MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OUTLINE THEIR POSITIONS ON THE ISSUE OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Twenty-eight members of the Conference on Disarmament today outlined their positions on the issue of nuclear disarmament in response to the invitation last week by the President of the Conference, Ambassador Wegger Strommen of Norway, to hold four public plenaries to discuss the four main issues identified in the "food for thought" paper submitted at the beginning of the session by Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands. The next three sessions, to be held on 28 and 30 June and on 7 July, will respectively deal with fissile materials, outer space and security assurances.

The majority of the delegations stressed the fact that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were two sides of the same coin and were mutually reinforcing processes. They agreed that with the failure of the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York, the ball was now in the court of the Conference on Disarmament to deal with the issue of nuclear disarmament. One delegate noted that for the Conference, negotiating was an obligation and reaching an agreement was a prerogative. A number of speakers supported the idea of establishing within the Conference an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with nuclear disarmament.

At the beginning of the Conference, Ambassador Strommen paid tribute to Ambassador Sanders who is leaving Geneva. Most of the speakers also praised the work of Ambassador Sanders.

Representatives of the Netherlands, Japan, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group), China, the Russian Federation, Ireland, Syria, Ethiopia (on behalf of the Group of 21), Pakistan, Switzerland, Mexico, Italy, Canada, Sweden, Chile, Germany, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Peru, Brazil, France, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, Algeria, Cuba, the United Kingdom and Malaysia addressed the Conference.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 June.

Statements

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that before proceeding to the debate, he wished to bid farewell to Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands who would soon leave Geneva to assume new important responsibilities. Ambassador Sanders had been and was an exemplary figure in the field of disarmament. Throughout his tenure as Ambassador of the Netherlands to the Conference, Ambassador Sanders had demonstrated remarkable diplomatic skills and professional knowledge in many disarmament bodies. He had also succeeded in forging his ideas into concrete actions, in part due to his energetic and firm personality. On behalf of the Conference, he wished Ambassador Sanders much success in his new assignment.

CHRIS SANDERS (the Netherlands) thanked the President for his kind words. Many hours had been spent inside and out of this room to discuss why the Conference on Disarmament was in a bad condition, and how to remedy the problem of the Conference. There was no simple answer. It was too easy to blame the consensus rule. Real underlying political differences and security interests had been at stake, which was of course legitimate. However, he continued to have difficulties in understanding how a programme of work based on his "food for thought" paper could ever harm anybody's security interests.

Ambassador Sanders said that he wished to address the issue of the increasing misuse of the consensus rule in the UN system for relatively minor issues, and the broader dimension of the UN disarmament machinery. Consensus was a legitimate and necessary principle. However, he was deeply concerned to see that a small number of countries were increasingly usinng the consensus rule to veto proposals on minor issues. Some were playing games with the need to reach consensus. He wondered how long the international community could continue to accept this course of action by responsible negotiators and governments. If there was belief in effective multilateralism as the ultimate guardian of security interests, this needed to be remedied.

Concerning the vitality of the UN disarmament machinery as a whole, Ambassador Sanders said clearly, the existing UN disarmament machinery was created under circumstances that were very different from that of today. It would make sense to see whether a review of the machinery could at least clean up old structures that were dysfunctional, and hopefully replace them with something more effective. He questioned why there was need for both the Conference on Disarmament and the United Nations Disarmament Commission, whether it would be possible to settle for one single universal body, and whether the First Committee could fulfil such a role. This might not be a panacea for all the outstanding problems, but at least it would streamline and simplify the situation. He had found that there was strong resistance to an overhaul of the existing machinery, either because of vested interests or because of fear of losing control of the process.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said Japan's efforts for nuclear disarmament were expressed in its resolution submitted to the First Committee of the General Assembly on "a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons". Some progress had been made in the field of nuclear disarmament. There was, however, a need for more transparency and steady progress in the process of nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament should continue to play a pivotal role to achieve concrete disarmament measures, and Japan supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. Japan was considering redrafting its First Committee resolution this year with fresh eyes.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the continued stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament was a source of great concern for the Arab Group as security challenges faced by the international community were increasing in size and gravity. The aspirations of many States had not changed with regards to the multilateral framework.

