CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which 23 States made statements focusing on nuclear disarmament and the need for the Conference to adopt a programme of work and return to substantive work on the disarmament agenda.

During the general statements, speakers applauded recent bilateral efforts that had been undertaken to reduce nuclear arsenals as both vital and necessary steps toward the goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons; however, it was important to recognize that such efforts were complementary to, and not a substitute for, binding multilateral nuclear disarmament agreements.

Other speakers said that the difficulty they faced in realizing the role of the Conference on Disarmament and fulfilling its agenda had come back to haunt them, as was exemplified by newly emerging security threats seen in recent years. It was crucial that they strengthen their resolve and work toward reinvigorating the multilateral process in pursuing the aims of bringing the Conference back to substantive work.

Looking at the renewed disarmament efforts as well as the challenges ahead, speakers said it could only be concluded that there was no alternative to outlawing the use of nuclear weapons and gradually and systematically getting rid of them. Delegations said they were convinced that the Conference on Disarmament could and must play a vital role in these efforts. The international community had called upon all Conference on Disarmament Member States to get back to work and to live up to the Conference’s mandate and they had to accelerate all efforts and tackle challenges in a more comprehensive and responsible manner, looking beyond mere national security interests. States possessing nuclear weapons had a special responsibility and should spare no effort to systematically get rid of their nuclear weapons and play their part in order to outlaw nuclear weapons to ensure they would never be used again.

Many delegations expressed the view that nuclear weapons were a source of insecurity, not security. They were illegal, inhuman and immoral instruments that had no place in today’s security environment. The continued possession of nuclear weapons or the retention of the nuclear options by some States, by definition increased the risk of these weapons being used or falling into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons clearly represented a serious risk to humanity. Only the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they would never be produced again could provide the necessary guarantees against their use.

Other speakers also addressed the need to avoid the militarization of space and the need to resume work on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Speaking in general statements were Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Mexico, Malaysia, Ireland, Canada, Argentina, Algeria, Switzerland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chile, Iran, China, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Egypt, Cuba, Austria and Ethiopia.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 3 February, at 10 a.m. when the Conference will discuss the issue of a treaty banning fissile material.

Statements

MARIUS GRINIUS, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Canada), presented his indicative timetable and explained that it was an invitation to each delegation to make statements on the four core issues in an equal way. This would allow having a useful exchange of views in the plenary to help get the Conference closer to a programme of work. Today, they would address the issue of nuclear disarmament, on Thursday they would take up the issue of a treaty banning fissile material. Next week they would address the prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. However, any intervention on any other topic would be welcome any time.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that before addressing the issue of nuclear disarmament he wanted to make some comments regarding the statement made by the United Nations Secretary-General at the Conference last week. The Secretary-General had noted that the Conference had produced landmark treaties and had demonstrated that it could serve global and national interests. It followed therefore that no international arms treaty was possible, if it ran counter the national interests of one of the Member States. Pakistan also welcomed the acknowledgment by the Secretary-General that the inertia in the Conference had lasted more than a decade. The fault did not lie with Pakistan but with certain major powers. The Secretary-General had also noted the disconnect between the Conference on Disarmament and the recent developments in the field of disarmament. In the Conference and in the First Committee, it had become habitual for certain powers to claim their commitments at the highest level but their actions and policies were contradictory to these commitments. All this explained the current impasse in the Conference. There was nothing wrong with the Conference’s rules of procedure, nor was there an absence of the so-called “responsibility” that the Secretary General referred to in his statement. All States were equally responsible before this body.

The solution to break the deadlock in the Conference was for certain countries to shed policies based on discrimination and double standards, said Mr. Akram. The quest for changing the Conference’s Rules of Procedure was a dead end. The option of taking the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations outside the Conference was a non-starter. A much more meaningful objective would be a treaty that would ensure reduction of fissile material stockpiles as well as banning future production.

