection.

OUSMANE CAMARA (Senegal), outgoing President of the Conference, said that he did not feel that the time had yet come to draw conclusions, as the work of the Conference this year to date had reflected but a first phase of its revitalization. It was to be hoped that the close and active cooperation of the six Presidents would be continued next year. Under Senegal's Presidency, delegates had had the opportunity to have a debate on the effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and on a comprehensive programme of disarmament.

Regarding negative security assurances, Ambassador Camara noted that there were divergent positions, but the discussion had contributed significantly to clarifying positions and to better understanding different perspectives, in particular the concerns of the non-nuclear-weapon States. The active participation of delegations in the seminar he had organized on the subject with the assistance of UNIDIR was encouraging, and he was sure the new ideas and approaches that had emerged from it would be further elaborated in other forums. In the debates on a comprehensive programme for disarmament, he highlighted the initiative to negotiate a treaty on trade in conventional weapons. Coming from a continent where small arms and light weapons continued to ignite and perpetuate conflicts, leaving thousands of victims each year, he could not but applaud and encourage that most timely initiative.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06042E