The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements by the Vice President of Colombia and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Romania, Iran, Slovakia and Norway.

Santos Calderón, Vice President of Colombia, said that, in Colombia, the issue of illicit traffic in arms and the danger of their falling into the hands of terrorist groups was not an academic question; it was part of their everyday reality. Yesterday the National Police had submitted a preliminary report concerning two computers found in the possession of Raul Reyes, second in command of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), who had been killed last Saturday. According to preliminary findings, FARC had been negotiating for radioactive materials, the primary basis for generating "dirty" weapons of mass destruction. That information showed that, with the resources made available by drug trafficking, terrorist groups constituted a serious threat not just to Colombia, but also to the whole Latin American and Andean region. If all States showed the will and the commitment to implement fundamental international disarmament non-proliferation measures, they could drastically reduce the chance that such arms would fall into the hands of terrorist groups and could avoid the suffering of millions of persons.

Maxime Verhaegen, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, noted that the concerns of the international community regarding Iran's nuclear programme had led the United Nations Security Council to adopt a third resolution on Iran yesterday. Iran would have to abide by that newly adopted resolution; if it did not, additional measures would have to follow. Progress on nuclear disarmament required intensive political will, particularly for the two States that possessed 95 per cent of the world’s nuclear stocks: the United States and the Russian Federation. The Netherlands called on those parties to embrace their responsibilities and show renewed commitment to the process. It equally hoped for a constructive attitude from the Non-Aligned Movement, which stood to benefit from disarmament and non-proliferation, as they all did. It was time for a strategy on both disarmament and non-proliferation, jointly strengthening the two of them.

Marat Tazhin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, began by recalling the decree, on the eve of independence, by President Nazarbayev to close the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site. That had been the first step in what later became the essence of Kazakhstan's disarmament policy. Among others, in 1993 Kazakhstan had ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); and, in 2006, Kazakhstan had signed the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia. However, the NPT had failed to prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons and the appearance of new de facto nuclear States. Inequality in the core of the NPT had resulted in the fact that the nuclear powers saw no point in observing their disarmament obligations. It was necessary to develop mechanisms of effective leverage on the possessor States acting outside of the NPT legal framework, and to provide instruments that would put pressure on those countries that would try to leave the treaty in the future.

Adrian Cioroianu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, noted that the Conference on Disarmament was a sensitive barometer to gauge international political tensions. That was yet another reason that Romania had joined with the majority in the Conference in the hope that their efforts could break the present deadlock. Of course, with 65 members it was difficult to achieve consensus, but it was not impossible. Romania had always endeavoured to reach common ground and as one of the six presidents of the Conference in 2006, and it was very much aware of the challenges of creating unity in that body and to reactivating multilateral consensus on the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. In Romania's view, the package of documents from the 2007 session (CD/2007/L.1, and CRP.5 and CRP.6) represented a solid basis for re-launching the work of the Conference.

Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, identified unilateralism and unilateral measures as the major threat to the international community's peace and security. Iran wished to inform the Conference that, on 4 February 2008, Iran had successfully launched its first research rocket, "Kavoshgar 1" into space in order to prepare the ground for putting its first domestically engineered satellite named Omid into orbit for peaceful uses. Iran intended to enter outer space solely to get some data to prevent natural catastrophic events such as earthquakes and improve telecommunications systems for peaceful ends as other capable countries did the same. As for recent developments in Iran's nuclear programme, the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had confirmed for the eleventh time that there had been no diversion in the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran.

Jan Kubis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said that, while mechanisms outside of the Conference on Disarmament could also be used to advance the goals of non-proliferation and disarmament, such as had been done in the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, the fact that the Ottawa Convention did not have universality and lacked the participation of certain key countries, convinced Slovakia that the Conference should remain the principle multilateral body for negotiating agreements critical to international security. Here, Slovakia wished to reiterate its position that the six Presidents proposal (CD/2007/L.1 and CRP.5 and CRP.6) was a well thought out organization of existing priorities into a logical sequence. The longer the Conference delayed on that proposal the more it would postpone progress on the issues identified as ripe for action by the Conference. As Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had said, it was the time for Conference members to seize this historic opportunity that has been crystallizing for some time.