Nuclear disarmament, Mr. Akram said, was the raison d’etre of the Conference. It had been created to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention. Regrettably, some of the major nuclear weapon States continued to block the emergence of consensus on negotiating a nuclear weapons convention in the Conference and had done so ever since the Conference had been created. Multilateral disarmament negotiations offered the only mechanism to address the threats posed to international security and stability by nuclear weapons. Some powerful countries claimed that the global environment today was more favorable for progress towards nuclear disarmament and made tall claims about their own commitment to nuclear zero, but were opposed to the Conference engaging in negotiations on this issue. Such double standards were inexplicable. Some major nuclear powers continued to pursue polices based on the outdated Cold War concept of nuclear deterrence through mutual assured destruction. Such weapons were now not restricted to the role of deterrence anymore but could actually be used even against States that did not possess nuclear weapons. Pakistan, along with a vast majority of United Nations members, believed that the issue of nuclear disarmament was ripe for negotiation in the Conference. This was its principal purpose and it must get on with its job of negotiating a convention on nuclear disarmament forthwith.

DIMITRIS ILIOPOULOS (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that he wanted to address the issue of nuclear disarmament in more detail. The European Union was actively contributing to the global efforts to seek a safer world for all and to the achievement of peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The European Union welcomed the resolve of the Russian Federation and the United States, which possessed 95 per cent of global stockpiles of nuclear weapons, to make progress in fulfilling their obligations contained in this landmark agreement. The European Union encouraged the two countries to implement the agreement swiftly and to continue negotiations with the aim of further reducing their nuclear arsenals, including non-strategic weapons. The European Union called on the countries and on all States possessing non-strategic nuclear weapons to include them in their general arms control and disarmament measures, with a view to their progressive reduction and their final elimination.

Mr. Iliopoulos went on to say that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test ban Treaty was of crucial importance to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and a top priority for the European Union. They were hopeful that renewed political commitments to pursue ratification would give new impetus to their efforts to achieve the earliest possible entry into force of this key treaty. The European Union also called for the completion of its verification regime and the dismantling of all nuclear test facilities in a manner that was transparent and open to the international community. The European Union continued to provide significant support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Provisional Technical Secretariat to strengthen the monitoring and verification system. They warmly welcomed the increased level of United States’ participation in all activities of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’s Preparatory Commission. Last but not least, the European Union attached a clear priority to the start of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. An effective Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would constitute a significant step in the process of nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthen nuclear non-proliferation.

MARIA ANTONIETA JAQUEZ-HUACUJA (Mexico) said that in March 1962, Mexico had announced their wish not to possess or use nuclear weapons. For Mexico, these weapons ran counter to humanitarian law. Mexico challenged the argument whereby the existence of nuclear weapons contributed to international security. Mexico maintained that the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of these weapons was their complete elimination and nuclear disarmament. Mexico welcomed any bilateral or multilateral measures which worked towards the elimination of nuclear weapons or their use. A series of binding instruments were needed in order to do so, with binding verification. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was a cornerstone in disarmament. Mexico maintained that disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing processes. Progress in one of these two areas could however not depend on progress in the other. Further, the Conference on Disarmament’s mandate was to negotiate and it was strange that the Conference believed that, for the first agenda item, it could only deliberate and not negotiate. Consequently they should think whether it would feasible for the Conference to adopt its programme of work in the near future.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that Russia considered it important to take advantage of the changing environment to address practical challenges in the area of security. Therefore, the primary task for his delegation was to get the issues of multilateral disarmament back on track after a prolonged deadlock and to resume the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament. His delegation’s top priority in the disarmament agenda was to ensure consistent functioning and strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to increase its efficiency, and to promote universalization. The intensified build-up of non-proliferation efforts was also determined by the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. In this regard it was imperative that they should continue their work towards universal application of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. He called on all States to join multilateral efforts in the framework of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.

Further efforts should also be undertaken towards the upgrade and universalization of the safeguards system of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Russia was consistent in this work and called for the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement being established as a universally recognized norm of verification of compliance by the Non-Proliferation Treaty State parties with their non-proliferation obligations. They also stood for the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as one of the most important instruments in the strengthening of the regime of non-proliferation and nuclear weapons limitations. They believed that the future of the treaty would test the readiness of the international community to move towards the goal of a nuclear free world.

Mr. Loshchnin said that the signing of the START Treaty had brought them to a point where considerable lowering of nuclear capabilities made deeper reductions impossible without due regard to all other processes in the area of international security. Further steps toward nuclear disarmament should be considered and implemented in strict compliance with the principle of equal and indivisible security and taking into account all factors capable of affecting strategic stability. The Russian Federation stood for intensified multilateral diplomacy in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and first of all within the UN and the Conference on Disarmament. They noted an important role of the Conference in the cause of strengthening international security. It was in the interest of Russia to resume as soon as possible the substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament. They stood for the early adoption of the programme of work for the 2011 session and believed that it contained a real basis for compromise.