The issue of nuclear disarmament continued to be a priority of the Arab Group on the international and regional level as long as nuclear weapons continued to exist. The Arab Group was disappointed that the Conference on Disarmament had not been able to respond to the agreements reached at the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and its goals, and it believed that the 13 steps for nuclear disarmament continued to be valid. The current situation in the Middle East was of particular concern. Arab States had chosen not to seek nuclear weapons by joining the NPT and there continued to be a need for Israel to join the treaty so that a nuclear free zone in the Middle East was created. The Arab Group was also disappointed that the 2005 NPT Review Conference had failed to reach any results. The Group called on the Conference on Disarmament to reach an agreement on a work programme based on consensus, which included a body to deal with nuclear disarmament.

HU XIAODI (China) said nuclear disarmament mattered to international peace and security. The Conference on Disarmament had not yet carried out any substantive work on this issue. Asking what had caused such a situation, Ambassador Hu noted that while the United States and the Russian Federation had made some progress in their bilateral reduction of nuclear weapons, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty was being abolished, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had not entered into force, there were no negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and there was a rising danger of weaponization of outer space. There was also a growing tendency to stress non-proliferation while playing down nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Hu said that concerning how to advance the international nuclear disarmament process, this could be done firstly with a secured international environment and strategic stability which was the foundation. China noted that efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space and those on nuclear disarmament went hand in hand. Secondly, a balanced approach to nuclear disarmament and the prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons was the condition. Thirdly, observance of the basic principles in nuclear disarmament was the guarantee. Fourthly, the implementation of appropriate intermediate measures of nuclear disarmament was a supplement and improvement. And fifthly, the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament was the platform.

Ambassador Hu said that China's nuclear weapons were purely for self-defence. Over the decades, China had exercised great restraint in the development of nuclear forces, had never taken part in the nuclear arms race, had deployed no nuclear weapons abroad, and had kept its nuclear forces at the minimum level necessary for self-defence. China would make unremitting efforts together with the international community so as to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons and to realize at an early date the noble objective of a world free of nuclear weapons.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) praised the initiative to have four consecutive formal plenary meetings of the Conference to consider the issues of nuclear disarmament, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States. Russia shared the view that the agreement on these four issues could serve as a basis for a long-awaited compromise on the programme of work of the Conference. Russia had stated that it would not object to eventual compromises on the programme of work, proposed in the initiative of the Five Ambassadors and the paper by Ambassador Sanders, although the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space with a "to deal with" mandate was much less than what Russia wanted.

Ambassador Skotnikov said the Russian Federation was committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament in compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Russia was also observing all its commitments to the reduction of nuclear weapons, although this process was quite a labour-intensive, technically difficult and costly task. Since 1991, Russia's entire nuclear arsenal had been reduced fivefold and the arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons had been reduced by three quarters. Russia was also committed to the principle of irreversibility of nuclear weapon reductions and attached special importance to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Russia supported the beginning of negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. These were only some of the essential elements of Russia's position on nuclear disarmament.

Under the NPT, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation represented two sides of the same coin. Concerning the outcome of the recent NPT Review Conference, in spite of the lack of substantive recommendations for the future on strengthening the NPT, it was groundless to talk about the failure of the Conference. Everything suggested that all recent challenges to the nuclear non-proliferation regime could and should continue to be neutralized on the basis of the NPT. Finally, if it could help the compromise on the programme of work of the Conference, Russia would be prepared to study a possible package solution that envisaged the consideration of security assurances to non-nuclear States in the framework of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. Such a suggestion had already been made.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said Ireland continued to regard the Conference on Disarmament as having the potential to serve as an important tool in maintaining international peace and security. It remained convinced that multilateral cooperation was in the interest of all. A rules-based international order and strong international institutions were also of fundamental importance to the European Union. In his report "In Larger Freedom", the Secretary-General of the United Nations had pointed out that the "unique status of the nuclear weapon States also entails a unique responsibility", urging them to do more. The realisation of this perspective would provide an unshakable foundation for lasting nuclear disarmament.

Ireland continued to support the establishment of a subsidiary body of the Conference to deal with the issue of nuclear disarmament. It also supported work beginning on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Ireland remained convinced that disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing processes. Disarmament should be a key component for efforts in facing down the challenge of proliferation. The Conference could provide a forum where countries which had not ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty could engage meaningfully in nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation issues. Ireland urged States that had not yet acceded to the NPT to do so. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty could also be a vital cornerstone of non-proliferation.

BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria) supported the President's efforts to pull the Conference from the state of stagnation which it had sunk in for several years. This formal plenary to discuss nuclear disarmament came after the failure of the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in New York last month. In light of this situation, certain facts regarding nuclear disarmament must be recalled. States parties during the 1995 NPT Review Conference had adopted a resolution in support of turning the Middle East into a nuclear free zone. During the intersessional period between 1995 and 2000, Arab States which had not yet acceded to the NPT had done so. Israel remained the only country in the Middle East which had not acceded to the NPT and it refused to subject its nuclear installations to review by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This was a grave danger to the countries of the region, including Israel.

Ambassador Ja'afari said that the 2000 NPT Review Conference had welcomed the accession of the remaining Arab countries to the NPT and had called on Israel to accede to the Treaty. Israel continued to enjoy clear and open support from a number of nuclear powers and continued to defy the international community. The General Assembly annually and overwhelmingly adopted a resolution to turn the Middle East into a nuclear free zone. Syria supported nuclear disarmament at the regional and international levels. Yet in spite of all the efforts of the Arab countries, including Syria, Israel continued to refuse to join the NPT and submit its nuclear installations to review. These installations, according to reports, were a time bomb. Israel also buried nuclear waste in the Golan Heights, thus breaking all international rules. Syria continued to believe that the Five Ambassadors proposal remained the best proposal and establishing a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament was the least that the Conference could do.

FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, hoped that the process of addressing the four main issues contained in the Five Ambassadors proposal would facilitate the efforts of the Conference to adopt a balanced and comprehensive programme of work in order to commence substantive work. The Group of 21 expressed its concern that due to the lack of political will, the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to take up substantive work on the basis of an agreed programme of work since 1999, in spite of the demonstrated flexibility shown by the Group towards a number of formal and informal proposals introduced. The Group of 21 reaffirmed its proposals, as contained in documents CD/1570 and CD/1571 on the programme of work and on a draft decision and mandate for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapon convention.

Ambassador Yimer said the Group of 21 emphasized that nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority for the Conference on Disarmament. It further expressed its serious concern about the lack of expected progress following the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, made during the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Group deeply regretted the lack of political will that had prevented the 2005 NPT Review Conference from achieving substantive results. In this perspective, the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament, agreed by the 2000 NPT Review Conference, remained valid and required accelerated implementation.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work based on the proposal of the Five Ambassadors remained Pakistan's priority. Today, there were three main concerns about nuclear disarmament: the pace of disarmament was not fast enough; there was no movement on interrelated issues of test ban, fissile materials, outer space and negative security assurances; and the debate and dialogue on disarmament were completely stalled. In this context, he would talk about five challenges. The first was the creeping institutional deficit, or more appropriately, a gradual emaciation of the existing multilateral forums. The second challenge was to resolve the tension between nuclear legality and nuclear reality. The third challenge was to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines. The fourth challenge was to fight terrorism and deny weapons of mass destruction access to terrorists. And the fifth challenge was to promote a genuine dialogue between haves and have nots, because in the current environment they were talking past each other.

Ambassador Khan said that from the mid-1970s to 1998, when Pakistan had become an overt nuclear power, Pakistan had proposed several regional disarmament measures, but they were not supported by the primary interlocutors. Today, South Asia might be a long way from disarmament, but Pakistan was against an open-ended strategic or conventional arms race in the region. Pakistan would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States, and it supported international arms control and disarmament initiatives and efforts. Pakistan was pursuing with India a strategic restraint regime and they were making some headway.

In conclusion, Ambassador Khan said that the Conference on Disarmament today faced a crisis of relevance and functionality. In order to energize the Conference, the world needed to understand the enormity of the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and needed to demonstrate willingness to address them collectively.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said Switzerland supported all multilateral efforts to bring about disarmament and arms control. For Switzerland, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the sole global and legally binding treaty for non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. It was an essential tool for international peace and stability. Emphasis on non-proliferation should not mean that nuclear disarmament should be put aside. Nuclear weapon States continued to gradually implement their disarmament obligations, and since the 2000 NPT Review Conference, there had been some positive developments. Nonetheless, it was Switzerland's opinion that any measures of nuclear disarmament should adhere to the principles of transparency, irreversibility and verification. However, ambiguities remained.

Switzerland insisted on the importance of observing the principles of non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. A number of steps should be taken, including the prompt accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and setting up a subsidiary body at the Conference on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Switzerland supported proposals to exchange views on practical measures to achieve the objective of nuclear disarmament.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said Mexico had welcomed the proposal that the Conference take up in a structured way the four main issues contained in the Five Ambassadors proposal. He hoped that this would continue the dialogue which had started last year under the presidency of Mexico of the Conference and would help to break the situation of paralysis at the Conference for the past eight years which had become intolerable. Mexico hoped that agreement on a work programme could be reached.

