Statement of the Ambassador of New Zealand
H.E. Mr. Clive Pearson

Mr President

At the outset may I congratulate you, albeit so late in your term, on your assumption to the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. Be assured of our continuing cooperation and support. We also extend greetings to the Secretary General of the Conference and Personal Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Vladimir Petrovsky, as well as a warm welcome to his new deputy, Mr Enrique Roman-Morey.

Mr President, I have the honour of taking the floor today on behalf of the delegations of New Zealand and South Africa. I do so in the context of the memorandum of cooperation on disarmament issues between our two countries.

Mr President, last year, when nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts seemed to be faltering, the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed on a package of new undertakings. Many of these broke new ground. Some of the measures proposed were multilateral, others were bilateral or "plurilateral". The intention was unambiguous: to promote a set of undertakings whereby the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation could be constructively reinvigorated and redirected.

Two of the agreed NPT undertakings bear particular significance to the Conference on Disarmament's Programme of Work and can be used to build on the progress we jointly made during 2000.

These undertakings call for:

the establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament where the Conference is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body; and

the necessity of negotiations on a fissile material treaty where the Conference is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with the view to their conclusion within five years.

Mr President, South Africa and New Zealand attach very great importance to the full implementation of the commitments entered into at the NPT Review Conference. And, we have fully supported your efforts to get down to work in this Conference. The Conference concluded its work last year with the understanding that CD/1624, or the "Amorim text", was a basis for further intensive consultations. We have also welcomed your efforts to further develop the Amorim language. We are extremely disappointed that this is continuing to prove elusive.

The proposals in CD 1624 are far from perfect, especially the mandate on nuclear disarmament. The NPT delivered a mandate which is very clear in its call for the CD to "deal" with nuclear disarmament. The language before us is significantly weaker, nevertheless we have been prepared to work with it. You will recall I made an informal suggestion to strengthen the nuclear disarmament mandate last week. We appreciate, however, that at this stage we must all remain focussed on what can be realistically and practically achieved.

Mr President, we would be hesitant about and would carefully have to consider our positions on proposals that divert attention to "make work solutions for the CD, if they were to reduce the relevance of this negotiating body to that of a debating society. Moreover, proposals for thematic discussions, however well intentioned, run a risk of providing convenient cover for those who do not want to engage in real negotiations. Positions could become more and not less entrenched. But, the time may fast be coming when we have to take a hard look at how this Conference is delivering on its mandate.

This is a defining moment for the CD. Mr President you are. absolutely right in your observation that the Conference's negotiating mandate is as unique as it is necessary for all of us committed to further progress on disarmament.

At a time when there are disturbing signs of a preference for unilateral solutions or options, it is essential for the continuation of multilateralism that this body reengages in real work. We fully support unilateral arms reductions, but not unilateral action which might impact negatively on disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation.

While each of us has the right to determine our own security and defence needs, history and commonsense demonstrate that unilateralism will not guarantee international security. This a collective responsibility. We need to be careful not to misappropriate strategic considerations to conceal procrastination on disarmament.

Mr President, let us be clear also at this crucial moment in the CD that disarmament is a securitybuilding process and not an optional extra. Those disarmament pledges made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference are far reaching. Disinclination will undermine and discredit the nonproliferation regime. Seven months have passed and the opportunity to build on the NPT success has not yet been grasped.

Mr President, you have pointed out to us that this is "a brand new day". It is time for Nuclear Weapon States to settle their differences and to jointly start implementing their commitments with purpose and determination. We are ready to compromise to achieve a Programme of Work, and we are looking to others in this chamber to do the same, and to do it now.

Mr President, I thank you