CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESS BY THE UNITED STATES ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ARMS CONTROL AND VERIFICATION
The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard an address by Rose Gottemoeller, the United States Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, as well as general statements by the Russian Federation, Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Belarus on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Algeria, Japan, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Australia.
Ms. Gottemoeller said that the Conference on Disarmament and its predecessor bodies had forged historic agreements to eliminate and control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The United States applauded the efforts by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advance the goals of multilateral arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament and fully endorsed his appeal to the Conference on Disarmament yesterday. They shared his assessment of last September that, in light of the Conference on Disarmament’s past accomplishments and its record of making progress even in a complex political and security context, there was no good reason for stagnation. And yet, for nearly 15 years, this multilateral body had registered no concrete progress.
She also told the Conference that they could and must do better. Waiting ad infinitum for the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and to engage in serious discussions on other issues of concern to Conference on Disarmament Member States, was not a viable option. In short, it was time for the members of this body to approve a programme of work and to get started on negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. If they could not find a way to begin these negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, then they would need to consider other options and the calls for exploring such alternatives were in evidence in several meetings. The longer the Conference on Disarmament languished, the louder and more persistent those calls would become.
Speaking in statements during the meeting were the Russian Federation, Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Belarus on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Algeria, Japan, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Australia.
Many delegations noted that in his address to the Conference yesterday, Secretary-General Ban had urged the Conference to resume substantive work in 2011. Speakers said that it was imperative that the Conference take advantage of the momentum currently enjoyed by the disarmament agenda, particularly to make progress on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Delegations pledged their support to Marius Grinius, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in resuming the work of the Conference and breaking the impasse that had hindered progress in the body.
The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 1 February, at 10 a.m.
Statements
MARIUS GRINIUS, President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the session by saying that the Secretary-General had spoken to the Conference yesterday and though he had been rather pressed for time he had wanted to hear from everyone who wished to speak. Mr. Grinius then extended a warm welcome to Ms. Gottemoeller of the United States and gave her the floor for her intervention.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER. United States Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, said that the Conference on Disarmament and its predecessor bodies had forged historic agreements to eliminate and control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Ms. Gottemoeller said the United States applauded the efforts by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advance the goals of multilateral arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament and fully endorsed his appeal to the Conference on Disarmament yesterday. They shared his assessment of last September that, in light of the Conference on Disarmament’s past accomplishments and its record of making progress even in a complex political and security context, there was no good reason for stagnation. And yet, for nearly 15 years, this multilateral body had registered no concrete progress.
Ms. Gottemoeller said they could and must do better. Waiting ad infinitum for the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and to engage in serious discussions on other issues of concern to Conference on Disarmament Member States, was not a viable option. In short, it was time for the members of this body to approve a programme of work and to get started on negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. If they could not find a way to begin these negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, then they would need to consider other options and the calls for exploring such alternatives were in evidence in several meetings. The longer the Conference on Disarmament languished, the louder and more persistent those calls would become.
Ms. Gottemoeller went on to say that the Obama administration was pleased that the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty in December. When he called to offer his condolences for the tragedy of Domodedovo Airport, President Obama congratulated President Medvedev on the successful vote in the Russian State Duma. Yesterday, there was a positive vote in the Federation Council, which was excellent news. The legislative process would be followed by an exchange of instruments of ratification, which would bring the treaty into force. When the treaty was fully implemented, it would result in the lowest number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the United States and the Russian Federation since the 1950s.
The United States supported properly crafted nuclear weapon-free zones because, if the relevant countries fully complied with them, they could contribute to regional security and stability and reinforce the worldwide nuclear non-proliferation regime. The United States believed that the protocols to the treaties establishing such zones were the most appropriate way of implementing legally binding negative security assurances.
Ms. Gottemoeller told the Conference that on 28 June 2010 the United States released its national Space Policy which reflected the principles and goals to be used in shaping the conduct of United States space programs and activities. One provision of the policy stated that the United States would pursue pragmatic and voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures to strengthen stability in space by mitigating the risk of mishaps, misperceptions and mistrust. Within a short time, the United States would also announce its National Security Space Strategy. Like the Space Policy, the National Security Space Strategy would be based on the notion of shared interest; it was in the shared interest of all space-faring nations to ensure responsible, peaceful and safe use of space.
