CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT BY NORWEGIAN DEPUTY DEFENCE MINISTER

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a statement by Norway’s Deputy Defence Minister. It also heard statements by Zimbabwe as the incoming President of the Conference, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Egypt.

Espen Barth Eide, Deputy Defence Minister of Norway, said that this was a pivotal moment for disarmament. In the past weeks and months there had been remarkable trends towards a renewed focus on international cooperation in general and disarmament affairs in particular. President Obama’s expressed commitments to seek multilateral solutions to common threats had set the stage for substantial achievements in disarmament and non-proliferation. Other examples included the new commitments to multilateral negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and the will to negotiate with Russia on new reductions of strategic weapon, amongst others signals. This suggested that there was a new atmosphere of cooperation and everyone committed to the cause of international disarmament needed to take this opportunity very seriously. His main message was that it was extremely important that the Conference on Disarmament make the full use of these possibilities. It was also time to review the way the Conference on Disarmament worked.

Mr. Eide said that to assure rapid progress, he believed that it was necessary to engage civil society in the Conference; they needed the impatience of the non-governmental organizations. Further, at a time when the international community had to grapple with challenges ranging from adaptation to climate change, the spread of pandemic diseases, the fall-out from the global financial crisis, and humanitarian and development challenges, the international community could not afford the staggering cost that nuclear weapons entailed.

In response to the statement by the Deputy Defense Minister of Norway, New Zealand said it was very important to move beyond the narrow issues that had prevented progress in the Conference and to take up the challenges that the broader security situation presented them with. The United Kingdom said that it was also important to acknowledge that the world had changed. Politics had started to evolve to a collective endeavour. States were now interconnected, as reflected by communication revolutions, but also through the impact of the current economic crisis.

Today’s meeting was the first under Zimbabwe’s presidency. In his introductory remarks, Ambassador Chitsaka Chipaziwa of Zimbabwe, the President of the Conference, said that Zimbabwe was greatly honoured to assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. His country had become a member of the Conference soon after its independence in 1980 and took its membership seriously. They were also pleased to come from a nuclear free continent and it was their cherished goal that Africa remained a nuclear-free zone for all time. But this did not preclude their welcoming the civilian use of nuclear energy for power generations and in the medical sciences. Turning to the work of the Conference, he noted that the informal debates on the seven thematic issues were all well underway. It was his intention to follow the organisation of work they had adopted and he stood ready to engage with members and others who might desire consultations on any relevant issues. Their more immediate common cherished goal remained of course, to agree on a programme of work.

Also speaking today, Egypt said that the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament had to remain the top priority of the Conference. Complete nuclear disarmament was Egypt’s highest priority. In their view, the continued existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to peace and security and their elimination was a necessity for the very survival of the human race. Also in their view, the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty was the ripest issue for negotiations. It would be wise not to waste such a tangible opportunity to bring the Conference out of its present quagmire.

The next public plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on Thursday, 19 February at 10 a.m.

Statements

ESPEN BARTH EIDE, Deputy Defence Minister of Norway, said that it was a great pleasure for him to address the Conference today. This was a pivotal moment for disarmament. In the past weeks and months there had been remarkable trends towards a renewed focus on international cooperation in general and disarmament affairs in particular. President Obama’s expressed commitments to seek multilateral solutions to common threats had set the stage for substantial achievements in disarmament and non-proliferation. The Vice President of the United States had reconfirmed this at the recent Munich Security Conference. It was truly a new spirit that came out of the new United States’ Administration.

Other examples included the new commitments to multilateral negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, including verification; the stated intentions to seek ratification of a comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the will to negotiate with Russia on new reductions of strategic weapon; the willingness to look into the possibility of taking remaining nuclear weapons of alert-status; stopping the development of new nuclear weapons; and seeking agreements on Anti-Satellite weapons, said Mr. Eide. Likewise was President Medvedev’s announcement to suspend the announced deployment of missiles in Kaliningrad and Russia’s pledge that it stood ready to work with the Obama Administration to strengthen the weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation regime.

Thirdly in the United Kingdom, Germany and other European Union countries, senior officials were speaking out in favour of a complete elimination of nuclear arsenals. All these signals suggested that there was a new atmosphere of cooperation and everyone committed to the cause of international disarmament needed to take this opportunity very seriously, stressed Mr. Eide. His main message was that it was extremely important that the Conference on Disarmament made the full use of these possibilities.

The Conference on Disarmament was unique, as all the de-facto nuclear States were members of the Conference and it could have a great potential towards advancing the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, if members States were willing to make use of its potential. They had an instrument; they had to use it and to fill it with political content, said Mr. Eide. It was also time to review the way the Conference on Disarmament worked. To assure rapid progress, he believed that it was necessary to engage civil society. They needed civil society to contribute with innovative approaches and to help mobilize the necessary political will to move forward.

The launching of Global Zero last December and international campaigns to build public awareness and political support for a nuclear weapons’ treaty had been done by a high-level group of political, military, business, faith and civic leaders from around the world. They had experienced this kind of work in other parts of the disarmament agenda; both the process leading up to the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions were excellent examples of the potential that lay in the strong partnership between States and civil society, said Mr. Eide. It had been the interplay between the formal and the informal that had led to the successful outcome.

Nuclear weapons were indeed from another category than cluster munitions and antipersonnel landmines, but he believed that there were parallels and lessons to be learned from the humanitarian disarmament approach, which could benefit their work in disarmament and non-proliferation. They should recognise the non-governmental organizations as valuable partners. They needed the impatience of the non-governmental organizations. Another important lesson from these two processes was that they had been open to all nations; this was not the case in the Conference. This could undermine the legitimacy of future treaties, said Mr. Eide.

