CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESSES FROM DIGNITARIES FROM ROMANIA, JAPAN AND ALBANIA

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this afternoon in which it heard addresses from Doru Romulus Costea, State Secretary for Global Affairs of Romania, Ikuo Yamahana, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan and Gazmend Turdiu, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania and President of the 10th Annual Meeting of States parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

Doru Romulus Costea, State Secretary for Global Affairs of Romania, said that Romania considered disarmament and arms control as the cornerstones of the global security architecture. Romania shared the conviction that in today’s world peace and security must be addressed from a global perspective. They needed a multilateral security system that was based on cooperation and an effective multilateral disarmament machinery. They were facing security challenges at all levels: global, regional and local. This was a common challenge that required cooperation and coordination and global solutions. Multilateralism was not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. It was Romania’s view that the most effective way to reduce the risks of misuse of nuclear materials, including by non-State actors, was the irreversible elimination of all nuclear arsenals.

Ikuo Yamahana, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, emphasized that the Conference on Disarmament was significant because it was the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum which brought together all nuclear weapons States and States not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was extremely regrettable that no progress had been made in this body, despite the historic agreement reached on a programme of work in 2009. Given the heightened expectations of the international community, including those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, continuation of the same dysfunctional pattern within this forum was unacceptable. Japan requested all Conference on Disarmament Members to show the spirit of flexibility and cooperation and immediately commence substantive work in this Conference.

Gazmend Turdiu, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania, focused his intervention on the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Mr. Turdiu also currently serves as the president of the 10th Annual Meeting of States parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and he said that he was pleased to join them on the twelfth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention. The Convention’s anniversary was an important opportunity to recall why they pursued disarmament negotiations and what benefits they could expect when they concluded and implemented high quality outcomes of those negotiations. Why did they disarm? They did so for the peace and security of an international order that was based on the appreciation of the sovereign responsibility of States for matters under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the most profound sovereign responsibility of a State was to guarantee the rights and ensure the well being of its population. As such, they should recall the second reason why they disarmed: to ensure the safety and well being of people, the prosperity and security of communities and freedom for individual women, men, boys and girls to exercise their rights.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be Thursday, 3 March at 10 a.m. when the Conference will hold a debate on fissile materials.

Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), welcomed the guest speakers and gave them the floor.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA, State Secretary for Global Affairs of Romania, said that Romania considered disarmament and arms control as the cornerstones of the global security architecture. Romania shared the conviction that in today’s world peace and security must be addressed from a global perspective. They needed a multilateral security system that was based on cooperation and an effective multilateral disarmament machinery. They were facing security challenges at all levels: global, regional and local. This was a common challenge that required cooperation and coordination and global solutions. Multilateralism was not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. It was Romania’s view that the most effective way to reduce the risks of misuse of nuclear materials, including by non-State actors, was the irreversible elimination of all nuclear arsenals.

Mr. Costea said that his presence here today representing the government of Romania spoke of the great importance which his country gave to enhancing the multilateral disarmament agenda. Romania shared the broad concern about the current impasse at the Conference on Disarmament. Despite adopting its first programme of work in over a decade in 2009, the Conference had been unable to translate this breakthrough into substantive work. Romania hoped that this moment would come soon and that it would really mark the reinvigoration of multilateral disarmament. Romania shared the hope that the political support that was lent to the Conference on Disarmament on 24 September 2010, as well as the proposals on its revitalization, could give an impetus to the Conference to resume its role as a negotiating forum. Otherwise, there was a danger that the Conference on Disarmament might lose its relevance and States could consider other ways and means of negotiating international disarmament agreements outside this forum. Mr. Costea said he believed this was in no one’s interest.

Despite the difficulties that the Conference on Disarmament had faced in the last decade, Romania continued to attach great value to the work of this august body. Romania strongly supported the Conference as a major framework for nuclear issues, acknowledging its importance for international peace and strengthening world security. The Conference on Disarmament had a track record of negotiating landmark disarmament agreements and it was still capable of attaining many more successes. Its negotiating role must be preserved and reinforced. Mr. Costea said they acknowledged the fact that the Conference on Disarmament was currently the only forum in which all nuclear States took part. Romania shared the conviction that the Conference should move forward and meet the expectations of the international community.

