CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT; HEARS FROM KAZAKHSTAN, COSTA RICA, REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND LATVIA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued its High-Level Segment. Conference President Vaanchig Purevdori of Mongolia welcomed the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, Costa Rica, Republic of Korea and Latvia and invited them to address the Conference.
Erlan Idrissov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said growing instability in the world could lead to conflicts and foster a dangerous trend where States used power rather than diplomacy in world politics, possibly leading to an arms race and the use of military force to protect national interests. Kazakhstan had voluntarily relinquished the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It had suffered terribly from the impact of nuclear weapons, and today sought to mobilize the international community to raise awareness of the nuclear threat and press for action to end it.

Manuel Gonzalez-Sanz, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, said 60 years ago Costa Rica had decided to disarm and abolish its army, and base its defence and security on dialogue and the international legal system. Conventions negotiated by the Conference had a global scope, so it was unjustifiably ironic that a country which had brought about total disarmament for itself and had set goals to which the Conference attained had no right to be a part of it. There were high expectations for the Arms Trade Treaty, in particular tackling unlawful trade of weapons, particularly by non-State actors with connections to organized transnational crime and drug-trafficking.

Cho Tae-Yul, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, said 2015 marked 70 years of the unexpected and unwanted division of the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear issue of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a serious threat to the international non-proliferation regime. Resolution of the issue was important not only for peace and security in north-east Asia but also for the credibility of international disarmament. The Minister said that in this new digital age the Conference could not take its status as the “sole multilateral negotiating forum” for granted.

Edgars Rinkevics, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, said it was deeply worrying that the efforts of Ukraine, in strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by abandoning its nuclear arsenal and acceding to the Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon State, had been mistreated and exploited in an unacceptable way and he hoped Russia’s actions would not set a dangerous precedent as such actions undermined nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Ministers of Kazakhstan, Costa Rica, Republic of Korea and Latvia made statements in this morning’s plenary. Representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea and the United States took the floor to respond to the Ministers’ statements.

The Conference on Disarmament will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 March to hear statements from dignitaries of Ireland, Italy and Chile. Meeting summaries of previous Conference on Disarmament plenaries can be found here.


High Level Segment Statements

ERLAN IDRISSOV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said today’s world was transforming, witnessing growing friction between major powers over so-called zones of influence, markets, and control over energy and other resources. The growing instability could lead to conflicts and foster a dangerous trend where States used power rather than diplomacy in world politics, possibly leading to an arms race and the use of military force to protect national interests. Kazakhstan had voluntarily relinquished the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world, said Minister Idrissov. It was home to Baikonur, the world’s largest space launching site, which was making a major contribution to the peaceful use of outer space. The prevention of an arms race in outer space was a national priority and Kazakhstan believed that a resolution calling on the ban of placement of weapons in outer space was vital, and supported the draft treaty prepared jointly by China and Russia.

Kazakhstan considered the Conference on Disarmament an indispensable multilateral negotiating forum, and believed that changing the rules of procedure and systemic reforms were inadmissible. The consensus principle must remain unaltered as it was essential to ensure universal agreement. Kazakhstan welcomed an increase of the membership of the Conference and supported its engagement with civil society, but did not believe non-governmental organizations should be able to directly interfere with the work of the Conference. States were represented at the Conference where they conducted negotiations on issues directly affecting their national interests. Noting that unfortunately the Conference had not conducted any substantive negotiations since the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the United Nations General Assembly, the Minister welcomed efforts to revive its work. Finding compromise had never been easy and required political will.

Kazakhstan had suffered terribly from the impact of nuclear weapons. During Soviet times the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site had been the scene of more than 450 nuclear explosions. The General Assembly had adopted a resolution put forward by Kazakhstan in 2009 to declare August 29, the date of the official closing of Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, as the International Day against Nuclear Tests. Kazakhstan initiated the ATOM Project (Abolish Testing: Our Mission) which sought to mobilize the international community to raise awareness of the nuclear threat and press for action to end it. Kazakhstan recognized the high importance of the process to recognize the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Having established a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in Central Asia with its neighbours, Kazakhstan believed it was necessary to develop an international legally-binding agreement on the provision of security assurances from nuclear-weapon States to non-nuclear-weapon-States. Another national priority included nuclear disarmament through the adoption of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

MANUEL GONZALEZ-SANZ, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, said it was not only an honour but also a duty to address the United Nations forum which had a mandate to negotiate legally-binding disarmament instruments that were universal in nature. Costa Rica had observer status at the Conference and since 1994 had been requesting full membership. The Conference’s Rules of Procedure stated that its membership should be periodically revised and Costa Rica had the sufficient credentials and the moral authority to be part of the forum. Sixty years ago Costa Rica decided to disarm and abolish its army, and base its defence and security on dialogue and the international legal system. Those decisions were not without their challenges, especially as countries in the region obtained heavy legal weapons, including in recent times. Conventions negotiated by the Conference had a global scope, so it was unjustifiably ironic that a country which had brought about total disarmament for itself and had set goals to which the Conference attained had no right to be a part of it.