Further, they had to take forceful action to ensure that the nuclear non-proliferation threat stepped up to the challenge and that the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference became a success, strengthening all three pillars of the Treaty. Energy access and energy security would continue to be a critical part of the general development agenda, noted Mr. Eide. As demand for nuclear energy would certainly increase, it was vital to ensure that the third pillar of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, be strengthened.

The entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was crucial. Norway urged the remaining signatories, whose ratification was required for the Treaty to enter into force, to ratify urgently. The most efficient way to combat the spectre of nuclear terrorism was through the full implementation of an effectively verifiable Fissile-Material Cut Off Treaty, combined with a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with robust verification mechanisms and a verifiable irreversible nuclear disarmament, underscored Mr. Eide.

All members had committed themselves to the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The recent discussion in the Conference had shown that it was time to break the deadlock. Questions concerning definition and scopes, including existing stocks, should be dealt with in the course of the negotiations, said Mr. Eide.

As he saw it, they had now a unique opportunity. Either they would put the nuclear genie back into the bottle and devise a control and verification mechanism, necessary to ensure its use for peaceful purposes, or they could continue on the road to their self-destruction. To date, nuclear weapons had been regarded in isolation from the larger agenda of international security policy. But there were major changes taking place in the geopolitical landscape; new powers emerging and new power relations emerged. Lasting security could not be achieved through the acquisition of nuclear weapons. At a time when the international community had to grapple with challenges ranging from adaptation to climate change, the spread of pandemic diseases, the fall-out from the global financial crisis, and humanitarian and development challenges, the international community could not afford the staggering cost that nuclear weapons entailed, noted Mr. Eide.

Norway remained full committed to all these fields and the Conference on Disarmament was not an end in itself; it had a vital role to play in making the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. Its value lay in its ability to deliver credible results. If this body remained paralysed, there would be stronger calls for considering other avenues to move the issues forward, said Mr. Eide.

DAN MACKAY (New Zealand) expressed the appreciation of New Zealand for the statement made by the Deputy Defence Minster of Norway today; it contained a number of important elements. What the Minister had done today had been to place what the Conference was doing and had to do in the context of a much broader strategic situation. It was very important to move beyond the narrow issues that had prevented progress in the Conference and to take up the challenges that the broader security situation presented them with.

In his statement the Minister had also addressed the role of the civil society. It was clear, by looking at other bodies operating in disarmament and human rights, that civil society had a huge contribution to make to debates, said Mr. Mackay.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that it was by the presence of politicians that they would be able to move their agenda forward, not only civil society. It was also important to acknowledge that the world had changed. Politics had started to evolve to a collective endeavour. States were now interconnected, as reflected by communication revolutions, the Internet, but also through the impact of the current economic crisis.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in introductory remarks, thanked all the delegations for their valuable cooperation and wisdom which had allowed this year’s P-6 to guide their work so far. His predecessor, Ambassador Le Hoai Trung of Viet Nam, had shouldered the heavy responsibility of preparing them all for the first plenary meetings of this year’s session. He had showed great skill and understanding of the complex issues.

Mr. Chipaziwa said that Zimbabwe was greatly honoured to assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. His country had become a member of the Conference soon after its independence in 1980. His country took seriously its membership as a principled Member State of the United Nations which valued its own independence, peace, cooperation and the territorial integrity of all members, irrespective of their size. Zimbabwe had made contributions to international peace and security under the United Nations banner when members of its uniformed services had served in several United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. On their continent, they were at peace with all their neighbours.

In the Conference on Disarmament, Zimbabwe undertook to be a peaceful interlocutor and actor. They were pleased to come from a nuclear free continent and it was their cherished goal that Africa remain a nuclear-free zone for all time. But this did not preclude their welcoming the civilian use of nuclear energy for power generations and in the medical sciences, said Mr. Chipaziwa. It was also a fact that the Conference had not produced any notable negotiated result over the last decade. Only its members could change this status quo.

Mr. Chipaziwa noted that the informal debates on the seven thematic issues were all well underway. It was his intention to follow the organisation of work they had adopted and he stood ready to engage with members and others who might desire consultations on any relevant issues. Their more immediate common cherished goal remained of course to agree on a programme of work.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said, on the issue of the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, that it had to remain the top priority of the Conference. The International Court of Justice, had in 1996, concluded that there was an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Complete nuclear disarmament was Egypt’s highest priority. In their view, the continued existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to peace and security and their elimination was a necessity for the very survival of the human race. Also, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were interrelated.

Mr. Badr also said that Egypt reafrfimed its support for the creation of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones as important steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Conference on Disarmament, with its primary role, was without a doubt the appropriate forum in which to negotiate and conclude a non-proliferation treaty. It was imperative that the Conference promptly worked towards fulfilling its role.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), in a second statement on the prevention of nuclear war and in particular with reference to a proposed Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, said this issue was the one ripest for negotiations. Two of the most prominent proposals to revitalize the Conference through adopting a programme of work in the past years had contained a negotiating mandate for such a treaty. It was also interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of members of the Conference had at one stage or another supported negotiating a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty.

Mr. Badr said that it would be wise not to waste such a tangible opportunity to bring the Conference out of its present quagmire. They believed that the most appropriate way forward was to foster consensus around previously agreed upon outcomes. Egypt stood ready to fully and immediately support a programme of work that took such matters effectively into consideration.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09008E