Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

Conference on Disarmament Hears Comments on President's Non-Paper on Debate on Nuclear Disarmament

16 March 2006

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a number of statements on a non-paper submitted by the outgoing President, Ambassador Park In-kook of the Republic of Korea, which compiled proposals and observations made during the thematic debate on nuclear disarmament.

Syria pointed out that the non-paper had not addressed directly the main issue of nuclear disarmament as should have been the case. The Conference was repeating what had happened in the 2004 and 2005 discussions and having discussions just for the sake of it, and ignoring valid proposals that had been put forward and could help the Conference arrive at an outcome.

Malaysia said the President’s non-paper did not fully reflect the discussions that had taken place on nuclear disarmament over the past few weeks and hoped that this could be rectified.

Pakistan said there appeared to be a selective reproduction of the statements in the Conference. In addition, the non-paper tended to shift the focus solely to the issue of non-proliferation: the focus of the debate had been on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and not on disarmament, despite the fact that the FMCT would be considered separately later.

Mexico, speaking on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden, welcomed the positive engagement shown by Conference members during the debate on items 1 and 2 of the agenda, which focused on nuclear disarmament, and thanked the outgoing President for the non-paper. During those debates important information was shared and interesting proposals were made which definitely needed to be further considered. The non-paper would serve as a useful step in that direction. Mexico encouraged future presidencies to continue working on the basis of the work carried out by the Korean Presidency.

The Netherlands said there had been real attempts to build bridges during the last few weeks, and that might show the Conference the way back to a consensus. New thinking and new language was required, and maybe also a new realism. What they had accomplished so far might not seem to be much, but it was something that had not been seen in the Conference for a long time.

Brazil said that the paralysis of the Conference was in no one’s interest and contributed to the overall climate of frustration and dismay that was contaminating the international disarmament agenda. The focus of the Conference must be on systematic, continuous and progressive efforts to implement the practical steps to achieve nuclear disarmament agreed upon at the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Turning to the issue of landmines, Iraq said that after years of conflict, it remained one of the countries most heavily contaminated with unexploded ordinance and remnants of war. Despite the huge cost to clear the contaminated areas, clearance was of prime importance to the Government. Unfortunately, Iraq’s means fell far short of those that would allow them to accede to the Ottawa Convention, but it looked forward to the day when it would be in a position to do so.

Ambassador Park In-kook of the Republic of Korea, the outgoing President of the Conference, said he would be happy to include new information in the compilation. He appreciated the positive and encouraging responses to the compilation of the various proposals and observations made by delegations on nuclear disarmament.

Also addressing the Conference this morning were the Peru and Algeria.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 23 March 2006.

Statements

JOSE ARTUR DENOT MEDEIROS (Brazil) said that the initiative of grouping all Presidents of this year’s session with the aim of coordinating their activities and the idea of having Friends of Presidents to help narrowing differences on substantive issues were welcome first steps. The paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament served no one’s interest and contributed to the overall climate of frustration and dismay that was contaminating the international disarmament agenda. It was imperative that the Conference send a strong and unequivocal sign that it was prepared to engage in a consistent and constructive effort to move forward in matters of international peace and security.

Brazil supported the A-5 proposal or a variation thereon, he continued. Therefore a compromise solution for a programme of work should include the four core issues – nuclear disarmament, fissile material treaty, prevention of arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. The focus of the Conference must be on systematic, continuous and progressive efforts to implement the practical steps to achieve nuclear disarmament agreed upon at the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The establishment of a specific forum at the Conference to discuss ways and means to promote nuclear disarmament could be a significant measure to strengthen the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing processes requiring progress on both fronts, he said. There were numerous important issues that could help shape a substantive framework for discussions in an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with nuclear disarmament. For this reason, it was misleading to argue that the proposal to create an Ad Hoc Committee would represent just a tactical move to prevent the early start of negotiations on a fissile material treaty.