In 1967 the Tlatelolco Treaty was signed, establishing the world’s first nuclear-weapons-free-zone. Almost half a century since that milestone had passed; today the need to totally eliminate nuclear weapons was more vital than ever. In August 2013 the States parties to the Tlatelolco Treaty signed a resolution on the urgent need to progress to total nuclear disarmament. The Minister spoke about the draft model ‘Nuclear Weapons Convention’ introduced to the United Nations General Assembly by Costa Rica and Malaysia. Costa Rica was at the vanguard of discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, said the Minister, saying humanitarian impact rather than security considerations should take centre stage in disarmament discussions. To date 155 countries had joined a manifesto declaring that nuclear weapons should never be used again, a statement which resonated in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings. Costa Rica reiterated its commitment to the “Austrian Pledge”, submitted to the Conference on Disarmament yesterday by Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz.

Costa Rica was co-author of the Arms Trade Treaty, for which the international community had high expectations and hoped it would provide an effective response to the serious consequences of unlawful trade and trafficking of weapons, particularly by non-State actors with connections to transnational organized crime and drug-trafficking. Costa Rica was party to the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines, where it chaired the Committee on Assistance to Victims, as well as the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions of which Costa Rica was currently proud to be President. The humanitarian consequences of landmines and cluster munitions lasted long after the end of conflicts, said the Minister, regretting that this year and last, both were used in Ukraine.

CHO TAE-YUL, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, said 2015 marked the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations. For the Korean people it meant 70 years of the unexpected and unwanted division of the Korean Peninsula. There were stark differences between the two Koreas in almost every area imaginable: political, economic and the degree of freedom and dignity their people enjoyed. But the fundamental difference was that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was developing a weapons of mass destruction programme in defiance of the most basic obligation of any United Nations Member State – to be a peace-loving country.

The ‘North Korean’ nuclear issue presented a serious threat to the international non-proliferation regime. Resolution of the issue was important not only for peace and security in north-east Asia but also for the credibility of international disarmament. The Republic of Korea continued its efforts for a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization through dialogue and negotiations. Yesterday the ‘North Korean’ Foreign Minister addressed the Conference. Minister Cho said although he appreciated efforts to explain its views it was unclear whether ‘North Korea’ had chosen the right forum as the Conference was created to achieve peace through disarmament, not armament.

Regarding the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s claim for the status of ‘nuclear-weapon-State’ the Minister said the international community would not grant any status whatsoever to the country known for the most blatant case of nuclear proliferation. It was not without a certain sense of irony that a State posing a clear and existing nuclear threat called an annual defensive exercise a “nuclear war exercise” against itself. Historically ‘North Korea’ had made two short-lived but strategic decisions: first in the 1970s in the midst of the East-West détente and secondly in the early 1990s after the end of the Cold War. That meant opportunities for substantial change in inter-Korean relations had arrived every two decades. Now, 20 years after the end of the Cold War and at another time of tectonic shift in regional geopolitics, it was time for ‘North Korea’ to make another strategic decision. They would see if ‘North Korea’ was wise and courageous enough to do so, said the Minister.

The Minister noted upcoming opportunities in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, including the final stretch of the nuclear talks between the P5+1 and Iran; a meeting of the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification; the final session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and the 2015 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would be naïve to assume everything would be on an even keel but the scene could potentially change quite dramatically within a few weeks. However it was unlikely that the Conference on Disarmament would play a role in any of those international efforts, said the Minister. The inconvenient truth was that the Conference had not delivered anything tangible for nearly two decades. Diverse, alternative pathways towards disarmament negotiations were emerging outside the Conference, as seen in the Ottawa Convention, the Oslo Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty. They lived in a hyper-connected new digital age where one could manufacture weapons with 3-D printers and robots could choose their own targets, and concerned groups of individuals could always create a new trend. Minister Cho highlighted a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as a priority issue that was ready for negotiating and said the Conference could not take its status as the “sole multilateral negotiating forum” for granted.

EDGARS RINKEVICS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, said Latvia was committed to effective multilateral arms control, and given the various security challenges facing the global community that needed to be addressed in a multilateral way, it was concerned about the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament. In April this year the world would commemorate 100 years since the first large-scale chemical weapons deployment in Ieper, Belgium. A successful convention – the Chemical Weapons Convention – was negotiated by the Conference to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. The Conference had the opportunity to build on that and other achievements. Latvia had applied for membership of the Conference in 2004, and was one of 27 States that through their endeavour to join it continuously gave credibility to the Conference as the main international body for disarmament negotiations. Universalization was an important part of the adaptation process of the Conference to the new and changing international security environment.

