CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES THE WAY FORWARD ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which States discussed the way forward on nuclear disarmament.

During opening remarks, Pedro Oyarce, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that there was a debate about whether to initiate a phased program for nuclear disarmament with a specified time limit or whether to look at other options for developing an international convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Mr. Oyarce said that it was important for States to put forward ideas about how best to approach nuclear disarmament, rather than repeating what had already been said. For example, Mr. Oyarce asked whether the will existed among Member States to negotiate a phased program with a multilaterally agreed time schedule that led to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons or whether it would be feasible to aim first for the negotiation of an agreement to restrict the use of nuclear weapons.

One speaker noted that despite the arms reduction mottos, nuclear weapons States had based their security on perpetuating nuclear weapons and they remained frozen in the Cold War paradigm. The security of the world was hostage to this way of thinking and it only fuelled the nuclear arms race. The international community has had to wait for more than two decades to witness an endorsement of the long sought goal of complete nuclear disarmament at the Review Conference. The violation of this by some countries should not be permitted. Despite the obligations undertaken by States under article 6, the continued development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons continued to threaten international peace and security.

It was also pointed out that the goal of nuclear disarmament would be accomplished only when accompanied by the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Thus, the basic mission of nuclear disarmament should be the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons; non-proliferation apart from nuclear disarmament was nonsensical. Priority should be given to concluding an international convention prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons States should immediately stop the improvement and development of nuclear weapons systems and adopt a comprehensive program with an agreed time frame for the reduction of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. They should also give up nuclear doctrines based on first-use of nuclear weapons, pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and respond to the call for negotiations to conclude a relevant international convention.

One speaker felt that there was the false notion that the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the most important item on the agenda. The Non-Proliferation Treaty reflected the international community’s commitment to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, there was a growing impression that most nuclear weapons States presumed they had a permanent right to retain these weapons. There could be no progress made as long as these States refused to negotiate on their existing stockpiles.

Speaking in general statements were the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belgium, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, the United Kingdom, Algeria, the United States, Japan and the Russian Federation.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Monday, 28 March at 11 a.m. when the Conference will hear from the president of the General Assembly, the Foreign Minister of Austria, and the Vice Minister of Bulgaria, after which there will be an interactive dialogue.


Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that today’s discussion would focus on the general theme of disarmament. General Assembly resolutions and the last Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference entrusted the Conference on Disarmament with clear responsibilities regarding this matter. The roadmap laid out at the Review Conference implied commitments undertaken by the nuclear powers, which should also be used to channel their debates in the Conference on Disarmament. In the multilateral sphere, they had seen opinions diverge on the approach that should be taken. One option was to work towards an immediate and complete prohibition of nuclear weapons, while the other possibility was a step-by-step approach. Among the different proposals, they had an initiative for a phased program for nuclear disarmament within a specified time limit, including the conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Still pending consideration was the possibility of establishing a coordinator, a subsidiary organ or an ad hoc committee to deal with this matter within the Conference in a more dedicated and participatory manner. The President said it would be interesting to have States’ opinions, points of views, and ideas on these matters. Were there any ideas or suggested approaches about how to tackle nuclear disarmament? Did the will exist among Members of the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a phased program with a multilaterally agreed time schedule? Mr. Oyarce said that he hoped States would put forward ideas and not just repeat what had already been said.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said that the international community faced the pressing tasks of preventing a nuclear arms race, promoting nuclear disarmament, and realizing a nuclear weapons free world. Although two decades had passed since the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons had not decreased. In fact, some powers sought a new plan of nuclear strike against certain countries and continued the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons. This was irresponsible and arbitrary, and at the same time a manifestation of a strategy of world hegemony based on nuclear superiority. The goal of disarmament in general would be accomplished only when nuclear disarmament was accompanied by the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the basic mission of nuclear disarmament should be the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament was directly linked to the survival of mankind and nuclear weapons remained out of control. Therefore, non-proliferation apart from nuclear disarmament was nonsensical. Priority should be given to concluding an international convention prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons States should immediately stop the improvement and development of nuclear weapons systems and adopt a comprehensive program with an agreed time frame for the reduction of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. They should also give up nuclear doctrines based on first-use of nuclear weapons, pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and respond to the call for negotiations to conclude a relevant international convention.

FRANCOIS ROUX, (Belgium), said that as an alternative to the programme of work, Belgium was ready to consider the adoption of a simplified programme of work based on a few conditions: such a simplified programme should provide the real prospect of starting negotiations and it should be adopted as soon as possible. They were open to any solution that allowed them to make progress, including the establishment of subsidiary bodies. On the topic of nuclear disarmament, Belgium said both a global and step-by-step sequenced approach needed to be adopted. There needed to be a global, holistic approach for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. All the component parts of nuclear disarmament could not be tackled with the same level of intensity so a step-by-step, discreet method aimed at gradually obtaining results and reaching international consensus was important. Belgium felt that addressing fissile material was the most important task before them.