Some of the concrete items that could be discussed in a subsidiary body to the Conference could include full and transparent reporting of what had already been done and future initiatives; review of military doctrines in order to circumscribe the role of nuclear weapons; legally binding nuclear security assurances to non nuclear weapon States; and full respect for the existing nuclear free zone treaties and the promotion of new nuclear free zones. Brazil also favoured the start of a negotiation of a fissile material treaty. It was also important to discuss ways and means of preserving outer space from an arms race and “weaponization”, he said. For this purpose, Brazil was ready to engage on the upcoming structured debate on prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Brazil had had the honour of presiding over the Seventh Review Conference of the NPT. While the outcome of that Conference had been frustrating, the perception that the NPT was no longer able to attain its original objectives was wrong. It was imperative that all parties to the NPT muster the necessary resolve to avoid further damage to the multilateral system of peace and security.

BAN FADHLI (Iraq), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said that the G 21 had asked that a representative of the Women’s League for Peace present that group’s statement herself on International Women’s Day. She regretted that this had not been the case and looked forward to future presidencies readdressing this situation.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), speaking on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden, said, first, that he associated himself with the statement just made by Iraq on behalf of the Group of 21. Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden welcomed the positive engagement shown by Conference members during the debate on items 1 and 2 of the agenda, which focused on nuclear disarmament, and he thanked the outgoing President for the non-paper containing a compilation of proposals and observations made during his Presidency. During those debates important information was shared and interesting proposals were made which definitely needed to be further considered. The non-paper would serve as a useful step in that direction. If the P-6 initiative were to be really meaningful, he emphasized, that process had to be carried forward and intensified. He encouraged future presidencies to continue working on the basis of the work carried out by the Korean Presidency.

BAN FADHLI (Iraq), said that she would like to talk about the progress made in Iraq on mine activities. Iraq had studied the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, known as the Ottawa Convention, and its implications for its own development efforts, as well as for the international community. After years of conflict Iraq remained one of the countries most heavily contaminated with unexploded ordinance and remnants of war. Between 10 and 20 million landmines had been estimated to have been placed on Iraqi territory. Despite the huge cost to clear the contaminated areas, clearance was of prime importance to the Government. Draft legislation, in conformity with article 1 of the Ottawa Convention, had been submitted to the Iraqi parliament and a national mine action committee had been established to coordinate action in the country. An explosive ordnance and demining school had been established and mine-risk education campaigns were also under way to target the most affected areas. Iraq no longer had mine stockpiles or the ability to produce or export landmines, she stressed. Unfortunately, Iraq’s means fell far short of those that would allow it to accede to the Ottawa Convention, as it could not fulfil its requirements at present, such as the time limits for mine clearance. Iraq looked forward to the day when it would be in a position to do so.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said that the non- paper was very important, as it would help delegations to recall the decisions made during discussions. Nonetheless, the goal should have been the adoption of a programme of work for the Conference. The discussions that had taken place covered several new proposals and ideas, but many statements seemed to forget that main goal - the adoption of a programme of work.

During the discussions, nuclear weapon States had referred to their achievements in areas of disarmament; and non-nuclear weapon States had also assessed their viewpoints. Delegations had also expressed their concern regarding commitment to military doctrine and were also worried that some countries were still developing nuclear weapons. The Conference has also listened to several delegations make important proposals on disarmament, for example, the Group of 21 had recommended setting up a subsidiary body to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

When his delegation had read the non-paper, it had been noted that the main issue of nuclear disarmament had not been addressed directly as should have been the case. The Conference was repeating what had happened in the 2004 and 2005 discussions and having discussions just for the sake of it, and ignoring valid proposals that had been put forward and could help the Conference arrive at an outcome.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that the Polish presidency had created the right framework for this session of the Conference on Disarmament, and the Korean presidency had put them on the right track. There had been real attempts to build bridges during the last few weeks, and that might show the Conference the way back to a consensus. New thinking and new language was required, and maybe also a new realism. What they had accomplished so far might not seem to be much, but it was something that had not been seen in the Conference for a long time. Four nuclear weapons States had made statements that he regarded as useful, for example, with respect to plans for their weapons of mass destruction. More steps in that direction were needed. The Netherlands supported a gradual approach to disarmament. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was the next step, but his delegation would certainly not be satisfied to stop there.

