CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT; HEARS FROM FINLAND, NORWAY, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, GREECE AND CUBA

The Conference on Disarmament continued its High-Level Segment this morning, hearing statements by the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development of Finland, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, and the General Director of the Division on Multilateral Affairs and International Law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.

Lenita Toivakka, Minister of Foreign Trade and Development of Finland, stated that integrating gender dimension in the domain of “hard security” was very important, while the rule of law had to be upheld and strengthened in the current security context. Working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was a responsibility of every State.

Tore Hattrem, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, stressed that the world needed well-functioning arenas and the current deadlock ought to be overcome. The removal and destruction of nuclear weapons was hence the best way to prevent such catastrophes. The United States and the Russian Federation were urged to get engaged into a new round of nuclear reduction talks.

Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, proposed that the Conference on Disarmament embark on the new task of developing a stand-alone convention for the suppression of acts of chemical terrorism. That way, two goals would be achieved at the same time – countering chemical terrorism and breaking the long-lasting deadlock of the Conference.

Yannis Amanatidis, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, raised the question of enlargement of the Conference, which was foreseen in the Conference’s Rules of Procedure. Greece believed that there was no reason or moral justification to exclude United Nations Member States from disarmament discussions.

Pedro Nuñez Mosquera, General Director of the Division on Multilateral Affairs and International Law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, stressed that unclear disarmament was a top priority for Cuba and most of the States, and immediate concrete actions were required in that regard.

Speaking in a right of reply, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that other countries should not bluntly take one side and blame the other. It was important to understand the history of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had been exposed to the threat of nuclear weapons.

The Conference will next meet in public on Wednesday, 2 March at 10 a.m. to conclude its High-Level Segment.

Statements

LENITA TOIVAKKA, Minister of Foreign Trade and Development of Finland, said that the situation in many parts of the world today was far from ideal. The key word was inclusiveness and inaction was not an option. Integrating gender dimension in the domain of “hard security” was very important. The rule of law had to be upheld and strengthened in the current security context. Arms control treaties were especially important as they provided stability, predictability and led towards disarmament. The Arms Trade Treaty was a significant achievement for the international community, and now work was needed on its universalization and effective implementation. Finland welcomed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme, which had to be fully implemented. The international mission to remove and destruct Syria’s declared chemical weapons had been unprecedented, but the work was not finished until the Syrian chemical weapons programme had been completely and irreversibly eliminated. Allegations of the use of chlorine and mustard gas were deeply disquieting.

Ms. Toivakka stated that the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention was an important instrument of multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation regime. This year’s review conference was a timely occasion to address the existing challenges, which should be used wisely. The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was working effectively; Finland had completed destruction of its anti-personnel mine stockpile in August 2015. The failure to reach a consensus outcome in the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had been disappointing, but the commitments in all three pillars of the Treaty remained valid and those related to disarmament were more urgent than ever. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty had led to a near universal understanding that the time of nuclear test explosions was over and there was a comprehensive verification regime in place. Finland condemned in strongest terms the recent nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Ms. Toivakka stressed that it was necessary to search every avenue that could lead into substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament. Finland welcomed the report of the Group of Governmental Experts and the efforts to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes. Working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was a responsibility of every State. Any process would need to be inclusive and bring together nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon States. Finland called on the nuclear weapon States to re-build confidence and negotiate deeper cuts in their nuclear arsenals.

TORE HATTREM, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that the Conference on Disarmament used to be a key multilateral body with a number of past successes. For the past 20 years, the Conference had been unable to fulfill its mandate. The world needed well-functioning arenas and the current deadlock ought to be overcome. While there was a broad agreement on the overall objective of a world without nuclear weapons, there was no fast track of getting there. Every nuclear detonation could lead to severe humanitarian consequences that no country alone could respond to. The removal and destruction of nuclear weapons was hence the best way to prevent such catastrophes. Unless nuclear-weapon States were engaged in a constructive manner, such a goal would not be achieved. Norway urged the United States and the Russian Federation to get engaged into a new round of nuclear reduction talks, and subsequently other nuclear States would also need to be involved. Cuts had to be irreversible and verifiable, and non-nuclear weapon States could help with the verification system. The recent and unacceptable nuclear testing by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a stark reminder that there was a need for a full legal ban on nuclear testing, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was urged to fully comply with its international obligations. The world without nuclear weapons could not be achieved without addressing the issue of stockpiles.

Norway considered the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. For that reason, Norway deeply regretted the fact that the 2015 Review Conference had failed to agree on a substantive outcome document. Nonetheless, the legally binding obligations of the Treaty still stood, and efforts had to be continued on exploring ways to reduce the importance attributed to nuclear weapons in security policies. Negative security assurances were one way of reducing the geographical reach of nuclear weapons. Progress had to be made on establishing nuclear-weapon free zones for the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. Norway welcomed the agreement between Iran and the P5 and Germany, which had shown that diplomacy could work. In the Open Ended Working Group, various possible routes to achieving and maintaining a nuclear weapons free world ought to be explored. Through a combination of vision, persistence, realism and respect, a world could be achieved in which the nuclear weapons threat was finally consigned to history.