Jonas Gahr Store, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said Norway assembled a conference of about 100 participants from 29 different countries in Oslo last week which focused on the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Five key principles that emerged from the Nuclear Weapons Conference in Oslo. The first principle called for more committed leadership from the highest levels, who should engage with key domestic stakeholders and the general public. The second principle was the need for immediate concrete and implementable steps towards disarmament. The third principle was the need to achieve consensus among all States. The fourth stipulated the importance of being faithful to the principle of non-discrimination. The final principle was transparency, which he argued must be at the heart of these global efforts, to build confidence and trust amongst all States.

In 2007, the Conference was not able to reach agreement on a programme of work and so was unable to start work on substantive issues. A Presidential Draft Decision (CD/2007/L.1**) was submitted as a basis for an agreement to begin substantive work in the Conference, and successive Presidents conducted intensive consultations with a view to reaching agreement on it. Presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1** calls for the appointment of four Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Complementary Presidential Statement, CD/2007/CRP.5*, reflects an understanding of the Conference on the implementation of the Presidential decision, and the third text CD/2007/CRP.6* is a short decision stating that when the Conference adopts the Presidential decision, it will be guided by the Presidential statement in its implementation. At the end of the 2007 session, it was decided that the documents before the Conference would be held over for consideration at the 2008 session.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when the Conference will hear addresses by the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Turkey and Ukraine and the Vice Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Japan and the Republic of Korea.

Statements

MAXIME VERHAEGEN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, noted that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he was "deeply troubled" by the lack of progress when he had spoken to the Conference a little over a month ago. The Netherlands shared that view. The Secretary General had also called on foreign ministers and political leaders to come to Geneva and encourage a return to productive work – and he had heeded that call. To achieve international peace and security, both disarmament and non-proliferation were indispensable. The continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to global security; and the presence of large nuclear stockpiles did little good, while entailing diverse risks. It was their joint responsibility to reduce and ultimately eliminate those dangers. All countries needed to work together on achieving those goals, and such initiatives had to go beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty could be part of that push forward, and all States were urged to ratify that instrument. The upcoming Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2010 would also be an important milestone and would afford an opportunity to intensify international cooperation and to find a common ground on disarmament, non-proliferation, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Netherlands fully supported talks within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a means to effectively implement the NPT and supported an international regime that was both non-discriminatory and strengthened non-proliferation efforts.

Mr. Verhaegen was deeply concerned about Iran’s ongoing nuclear programme. The concerns of the international community had led the United Nations Security Council to adopt a third resolution on Iran yesterday. In their statement, the Permanent Members of the Security Council and Germany had underlined their sincere intentions to offer everything reasonable to re-establish a respectful relationship between Iran and the international community. Iran would have to abide by that newly adopted resolution. If it did not, additional measures would have to follow. Progress on nuclear disarmament required intensive political will, particularly for the two States that possessed 95 per cent of the world’s nuclear stocks: the United States and the Russian Federation. The Netherlands called on those parties to embrace their responsibilities and show renewed commitment to the process. It equally hoped for a constructive attitude from the Non-Aligned Movement, which stood to benefit from disarmament and non-proliferation, as they all did. It was time for a strategy on both disarmament and non-proliferation, jointly strengthening the two of them. Turning to the programme of work of the Conference, one major priority was a Treaty Banning the Production of Fissile Material for use in Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices. Such a treaty would promote a fresh supply of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons production. All five NPT nuclear weapon States should agree among themselves to cease production of fissile material for weapons and open their facilities to the IAEA safeguard inspections, building on the practice of Euratom inspections in France and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands was also prepared to engage in substantive discussions on how to prevent an arms race in outer space. A code of conduct or a set of best practices and guidelines was a pragmatic and realistic way to enhance security in space and would serve as a valuable confidence-building measure. The European Union was currently in the process of drafting such an instrument.

MARAT TAZHIN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that, on the eve of Kazakhstan's independence, in August 1991, President Nazarbayev had signed the historic decree on the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site. That had been the first step in what later became the essence of Kazakhstan's disarmament policy. In December 1993 Kazakhstan's Parliament had ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and a year later it had obtained security guarantees from the nuclear powers in recognition of full and undisputable implementation of its disarmament commitments. In 1996, Kazakhstan had joined the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The significance of the decision on the non-nuclear status of Kazakhstan and the elimination of the world's fourth nuclear arsenal was all the more important if one considered the fact that Kazakhstan had possessed the so-called "full nuclear armament cycle" on its soil, including uranium mining and processing facilities. In appreciation of those efforts, Kazakhstan had been accepted into the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2002. Kazakhstan had also joined the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism, which had held its third meeting in Astana in 2007. In September 2006, Kazakhstan had signed the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia.