Negotiating within the Conference was the obligation of the Member States, while reaching agreement was their prerogative. Mexico supported the Five Ambassadors proposal which would be a good basis. Mexico's position in favour of elimination of nuclear weapons was well known. Mexico affirmed the vital need to start a multilateral dialogue on nuclear disarmament. The Five Ambassadors proposal provided a framework for this process and Mexico supported the idea of setting up an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. During the informal plenaries last year under Mexico's presidency, there had been a Swedish proposal to take stock of developments concerning nuclear proliferation and Mexico believed that this could be a good point of departure in the exchange of views. Mexico remained strongly committed to the regime established under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and could only express its profound disappointment on the lack of substantive results at the last NPT Review Conference. The unambiguous commitment of nuclear weapon States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals was of particular importance. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were essential and in these areas, the unambiguous commitment of nuclear weapon States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals was of particular importance. This process should be sped up. The Conference should take seriously its fundamental role and resume its negotiating work. The necessary political will had to be shown.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said this discussion was timely in light of the results, or rather the lack of substantive results, of the Seventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Nuclear disarmament was one of the pillars of the treaty and despite efforts, no consensual indications were reached in the Review conference on how to proceed on this theme. After the conclusion of the Review Conference, the ball of nuclear disarmament was, more than in the past, in the court of the Conference on Disarmament. Italy would not enumerate all the provisions pertinent to nuclear disarmament which were contained in the EU common position established at the Review Conference. Other significant developments also took place in New York. Both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon States had reconfirmed their engagements under article VI of the NPT. Also, an effort was made by nuclear weapon States to present in a more transparent way figures on their nuclear arsenals and on their reduction. There was, moreover, a wide appreciation of some trends and recent developments in nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Trezza said in spite of some diverging positions reflecting different priorities on nuclear disarmament, Italy believed that a significant common ground had emerged from the general debate and the substantive discussions at the NPT Conference. Unfortunately, it was shadowed by an unreasonably long and controversial procedural debate. Italy shared the aspirations of those who advocated more efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and would continue, together with its EU partners, to encourage progress in this field.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said Canada welcomed this occasion to focus on the important issue of nuclear disarmament, an issue which was clearly deserving of multilateral discussion and more. In the aftermath of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, Canada believed that the re-activation of multilateral activity in this area was a key priority. The Conference on Disarmament had a major role to play. The Member States had to use the opportunity this forum offered, ideally in an Ad Hoc Committee, to consider pressing issues in nuclear disarmament. Other issues for the attention of the Conference could be consideration of compliance, how best to implement principles of irreversibility and transparency and addressing the verification dimension. Confidence building measures could also be examined. Non-strategic nuclear weapons was another issue of wide interest. The Conference could thus make good use of an Ad Hoc Committee and of any discussion in plenary prior to the finalization of a programme of work. While not a substitute for more disarmament, at the very least, such dialogue would sustain ongoing attention to nuclear disarmament, encourage transparency, and enable substantive discussion of specific issues and approaches.

While the Conference on Disarmament was not a subsidiary body of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it was nevertheless a primary multilateral instance seized with issues of nuclear disarmament. The Member States owed it to themselves and their public to make the best use of this forum in addressing the very real problems and possibilities associated with the nuclear disarmament enterprise.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said serious efforts were being made to reform the United Nations and other international organizations so that they could more effectively meet the challenges of the ever more globalized world. In a few months times, Heads of States and Government would focus on these issues when they met in New York to discuss, among other issues, matters related to international peace and security. It was only a matter of time before the disarmament machinery, established by the SSOD I in 1978, would also need to be reviewed. The existing machinery was not working well and effective multilateral and global instruments were needed to address serious global threats and challenges to the common security. The failure to break the deadlock and to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work was political, not diplomatic. The recently concluded Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was another missed opportunity to use the multilateral instruments available.

Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier said that the Member States needed to consider the contribution of the Conference to substantive global security concerns, and they needed to discuss substance, while waiting for a few capitals to come around to agreeing to a programme of work based on this paper. It was only fitting that the first subject matter for these plenaries was nuclear disarmament. There were also a number of disturbing new developments, including serious challenges to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. As for what the Conference could do, it should at long last get down to negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, meeting both disarmament and proliferation concerns. It would be useful if the Conference could take stock of what disarmament efforts had already been made or were on-going in other contexts. It would also be useful for the Conference to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the military and security doctrines of today and the foreseeable future. And it would be useful to consider if there were any nuclear disarmament measures which would be particularly pertinent, also from a non-proliferation perspective. These were some thoughts on what initial substantive work an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament could do.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile supported the proposal of the President of the Conference to convene four formal plenaries on the four issues highlighted in the "food for thought" paper. Chile believed that the first task of the Conference was to make concrete efforts to agree on a programme of work and start substantive work since the Conference was a negotiating forum and not a deliberating forum. These formal plenaries were a useful effort to maintain a dialogue in the Conference, but they should not be a substitute for the main endeavour of agreeing on a programme of work and starting a substantive dialogue. Over the past eight years of stalemate, many efforts had been made in search of a consensus, and Chile believed that the Five Ambassadors proposal had gained a lot of support and could serve as a basis to generate the political will to get the work going in the Conference. Chile wondered if perhaps the time had come to discuss the future role of the Conference in light of the international reality, and this dialogue could shed light.

Chile believed that progress towards comprehensive nuclear disarmament was a principal priority. It recognized the link between nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and believed that without progress on the latter, the idea of the former would become more and more remote. Chile supported the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and supported convening a conference of its States parties to help it enter into force. Negotiations on the basis of the Shanon Mandate to establish a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament should be supported. Chile insisted on the irreversibility in the process of nuclear disarmament. It recognized that progress had been made in the reduction of nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapon free zones were a vital contribution and Chile hoped that they would extend to new areas such as the Middle East and Central Asia. Chile also favoured the start of negotiations on a legally binding statement to establish guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States.

VOLKER HEINSBERG (Germany) said there was general agreement on the final goal of the process of nuclear disarmament, i.e. the total elimination of nuclear weapons. However, decisions did not occur in a vacuum. The end of the Cold War and East-West confrontation had brought with it new opportunities. At the same time, the international security situation had become in many ways even more complex. The conflict potential had increased, especially at a regional effort, and the threats posed by the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery had become more pronounced. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remained the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. It was of paramount importance to maintain the authority and integrity of this most universal multilateral treaty.

Ambassador Heinsberg said Germany observed growing frustration regarding the slow progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, and regretted that the 2005 NPT Review Conference had contributed to this frustration. Continued tangible progress towards irreversible and verifiable nuclear disarmament was indispensable. First and foremost, the Conference had to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. An FMCT would constitute a new substantial nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measure. As part of the overall nuclear disarmament process, non-strategic nuclear weapons must also be reduced in a verifiable and irreversible manner on all sides. Furthermore, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at the earliest possible date was of key importance for any progress in this field. Germany fully supported the establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body in the Conference to deal with nuclear disarmament as called for in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Germany also supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee within the conference as provided for by the revised proposal of the Five Ambassadors.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said some of the current diagnosis of the present predicament of the Conference located the problem in process rather than politics. The lack of agreement on the programme of work was symptomatic of the decline of the multilateral ethic and was reflective of the lack of political will. In view of the growing impatience with the Conference's lack of productive work, the task remained, besides appealing to good sense and wisdom, to generate ideas that could persuade Member States to establish a programme of work for the Conference that reflected the concerns and priorities of all its Member States and that was responsive to the expectations of the international community.

Ambassador Prasad said that as a nuclear weapon State, India was conscious of its special responsibility towards nuclear disarmament. India's defensive security posture was marked by responsibility, restraint and predictability and was predicted on a minimum credible deterrence that precluded the doctrines of first use or pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, or the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States. India had continued to advocate legally binding international instruments to enshrine these commitments, and also to negotiate a legally binding instrument on assurance to non-nuclear weapon States. India also shared the concerns of the international community concerning the possible connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As members of the Conference which was a multilateral negotiating body, India remained a strong votary of multilateralism in global disarmament efforts. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was a global issue and needed to be addressed in a multilateral framework.

In conclusion, Ambassador Prasad said that the Five Ambassadors proposal provided for a less-than-negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. India's acceptance of the proposal in no way diminished its commitment to the immediate commencement of negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said that South Africa and most delegations in the chamber were very disappointed with the failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference which left the world in a precarious situation of questionable prospects for nuclear disarmament. The present lack of political will was a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament. Regrettably, the lack of political will continued to prevent some of the major multilateral frameworks for disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control from reaching agreement on procedural issues such as their agendas and programmes of work. The deadlock in the Conference on its programme of work and the time spent at the NPT Review Conference to reach agreement on its agenda were perfect examples.

