Main Committee I

Exchange of views (continued)

2. Mr. Soutar (United Kingdom) said that the Conference should, indeed, focus on efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally and on progress made thus far. However, thought should also be given to the second part of paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (c) of the 1995 Principles and Objectives, namely on the elimination of those weapons, as well as general and complete disarmament under international control. His delegation had submitted working paper NPT/CONF.2000/MC.I/WP.6 with a view to stimulating wider debate and helping to identify the necessary steps towards a common goal. It did not contain language for inclusion in the Final Document, nor did it seek to propose a timetable.

3. Mr. Goosen (South Africa) asked whether the Conference would be considering some of the more substantive proposals on security assurances, an issue deemed very important by many delegations. South Africa had submitted a working paper on a draft protocol to the Treaty (NPT/CONF.2000/PC.III/9), and Nigeria had proposed that a mechanism should be established under Main Committee II to deal with security assurances.

4. Mr. Than (Myanmar) said that the issue was of great importance to many delegations. The proposals contained in working paper NPT/CONF.2000/MC.I/ WP.7, inter alia, were most interesting. His own delegation's proposals on security assurances had been submitted in document NPT/CONF.2000/PC.III/18. Sufficient time must be allocated to ensure progress on the issue over the coming week.

5. The Chairman confirmed that the necessary time would be allocated to the issue and that the organization of the Committee's work would remain flexible. He suggested that the meeting should be suspended pending distribution of the Chairman's working paper (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.I/CRP.5).

6. It was so decided.

The meeting was suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at 4.25 p.m.

7. The Chairman said that his working paper (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.I/CRP.5) took account of deliberations in Main Committee I and in the Preparatory Committee. It represented a "first effort" to approach issues within the Committee's mandate and was intended to be balanced and objective. He suggested that the meeting should be suspended to enable delegations to review its contents.

8. It was so decided.

The meeting was suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

9. The Chairman invited delegations to comment on the working paper (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.I/CRP.5).

10. Mr. Icaza (Mexico) said that the working paper would greatly assist the Committee's work. While his delegation was not yet in a position to offer detailed comments, it felt that certain elements were lacking. The paper gave the impression that delegations were satisfied with the existing state of affairs and failed to reflect concerns raised both in the Committee and general debate. Nor did the working paper appear sufficiently impartial and objective.

11.As Mexico had pointed out, the nuclear-weapons States had failed to make systematic or progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons in the period under review, and no multilateral instruments had entered into force in the area of nuclear disarmament. Moreover, the international non-proliferation regime was at a delicate stage and the Treaty was "under pressure". The working paper failed to reflect those, as well as other, concerns and anxieties expressed by delegations, including the need for compliance with article 6 of the Treaty. The paper also omitted the concerns raised by the Secretary-General in his statement to the Conference. Mexico, therefore, reserved the right to propose amendments.

12. Mr. Zahran (Egypt) said that the working paper did appear to reflect the deliberations of the Committee. His delegation, therefore, wished to propose several amendments. The first part of the last sentence of paragraph 1 in section A should be amended to read: "The Conference remains convinced that universal adherence to the Treaty and full compliance of all States with its provisions are the best way (...)". Paragraphs 3 and 4 related to articles I and II of the Treaty. In order to reflect both with the text and spirit of the Treaty, an additional paragraph should be added to the effect that: "The Conference calls upon nuclear-weapon States, within the framework of this Treaty and throughout the world, not to cooperate technically with any State not party to the Treaty". In the last sentence of paragraph 10, the word "yet" should be inserted before the words "taken place", in order to allow for the possibility that the signing might still take place. In paragraph 11, the word "clearly" should be replaced by the word "unambiguously". At the end of that paragraph, the following sentence should be added: "None of those States can claim, de facto or de jure, the status of nuclear-weapon States".

13. Section B related to the Principles and Objectives of the 1995 Conference. In paragraph 1, the word "explosions" should be replaced by the word "tests". The section should also include a reference to the importance of a declaration by the nuclear-weapon States that they would eliminate nuclear weapons in the world within a specific period of time. References to an "early date" or "long-term objective" might result in no progress for 30 years. Transparency and predictability were essential. Vague or ambiguous drafting would lead only to a confidence crisis of the kind experienced by the Conference on Disarmament.

14. He recalled that, in August 1996, 28 States had submitted a programme for the elimination of nuclear weapons in stages by 2020. If the nuclear-weapon States could not accept that programme, they could propose an alternative one as a basis for negotiations. In section B of the working paper, therefore, there should be a reference to the objective of nuclear disarmament, which was supported by the international community and had the backing of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

15. It must be made clear that the Ad Hoc Committee which had been set up in 1998 could not be re-established to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile materials. The 1995 Review and Extension Conference had called for negotiations on such a treaty, but so far no negotiations had taken place. There was no doubt that all members of the Conference on Disarmament would consider that such a treaty should prohibit not only the production but also the stockpiling of fissile materials, so as to promote disarmament. Those elements must be reflected in the working paper.