Kazakhstan regretfully noted the lack of real progress in the Conference on Disarmament, which had been virtually paralysed for the past decade. The NPT – the main instrument of nuclear non-proliferation – had failed to prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons and the appearance of new de facto nuclear States. Inequality, which had been set in the core of the NPT, had resulted in the fact that the nuclear Powers saw no point in observing their disarmament obligations. The worst of it was that it gave serious arguments to those countries that aspired to possess weapons of mass destruction. It was necessary to develop mechanisms of effective leverage on the possessor States acting outside of the NPT legal framework, and to provide instruments that would put pressure on those countries that would try to leave the treaty in the future. While Kazakhstan recognized the importance of the work done by the United States and the Russian Federation to reduce their nuclear arsenals, it was not enough to ensure the irreversibility of that process. Taking into consideration priorities of the disarmament agenda, Kazakhstan adhered to a realistic approach with regard to the situation in the Conference. Kazakhstan appreciated the efforts over the past two years that had led to the 2007 six Presidents proposal (i.e. CD/2007/L.1 and CRP.5 and CRP.6), and, for the sake of consensus, was prepared to continue working on the basis of it. The initiative to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was well timed; at the same time, that decision should not diminish the importance of the three other core issues. Kazakhstan highly appreciated the efforts of Russia and China with regard to the prevention of an arms race in outer space treaty they had presented. It had also repeatedly proposed to draft an internationally binding instrument against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, and was interested in further discussion on that issue.

ADRIAN CIOROIANU, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, reaffirmed Romania’s commitment to the Conference on Disarmament. It was unfortunate that the Conference had been inactive for so many years. Nevertheless, it remained the most appropriate body to deal with international disarmament issues. In that regard, the Conference on Disarmament was a sensitive barometer to gauge international political tensions. That was yet another reason that Romania had joined with the majority in the Conference in the hope that their efforts could break the present deadlock. Of course, with 65 members it was difficult to achieve consensus, but it was not impossible. Romania had always endeavoured to reach common ground and as one of the six presidents of the Conference in 2006, it was very much aware of the challenges of creating unity in that body and to reactivating multilateral consensus on the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. In Romania's view, the package of documents from the 2007 session (CD/2007/L.1, and CRP.5 and CRP.6) represented a solid basis for re-launching the work of the Conference.

Mr. Cioroianu said that negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), and reviews of the current nuclear disarmament situation and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, were issues that were closely linked to global security. The Conference on Disarmament was the ideal forum to advance on those questions. Romania considered that the time was now ripe for the commencement of negotiations on an FMCT, which was the clear priority for many delegations. An agreement on that subject would be an important step towards nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were both central and indivisible elements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Progress on one meant progress on the other, but the reverse was also true. Romania hoped that the Preparatory Committee for the next NPT Review Conference, which was being held in Geneva in 2008, would be the occasion to reaffirm and to reinforce the measures adopted for the balanced and comprehensive implementation of the NPT. Like the NPT, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was also a fundamental stage in the process of nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, that Treaty had not entered into force, despite great support by many States; the recent ratifications by Colombia and Malaysia, however, were a positive step. The future of global peace and security would depend on the ability of all countries to collaborate on the issues of global disarmament. For its part, Romania would continue to support multilateral disarmament efforts whether at the global or regional level and to implement its obligations thereunder.

MANOUCHEHR MOTTAKI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, identified unilateralism and unilateral measures as the major threat to the international community's peace and security. Military doctrines based on pre-emptive strikes were not justifiable and were in clear contradiction of the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. Added to the list were the imposition of illegitimate and unjustifiable sanctions against other nations, misuse of international bodies solely for self-interests, and making baseless accusations against others under the pretext of so-called proliferation concerns to create a smokescreen to cover non-compliance with disarmament regimes and to deceive public opinion. Nuclear weapons were as illegal as chemical and biological weapons and the illegality of nuclear weapons should be recognized through a legally binding Nuclear Weapons Convention. Now was the time to completely ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons and the Conference on Disarmament was the only United Nations body that could deal with that issue and conclude such an international instrument. It should establish an Ad Hoc Committee with the mandate to begin multilateral negotiations on such a convention. There was no doubt that the five nuclear weapon States bore the primary responsibility in that context and, pending the conclusion of that convention, the non-nuclear weapon States should be granted effective negative security assurances through an effective, legally binding instrument. Moreover, one of the main goals and priorities of Iran and the other States of the Middle East region had been the universality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and forcing the Zionist regime to abandon its production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