SERGEY LAVROV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the consensus-based format of the Conference on Disarmament gave each Member State the confidence that its voice would be heard and its national security would be properly taken into consideration. While the Conference had a good track of producing a number of fundamental international treaties for upholding global security, the Russian Federation shared the disappointment over the protracted standstill. The deadlock could be broken through a thorough and creative search for a balance of interests rather than through relocating negotiations to other venues or rejecting the principle of consensus. It seemed that all imaginable combinations of the Conference’s constituent elements had been tried, but an agreement was yet to be reached. Mr. Lavrov proposed that the Conference consider launching negotiations on a new item which could play a unifying role. While the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors was generally recognized, there were still significant gaps, in particular to the use of chemicals for terrorist purposes. That threat was becoming extremely urgent in the light of newly revealed facts of repeated use of industrial toxic chemicals and full-fledged chemical warfare agents by ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria. Such activities of non-State actors in the Middle East and North Africa were becoming increasingly widespread, which left no doubt that chemical terrorism was emerging, not as an abstract threat, but a grave reality of our time.

Mr. Lavrov stated that it should be taken into account that the Chemical Weapons Convention did not fully address the challenge of countering chemical terrorism. Also, the Russian Federation did not see grounds for statements on the sufficiency of the already existent norms of the customary international law, which did not resolve the challenge of prohibiting the use of chemical weapons by non-State actors. Therefore, it seemed that a more realistic, reliable and promising way of tackling that problem was to elaborate a stand-alone convention for the suppression of acts of chemical terrorism, and the Russian Federation proposed that the Conference on Disarmament embark on that task. That way, two goals would be achieved at the same time – countering chemical terrorism and breaking the deadlock of the Conference. If such work were to begin, it would be necessary to establish close interaction with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and to include non-Member States of the Conference to partake in the development of the new agreement. Mr. Lavrov said that negotiations on the new convention ought to be accompanied by substantive work on other traditional items of the agenda, including its four core issues. In order to promote consensus on the newly proposed scheme, the Russian Federation would be prepared, for the moment, to limit its ambition regarding the Russian-Chinese initiative on preventing the placement of weapons in the outer space, to the discussion mandate on the prevention of armed race in the outer space within the framework of the Conference. Mr. Lavrov called on all Conference Member States to carefully consider this proposal.

YANNIS AMANATIDIS, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, said that in today’s increasingly turbulent world, the Conference on Disarmament had to once again stand up to its obligations to the international community. It was called upon to find a way to resolve the longstanding deadlock by restarting negotiations on pivotal issues, such as the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, which was the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament. The long-standing quagmire of the Conference had to come to an end, or the Conference would run a risk of falling into abeyance and becoming irrelevant. Important developments in the field of disarmament found fertile ground outside of the Conference, including the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty, which was a great achievement, and had been recently ratified by Greece. Greece believed that it was high time to leave behind the current inertia of the negotiating forum and take advantage of important initiatives regularly tabled in the United Nations First Committee. An appropriate first step would be a fissile material treaty.

Mr. Amanatidis raised the question of enlargement, which was foreseen in Rule of the Conference’s Rules of Procedure. Greece believed that there was no reason or moral justification to exclude United Nations Member States from disarmament discussions, all the more so because of the universal nature of the United Nations. It was equally outdated to hold enlargement hostage to bilateral issues which had absolutely no relevance to the subject matter of the Conference. The Conference could not afford to remain in constant deadlock and should finally begin substantive work, through the adoption of a programme of work. Current deliberations of the Open Ended Working Group in Geneva had set the stage for a constructive outlook. Greece stood ready, as a responsible member of the international community, and commensurate with its responsibilities, to contribute to bringing the deadlock in the Conference to an end.

PEDRO NUÑEZ MOSQUERA, General Director of the Division on Multilateral Affairs and International Law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, stated that more than half a century after the destruction and suffering caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the survival of humanity continued to be threatened by the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons, many of which were ready to be used immediately. Cuba would continue to work tirelessly to change that unfair and unacceptable state of affairs, as the human beings and the peoples had a legitimate right to live in peace in a world without nuclear weapons. Multilateralism and negotiated political solutions in multilateral organizations were essential, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It was thus urgent that the Conference adopt a comprehensive and balanced work programme taking into account the real priorities in disarmament. Nuclear disarmament was a top priority for Cuba and most of the States, and immediate concrete actions were required in that regard. Cuba was convinced that the Conference was prepared to negotiate multiple issues simultaneously, which was why Cuba also supported the start of negotiations on a treaty banning an arms race in the outer space; providing legally binding security assurances for non-nuclear States; and a treaty banning the production for nuclear weapons.

The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances was a violation of international law and a crime against humanity. The only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination. The members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States had proclaimed the region a Zone of Peace, and were firmly committed to nuclear disarmament as a priority. Cuba called on all members of the Conference to work together constructively and adopt far-reaching agreements on nuclear disarmament at the International High-Level Conference of the United Nations Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, which was be held not later than 2018. Mr. Nuñez Mosquera concluded by quoting the leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro Ruz, who had warned that if the risks of nuclear weapons were not understood by powerful decision-makers, the next world war would be the last one.

Right of Reply

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, replying to the statement made by Finland, said that its position on nuclear tests on the Korean Peninsula was clear. Other countries should not bluntly take one side and blame the other. It was important to understand the history of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had been exposed to the threat of nuclear weapons. By simply accusing a sovereign State without a full appraisal of the reality, no progress would be made towards global peace and security.