The issue of preventing the militarization of space was an absolute priority for the Russian Federation. The Russia-China draft treaty on the Prevention and Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, if implemented, would contribute not only to averting the emergence of weapons in space, but also to ensuring predictability of the strategic situation as well as international security. This was of interest for all States enjoying the benefits of a peaceful space.

ISMAIL MOHAMAD BKRI (Malaysia) said that Malaysia was encouraged by the positive developments in various international security settings for the past year, including the Nuclear Security Summit, the New START Treaty, the High Level Meeting on Disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. These positive developments showed that there were ample commitments and political will in pursuing the disarmament agenda. It was incumbent upon them to build on this momentum and commence substantive discussions as soon as possible. It was unfortunate that the Conference on Disarmament had still not been able to reach a consensus on a programme of work. This inability to forge a compromise was a clear setback in spite of the professed common goals of all members of this Conference. Accordingly, they urged that continued efforts be made to accommodate the concerns to arrive at a consensus based on the rules of procedure. The legitimate concerns of members of the Conference should be given the serious consideration they deserved. Such understanding would allow them to move forward and focus their efforts on substantive work.

The difficulty they faced in realizing the role of the Conference on Disarmament and fulfilling its agenda had come back to haunt them, as was exemplified by the newly emerging security threats seen in recent years. It was crucial that they strengthen their resolve and work toward reinvigorating the multilateral process in pursuing the aims of bringing the Conference back to substantive work. It was his delegation’s sincere hope that as this year’s session, the Conference would be able to find consensus on a programme of work.

GERARD CORR (Ireland) said that it was extremely disappointing that, according to the President’s report on the thorough consultations he had undertaken during the inter-sessional period, it appeared that the Conference was no closer to agreeing on a programme of work than it had been at the end of last year’s session. Ireland welcomed the President’s initiative to ensure that, while they made every effort to agree on a programme of work, their limited time was used to their best advantage.

Turning to the issue of nuclear disarmament, Mr. Corr said that Ireland attached the highest priority to the complete and verifiable elimination of all nuclear weapons. It was high time that nuclear weapons joined chemical and biological weapons among the weapons outlawed by the international community. The only absolute guarantee against the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons was their complete and verifiable elimination. For as long as a number of States deemed that the possession of nuclear weapons was essential for their security, there might be others who would aspire to acquire them. Ireland saw no justification for the acquisition or the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons and did not subscribe to the view that nuclear weapons contributed to international peace and security. Pending the complete and verifiable elimination of all nuclear weapons, Ireland supported the taking of practical steps to prevent their further proliferation and avoid nuclear war. Ireland also looked forward to the early implementation of the commitment given at the 2010 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference and was committed to playing a full part in the implementation of such commitments as were applicable to the non-nuclear-weapon States. He noted that the Conference on Disarmament was specifically mentioned in three of the actions contained in the action plan on nuclear disarmament adopted by the Review Conference.

Mr. Corr said that there were several steps which could be taken in the short term to facilitate nuclear disarmament. Ireland wished to see the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Conference should add on its list of achievements a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The negotiation of such a treaty was long overdue. Also, those States that had become parties to the Non-proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States had the right to expect legally-binding assurances that nuclear weapons would not be used against them.

GEOFF GARTSHORE (Canada) said that the Conference on Disarmament had debated for decades how they could achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament, and this had often focused on holistic versus incremental approaches. Understandably, countries were reluctant to be the first to abandon their nuclear arsenals, even those truly committed to nuclear disarmament. As a consequence, Canada believed that they must first establish the necessary conditions to lead all nuclear weapons possessing States to take steps toward their elimination, while ensuring that no additional States obtained them to address their own insecurity. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, Canada had worked toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; however, this goal could not be achieved solely by unilateral or selective nuclear disarmament. Their NATO partners had substantially reduced their respective nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War. They were aware however that much more work remained to be done on all sides.

Canada also believed that the Conference on Disarmament should serve as a forum for transparency, trust and confidence-building in nuclear disarmament. In recent months, some nuclear States had released additional information on their nuclear arsenals and stockpiles. Canada would welcome such information from other States with nuclear weapons, as well as information on fissile material stockpiles and the progress of their dismantlement efforts. Nuclear disarmament would not come quickly or without the efforts and dedication of those who aspired to a nuclear weapon free world. An incremental approach would establish verification and monitoring regimes to build trust and set the conditions for subsequent international instruments on nuclear disarmament.