In Iran's view, a comprehensive and balanced programme of work for the Conference was one in which all the concerns and priorities of Member States were addressed and all four core issues were treated on an equal footing. Iran believed that the Conference had a contribution to make on the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and welcomed the joint initiative by Russia and China on that subject submitted to the Conference on 12 February 2008. In that connection, Iran wished to inform the Conference that, on 4 February 2008, Iran had successfully launched its first research rocket, "Kavoshgar 1" into space in order to prepare the ground for putting its first domestically engineered satellite named Omid into orbit for peaceful uses. Iran intended to enter outer space solely to get some data to prevent natural catastrophic events such as earthquakes and improve telecommunications systems for peaceful ends as other capable countries did the same. As for recent developments in Iran's nuclear programme, the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had confirmed for the eleventh time that there had been no diversion in the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran. It was worth recalling that the pretext that had brought the Iranian nuclear issue to the agenda of the IAEA and then the basis for unwarranted and unlawful actions of the United Nations Security Council, had been the ambiguities and allegations introduced by a few countries which, by magnifying those ambiguities, had attempted to put into question the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme. However, the IAEA report of 22 February 2008 had clearly and manifestly declared that all remaining issues had been resolved, and that Iran's answers had been "consistent with the Agency's findings". In the report, the IAEA had also declared that the current nuclear activities of Iran were under its monitoring and the IAEA had been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material and facilities in Iran.

JAN KUBIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said that his presence at the Conference on Disarmament was a testament to Slovakia’s commitment to the future of that body, and Slovakia added its voice to other calls for a revitalization of the Conference, to overcome its continued lack of productivity and to replace discussion with negotiations. However, other mechanisms outside of the Conference could also be used to advance the goals of non-proliferation and disarmament. One example of that had been the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, which although it had become an overwhelming success by many criteria, remained the exception. Due to the fact that the Ottawa Convention did not have universality and lacked the participation of certain key countries, Slovakia remained convinced that the Conference on Disarmament should remain the principle multilateral body for negotiating agreements critical to international security. Here, Slovakia wished to reiterate its position that the six Presidents proposal (CD/2007/L.1 and CRP.5 and CRP.6), was a well thought out organization of existing priorities into a logical sequence. The longer the Conference delayed on that proposal the more it would postpone progress on the issues identified as ripe for action by the Conference. As Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had said, it was the time for Conference members to seize this historic opportunity that has been crystallizing for some time.

Having been a member of the UN Security Council in 2006, Slovakia had presided over the Committee established pursuant to its resolution 1540 (2004) (on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction) and had contributed to United Nations efforts to advance international peace. The cooperation surrounding the implementation of resolution 1540 had demonstrated the spirit of multilateralism in the area of non-proliferation. As one of the first countries to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Slovakia now supported negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as the ripest issue to be addressed in the Conference on Disarmament. While that was still pending, the Slovakia had endeavoured to organize annual training courses and field experiments to simulate on-site inspections. Progress also had to be made on a meaningful verification method. Indeed, Slovakia was fully determined to support all initiatives that aimed at improving the global security environment.

SANTOS CALDERÓN, Vice President of Colombia, said that, in Colombia, the issue of illicit traffic in arms and the danger of their falling into the hands of terrorist groups was not an academic question; it was part of their everyday reality. Yesterday the National Police had submitted a preliminary report concerning two computers found in the possession of Raul Reyes, second in command of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), who had been killed last Saturday. According to preliminary findings, FARC was negotiating for radioactive materials, the primary basis for generating "dirty" weapons of mass destruction. That information showed that, with the resources made available by drug trafficking, terrorist groups constituted a serious threat not just to Colombia, but also to the whole Latin American and Andean region. The major priority in Colombia was to re-establish security. For that reason it had elected President Uribe in 2002, and on the basis of his policy of democratic security an unprecedented reduction in all forms of violence had been achieved. President Uribe had then been re-elected in 2006 with the highest mandate in Colombia's history. The Government had made major efforts to prevent arms of all kinds from falling into the hands of terrorist groups. Through peace and disarmament efforts, the public security forces had recovered 18,000 arms from demobilized groups. What was needed from the international community now was the joint political will to implement the existing instruments in the disarmament field, including the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which contained important recommendations for effectively controlling the illicit arms trade. According to Government sources, 80 per cent of the weapons that entered Colombia illegally were intended for terrorist groups and 20 per cent for criminals. That reinforced the need to ensure the full implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms. Colombia also called for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and prevention of their proliferation to illegal armed groups, and supported the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly in 2006. Mention should also be made of resolutions on man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) by the Organization of American States and the United Nations, and all countries were urged to abide by them to prevent those arms from falling into the hands of terrorists. If all States showed the will and the commitment to implement those fundamental measures, they could drastically reduce the chance that such arms would fall into the hands of terrorist groups and could avoid the suffering of millions of persons.