South Africa believed that any presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon States was incompatible with the broader goal of the maintenance of international peace and security. Continuous and irreversible progress in nuclear disarmament and other related nuclear arms control measures remained fundamental to the promotion of nuclear disarmament. South Africa believed that the challenges facing international peace and security today required from everyone innovative ways of enhancing the implementation of nuclear disarmament. In meeting this expectation, South Africa would like to draw attention to a proposal on the 12 inter-related measures contained in its statement in the general debate of the NPT Review Conference. Among other measures, all States should spare no efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT and the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; should address the proliferation threat posed by non-State actors; and should further reinforce the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards norm as a means to prevent proliferation. Other steps included resuming in the Conference on Disarmament negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable fissile material treaty and establishing an appropriate subsidiary body in the Conference to deal with nuclear disarmament.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said that New Zealand had no difficulty expressing its views on the formal record of the Conference because it believed that it was appropriate to the standing of this forum and its gravity of purpose that as many of its deliberations as possible were conducted under the critical eye of the public. The question on why nuclear disarmament occupied such a central concern for the Conference could be addressed on several levels: nuclear disarmament remained an agenda item because nuclear weapons continued to exist in extraordinary quantities, many times in excess of any credible perceived deterrent value with which they might be invested; because progress in the rate of elimination of these weapons remained controversial; and because of the legal level. Bearing in mind these various elements, New Zealand was concerned at the efforts, ultimately unsuccessful, of several States throughout the most recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to undermine formally agreed steps towards nuclear disarmament. That had been a major problem in the Review Conference, and unfortunately, there was a parallel in the Conference on Disarmament.

New Zealand urged the cooperation of all members of the Conference in agreeing to a work programme that dealt with nuclear disarmament as one of its central components. The readiness of delegations such as that of New Zealand to agree to a work programme that contemplated treatment of nuclear disarmament in a manner, at least initially, that fell short of the commencement of actual negotiations represented a major compromise. Such a compromise was possible only because of the importance attached to addressing urgently current threats to proliferation through the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. But the patience of New Zealand and other States had limits.

In conclusion, Ambassador Caughley said he hoped that the initiative of the President to schedule these formal meetings would elicit from delegations which had been unable to accept any of the work programme proposals to date a clear statement of a prescription that offered a realistic prospect of compromise and that it would condition the Conference to the reality that if that was not forthcoming, it must look to the UN Summit in New York in September to determine whether multilateral disarmament and arms control diplomacy needed to be returned to the drawing boards and new parameters needed to be set. Whatever the outcome, the obligations to negotiate effective measures for nuclear disarmament would remain to be discharged.

ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru) said Peru was concerned about the inability of the Conference to overcome its problems and to start its programme of work. Peru supported the idea of convening the four plenaries and hoped that this exercise would promote the resumption of substantive work in the Conference. Peru considered the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be the cornerstone for avoiding non-proliferation and for providing nuclear disarmament. Peru regretted the failure of the NPT Review Conference and the lack of political will by States parties which meant that the final documents on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear power, the three pillars of the NPT, were not adopted. However, the outcome of the Review Conference should not cast a doubt on the survival of the NPT.

Ambassador Rodriguez said that the fact that there were increasing amounts of nuclear weapons and the fact that new nuclear weapon States had emerged had created a new and dangerous situation which terrorist groups could take advantage of. It was essential to implement the 13 steps adopted by the previous NPT Review Conference to ensure nuclear disarmament. It was also urgent to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Speaking about the nuclear free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean, she said that it was of vital importance to establish new nuclear weapon free zones and to consolidate those which existed. Peru was also interested in the swift entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as it believed that it would contribute to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. The lack of political will displayed at the NPT Review Conference in New York reflected what had been happening in the Conference on Disarmament over the past eight years. The Conference could not continue with a ninth year of stalemate and Peru would work with others to find a solution as soon as possible.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) noted with deep regret that there was insufficient political will in a small number of capitals to negotiate treaty law, and specifically on nuclear disarmament. Nuclear arms were relics from a past which should be overcome. Brazil was responsible in 2000 for the "Amorim Proposal" (CD/1624) which had put great emphasis on nuclear disarmament. As a compromise offer, Brazil had supported the Five Ambassadors proposal since 2004 which put less strength on nuclear disarmament, and had also indicated that the "food for thought" paper could be a good basis for discussion in order to lead the Conference to the adoption of a programme of work. Brazil strongly believed that global security could only be thoroughly accomplished via the elimination of nuclear weapons and the political assurance that they would never be produced or used again. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remained valid in its entirety. The pursuit of nuclear disarmament was a fundamental tool in addressing the international community's deep concern about proliferation.

