18 May 2006

The United States today tabled a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament, triggering responses from delegations which ranged from hoping that this draft would break the stalemate in the Conference to disagreeing with the scope of the draft treaty. The United States raised the need for legal measures which were essential to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Governments from developing these, and also raised the issue of the situation with regards to Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It said the only possible avenue for progress for the Conference was to concentrate on the issue that consistently garnered support in the General Assembly and was the only one that all members professed to support, and that was the FMCT, a draft for which the United States tabled.

Iran wondered what were the linkages between the proposed treaty and Iran’s case in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying that the IAEA had made it clear that there were no diversions of nuclear materials in Iran to prohibited programmes. Iran had peaceful intentions, and should such intentions be in everybody’s mind, then there could be a resolution of the situation with the IAEA.

Other speakers welcomed the tabling of a draft for the FMCT by the United States and urged its consideration. Australia pointed out that it did not contain appropriate measures to verify compliance, but said the priority was to reach agreement on ending production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and a verification system agreed in secondary agreements could be the way forward here, as it had been in other treaties. Spain said there was a need to overcome the concept of linkages of issues, which had not served the Conference in the past.
Speakers hoped that the tabled draft would give a positive impetus to the discussions on the FMCT, that it would be a useful contribution to the debate, and said it would be considered seriously. Several speakers urged the beginning of negotiations on the Treaty, without preconditions either with regards as to what should be negotiated, or on desired or expected outcomes.
After hearing responses to the United States proposal, the Conference continued its thematic discussion on the issue of stockpiles of fissile materials.
Addressing the Conference this morning were the representatives of the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Iran, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, France, Pakistan, Germany, Venezuela, Chile, Belgium, China, the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Algeria, Canada, South Africa, Nigeria, and Brazil. The Conference will reconvene in plenary at 3 p.m. today, at which point it will address any relevant topic related to the FMCT.

Statements

STEPHEN RADEMAKER (United States) said the United States was convinced that multilateralism was more important than ever to confront today’s threats, and the Government was determined to provide the international leadership to ensure that multilateralism did not fail. The challenges to international peace and security today were no less great than they had been in 2003. In the view of the United States, effective multilateralism began at home. In confronting the threats of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, multilateral institutions and Governments could not stop the proliferation of these weapons alone. Sovereign States had the responsibility and in many cases the capability to stem their spread. A treaty which required all States parties to criminalize weapons of mass destruction proliferation had caused States to accept the propriety of such controls.

These kinds of legal measures were essential to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Governments from developing them, he said. Effective multilateralism required that these mechanisms function as designed, to confront the proliferation threat. An obvious case in point of this was Iran, whose nuclear programme raised questions on many levels. The Security Council should fulfil its responsibilities under the Security Charter to respond to the threat posed by Iran’s clandestine activities and lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran claimed it did not wish to be dependent on foreign sources of fuel for its nuclear power programmes, and there were clear flaws in this argument. There was also the issue of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which had declared it had manufactured nuclear weapons.

The only possible avenue for progress for the Conference, which had been deadlocked for so long by a method which could be described as “hostage-taking”, was to concentrate on the issue that consistently garnered support in the General Assembly and was the only that all members professed to support, and that was the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, a draft for which the United States was tabling today. The treaty text being put forward contained the essential provisions that would comprise successfully a legally binding FMCT. The draft treaty had a straight forward scope: it banned after entry into force the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices. The existing stocks of fissile material would be unaffected. The text was a way forward for the Conference on Disarmament.

JAYANT PRASAD (India), responding to the statement of the United States, said that in the discussions over the past three days, several proposals had been made to forward the work of the Conference on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The United States had made its suggestion now, and he was sure that it would help the Conference arrive at a consensus.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) thanked the delegate of the United States for his interesting intervention and for his views on multilateral diplomacy and multilateral forums for addressing the world’s problems. The United Kingdom also welcomed the United States initiative to table a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) text. The United Kingdom believed that an FMCT was the next logical step in disarmament. The proposed mandate appeared neither to rule anything in or anything out, and thus met the requirement for negotiations without preconditions. The United Kingdom believed that all issues could be resolved within the framework of negotiations. The Conference should grasp this opportunity to do the work for which it was formed.

HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran) said the statement of the United States in 2003 on its vision of multilateralism had mentioned Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 events. A few months later, American troops had attacked Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist camps - and no weapons of mass destruction had been found, as American institutes had recognised. Today, the same accusations were being made during the talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), and Iran wondered what were the linkages between the proposed treaty and Iran’s case in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nobody should take the statement of the United States as real facts. In its attempts to deal with international difficulties, the United States had performed actions, none of which had proved to be useful in dealing with the problems facing the international community. The IAEA had made it clear that there were no diversions of nuclear materials in Iran to prohibited programmes. Iran had peaceful intentions, and should such intentions be in everybody’s mind, then there could be a resolution of the situation with the IAEA.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) expressed his appreciation that after a too-long silence the United States had reconfirmed its commitment to the Conference on Disarmament in a double sense: by the announcement of a new ambassador to that body; and, secondly, by submitting for the Conference’s attention a most welcome thing – an illustrative treaty text and an illustrative mandate, which were indeed very helpful tools in treating this very important subject. The Netherlands did agree – both from looking at the text and with regard to what the United States had said – that the negotiation framework that it established would allow for the submission of other proposals and concerns. Members would and could discuss the subject of verification, for example. He hoped that members would be able during the present focused period on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty to take a look at these texts and agree on a mandate to make this body once again operational.