This year would be a pivotal one for the Conference on Disarmament and reaching consensus on a programme of work was still possible. If the Conference was to retake its place as a relevant negotiating body, immediate action must be taken. They must not lose sight that the Final Document of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference called for further concrete action in the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, including for the Geneva disarmament community. For an irreversible nuclear disarmament process, one of the key issues was the negotiation in the Conference on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

IKUO YAMAHANA, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, emphasized that the Conference on Disarmament was significant for the very reason that it was the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum which brought together all nuclear weapons States and States not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was extremely regrettable that no progress had been made in this body, despite the historic agreement reached on a programme of work in 2009. Given the heightened expectations of the international community, including those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, continuation of the same dysfunctional pattern within this forum was unacceptable. Japan requested all Conference on Disarmament Members to show the spirit of flexibility and cooperation and immediately commence substantive work in this Conference.

A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was an important measure for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in realizing their goal of a world without nuclear weapons. With such a treaty they aimed to, among other things, prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes and to ensure that fissile material for non-nuclear weapons purposes was not diverted to nuclear weapons purposes. It was also expected that by establishing a verification system transparency would be enhanced and nuclear security strengthened. A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was a concrete and immediate step which they must take in order to push forward international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Japan called for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty within the Conference on Disarmament as a matter of highest priority. Moreover, pending the entry into force of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Japan urged all relevant States to declare and maintain a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes.

Mr. Yamahana said that it was also necessary to make progress on discussions on the other core issues in the Conference on Disarmament. He emphasized Japan’s conviction that a practical and concrete approach which engaged all nuclear weapons States was the fastest way to reach the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. They could not stop taking steps toward nuclear disarmament and they hoped that endeavours taken by the United States and Russia would now lead to the advancement of global nuclear disarmament involving other nuclear weapons States. They also anticipated that the United States and Russia would continue to make efforts toward further reductions in their nuclear arsenals. It was crucial that efforts toward nuclear disarmament by all nuclear weapons States be carried out in a transparent manner and based on the principles of irreversibility and verifiability.

Japan believed that negative security assurances, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and disarmament and non-proliferation education were also important in reaching the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In conclusion, Mr. Yamahana said that amidst the increasing momentum toward nuclear disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament should not remain a “dormant conference”. They must revitalize the Conference on Disarmament so that it could fulfil its primary role and take tangible and continuous efforts toward a world without nuclear weapons. In this regard, Japan called on all Members of the Conference to cooperate in order to agree on a programme of work which would enable the immediate start of substantive work. Japan was determined to take the lead in such efforts together with other countries.


GAZMEND TURDIU, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania, said that he was pleased to join them on the twelfth anniversary of the entry into force of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. The Convention’s anniversary was an important opportunity to recall why they pursued disarmament negotiations and what benefits they could expect when they concluded and implemented high quality outcomes of those negotiations. Why did they disarm? They did so for the peace and security of an international order that was based on the appreciation of the sovereign responsibility of States for matters under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the most profound sovereign responsibility of a State was to guarantee the rights and ensure the well being of its population. As such, they should recall the second reason why they disarmed: to ensure the safety and well being of people, the prosperity and security of communities and freedom for individual women, men, boys and girls to exercise their rights.

The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was an embodiment of the complete set of reasons why they sat in the Conference on Disarmament. Concerns related to these mines brought to mind two additional reasons why they must remain especially focused on getting rid of this sinister weapon. First, the indiscriminate and long lasting nature of anti-personnel mines meant their victims were more likely to be civilians than combatants, or more likely to be communities of people rather than battalions of soldiers. Second, the military utility of anti-personnel mines was marginal at best and any such perceived utility was greatly outweighed by their humanitarian impact. In addition, this perceived utility could easily be replaced through means that did not possess the insidious characteristics and long lasting consequences of anti-personnel mines.

In 12 short years, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention had become binding international law for 156 States; Mr. Turdiu said he was heartened that more States were considering the importance of joining the cause. He concluded by noting that the 12th anniversary of the Convention’s entry into force was not only a time to mark their achievements, but also an opportunity to assess what remained to be done with the three main pillars of this Convention: mine clearance; stockpile destruction; and in particular victim assistance. While stockpile destruction and mine clearance were progressing well, they needed to continue to strengthen support for mine survivors for as long as they lived. Many challenges lay ahead and they needed to redouble their efforts in order to achieve their common goals. Their mission was the conclusive end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines.

Their mission would only be complete when States that still needed to clear mined areas did so, there were more intensive efforts on behalf of victims, and with the continuation of their solemn legal obligation to assist one another in implementing the Convention. Given the track record to date, Mr. Turdiu was optimistic that this Convention would continue to produce results. This Convention was an example of multilateralism working the way it should and the Conference on Disarmament might wish to study this example in order to see how the efforts that were invested in the work of this august body produced real results, both in the maintenance of international peace and security and in ensuring the safety and well being of people.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/017E