Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMME OF DISARMAMENT

Concludes Debate on Negative Security Assurances

10 August 2006

The Conference on Disarmament this morning took up the issue of a comprehensive programme of disarmament, item 6 on its agenda, after concluding its discussion on negative security assurances, item 4 on the agenda.

On points raised under the issue of the comprehensive programme of disarmament, speakers said adopting fair and just disarmament principles and effective disarmament measures in order to achieve the goal of advancing the multilateral disarmament process, preserving world peace and security, and promoting common development and prosperity should be the starting point of the discussions on the comprehensive programme of disarmament. A comprehensive, legally-binding arms trade treaty could provide important international and human security benefits, notably by curtailing the irresponsible trade in all types of conventional arms.

Such a treaty was not aimed at abolishing the arms trade, but in ensuring that it was conducted in a responsible manner, speakers said. It would cover a wide variety of weaponry in a single instrument, and this would set common standards for the trade in different kinds of conventional arms, thus simplifying the international legal framework and eliminating the need to have a separate instrument for each category of weapon. Nuclear disarmament should be a just and reasonable process of gradual reduction towards a downward balance, and the countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals should bear special and primary responsibilities for nuclear disarmament.

Among issues raised by speakers on negative security assurances was the importance of nuclear weapons-free zones, which were a significant contribution to the future, as they had numerous benefits, as demonstrated by the Tlatcloco area. The only guarantee against the use, threat of use, and proliferation of nuclear weapons was the total elimination of this category of weapons. A sizeable number of States were covered or in the process of protecting themselves through nuclear-weapon-free zones, and a number of nuclear-weapons possessing States had guaranteed that they would not use these weapons against those countries not possessing them. However, they said an internationally binding treaty should still be established in this regard.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Argentina, Venezuela, Ireland, China, the United Kingdom (on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya), Canada, Senegal, and the Russian Federation.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be on Tuesday, 15 August at 10 a.m., when the Conference will hold a general debate.

Negative Security Assurances

ALBERTO DUMONT (Argentina) said within the framework of the structured thematic debate on negative security assurances, the Tlatcloco members had made an important contribution to international peace and security and international law. In Latin America and the Caribbean today, there were no nuclear weapons, and no States had the ambition to possess them. The aspiration in the region today revolved around ensuring that the region was not at risk from a nuclear threat. Countries possessing nuclear weapons had committed themselves to not using nuclear weapons against those countries signatories to the Tlatcloco Treaty. Such a treaty was clearly fundamental. In the light of the evolutions of international law, previous statements, such as on the interpretation of self-defence, were no longer applicable.

The use of nuclear weapons as legitimate defence in response to attacks with conventional weapons could not be endorsed by international law as it was not proportionate with regards to the defensive activities recognised in the United Nations Charter. The consolidation and development of weapons-free zones were a significant contribution to the future, as they had numerous benefits, as demonstrated by the Tlatcloco area. The States Parties to the treaty would continue to promote the values of peace and development in order to continue to progress towards security. An internationally binding agreement with regards to negative security issues would be of significant help in this regard.

DIEGO IBARRAZ MARTINEZ (Venezuela), on negative security assurances, said Venezuela supported the statement made by Morocco on 3 August 2006, as well as that just made by Argentina. The only guarantee against the use, threat of use, and proliferation of nuclear weapons was the total elimination of this category of weapons. A sizeable number of States were covered or in the process of protecting themselves through nuclear-weapon-free zones, and a number of nuclear-weapons possessing States had guaranteed that they would not use these weapons against those countries not possessing them. However, an internationally binding treaty should be established in this regard. The Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate forum for designating an ad-hoc group to consider negative security assurances, as it was the premier multilateral forum with regards to disarmament issues.

Farewell Statement

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), in a farewell statement to the Conference, said when she arrived in Geneva in 2001, the Conference was many years into its current stalemate. That year also marked the beginning of a new period in international relations. The third millennium did not usher in an era of peace and security for all, and instead the last five years had been a period characterised by insecurity and conflict. In Geneva, the Conference had continued with no business, as usual. 2006 witnessed a move away from a discussion of a formal work programme and towards an exploration of specific agenda items from the perspective of possible future work, and this approach seemed to hold promise: the challenge was whether that promise could be realised.

In most areas of governmental activity or international relations, a body without any achievement for a decade would face fundamental questions about its future. Multilateralism was not an end in itself. It was a reflection of a shared understanding of problems and agreed approaches to their solution, and worked best where it represented the legitimacy arising from an open and transparent negotiating process in which all concerned parties were fully engaged, and where there was a shared responsibility for outcomes and implementation. If effective multilateralism was the answer to dealing with arms control and disarmament issues, then it was time to ask why the Conference was an apparent failure, and whether it was itself not part of the problem. It was maybe time to ask whether a reformed or different type of organization could be more effective.

Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament

YANG LI (China) said adopting fair and just disarmament principles and effective disarmament measures in order to achieve the goal of advancing the multilateral disarmament process, preserving world peace and security, and promoting common development and prosperity should be the starting point of the discussions on the comprehensive programme of disarmament. In this era of fully-fledged development of globalisation, no country could resolve all security problems simply on its own. Under these new circumstances, only by unswervingly upholding multilateralism and cooperation could the international community seize this historical opportunity, rise up to the new challenges, thus promoting the just, fair, comprehensive and sound development of the cause of international arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.

At present, it was of utmost importance to give priority to the issues of nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the weaponisation of and an arms race in outer space. There was a need for an international legal instrument on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. Before the goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons was achieved, each country should strictly observe its non-proliferation obligations and the global non-proliferation regime should be consolidated and strengthened. Nuclear disarmament should be a just and reasonable process of gradual reduction towards a downward balance, and the countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals should bear special and primary responsibilities for nuclear disarmament.

FIONA PATERSON (United Kingdom), speaking on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya, said on the comprehensive programme of disarmament, over recent years a number of the world’s political, as well as spiritual leaders, had called for the establishment of a new treaty to better regulate the trade in arms. The international community had already taken a number of steps to deal with specific aspects of the trade in and the use of conventional weapons over a period of years. However, there was currently no comprehensive international legally-binding instrument available to provide an agreed regulatory framework for the activity.

An arms trade treaty was not aimed at abolishing the arms trade, but in ensuring that it was conducted in a responsible manner. Governments considered that the idea of such a treaty was one whose time had come. The draft resolution aimed to reflect the fact that this was a complex and often sensitive issue where there was a need to establish a proper balance between States’ rights and obligations in order to ensure success. The United Nations should begin work on this important issue as soon as possible by establishing a Group of Government Experts.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said a comprehensive, legally-binding arms trade treaty could provide important international and human security benefits, notably by curtailing the irresponsible trade in all types of conventional arms. Proposals for establishing some form of regime to control the international trade in armaments had been put forward for years. Some relevant arrangements had been developed by regional security organizations or by suppliers groups, but what had been lacking was a universal system with broad coverage and legal force. Canada supported, in principle, a comprehensive, legally-binding conventional arms trade treaty which prevented the illicit flow of arms to conflict zones. An arms trade treaty would cover a wide variety of weaponry in a single instrument, and this would set common standards for the trade in different kinds of conventional arms, thus simplifying the international legal framework and eliminating the need to have a separate instrument for each category of weapon. In Canada’s view, the question was thus not whether such an instrument was needed, but rather what was the best way to take it forward. The subject of the treaty was raised today as it was a major and topical issue relevant to the agenda item, and work in this area had the potential to result in a multilateral arms control treaty, and thus satisfy one of the critical thresholds for issues being taken up in the Conference.

OUSMANE CAMARA (Senegal) said the appeal made with regards to a global disarmament programme in 1980 at the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly remained pertinent and important today. All useful measures should be taken in order to reach the goal of general and complete disarmament, under effective and strict international control. The issue of the negotiation of a global programme of disarmament in the Conference continued to be of crucial importance, as disarmament was a goal which should be globally attained in order to take into account the security needs of all. The security which was sought through such a global programme should be a collective form of security, which should not be circumscribed to a State or a region.

On nuclear disarmament, Senegal was of the opinion that new efforts should be made to put back on track the global disarmament and non-proliferation process, and it hoped that the proposal made in August 1996 by 28 Member States of the Conference, members of the Non-Aligned Movement, could be re-examined, in the context of the current threats to international peace and security. This proposal bore on a plan of action for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2020, and its first phase aimed to reduce the nuclear threat and increase nuclear disarmament. With regards to conventional weapons, notable progress had been made over the years, but it was important to take further measures in order to arrive at the goal of a progressive decrease and a more rigorous control of these weapons, which were used in the majority of current conflicts.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said the range of issues the participants of the Conference on Disarmament could consider within the framework of item 6 of its agenda needed clarifying, with the general approach being realistic and pragmatic. The title of this item provided a good opportunity to show flexibility and to set up, if needed, a sort of “an agenda within the agenda” for preliminary elaboration on traditional and new disarmament issues. Later, in case of consensus, such elaborated issues could be given a status of separate items on the agenda. At this moment, it would be too risky to open up the traditional agenda. Among other issues within item 6, views could be exchanged on the problem of the phased and coherent movement towards the goal of disarmament with regards to the most dangerous antipersonnel mines. This problem should and could be solved in a comprehensive way, taking into account real defensive and economic capabilities of each State.

As to other possible issues, a more active role of the Conference in strengthening regimes of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery would be welcomed, since the proliferation problem, including its terrorist component, posed today one of the main new threats to humankind’s security. A serious and growing new threat was the possibility of use by States and non-State actors of rapidly developing information and communication technologies for political and military purposes not compatible with ensuring international security. This was a sort of “ultra-disarmament” issue. Russia adhered to an open and unbiased approach to a possible consideration by the Conference of the so-called new issues, but in each particular case it should be verified if a particular issue fitted the Conference’s mandate, and there was no overlapping with other international fora, nor that the new issues subrogated or squeezed out the traditional ones.