The Netherlands did not want to engage in any polemics, but one could not help but hear that “linkages” was translated here as “hostage-taking”. The Netherlands could only accept that conceptually. The Netherlands concluded by underlining the positive aspects of the intervention of the United States, which contained elements that would help to move the Conference forward.

DONGHEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea welcomed the presentation made by the United States on the global situation on disarmament, and appreciated the initiative tabling the draft treaty on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; it interpreted this as the intention of the United States to move the discussion forward. However, the way of approach gave rise to concern as to whether it was appropriate or not to table this when there was no meeting of minds yet on important issues, and the discussion on issues continued. The initiative of the United States was a positive gesture, and it was hoped that it would give a momentum to the discussion, and strengthen it on focussed issues.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said Australia had long supported the goal of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and welcomed the decision of the United States to table such a text, although this did not contain appropriate measures to verify compliance, and Australia thought it should. However, the priority was to reach agreement on ending production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. A verification system agreed in secondary agreements could be the way forward here, as it had been in other treaties. Australia had strong support for starting negotiations immediately and without preconditions.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that Italy had listened carefully to the United States statement. Italy appreciated the bold and unprecedented initiative to present a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Italy would study the text of the draft treaty and draft mandate carefully and it hoped that they would bring the Conference back into an operational mode.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said the explanation of the United States position on important issues, including multilateralism, the Conference, and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) were appreciated. There were positive elements in the explanation. As to the content of the draft proposal, Japan would study this very carefully, and would not make any quick comment at this moment, but hoped the proposal would stimulate Member Countries in a constructive manner, and that the negotiations on the FMCT would start as quickly as possible.

GERARDO BUGALLO (Spain) said given the proposal of the United States, there was a need to overcome the concept of linkages of issues, which had not served the Conference.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said that it was a good thing that the United States delegation had chosen to come here to present their precise national position on nuclear disarmament and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). France hoped that that would be a useful contribution to the debate on disarmament. In the spirit of the Australian delegation, France was ready to begin negotiations on an FMCT without delay and hoped that the Conference was close to that moment.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said that Pakistan appreciated the intervention by the United States on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), and the important initiative that the United States had taken. Pakistan commended the United States for its renewed commitment to multilateralism. The United States proposals included several important elements, but also they excluded some important elements for the delegation of Pakistan and those of others. However, it was a significant initiative and addressed concerns that no movement was taking place in the Conference. Pakistan believed that neither the United States approach nor the content of their proposal supported the notion that it was a take-it-or-leave-it text. Pakistan understood that the United States were ready to engage other delegations and to negotiate with them in good faith with a view to reaching consensus. Pakistan’s position on this topic had been set forth in its intervention on 16 May, and it would not reiterate its positions in order not to politicize today’s meeting.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said Germany commended the initiative of the United States but was not yet in a position to enter into details. Germany was of the view that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) should end the production of the most dangerous materials. On the other hand, often it was said, and Germany agreed, that in the post-September 11 environment, nuclear terrorism was a threat that the world faced, that it was the threat of the twenty-first century. The FMCT would help in this regard, as it was important to limit stocks of fissile materials worldwide, and Germany hoped that the negotiations in this regard would commence shortly, without preconditions either with regards as to what should be negotiated, nor on desired or expected outcomes. Some elements of flexibility that had been indicated as regarded the mandate on this were welcomed.

DIEGO IBARRA MARTINEZ (Venezuela) said that Venezuela appreciated the United States’ tabling of the draft, and it would be considered at length. Venezuela wished to underscore the right of all States to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A programme of work, if it were to be adopted by the Conference, should address the concerns of all States parties.

CAMILO SANHUEZA (Chile) said that Chile appreciated the initiative that had been provided by the United States. Chile had expressed its country’s position of flexibility so as to ensure that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty could be negotiated as soon as possible. Chile felt that the United States proposal would help to re-energize the momentum in the Conference. Chile would study the draft treaty and the draft mandate carefully.

WERNER BAUWENS (Belgium) said that today the United States had presented a number of concrete ideas on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty: a draft mandate, a draft treaty text. Belgium welcomed the draft mandate and stood ready to start working immediately on that basis with a view to formalizing the mandate. Belgium underlined that that in no way undermined the importance that Belgium attached to other subjects as well. With regard to the draft treaty, Belgium would study the text carefully. Belgium attached great importance to a verification mechanism, but those elements could be discussed later.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said the statement made by the United States on its position on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) was welcomed. With regards to an FMCT, the position of China had already been made clear in a statement made the day before. China supported the purposes and principles of an FMCT and the objectives of the Treaty, and supported the Conference reaching a comprehensive and balanced programme of work and to speedily start substantive work on a cut-off treaty, the prevention of an outer-space arms race, nuclear disarmament and others. It hoped all the parties concerned could work in this direction.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the statement of the United States should be circulated, as it required careful study, as did its initiative. The question of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was one of the priorities for the Russian Federation, and it considered that the draft treaty was not the final word, as it was open for comments and ideas, and the Russian Federation would study it carefully, and was grateful for the initiative. However, introducing a draft treaty should not serve as an obstacle to the discussion of other important issues on the agenda.