Colombia was the second most mine-affected country in the world, and illegal armed groups massively and indiscriminately used those arms. From 1990 to today, 6,802 persons in Colombia had been victims of mines and unexploded ordnance, 1,576 of them having lost their lives. Those types of weapons did not discriminate between soldiers and civilians and also impeded the economic and social welfare of the population. Colombia therefore had undertaken national commitments to implement the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention. It would not be an easy challenge: comprehensive action against anti-personnel mines was a long-term process. Nevertheless Colombia would continue to move forward to seek security and comprehensive development of all its citizens. It would continue to provide care for victims, and would pursue their rehabilitation and reintegration into social life through productive projects. In that connection, Colombia announced its candidacy as the host of the second Ottawa review conference in 2009, and hoped that it would receive the support of all in that regard.

JONAS GAHR STØRE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said Norway assembled a conference of about 100 participants from 29 different countries in Oslo last week which focused on the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. It struck him during this conference that while a new common ground had emerged to address these critical issues, such concerns had glided down the scale of international attention and resolve, perhaps giving way to the prominence of other emerging issues such as the fight against poverty, climate change and global health. The Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm of the Cold War had been replaced by a less tangible and more complex nuclear threat scenario. In this light, Norway commended the Government of Kazakhstan as one nation that had demonstrated that national security need not depend on the possession of nuclear weapons. Acknowledging that the road towards the abolition of nuclear weapons would be long, the Minister reminded all delegates not to expect short-term results.

In support of a nuclear weapons-free world, Mr. Store commended Latin America for declaring itself a nuclear weapons free zone, which he argued allowed the continent to improve security and give priority to development agendas for the benefit of the public. He then addressed the five key principles that emerged from the Nuclear Weapons Conference in Oslo. The first principle called for more committed leadership from the highest levels, who should engage with key domestic stakeholders and the general public. The second principle was the need for immediate concrete and implementable steps towards disarmament. These steps could be taken unilaterally and to ensure necessary confidence, States must be willing to undertake binding agreements with credible verification. The third principle was the need to achieve consensus among all States. The fourth stipulated the importance of being faithful to the principle of non-discrimination. In this regard, the Minister defended the concept of a fuel reserve under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA considered that $150 million would be needed to make a fuel reserve available. One hundred million dollars had already been obtained and last week Norway pledged $5 million (or 10 per cent of the remaining 50 million). The final principle was transparency, which he argued must be at the heart of these global efforts, to build confidence and trust amongst all States.

Mr. Store also took the opportunity to encourage the new leadership in Russia and the new incoming leadership in the United States to reduce its significant nuclear arsenal and to be the bastions of this new era of non-proliferation, as an example to other emerging military States. In conclusion, the Minister listed the ten policy recommendations made by the Chairman of the most recent Oslo Conference. They were as follows: national leaders should seek to engage experts; the United States and Russia should reduce their nuclear arsenals to measure in the hundreds instead of the thousands; non-nuclear weapon States should cooperate with nuclear weapon States to develop technology needed for verification; all States with nuclear weapons must make every effort to reverse their reliance on these weapons; entry into force of the CTBT would be crucial to preventing a nuclear arms race; a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) was vital to advancing disarmament and preventing proliferation; eliminating nuclear arms required a robust and credible non-proliferation regime; all States must take the necessary measures to ensure that their nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations; there needed to be a creation of a non-discriminatory system of nuclear fuel supply in collaboration with the IAEA; and the final recommendation was that States should consider convening a high-level Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear Disarmament. In conclusion, Norway would continue to work with all multilateral and bilateral stakeholders for the advancement of nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, a ban on cluster munitions and would push for greater cross-regional cooperation in the area.

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