Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

Minister of State from United Kingdom Tells Conference FMCT is Next Step in Pursuit of Nuclear Disarmament
23 March 2006

A Minister of State from the United Kingdom today addressed the Conference on Disarmament, underlining his country’s commitment to nuclear disarmament and stressing the importance of negotiations toward a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT).

Kim Howells, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference last year had been a disappointment. However, there had been much useful and detailed discussion of ways in which the NPT could be strengthened, and the United Kingdom remained fully committed to this end. The United Kingdom continued to believe in the need for strong and comprehensive export controls to prevent the uncontrolled spread of nuclear supplies and technologies, and it was seeking ways to counter the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Mr. Howells said his main message was that the United Kingdom continued to seek and to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. To this end, it continued to believe that an FMCT was the appropriate next step in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. He also made it clear that whatever decisions were taken regarding the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent in the future would be consistent with its obligations under the NPT.

Concurring, the Netherlands said that the best way forward was for the Conference to start negotiations on an FMCT and to do so without preconditions. An FMCT was a prerequisite step to a world free of nuclear weapons, creating at the same time the momentum needed to tackle other issues on the agenda of the Conference.

In his opening remarks, the incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Doru-Romulus Costea of Romania, said that the Conference intended to continue the practice of holding plenary meetings in order to have general debates on all the items on the agenda, as well as prepare and conduct the structured debate on FMCT. During the Romanian Presidency the Conference would have the chance to embark on more detailed FMCT-related discussions.

Ambassador Costea reiterated the proposal for delegations to bring experts from capitals in order to have an in-depth exchange of views and positions, to prepare and circulate well in advance working papers on specific questions related to FMCT and, if interested, to propose side-events, eventually in joint cooperation with non-governmental organizations.

Canada also addressed the Conference, endorsing the importance attached to the negotiations on an FMCT.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 30 March at 10 a.m.

Statements

KIM HOWELLS, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that talk about the non-proliferation regime being in crisis should spur the international community into action, not cause it to sink into pessimism. Now was a time for focused engagement, for a determination to meet obligations as members of the Conference on Disarmament. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference last year had been a disappointment, and regrettably, some participants had seemed from the outset to want to work against, rather than for, a substantive outcome. However, although the Review Conference had not concluded with a substantive final document, there had been much useful and detailed discussion of ways in which the NPT could be strengthened. The United Kingdom hoped that such good ideas would survive and be taken forward in various ways.

The United Kingdom remained fully committed to the NPT. It continued to take every opportunity to encourage all States to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, and it was actively working with others to formulate appropriate incentives for countries to forego fuel-cycle facilities. While the United Kingdom fully recognized the right of States who were in compliance with their obligations under the NPT to use and benefit from nuclear technology, it was clear that the nuclear fuel cycle presented particularly acute proliferation risks. The United Kingdom would continue to believe in the need for strong and comprehensive export controls to prevent the uncontrolled spread of nuclear supplies and technologies, he said. Furthermore, like everyone else, the United Kingdom was concerned at the prospect and growing threat of nuclear terrorism and was seeking ways to counter it.

Mr. Howells expressed his frustration at the Conference on Disarmament’s current stalemate and inability to agree on a programme of work for more than eight years. This had not stopped the United Kingdom from moving forward unilaterally on disarmament measures. Action by the United Kingdom had included reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons to one system, namely Trident, and the United Kingdom was the only nuclear weapon State to have done this. Only a single Trident submarine was on deterrent patrol at any one time, and the missiles were not targeted at any country.

Mr. Howells said his main message today, however, was a politician’s message, a Government Minister’s message and assurance: the United Kingdom continued to seek and to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. To this end, it continued to believe that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) was the appropriate next step in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. He also made it clear that the United Kingdom did not maintain its nuclear deterrent indifferent to its nuclear disarmament obligations. Whatever decisions were taken regarding the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent in the future would be consistent with its obligations under the NPT.

Welcoming initiatives to reinvigorate work in the CD through an interactive thematic debate, Mr. Howells also cautioned that whatever the levels of enthusiasm registered in the discussions, agreements would not issue overnight. A steady process of confidence building would be needed and the United Kingdom was determined to contribute to such a forward-looking process. No delegation had disagreed on the value of starting negotiations on an FMCT. Such negotiation would not be easy but surely the Conference could agree without prejudice to anyone’s position to begin negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions? Only a committed movement on an FMCT without conditions could provide beginnings of a way forward. The Conference was too important a mechanism to be allowed to remain inactive; it was time to follow a pragmatic approach: it was time to start negotiating an FMCT.

DORU-ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania), Incoming President of the Conference, said that due to the unprecedented P6 initiative, his opening remarks as incoming President had lost much of their traditional value, in the sense that the Romanian Presidency was not merely re-starting from scratch, but rather building upon what had already been accumulated during the first two previous Presidencies. Thus, the Conference intended to continue the practice of holding plenary meetings in order to have general debates on all the items on the agenda, as well as prepare and conduct the structured debate on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT).

On the occasion of the 1000th plenary meeting of the Conference, a moment of reflection had been observed on the accomplishments and the future of that unique multilateral body of negotiations on disarmament, non-proliferation and arms-control. It was to be recalled that on 23 March 1995, the Special Coordinator, Ambassador Shannon of Canada, presented his report on the outcome of his consultations “on the most appropriate arrangement to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”. During the Romanian Presidency the Conference had the chance to embark on more detailed FMCT-related discussions. That also brought him to the point of reiterating the proposals for delegations to bring experts from capitals in order to have an in-depth exchange of views and positions, to prepare and circulate well in advance working papers on specific questions related to FMCT, and, if interested, to propose side-events, eventually in joint cooperation with non-governmental organizations.

JOHANNES C. LANDMAN (Netherlands) thanked the incoming President and expressed his appreciation for the hard work of his predecessors. Under his leadership the Conference would enter into focused discussion on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FCMT) and he was looking forward to a constructive debate. The Netherlands considered an FMCT the next logical step, although not the final step, on the disarmament agenda. An FMCT was an essential tool to cover a number of issues, for example, enhancing the safe storage and accounting of fissile material. Given the increased threat of non-state actors gaining access to such material, this alone necessitated a swift commencement of such discussions. Terrorism was a global phenomenon and it was in the interests of the entire international community to start negotiations now. The best way forward was for the Conference to start negotiations on an FMCT and to do so without preconditions. An FMCT was a prerequisite step to a world free of nuclear weapons, creating at the same time the momentum needed to tackle other issues on the agenda of the Conference.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom had reminded the Conference of its failure to agree on a programme of work. The Conference should break its stalemate and come forward with a programme of work. As the Minister recalled, some States did not want the Conference on Disarmament to fully discuss its programme of work. His delegation endorsed the importance attached to the negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He welcomed the measures taken by Viet Nam in signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and urged other countries to follow that country’s example.