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said the statement of the United States was welcomed, and Bulgaria supported the initiative made, including the draft mandate and treaty. Although the latter did not contain every element Bulgaria would have liked to see, it was ready to begin negotiations.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said the Government of the United States was thanked for its interest in the multilateral framework for disarmament. Algeria had taken note of the initiative of the United States regarding fissile material cut-off, and hoped this initiative would be studied by the parties concerned. Algeria would do so, and convey its opinions. The representative of India had put forward several views on the subject, and Algeria was convinced that discussions within the Conference on the basis of the text of the United States should help to strike the necessary balance among the positions of most countries on the issue, in order to come up with a position reflecting all the elements which States parties considered to be important. At the same time, these discussions should revolve around this topic, and other subjects under consideration, and the mandate of the Conference should not be subject to the positions of other countries.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) joined other delegations in welcoming the intervention by the United States and the renewed commitment it showed in this forum by the nomination of a new ambassador, as well as in the presentation of a draft mandate and text for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). The Canadian approach to an FMCT had been expressed earlier. If there was to be any official negotiation on the FMCT, however, it had to be part of an agreed programme of work, which had been a problem for the Conference for many years now.

Canada wanted to clarify a point in the United States statement: the United States had said that it saw no need for the negotiation of any new agreement on prevention of an arms race in outer space or negative security assurances. But Canada recalled that the A5 proposals and others, as far as outer space and negative security assurances were concerned, held that they were open to further discussions. If the United States was willing to listen to the views of others on those topics, without those discussions being required to advance to substantive agreements, that would help bring the Conference back to productive work.

JOHANN KELLERMAN (South Africa) said that in order for a future Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) to be truly credible, it should include stockpiles in the scope of its application. Unless that were done, stockpiles of fissile material for nuclear weapons would imply that an area existed where verification of a “cut-off” could not take place, as stockpiled material could be used for the production of further nuclear weapons. In that regard, it was clear that a complete halt in the production of fissile material would leave enough of the material available to further increase – and not decrease – the number of nuclear weapons. South Africa furthermore held the view that the inclusion of stocks would give an FMT a true nuclear disarmament character.

Mr. Kellerman said that South Africa’s working paper on FMT also addressed the question of weapons material that had been transferred from military use to peaceful nuclear activities, that was to say, material that had been declared to be in excess. Such material would be included in the starting inventory of States and would be subject to the verification mechanism incorporated into the treaty. Additional material that was declared as excess after the entry into force of the treaty would then be added to the starting inventory in an irreversible manner.

A.M. KADAFA (Nigeria) said that the issue of fissile materials had been as controversial as nuclear disarmament. The differences had been whether the Conference adopted minimal or maximal approaches to the issue and whether members should adopt a comprehensive or selective approach to disarmament issues. Nigeria believed that fissile materials had to be addressed in a comprehensive way to speed up nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation objectives with a view to enhancing international security. In that regard, Nigeria believed that the questions of definition, production histories, stockpiles, safe storage, and present and future production should be covered, and that the Convention to be developed should be universally applicable and effectively verifiable with compliance mechanisms.

CARLOS DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said the need to adopt an international instrument banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons was all the more relevant in an international environment in which there was a growing danger that such material could fall into the hands of non-State actors. Brazil favoured the start of negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. In this connection, the scope of such a Treaty should be clearly defined, in order to ensure the preservation of the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The negotiation of a Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) should be undertaken on the basis of the parameters established in 1995 by the Shannon Mandate. It should be non-discriminatory, multilateral, and internationally and effectively verifiable. That there were different positions on the specific aspect of verification should not impede the start of negotiations. The recent submission of a number of interesting and very useful working papers would certainly contribute to a more focussed discussion of all the complex issues that would have to be dealt with during negotiations, such as definitions, scope, stocks, etc. The FMT should address the issue of stocks, however. The proposal of the United States was important and interesting, but it was important to stress the commitment to the Conference, to multilateralism and to negotiate while debating all the other issues of the agenda.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said that Japan would like to formally register its views on stocks. Concerning two important concepts: what did existing stocks mean and what did it means to include stocks within the scope of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty? Those points needed to be clarified. The transfer of stocks to a third country should be banned. Members had to consider whether to include enhancement of transparency measures, as well as physical protection obligations. The diversion of fissile material stocks for the purpose of military use had to be banned. The reversion back to nuclear weapons purposes of stocks considered as excess should also be banned. In addition, stocks, once considered excess should be placed under verification and reducing them in future should be considered.

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