MARIELA FOGANTE (Argentina) said that the year 2011 would probably be a challenge for this forum and the way the President structured and organized their work would go a long way in helping making this forum relevant again and using their time efficiently and responsibly. She noted that without fail her country had traditionally advocated for the renewal of negotiations for nuclear disarmament in this Conference and they hoped for an eventual adoption of a programme of work. Argentina also considered the Non-Proliferation Treaty as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime and its universality should be one of the major priorities of this forum. Despite the fact that her delegation would have preferred to see major advances in nuclear disarmament in the final documents of the Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they did consider the final results a success.

Argentina applauded the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia and comments from other countries also gave positive signals. She hoped that these new compromises would quickly be reflected in other concrete multilateral ways that would facilitate the progressive elimination of these arms such as the reduction in importance of nuclear arms in the military doctrines of those countries that possessed nuclear weapons and their respective military allies, and the inclusion of tactical arms in their disarmament process. Ms. Fogante stressed the importance of nuclear weapons free zones and said they would speak on this at greater length at a later date.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the objective of achieving a programme of work was within their grasp but that the Conference had to hold on to it. Going over the history of disarmament, he noted that the first resolution ever adopted by the United Nations in 1946 had created a committee tasked with working on the elimination of nuclear weapons. The International Court of Justice had also explicitly stated that there existed an obligation towards nuclear disarmament. The final document of the First Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 had placed nuclear disarmament as the number one objective.

What had happened to all these solemnly taken commitments, asked Mr. Jazairy. He noted that a host of initiatives had been taken. A few positive steps had been taken. Nuclear stockpiles had been cut unilaterally or bilaterally. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between Russia and the United States was one example. However substantial the progress achieved was, it was still far too limited in scope to achieve the main goal. There was still an enormous amount of nuclear weapons in existence. Nuclear deterrence still continued to play a major role in several countries’ defense policies. These doctrines are fine expressions of the “wolf in the lamb’s disguise”.

Mr. Jazairy said that since the end of the Cold War the situation had moved from a question of balance of terror to that of an imbalance of terror. Some States were also continuously further developing their nuclear weapons. Thus, the reduction in the number of weapons was not coming with the reduction of their destructive power. The aim of nuclear disarmament seemed to be receding into the far future, even up to infinity. It was important for nuclear weapon States to stop shrinking into the shell of their nuclear deterrence doctrines. Algeria supported the position of the Non Aligned Movement and the proposition to establish a subsidiary body in the Conference, tasked with a step by step negotiation towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Finally, he hoped that the current first round of discussion would be followed by thematic discussions structured around specific questions. The continuation of discussions in the Conference would be most useful and would help to remove ambiguity on some subjects. Nuclear weapons were not a necessary evil. South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan showed, when they got rid of their nuclear arsenals, that one could get rid of them, when one wanted to do so.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said that without denying the recent positive developments in the disarmament agenda, one could not ignore that serious threats and challenges remained. Thousands of nuclear weapons continued to pose an existential threat to humanity. A significant number of these weapons were still on high alert, ready to be fired within minutes. Some nuclear powers were still building up their arsenals in quantitative terms and all were upgrading them in qualitative terms. Switzerland was concerned that these modernization efforts could undermine, if not jeopardize, the quantitative reductions. Achievements in disarmament seemed relatively modest compared to the overall scope of the problem. Efforts were random instead of systematic and coordinated. Too often, the principles of irreversibility, verifiability, and transparency were not applied. One could observe that disarmament steps were often results of budget cuts or the consequence of technological changeover rather than the conception of a long term plan to one day give up all these weapons. Another outstanding challenge was that despite long standing disarmament obligations, the logic of nuclear deterrence had survived the Cold War and represented more of a stumbling block nowadays than the solution to ensure equal security for all. Finally, their view must be widened for a more sustainable and future oriented concept of security that integrated not only military and strategic aspects, but also environmental, development, and humanitarian considerations. Nuclear weapons would never be eliminated if they were not thinking about a future without them. They needed a debate on security without nuclear weapons.