16. On the question of security assurances, although the Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament dealt with that issue, and referred to a possible internationally legally binding instrument, there was no reference to that in the working paper. Security Council resolution 984 (1995) and the unilateral declarations by nuclear-weapon States were not enough. Efforts had been made to negotiate a treaty, but the work had come to a stop because the nuclear-weapon States had objected, even though they had agreed to the Principles and Objectives without a vote. Security assurances could only become a reality when nuclear weapons were eliminated; there would then be no need for a treaty. However, as long as States had nuclear weapons, there was a need for multilateral, binding security assurances. The declarations made in 1995 were unilateral and were not legally binding. Furthermore, as circumstances changed, they could change or be withdrawn. Lastly, his delegation felt that the proposed preambular paragraph was repetitive and stated the obvious.

17. The Chairman said that, as the Committee was aware, Subsidiary Body 1 would take up article VI of the Treaty. Some of the points made by the representative of Egypt concerning security assurances were covered in section C of the working paper.

18. Mr. Thamrin (Indonesia) said that his delegation would make substantive comments on the working paper at a later stage. It agreed that what was needed was a balanced document, reflecting the opinions and positions of the political groupings concerned.

19. Mr. Soutar (United Kingdom) said that his delegation felt that the Chairman had made a genuine effort to encapsulate the many, widely differing views which had been expressed in the debate and had produced a document which seemed likely to offer a basis for building consensus. At the same time, his delegation had difficulty with some parts of the working paper and reserved the right to make alternative suggestions.

20. Mr. de La Fortelle (France) said that the working paper had some positive points and others which posed problems for his delegation. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of section B took a positive view of past developments, although there could be a more detailed list of the measures taken by France and other nuclear-weapon States. In paragraph 2 of section A, the words "in the context of" and "corresponding" did not reflect the balance achieved in the Treaty, in which every word counted. The content of paragraphs 9-11 should be dealt with elsewhere, probably within the ambit of Main Committee II. Referring to paragraph 4 of section B, he said that it was not clear whether a non-binding text like an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice should be mentioned in the working paper.

21. With regard to section C, paragraph 1 seemed to digress from the topic, since it consisted of a very general statement about the Charter of the United Nations, and probably was not needed. Referring to paragraph 2, he said that his delegation could not agree that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only genuine guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and could not accept the reference to a legally binding negative security assurances regime. His Government's position was that work on negative security assurances was being carried out mainly within the nuclear-weapon-free zones. Over 100 countries were covered by such zones, in which there would be negative security assurances that were fully legally binding. It was very important to continue that work. Lastly, his delegation could not agree to paragraph 4 of section C, which was contrary to its nuclear doctrine.

22. Mr. Hu Xiaodi (China) said that the comments by the representative of Mexico were relevant: the working paper failed to refer to an important issue, namely the problems and obstacles encountered over the past five years. For example, there was no mention of the need to preserve the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. His delegation would produce its own working paper, covering that issue and others.

23. On the whole, the Chairman's working paper was quite balanced, although there were some specific issues which needed to be raised. For example, in paragraph 5 of section B, the Conference would express regret that the Conference on Disarmament had not started negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, although, as everyone was aware, the General Assembly and the international community had also requested the Conference on Disarmament to carry out work on other important issues, such as nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms build-up in outer space, and it had not started negotiations on them either. His delegation would make comments about the specific wording of the working paper at a later stage. For example, paragraph 9 of section A should follow the wording of Security Council resolution 1172 (1998), which referred to the nuclear tests conducted by India and then Pakistan.

24. Mr. Amorim (Brazil) said that, although his first reaction to the Chairman's working paper had been similar to that of the representative of Mexico, he had then started to see more merit in the paper. Some points that were highlighted in a critical way were ones that his delegation regarded as positive; that applied especially to section C. Brazil supported the comments of the representative of Mexico on section B; its view of the situation was not as positive as the one presented there. He also felt that some of the facts that were welcomed should be noted, and vice versa: for example, the Committee should welcome the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

25. Lastly, his delegation supported the appeal to India and Pakistan in the third sentence of paragraph 9 in section A, but felt that it was incomplete, since the Committee should call on all parties to the Treaty to act in such a way that did not undermine the fulfilment of the objectives of the Treaty and Security Council resolution 1172 (1998).

26. Mr. Noboru (Japan) said that his delegation would make comments on the working paper at a later stage. The paper was well-balanced and was a good basis for further consideration of the issue. It therefore urged all delegations to approach it with a constructive and flexible attitude.

27. Mr. Goosen (South Africa) said that the working paper was incomplete because of the work that was being done elsewhere, especially that by the New Zealand delegation on forward-looking elements, which would be an integral part of any outcome of the Committee's work. He agreed with the representative of Mexico that some elements were absent and should be included. Since the Committee was reviewing the entire period since the previous Conference, it needed to give a full historical perspective, covering all important developments. His delegation supported the observations made by the representative of Brazil; some of the negative comments made about certain elements had reaffirmed his delegation's positive view of those elements. His delegation reserved its position on some aspects of the text.

28. The Chairman said that it was very important to bear in mind that the Committee had established Subsidiary Body 1 to consider practical steps for the implementation of article VI of the Treaty.

29. Mr. Al-Berkdar (Iraq) said that paragraph 8 of section A was vague and could easily be misunderstood. Clearer language must be used, since it was apparent that there had been cases of non-compliance with the Treaty during the period since 1995; otherwise, the paragraph should be deleted.

The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008