Transcribed Statement of the Ambassador of Ukraine, Mr.Mykhailo Skuratovskyi
to the Conference on Disarmament

2/8/01

Mr. President,

Allow me to begin with welcoming your assumption of the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and to ensure you in full support and cooperation on the part of the delegation of Ukraine.

Our delegation is equally pleased to take this opportunity and express our gratitude to your predecessors for their tireless efforts to move forward the Conference's work.Ê Likewise I wish to thank the CD Secretary-General Mr. Petrovsky, his Deputy Mr. Roman-Morey and the staff of the Secretariat for valuable support of our work.

Mr. President,

You have inherited from your predecessors the draft decision on the programme of work, as contained in document CD/1624, which our delegation supported not only as a basis for further intensified consultations but also as a basis for possible consensus.Ê Ukraine attaches importance to a number of particular elements of this package.Ê This position reflects our recognition of the role of the CD in negotiating many important multilateral agreements that helped to secure non-proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction as well as our firm conviction that the Conference is capable of continuing to contribute efficiently to strengthening international peace and stability. The voluntary renunciation of nuclear weapons by Ukraine, which acceded to teh NPT as a non-nuclear weapon nation in 1994, could hardly be overestimated in the context of the current situation in the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

These unprecedented steps in parallel with similar actions of other newly independent states of the former USSR and renunciation of national nuclear military programmes by the others could serve as an example of great moral significance and political courage to be followed.

Having become one of the legal successors of the former USSR to the START-I Treaty, UKraine has made a significant reduction of strategic offensive armaments deployed on its territory which equalled to the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world.Ê At present Ukraine has embarked upon the third and final phase of reducing the strategic arms which is to be completed by December this year.Ê We are convinced that the START process should be sustained and developed further on by decisive steps of the states parties.

Ukraine realizes the important role the ABM Treaty played during the latest decades in the system of international legal instruments in the sphere of disarmament and arms control.Ê It should be mentioned that last January the Parliament of Ukraine ratified the Memorandum on Understanding on the ABM Treaty thus logically continuing the policy of our country aimed at its equal participation in the treaties ensuring the world strategic stability.Ê We believe that the review of the national security strategy in the USA should not lead to a deterioration of the global strategic stability situation and resumption of the arms race.Ê Ukraine understands the necessity of non-conflict adaptation of the ABM Treaty with due taking into account of the problems that emerge in connection with the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies as well as the weapons of mass destruction.

Ukraine reaffirms its commitment to the NPT.Ê Our country, which has been an active contributor to the successful outcome of the last year's Sixth Review Conference of the NPT the first review conference since the adoption of the decision to extend the Treaty indefinitely-welcomed the important results of this forum.Ê We attach special importance to the adoption by the Review Conference of the action plan on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty which include practical tasks that directly concern the Conference on Disarmament.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is rightfully regarded as another key element in the architecture of strategic stability and as a major complementary effort to the non-proliferation. We fully share the opinion that the conclusion of the CTBT is a standing proof of the continuing relevance of the CD as a single multilateral disarmamentÊ negotiating forum.Ê The initial role of the Treaty is significant in its essence: to stop or considerably constrain the nuclear states from upgrading their nuclear arsenals and to prevent the emergence of new nuclear weapon states. In last November the Parliament of Ukraine adopted laws on the ratification of the CTBT and on the ratification of the CTBT and on the ratification of the agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO on the activities relating to international monitoring facilities for the CTBT. We hope that the necessary steps to ratify the CTBT will be taken by all nuclear weapon nations, which is crucial in the light of their obligation under article VI of the NPT, and it would substantially promote the ratification of the Treaty by other states-parties that the entry into force of the CTBT depends upon.

Another clear priority in the advancement of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament is the negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).Ê This treaty, in our view, would provide valuable security benefits to both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states.Ê It is discouraging to note, especially for the Ukrainian delegation, which presided at the CD at the time the Conference, established in 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate a FMCT, that such negotiations have not progressed.

This particular deadlock in our work might be caused by the lack of the necessary confidence between the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states.Ê Our delegation remains committed to negotiating FMCT and stands ready to participate in this process.

At the same time we recognize that other aspects of the item 1 of the CD agenda deserve our attention as well.Ê The Conference has its undeniable role to play in promoting nuclear disarmament, keeping in mind that such a role should be constructive and beneficial to all members of the international community.

Mr. President,

To be efficient the Conference may establish subsidiary bodies by its decision in accordance with the rules of procedure.Ê We all understand that distinctions between the names of the subsidiary bodies are not clear-cut and allow wide margin of flexibility to reflect the level of political significance of an issue to be negotiated, to demonstrate that some items are ripe for negotiations while some preparatory prenegotiation work is necessary with regard to some other issues.

We regret that in the past few years the Conference missed the opportunity to establish such subsidiary bodies as working groups, technical groups, groups of governmental experts that proved to be particularly suitable for prenegotiation activities on technically complex and politically controversial issues. We applauded the outcome of the efforts of our former President that resulted in the appointment of the three Special Coordinators.Ê However, we reluctantly accepted the practice of appointing Special Coordinators by decision of the Conference and negotiating the mandate of their activities.Ê There is no mentioning of Special Coordinators in the CD rules of procedure and they should not be regarded as some kind of low-profile subsidiary mechanism.Ê Their tasks and responsibilities are formulated in the document CD/1036, the CD President is entitled to appoint a Special Coordinator, but before proceeding to such an appointment the President should secure the consensus support from delegations.Ê In this particulart case consensus means that all delegations agree that some concrete issue is relevant, the aim of Special Coordinator work to see views of delegations and prepare acceptable to all mandate of the subsidiary body.Ê Special Coordinators on specific issues should be appointed by the above-mentioned procedure.

To give more weight and significance to decisions to be adopted by the Conference on the establishment of the subsidiary bodies and on their mandates, their drafting being normally very time consuming, we propose to include into such decisions the provision stating that subsidiary body will perform its work until fulfilling its mandate or until at least one delegation withdraws its support for previously adopted decision.

It is really vital for the Conference, in our opinion, to leave behind the practice of annually reopening the same procedural discussions detracting us from reaching agreement on how to deal with the substantive issues.Ê The delegations' work should cease to conceal itself behind the anonymous facade of the presidential consultations.Ê Other options and formats of substantive discussions should be explored, including those proposed by the Foreign Minister of Ukraine in his address to the Conference on 9 March last year.Ê On our part, we are open to various initiatives put forward by our colleagues with the aim to make the CD more operational and effective.Ê We believe that such an exploration by joint efforts, focusing on the specific interests of individual participants, would allow us to change things for the better.

Thank you.