Fundamental changes had taken place in Europe. Some countries believed that the international order could be overturned and agreements could be torn up at will. The Minister said he was referring to the Budapest Memorandum and the concept of territorial integrity. It was deeply worrying that the efforts of Ukraine, in strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by abandoning its nuclear arsenal and acceding to the Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon State, had been mistreated and exploited in such an unacceptable way. The Minister hoped Russia’s actions would not set a dangerous precedent as such actions eroded the level of trust and undermined nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Latvia firmly believed in diplomatic and political approaches, saying confidence must be restored.

The Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York was a landmark event in 2015, said the Minister, highlighting ongoing developments such as the New START Treaty, the announcement by the United Kingdom on the completion of the reduction of its nuclear weapons abilities and efforts by the United States with the Nuclear Threat Initiative on an international partnership on nuclear disarmament verification. The success of the Review Conference depended upon the will to negotiate in good faith and to reach compromise. Latvia supported the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and underlined the importance of treaties complementary to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Statements by Delegations

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in response to the statement of the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, said he felt disappointed that the Vice-Minister distorted the reality of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. He wished to clarify that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula originated from the United States’ long nuclear threat against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and therefore the issue should be settled between those two countries. The prevailing situation on the Korean Peninsula was very tense and could erupt at any time. Even at this moment large-scale military exercises involving tens of thousands of foreign troops were being staged in the southern part of the Peninsula. ‘South Korea’ had no say in the security issue on the Peninsula because it was unable to access its elementary right to sovereignty as it had no right to command wartime operations. The right to command armed forces in ‘South Korea’ was exercised by the United States. The Korean Peninsula remained the last relic of the Cold War, 70 years after being divided by armed forces. For the last decade the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had made untiring efforts, leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to find peace, including agreeing to talks with the United States. The United States turned away from its repeated proposals and preferred to keep the situation on the Korean Peninsula ever-tense, said the representative.

Republic of Korea, speaking in response to the comment by the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, noted that the Conference on Disarmament’s High-Level Segment was dedicated to promoting multilateralism and strengthening the rule of law in the areas of disarmament and non-proliferation. ‘North Korea’ had a history of blaming others for its illicit activities and provocations. Tension in the region was due to ‘North Korea’s’ continued nuclear tests and illegal missile launches. The Republic of Korea and United States’ joint military exercises were defence-orientated, transparent in nature and conducted in clear observance of international law in response to the clear and current military threat from ‘North Korea’. ‘North Korea’s’ nuclear tests were illegal acts under international law and a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions. ‘North Korea’ had committed not to carry out further nuclear tests in a joint statement of 19 September 2005, but today used refrain from such tests as a conditional bargaining chip. In the Foreign Minister of Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s statement yesterday he referred to the power of a “pre-emptive strike”, said the representative, urging all to be more concerned about the ever-advancing nuclear and ballistic missile programme.

United States, speaking in response to the comment made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said it responded in detail to comments on the joint military exercises yesterday. The paramount goal of United States’ policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remained the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Secretary of State [John] Kerry said ‘North Korea’ had an option to end isolation but to do so had to make a real choice to make irreversible steps towards denuclearization and demonstrate a willingness to comply with its international obligations. The United States continued to offer the opportunity for meaningful engagement and an improved relationship but the onus was on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take meaningful action and refrain from provocations.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea said it did not feel the need to respond to the remarks by the Republic of Korea as they were not worthy even of a passing note. However, in response to the comment by the United States, the representative noted that efforts by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula had gone through three distinct phases. The first were endeavours to establish a nuclear-free-zone through peaceful dialogue; as early as 1959 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proposed an Atomic-Weapon-Free Peace Zone for Asia. However the United States turned a blind eye to those efforts and posed an increasing nuclear threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In a second effort the Democratic People's Republic of Korea endeavoured to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by the United States by relying on international law and acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985. However the United States openly threatened the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with nuclear weapons by staging a series of joint military exercises in the Korean Peninsula, and the Bush Administration listed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the Axis of Evil in its State of Union address and included it on its list of targets for nuclear pre-emptive strike. The prospect of a nuclear war loomed large in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was clear that efforts, through dialogue or reliance on international law had failed. The unique conditions of the Korean Peninsula called for a unique solution and the only choice left was to counter the threat of nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. In short, thanks to deterrence resulting from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula was considerably reduced.

United States said it wished to make it clear that the United States posed absolutely no threat to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. ‘North Korea’ was isolated. It knew it was isolated. It knew what it needed to do to get back into the good graces of the international community. The United States called on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to do what it needed to do and come into compliance with its international obligations.

Republic of Korea said it felt no necessity to respond to the statements word by word but wished to say it was imperative that ‘North Korea’ demonstrated sincerity to denuclearization by fully complying with its previously agreed commitments. If ‘North Korea’ made a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear programme, the Republic of Korea was fully prepared to cooperate with the international community to help it participate fully in the global economy and develop peacefully. It firmly hoped that ‘North Korea’ moved in that direction. Denuclearization was achieved not by words but by actions, and as a member of the Conference on Disarmament, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should abide by its spirit.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/017E