In conclusion, Ms. Gottemoeller said that last year they witnessed substantial progress in the arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament arenas. That progress did not happen by accident. It required the sustained commitment and hard work of many individuals and governments around the world. It required trust and compromise and a willingness to listen to all sides and to engage. They needed to act and act soon. Much was at stake, for if the Conference on Disarmament was left to wither in the vine, it would serve no one’s long term national security interests. It was time for the Conference on Disarmament to get back to work and make its rightful contribution to international peace and security.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that the negotiations on the New START Treaty were complicated, but the determination of both sides made the ultimately positive result possible. This was due in large part to the determination of both countries’ Presidents. There was a difficult and lively debate in the State Duma and yesterday the upper chamber of the legislature ratified the treaty unanimously. Both the United States and Russian legislatures had entered conditions in their ratifications, but it was a compromise. Russia could leave the treaty if the United States were to unilaterally deploy anti-missile systems which infringed the defensibility of Russia. The treaty would establish the prerequisites for continuing nuclear disarmament as well as give a positive boost to the Conference on Disarmament so that it could get back to its substantive work.
DIMITRIS ILIOPOULOUS (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that they had again heard the urgent appeal made by the UN Secretary-General to this Conference to commence substantive work without further delay and to adopt a programme of work at the earliest possible date. The European Union fully supported and endorsed this appeal; all Conference on Disarmament members bore the responsibility of making the Conference on Disarmament deliver according to its mandate. Their goals and priorities for work in the Conference on Disarmament had not changed, nor had the European Union’s commitment to the Conference as the single permanent multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations diminished. At the same time, they were aware that the adoption of a programme of work would require sustained political effort. If the Conference’s stand still continued, there was no doubt that the international community would increasingly reflect on options, and if necessary, identify other ways to ensure progress in multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament.
The year 2011 must be used to effectively put the Conference back on track. They could not afford another year of endless and ultimately fruitless consultations and procedural manoeuvres. The credibility and legitimacy of the Conference on Disarmament was at stake. It must build on momentum generated by renewed efforts to seek a safer world for all and to achieve peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It must make a substantive contribution to global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The European Union remained committed to this task and expected similar commitment from all Conference on Disarmament members. They therefore appealed to all delegations to the Conference to show the flexibility, which was needed by all of them, if they wanted to overcome the longstanding stalemate.
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, stressed that the Conference on Disarmament continued to be the single multilateral body for conducting negotiations on the critical issues of disarmament and international security. The Eastern European Group emphasized that further substantive follow-up actions needed to be taken in an inclusive manner driven by Member States and should strengthen the role and work of the Conference on Disarmament. They also shared calls for the appointment of a special coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament and would welcome further consideration of the issue of broader involvement of civil society in the work of the Conference. The Eastern European Group believed that with the effective leadership of the Conference President’s bureau coupled with a responsible and flexible approach of all Member States, they would find a way out of the deadlock where the Conference on Disarmament had been for decades.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said that Algeria believed the stagnation in the Conference on Disarmament could not be seen as a failure of the Conference, but rather an absence of political will on the part of governments to deal with the issues on the agenda of the Conference, and the inability of the stakeholders concerned to find regional solutions. There was an obligation to renounce nuclear weapons and if they did not employ the concept of dissuasion they would not make any headway because everyone would pursue nuclear weapons on the basis that they were entitled to have them. Algeria was deeply attached to non-proliferation and upheld its commitments based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was based on mutual responsibilities and rights. This was important for the credibility and legitimacy of a non-proliferation regime and Algeria renewed its calls for States that had not ratified the treaty to do so. They could not recognize that a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty who had nuclear weapons before signing the treaty had a permanent right to those weapons. How could they then prohibit the rights of others to the nuclear option when they had not renounced it themselves and saw it as their right?
There was the obligation for nuclear stockpiles transparency and the International Court of Justice confirmed in 1996 that this was so. This would not come about under a bilateral or unilateral context, but rather a multilateral context, specifically in the form of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The fact that nuclear powers could invoke nuclear weapons to protect their vital interests or address perceived threats silenced and bypassed collective security. What could be said about the Middle Eastern region and countries that stockpiled weapons outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and did so with immunity? Setting up nuclear stability in that area could help stabilize the region and assist in the peace process. A nuclear weapons free area should be set up in this region, but this was not an alternative solution to a claim to obtain negative security assurances on a multilateral basis which was a legitimate need. The right to self defence could not be invoked to justify the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear State; this was a needed element of the non-proliferation regime. It was important to develop an international legal instrument which was mandatory in nature and prohibited the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States.
AKIO SUDA (Japan) said that yesterday they once again listened intently to a strong plea by the UN Secretary-General for the Conference on Disarmament to fulfil its role, which was to immediately commence negotiations on a multilateral disarmament treaty. It was regrettable that despite the historic agreement reached on a programme of work in 2009, no progress had been made in this body last year. Given the heightened expectations of the international community, including those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over the past couple of years, repeating the same dysfunctional pattern of the last session was unacceptable. The Japanese delegation strongly called upon the Member States to demonstrate their flexibility by swiftly agreeing to a programme of work and commencing substantive activities.
If the differing positions did not allow a breakthrough, it was incumbent upon them to take a fresh and innovative look at the ways in which the Conference on Disarmament could effectively function in accordance with the Rules of Procedure while keeping them intact. As Japan took a practical and concrete approach regarding nuclear disarmament, it believed that a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the next logical and critical step to achieving this goal after the Comprehensive Nuclear Test ban Treaty. Indeed, Mr. Suda said he could not imagine any road towards a world free of nuclear weapons without firstly banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, which was the core element of their warheads. A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was therefore indispensable for progressive nuclear disarmament as well as non-proliferation. To start negotiations did not prejudge their outcome, and even if they did succeed in producing a single text of a treaty it would be left for sovereign States to decide whether they would sign and ratify it or not. Still, a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could serve as an impregnable legal basis for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation like the Non-Proliferation Treaty or Comprehensive Nuclear Test ban Treaty.
DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand) said that there was widespread dissatisfaction among the membership with the chronic stagnation of Conference on Disarmament proceedings. It was also the subject of broader concern and the current state of affairs was untenable. The delegation of New Zealand saw no future in tying their work in procedural knots by treating the programme of work as if it were the instrument setting an overriding mandate for the Conference on Disarmament. New Zealand preferred to see their energies applied toward the engagement on substance including demonstrating that the Conference was meeting the expectations of the UN General Assembly, and indeed the world community, as a body that negotiated on substance rather than procedure.
The responsibility for getting this body back on track and negotiating on substance was not the President’s alone. All members shared that responsibility, whether it was expressed through showing the necessary flexibility to agree on a mandate for the negotiating group, or several mandates for several groups or through pursuing constructive debate in plenary meetings as provided for in the rules of procedure. It was a serious concern to her delegation that the contribution that a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could make to the cause of nuclear disarmament was being underestimated. They hoped that the Secretary-General’s suggestion yesterday would help bring about a change in the Conference, which they regarded as imperative. The continuing failure of the Conference to deal in a substantive way with fissile material and other major international issues on its agenda was not simply a wasteful use of resources in times of financial stringency and competing economic needs. Far more significantly, it also compromised the interests of small countries like New Zealand, especially on issues of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control, which were matters of high national security. In any situation where the national security interests of the many were jeopardized by the views of the few, it was inevitable that questions would be asked about the future of this body, and about alternative avenues for pursuing such key matters affecting international security.
ABDUL HANNAN (Bangladesh) said that Bangladesh attached great importance to disarmament and they were convinced that nuclear weapons were not the way to a peaceful world or a way to address the problems of the world such as poverty. Non-nuclear States had the right to seek negative security assurances from nuclear States. Outer space was the common heritage of mankind and as such Bangladesh supported all efforts for a safe and secure outer space. Recent developments in the field of disarmament encouraged optimism for the work of the Conference on Disarmament and he hoped that this year the Conference would be able to make a breakthrough in its substantive work. Bangladesh pledged its support to all the delegations toward this end.
PAUL WILSON (Australia) said that this was a critical juncture for the Conference on Disarmament. Australia had expressed a strong desire for the Conference to get back to work, particularly on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Australia understood there was no consensus on the treaty, but this did not invalidate the views of those who wanted to move forward on negotiations. The State was ready to engage in substantive and constructive work on all the Conference’s agenda items and realized this required multilateral efforts that reinforced each other and advanced nuclear disarmament and strengthened non-proliferation. Australia’s first National Space Policy would soon be released. There was an opportunity in 2011 to advance the nuclear disarmament agenda and they should seize that opportunity. The Conference had Australia’s assurance that it would work to advance that agenda.
JARMO SAREVA, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, drew the delegates’ attention to the annual information note that had been made available to members and non-members, containing information on practical and logistical issues such as the list of speakers and accreditations. If there was any missing information this should be pointed out to the secretariat and the information would be added and the document reissued. Marius Grinius interjected that they would endeavour to issue these documents by email in the future and Mr. Sareva informed the delegates that the secretariat would be in touch with members to discuss migrating to an email based system of communication; currently they were using fax machines, which was a fast disappearing technology.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC11/004E