WAN AZNAINIZAM YUSRI WAN ABDUL RASHID (Malaysia) thanked Ambassador Park In-kook for the non-paper but shared the view that it did not fully reflect the discussions that had taken place on nuclear disarmament over the past few weeks and hoped that would be able to incorporate all the proposals that had been made, including that which had been made by Malaysia.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), said that the debate on nuclear disarmament had been helpful and that a number of useful proposals had been put forward. Regarding the non-paper compilation, although perhaps it was the nature of the beast, there appeared to her to be a selective reproduction of the statements in the Conference; it had left a number of important proposals out. None of the proposals made by the Group of 21 had been included, for example. In addition, the non-paper tended to shift the focus solely to the issue of non-proliferation: the focus of the debate was on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and not on disarmament, despite the fact that the FMCT would be considered separately later. Ms. Janjua strongly recommended that instead of a compilation of the debate, the verbatim record on the discussions should be brought out early, which would definitely help to move the work in the Conference forward.

DIEGO BELEVAN (Peru) thanked Ambassador Park In-kook for the non-paper that had been submitted and agreed with the statement of Ambassador Macedo of Mexico.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands), responding to the statement by Pakistan, said that of course she was right to say that it would be useful to have a verbatim record, and of course the secretariat should provide the document requested. But the verbatim record did not in any way substitute for the compilation paper. He suggested, with regard to those who felt that they were not sufficiently quoted – and by the way, he, too, felt that he was poorly represented in the non-paper – that those delegations should just submit short texts to be included as an addendum to that document.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the subtitles in the document were a cause for concern and more attention should be paid to the issue of linkage. TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), responding to the statement made by the Netherlands, again strongly suggested that the Secretariat be requested that the verbatim record of the meetings on the nuclear disarmament discussions be issued as soon as possible. Each delegation prepared its own compilation of issues to transmit to their capitals, she noted. The compilation prepared by the presidency missed significant things: the issues were not fully reflected and in the discussions in the debate there were certain positions that were categorically stated by certain groups that were missing. The verbatim record should be the indicator for delegations regarding members’ positions.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), Outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he would be happy to include new information in the compilation. He had focused on what had been actually debated and said during his presidency and the discussions specifically on agenda items 1 and 2. He would make a final update and explore a way to use the compilation process as a working document for further reference.

He said that he was pleased to recall the time in September 2005 when the Polish, Korean and Romanian Ambassadors got together for the first time and discussed the possibility of a common approach to secure coherence and conformity throughout the whole year among the presidencies. During Korea's presidency, a total of nine plenary meetings had been held, with almost 90 interventions, which exceeded all expectation, representing broad participation by Member States across all groupings, including the nuclear weapon States. There had also been an increased level of readiness to engage and contribute. Those developments were meaningful specifically because they not only reflected a significantly improved atmosphere, but they also served to prove the resiliency of the Conference. In the focused debates on agenda items 1 and 2 on nuclear disarmament, he thought he could hesitantly conclude that they had broken new ground. He appreciated the positive and encouraging responses to the compilations of the various proposals and observations made by delegations on nuclear disarmament that the document had received from members.

Sharing his personal observations on that debate, Ambassador Park said, first, nuclear disarmament in and of itself was important for international security, as well as for addressing proliferation threats, including the high risk of nuclear terrorism. Second, while welcoming implementation of nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons States, most non-nuclear weapons States would like to see further cuts to nuclear armaments, both strategic and non-strategic, in a more transparent, irreversible and verifiable manner. Third, nuclear weapons States needed to search for possible ways to provide information in a systematic way on their nuclear policy, including the role of nuclear weapons, and on stockpiles of fissile materials. Fourth, a treaty banning fissile material for nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices could constitute an important contribution to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Finally, he reiterated the need to look into ways of improving the current decision-making system of the Conference, including the regional group system. Members should consider ways and means to do so.