Due to the lack of the necessary political will from different quarters, it was not possible to appropriately discuss substantive issues at the Seventh NPT Review Conference. In spite of that, the next Review Conference should undertake a thorough review of the implementation of, or lack of, the 2000 NPT document. Brazil and Mexico had played a leading role in the launching of the initiative to crate the very first international nuclear weapon free zone in an inhabited part of the world. The Brazilian Constitution stated that nuclear energy in the country could be used for peaceful purposes only. Brazil believed that the NPT remained and should continue to be the cornerstone of the global security regime.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said France's approach on the issue of nuclear disarmament was in line with the common position agreed upon by the European Union at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a few weeks ago. He would not repeat all the elements of this position but he wished to emphasize that France considered the resumption of substantive work at the Conference on Disarmament to be particularly important, especially on negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. As stressed in the EU position, there was a need to preserve the NPT. France had reaffirmed its nuclear disarmament commitments at the Review Conference. It was guided by the need to see the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) enter into force, to see the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to see a movement forward with a view to reducing nuclear weapons overall. France had decided to refrain from testing nuclear weapons and had acceded to the CTBT. In fact, France no longer had installations where it could carry out nuclear tests. France was working on the implementation of a verification regime. However, it noted that the CTBT had still not entered into force. France as working on the reduction of nuclear weapons as much as it could. It had reduced its own nuclear weapons by two thirds since 1985. France supported the global reduction of nuclear arsenals.

Ambassador Rivasseau said that over the past two decades, States parties to the NPT which had undertaken obligations had violated them. Their actions should be pursued and there had to be a common will to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. The proliferation crisis today was the major challenge to the international community. Concerning the programme of work, the Conference had a mandate to discuss nuclear disarmament in order to identify subjects which were ripe for negotiations. The identification process had already been carried out, and the issue of fissile material had already been chosen as a priority. But a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was not the end of the story for the work of the Conference. France believed that it was in the interest of all parties to pursue these discussions to facilitate an overall agreement on the programme of work.

MARCELO VALLE FONROUGE (Argentina) said that for more than 50 years, Argentina had been using nuclear energy. It had never given up on nuclear weapons because it had never intended to develop them. Argentina supported a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons. Only in this way could mutual security be guaranteed. A series of steps were needed to implement this objective. States were called upon to accede to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to start negotiations on fissile materials immediately. In this context, Argentina was concerned that nine years after the adoption of the CTBT, it had still not been ratified by 49 States whose ratification were necessary for its entry into force. Argentina hoped that the CTBT would become universal.

Argentina believed that it was particularly important for nuclear weapon States to commit to their obligations, and it was essential that they maintained a moratorium on nuclear weapon tests. It was disconcerting that the Conference, the only multilateral forum to negotiate disarmament issues, had not yet begun negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and had not established a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament. Setting up such a subsidiary body would constitute progress. Argentina also continued to welcome any reductions of nuclear weapons based on bilateral agreements. It rejected arguments that programmes made in the field of nuclear disarmament depended on progress made on conventional weapons.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea) said the invitation of the President to discuss these four main issues was very timely and relevant in the sense that they should be addressed in one way or another by the international community, including the Conference on Disarmament, in order to effectively tackle the new proliferation challenges facing the world. This was especially true in the wake of the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which had failed to adopt a final agreement on the substantive issues. The delegation of the Republic of Korea was ready to engage in early discussions on any constructive formula to get the Conference back to work, and it considered the initiative by Ambassador Sanders of the Netherlands to be a very realistic foundation for resuming substantive work at this stage. It was noteworthy that the Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament proposed by the two main initiatives would be only for discussion. The Republic of Korea also noted that significant commitments on nuclear disarmament had been made in various multilateral fora, including the General Assembly and the NPT Review Conference. Further progress needed to be made in this area with every effort to implement the previous commitments of the nuclear weapon States in a transparent, verifiable and irreversible manner.