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN, (Pakistan), welcomed the opportunity to exchange views on agenda items 1 and 2. Pakistan had already expressed its views on nuclear disarmament last month, but felt it was important to restate them to counter the false notion that the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the most important item on the agenda. The Non-Proliferation Treaty reflected the international community’s commitment to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, there was a growing impression that most nuclear weapons States presumed they had a permanent right to retain these weapons. There could be no progress made as long as these States refused to negotiate on their existing stockpiles.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI, (Syria), said that Syria was convinced that nuclear disarmament was the number one priority and as long as these dangerous arsenals remained in some countries, the world would not enjoy peace, stability and security. The international situation, particularly the violation of some nuclear weapons States of their obligations, required that they consider things calmly to develop a new roadmap and solid framework for their work. The speaker didn’t want to dwell on theories, but preferred to address practical matters and to this end Syria supported the establishment of committees to deal with the four main agenda items. In future meetings the delegation would go into more detail on the idea of such committees and how they might operate. Syria also welcomed the participation of observer States in the exchange of views, as this would only enrich their work.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), wanted to elaborate on their position regarding nuclear disarmament. Public awareness had increased drastically on the issue of nuclear weapons States and nuclear weapons. Dominance seeking and the wrong assumption that “might makes right” had been used to justify these States’ nuclear arsenals and the development, stockpiling and threat of use of these weapons had undermined international security. Despite their arms reduction mottos, they had based their security on perpetuating nuclear weapons and they remained frozen in the Cold War paradigm. The security of the world was hostage to this way of thinking and it only fuelled the nuclear arms race. Since 1978 the international community had had to wait for more than two decades to witness an endorsement of the long sought goal of complete nuclear disarmament at the Review Conference. The violation of this by some countries should not be permitted. Despite the obligations undertaken by States under article 6, the continued development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons continued to threaten the international community.

JO ADAMSON, (United Kingdom), reiterated the United Kingdom’s view of a world without nuclear weapons and said it was absolutely untrue that the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the only thing they cared about. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference there were 22 items that the nuclear weapons States did not block, and they reflected a number of the Conference on Disarmament’s core items. There had been a balanced programme of work in the past and the UK had not blocked any of those documents. They were ready to engage in all of the core items, and the UK as a nuclear weapons States was not blocking their progress.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said they had stated their position in detail on 1 February 2010 so they would not spend much time discussing it again here. Banning nuclear weapons was an obligation, not an option. Over the last few years they had heard the increased calls for a world free of nuclear weapons, but these remained mere hopes because nuclear doctrines adopted and implemented by some of the nuclear powers had consecrated the role of nuclear weapons as an essential element in their defence strategies. Policies such as these gave rise to doubts about the credibility of non-proliferation systems. Algeria believed the best solution to ending the threat posed by nuclear weapons was the adoption of international standards prohibiting such weapons through a legally binding text. It was unthinkable that these weapons remained legitimate in today’s world. They had to work to find practical measures including a time table for the final elimination of such weapons. CD/1864 was an excellent point of departure to allow the Conference to carry out its obligations and play a role in the protection of international peace and security.

LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), said the US president had talked about the options of a single overarching convention or mutually reinforcing steps. The US government vigorously believed that the second method was the way to go and they had devoted their efforts to this. A number of comments had focused on nuclear weapons States and Ms. Kennedy reiterated that the US president and Secretary of State were committed multilateralists. In terms of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, they believed this was part of the step-by-step approach and a step that should have been taken years ago so they very much hoped they could get to it. They were committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and had scrupulously hewed to their obligations under it. The New START Treaty was part of this step-by-step approach, and some people had commented that the pace of these bilateral negotiations had been glacial, but as a democracy the US had to submit all these treaties to discussion and this took time because there were complex issues that had to be addressed. They should pursue the whole range of interlocking efforts in this body and others around the world. The US was committed to this and was interested in hearing ideas on how a nuclear weapons convention would work. How would it be verified and how could compliance be ensured?

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that the total elimination of nuclear weapons could not be ensured by a single convention, but instead required numerous concrete and practical steps. To this end, the most urgent step to Japan was negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

VLADIMIR NOVOKHATSKY, (Russian Federation), said the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be strengthened, made more effective and universal. He said Russia was carrying out its obligations in good faith, both in bilateral agreements and under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He felt the New START Treaty would help to strengthen international stability and consolidate the non-proliferation regime. It was Russia’s belief that the elimination of nuclear weapons should be the ultimate aim of any steps and all States, both nuclear and non-nuclear, should work towards this end.


Concluding Remarks

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that he hoped that future discussions would focus on concrete measures and ideas, rather than general statements. Today’s debate revealed two things: the need for continued efforts on finding a formula that would allow them to start substantive work and the need to focus their interventions so they could reach a substantive level of debate. Next week they needed to focus on a technical approach to the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. In terms of next week’s schedule, on 28 February the Conference on Disarmament would hear from the president of the General Assembly, the Foreign Minister of Austria, and the Vice Minister of Bulgaria, after which there would be an interactive dialogue. The session will start at 11 a.m. The president of the General Assembly would hold an afternoon meeting with the six presidents of the Conference. In an afternoon session, the Conference on Disarmament would hear an address from the Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico. On Tuesday, 1 March there would be both morning and afternoon meetings with ministers and deputy-ministers addressing the Conference. On 3 March they would continue their debate on fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear mechanisms.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/012E