Looking at the renewed disarmament efforts as well as the challenges ahead, Mr. Lauber said that Switzerland could only conclude that there was no alternative to outlawing the use of nuclear weapons and gradually and systematically getting rid of them. Switzerland was convinced that the Conference on Disarmament and Geneva as the capital for multilateral disarmament could and must play a vital role in these efforts. The international community had called upon all Conference on Disarmament Member States to get back to work and to live up to the Conference’s mandate. They had to accelerate all efforts and tackle challenges in a more comprehensive and responsible manner, looking beyond mere national security interests. States possessing nuclear weapons had a special responsibility and should spare no effort to systematically get rid of their nuclear weapons and play their part in order to outlaw nuclear weapons to ensure they would never be used again.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) said that Australia was committed to a world free from nuclear weapons and to achieve this goal through balanced, progressive and reinforcing steps. Australia was focused on the road ahead. The 2010 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had adopted, by consensus, a set of recommendations across the Treaty’s three pillars. The challenge was now to take action. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty membership had again given the Conference on Disarmament an important responsibility to help build the conditions for a more secure world. Australia welcomed the initiative of the nuclear-weapons States to meet in Paris later this year and hoped that this would help develop creative and practical proposals, including on such broad issues as reducing the number and role of nuclear weapons, transparency measures of the nuclear weapons States, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty entry into force, strengthened safeguards and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom remained committed to the long term objective of a world without nuclear weapons. They had a strong record on fulfilling their disarmament commitments and meeting their international and legal obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The United Kingdom was committed to maintaining only a minimum nuclear deterrent; they had signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and ceased production of fissile material for military purposes. The United Kingdom strongly believed that, despite its recent inertia, the Conference on Disarmament remained the best and only forum for meaningful multilateral disarmament negotiations that included all key nuclear players. But the international community demanded that it must demonstrate progress in the near future in order to prove its continuing relevance. For this reason, he again urged Member States to join the consensus on a programme of work and to commence negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The Conference on Disarmament itself was an institution which, through its rules of procedure, showed respect for everyone’s security.

At the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review, the United Kingdom had announced that by the 2020s it would: reduce the number of warheads onboard each of their submarines from 48 to 40; reduce their requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120; reduce the number of operational missiles on the Vanguard class submarines to no more than 8; and reduce their overall nuclear weapon stockpile to not more than 180. These changes would start to take effect over the next few years. These measures complemented other commitments the United Kingdom had made on disarmament, including continuing research with Norway into the verification challenges of nuclear disarmament. They looked forward to working with the international community to control proliferation and to make progress on multilateral disarmament, to build trust and confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear States and to take tangible steps toward a safer, more stable world where countries with nuclear weapons ultimately felt able to relinquish them.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) welcomed today’s debate and said that these could be strengthened even more with the participation of experts. These debates would prepare them better for negotiation, which in no doubt would be complex. The Conference was not a purpose in itself. It had to make progress towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It was difficult to understand that human intelligence failed to comprehend all the risks that were linked to the existence of nuclear weapons. The goal of nuclear disarmament required unilateral, bilateral and multilateral actions. They also needed to generate a positive climate in which a debate could take place. The Conference had a good legacy. The failure of the Conference was not simply a waste of resources and opportunities. For small countries such as Chile, the stalemate affected their national interests as they required guarantees for their security. It was important to achieve consensus on the programme of work.

MOHAMAD REZA SAJJAD (Iran) said that more than 65 years had elapsed since the first nuclear bombs were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki creating an unforgettable human catastrophe. Nothing had been done to legally ban the recurrence of such an inhumane act. The nuclear weapons States took the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty for granted. They misinterpreted the commitments of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in a narrow manner and they wrongly misused the confidence of the international community to perpetuate the existence of nuclear weapons. The security of the world became subordinate to the security of those with nuclear weapons. The international community could not wait forever to witness the total elimination of nuclear weapons. There was an urgent need to commence nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament could not stand indifferent on this serious and legitimate concern of the international community.

It was a matter of regret that the outcomes of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, particularly in the field of nuclear disarmament commitments, fell short of the expectations of the international community. Iran believed the Conference on Disarmament had an urgent task to address the concerns of the non-nuclear weapons States emanating from the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons States. These concerns needed to be alleviated by the prohibition of the development and production of any new nuclear weapons, particularly mini-nukes, as well as a ban on the construction of any new facility for the development, deployment, and production of nuclear weapons in home and foreign countries. Mr. Sajjadi said that Iran continued to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time limit, including a nuclear weapons convention. Such negotiations must lead, once and for all, to the prohibition, possession, development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by any country and provide for the destruction of such weapons.

ZHIBOU ZOU (China) said that in the past year, quite a few positive steps had been taken in the area of nuclear disarmament. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between Russia and the United States was one example. China was of the view that, as long as everyone followed mutual trust, and respect and took into consideration each other’s security concerns, they could realize the goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was important to fully implement the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference outcome document. States with the biggest nuclear arsenals should lead the way, so as to create the necessary conditions for a thorough nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament should also follow the principle of maintaining the global strategic equilibrium. An international legal document should be concluded as soon as possible. The peaceful use of nuclear energy should be fully respected. The international community should also continue its efforts for the coming into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. China had always carried out its nuclear disbarment obligations and had always followed a nuclear defence strategy. It had never entered a nuclear arms race. In the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference adopted Programme of Action, the Conference had been requested to reach a balanced programme of work and to set up a sub-organ dealing with nuclear disarmament. China expressed its support for this proposal.

DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand) said that the membership of the Conference on Disarmament included all States that possessed, or were believed to possess, nuclear arsenals. Therefore, they should have within their power the ability to help build the confidence necessary for real engagement and progress on reducing and eliminating nuclear arsenals. While welcoming recent bilateral efforts foreshadowing reductions in nuclear arsenals, New Zealand would certainly welcome the opportunity for substantive exchanges in the Conference on Disarmament on the next steps of a multilateral nature towards nuclear disarmament. Like other delegations, the delegation of New Zealand believed that more could and should be done to capitalize on the positive changes in the global security environment since the end of the Cold War. The adversarial relationships of that era were clearly behind them, and the progressive, verifiable implementation by Russia and the United States of the New START Treaty helped provide a bulwark against any return to those bleak and dangerous times. This forum should be able to contribute to the process of mapping out the path ahead to a nuclear free world and to help build the mutual confidence which was an essential element of being able to carry it forward.

Ms. Higgie said that a lowered operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems would represent an important interim step toward the attainment of the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world. Steps to reduce the operational readiness of nuclear arsenals ensured a lesser role for nuclear weapons in military doctrine. New Zealand also reduced the risks associated with their possession and reductions in alert levels would also serve as important transparency and confidence-building measures. In urging nuclear States to do more to ensure that all nuclear weapons were removed from high alert status, they also repeated the call to those States to report regularly on measures they had undertaken to lower the operational readiness of their nuclear weapons systems.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) said that India appreciated the President’s efforts to keep the Conference engaged in discussions on the issues on its agenda. The first priority should be to make every effort for early adoption of a Programme of Work so that the Conference could begin substantive work, including negotiations, at the earliest. India attached the highest priority to nuclear disarmament and had been consistent in its support for global, complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament. The end of the Cold War had provided a ray of hope that the world would be able to achieve a nuclear weapon free world. India believed that nuclear disarmament could be achieved by a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework for achieving global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Progressive steps for the de-legitimization of nuclear weapons were essential to achieving the goal of their complete elimination. Measures to reduce nuclear dangers arising from accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, increase restraints on the use of nuclear weapons, and de-alert nuclear weapons were pertinent in this regard.

Mr. Rao also said that the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals bore a special responsibility for progress on nuclear disarmament. Thus, India welcomed the ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia. This was a step in the right direction. There was a need for a meaningful dialogue among all States possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence.

JERRY MATTHEWS MATJILA (South Africa) said that the lack of progress during the last 14 years in dealing substantively with the core disarmament issues on the Conference on Disarmament’s agenda was a source of frustration, not only for the vast majority of Conference on Disarmament Member States, but also for the wider international community. Despite the shortcomings of CD/1864, the South African delegation was deeply disappointed that the Conference was unable to implement its decision on a programme of work during 2009 and that no further progress could be subsequently achieved. The current situation in the Conference on Disarmament was particularly disappointing given the commitment by the overwhelming majority of States at last years Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to the achievement of a better, more secure world, free from the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Nuclear disarmament was their highest priority and since nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing processes, it followed that transparent, irreversible and verifiable measures on both fronts were required. South Africa welcomed the progress that had been made during the last year on a bilateral nuclear arms reduction agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States. Such measures were both vital and necessary steps toward their goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons, however it was important to recognize that such efforts were complementary to, and not a substitute for, binding multilateral nuclear disarmament agreements. For the South African delegation, nuclear weapons were a source of insecurity, not security. They were illegal, inhuman and immoral instruments that had no place in today’s security environment. The continued possession of nuclear weapons or the retention of the nuclear options by some States by definition increased the risk of these weapons being used or falling into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons clearly represented a serious risk to humanity. Only the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again can provide the necessary guarantees against their use.

DIAN TRIANSSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to achieve total nuclear disarmament and the Indonesia delegation would fully contribute towards achieving this goal. Non-proliferation measures had had some success; however, this success did not correspond with the current pace of disarmament. Non-proliferation and disarmament had to go hand-in-hand. The possession of nuclear weapons was a stimulus for others to acquire them. It was regrettable that the Conference had been afflicted with a serious stalemate for a decade. The final document of the United Nations General Assembly First Special Session on Disarmament had clearly set the goal of nuclear disarmament. The Millennium Declaration had also reaffirmed the commitments of United Nations Member States with regard to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Indonesia reaffirmed the need for all States to comply with applicable international law. Indonesia was eager to see the putting into practice of the various statements that were made with regard to nuclear disarmament.

MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY (Egypt) said that Egypt’s demand for the immediate commencing of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention took as its premise the commitment of nuclear weapons States to disarm their nuclear weapons in accordance with article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also took its cue from an International Court of Justice advisory opinion which found that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. This was reiterated again at the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. It was within this context that they envisaged a nuclear weapons convention that would totally ban the production, possession, transfer or use of nuclear weapons. They also aspired to have this concluded in their lifetime as the spectre of nuclear weapons would always haunt them until they got rid of these heinous weapons of mass destruction. This was even more relevant in areas of high tension such as the Middle East, and the delegation said that a plan to hold a conference for the establishment of a Middle East area free of nuclear weapons would be a step in this direction.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said that nuclear disarmament was the top priority in the area of disarmament. Nuclear weapons constituted a serious danger for international peace and stability. Certain States did not renounce their nuclear weapons, as part of their nuclear deterrence policy. Cuba considered that the use of nuclear weapons was an illegal and immoral act, which could not be justified by security doctrines. The 2010 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had made it very clear that there was a gap between the good rhetoric and the steps that States were ready to carry out. The modest progress made at the Review Conference should give impetus to continue to work towards the goal of nuclear disarmament. The prohibition and the elimination of nuclear weapons was the true objective. The huge resources currently being allocated for the maintenance of nuclear weapons installations and for research in this area should be allocated to the Millennium Development Goals.

ALEXANDER MARSCHIK (Austria) said Austria fully endorsed the earlier statement given by Hungary on behalf of the European Union, but he wanted to add some comments from a national perspective. There seemed to be a certain disconnect between the Conference on Disarmament and the broader non-proliferation community. The Action Plan that was formulated at the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had some long-term implications that were important to their work here. The objective of a world free of nuclear weapons should make clear that any policy decisions, including updating and modernizing arsenals, must conform to this goal and it should delegitimize the use of nuclear weapons as well. Nuclear weapons States were doing this not only in their own interests, but also because it was their legal obligation and they would have to report to the next Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2015.

The Conference on Disarmament was not forgotten in this Action Plan as it called for negotiations of negative assurances and other ways in which the Conference on Disarmament could contribute. But would it deliver? Austria was disappointed that the Conference on Disarmament had been paralyzed for many years, and people were not convinced that the Conference could contribute to nuclear disarmament by itself. The world had changed and the pressure was mounting on the system as the political landscape and security environments changed and shifted. There was concern that organizations could not deliver the security that they were designed to foster; some people worried that there would only be work done after a nuclear incident or when a new weapon was invented. There were only two possible outcomes: adapt or perish.

They should consider working more closely with civil society and in furtherance of this goal a centre in Vienna would be opened at the end of this month to foster such cooperation.

MINELIK ALEMU GETAHUN (Ethiopia) thanked the President and his colleagues for welcoming him. He was happy to come at the Conference on Disarmament at a time when it was reaffirming its vital role. Ethiopia stood for a world free of nuclear weapons and would work with the Conference.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/005E