The Republic of Korea reiterated that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had to enter into force without further delay, and that the moratorium on nuclear test explosion should be maintained pending the entry into force of the treaty. What was missing now at the Conference was not the creativity to improve upon the language of the work programme but rather the political will to move forward in the evolving security situation.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said the continued existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to international peace and security and a threat to the survival of humankind. That was why the elimination of these weapons should be the top priority and should be dealt with once and for all in international fora, especially in the Conference on Disarmament. The United Nations was about to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary; it was aware of the threat of nuclear weapons and had always sought to get rid of them. In fact, the United Nations had dedicated its first resolution to the matter of nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear weapons had become exacerbated today, and there was a tendency to justify the keeping of nuclear weapons indefinitely. At the same time, there was a qualitative and quantitative increase in nuclear weapons and military budgets, as well as a threat that these weapons could fall into the hands of international terrorists. The negotiating mechanisms on the international field were deadlocked, as was witnessed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the Conference on Disarmament. Not progressing in this field would make the non-proliferation regime a failure.

Algeria believed that the radical solution to these problems should be the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and it was the responsibility of nuclear weapon States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The 1995 NPT Review Conference had given nuclear weapon States an indefinite extension, but that did not mean that they had the right to keep their weapons indefinitely. Nuclear weapon States must now correct this situation and undertake their commitments under article 6 of the NPT. Algeria had made many efforts to help push forward the issue of eliminating nuclear weapons, and had contributed to the proposal of the Five Ambassadors which was based on a number of compromises to take into consideration the priorities of all countries. Algeria hoped that the work of the Conference in these four formal plenaries would create a dynamic which would allow reaching a comprehensive agreement based on the Five Ambassadors proposal.

OSCAR LEON GONZALEZ (Cuba) said Cuba considered the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons to be illegal under any circumstances. The very existence of nuclear weapons created an atmosphere of instability and insecurity at the international level. The only solution to prevent the occurrence of new nuclear disasters was to totally and fully eliminate these weapons and to ban them forever. Cuba considered that nuclear disarmament had the highest priority concerning disarmament. The Millennium Declaration which was adopted in 2000 included the express commitment to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open in order to achieve that goal, including the possibility of convening an international conference. Cuba supported the holding of such a Conference as soon as possible.

Cuba had taken many steps and measures and this was a sign of its political will and firm commitment to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The situation regarding multilateral machinery for arms control was increasingly worrying, with the Conference paralysed, the Disarmament Commission unable to start its work and the First Committee facing similar problems. There was an attempted approach to enforce the idea that non-proliferation was an objective in itself, however, the ultimate objective should be disarmament. Cuba agreed that there was a risk of linkage between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, including their vectors. Its main interest was to have an international coalition in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. However, the Conference on Disarmament, the Disarmament Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other bodies were being ignored while a "security against proliferation" programme was being promoted. The possibility of terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction could not be stopped by a selective approach. A multilateral and non-discriminatory approach was the only possible approach. Setting up an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament within the Conference was a fundamental priority. Cuba was also ready to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Negotiations on ending the arms race in outer space were also important. Cuba supported the adoption of a balanced multilateral programme in the Conference which would represent the interests and priorities of all its Member States.

FIONA PATERSON (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom had made substantial progress with regards to its nuclear disarmament obligations under article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Among other steps, the United Kingdom had reduced its reliance on nuclear weapons to one system (Trident), and it held fewer than 200 operationally available warheads as a minimum nuclear deterrent. In total, the United Kingdom had reduced the explosive power of its nuclear forces by over 70 per cent since the end of the Cold War. In 1995, the United Kingdom had also announced that it had stopped the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.

The United Kingdom had both signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and remained firmly committed to it. The United Kingdom would continue to work towards a safer world free from the dangers of nuclear weapons and it hoped that its recent work on the verification of nuclear disarmament showed its commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons internationally.

WAN YUSRI WAN RASHID (Malaysia) said Malaysia was deeply concerned with the Conference's lack of progress in nuclear disarmament over the last seven years. Malaysia was strongly convinced that for the survival of mankind, all nuclear weapons must be eliminated and the ongoing development of new types of nuclear weapons needed to be urgently addressed. International peace and security could not be achieved through the doctrine of deterrence or strategic superiority since the prolonged existence of nuclear weapons increased the sense of insecurity among States.

Malaysia was strongly of the view that the systematic and progressive reduction of nuclear weapons, with the ultimate goal of their complete elimination, should remain the highest priority on the global disarmament agenda. Malaysia urged the Conference to address the dangerous situation of the growing danger posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a concerted and non-discriminatory manner that was consistent with the commitment to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the creation of a nuclear free world. The current impasse in the Conference was eroding the credibility of the body, and Malaysia regretted that the continued inflexible postures of some of the nuclear weapon States continued to prevent the Conference from establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament.