CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT BEGINS THIRD AND FINAL SEGMENT OF THE 2016 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning opened the third and final segment of its 2016 session.

Ambassador Piotr Stachańczyk of Poland, President of the Conference, informed that an informal plenary meeting, seminar-style, would take place on Tuesday, 9 August, with the participation of two outside experts, and all States were encouraged to partake.

South Africa stated that arguments in favour of the retention of nuclear weapons only served as an encouragement for proliferation and undermined the nuclear non-proliferation regime. China referred to the June 2016 declaration by the Presidents of China and Russia on strengthening global security, which emphasized the maintenance of the global strategic balance and security. The Russian Federation stated that the problem of strategic stability was not a problem of nuclear weapon States only, but all countries had to work together to address it.

The United Kingdom informed of the July 2016 decision to maintain the country’s independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation demanded. The United States emphasized that its ballistic defence missile programmes were defensive in nature, and not threatening Russia and China. The Republic of Korea condemned the 19 July missile launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and asked the international community to stand united against such provocations.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea expressed its belief in the principle of deterrence against the threat by the United States, which led an aggressive, anachronistic policy in East Asia. Japan called upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not to take any further provocative actions. Spain stated that the Security Council resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reflected the will of the international community and had to be respected. Australia expressed its concern over the strategy adopted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The next public plenary meeting will take place on Thursday, 4 August at 10 a.m.

Statements

Ambassador PIOTR STACHAŃCZYK of Poland, President of the Conference, reminded that on 30 June he had officially proposed a draft programme of work, which regrettably had not received consensual support. The primary focus should be seeking solutions to the lengthy stalemate. The 2016 session was coming to an end, but the President stood ready to meet and consult any delegations who wanted to do so. The President intended to start debates at the Conference on main challenges to disarmament. Thus, an informal plenary meeting, seminar-style, was planned on 9 August, at which two outside experts would take part. All States, especially nuclear States, were encourage to participate in the event.

South Africa stated that the Conference had for too long been denied the opportunity to fulfil its rightful role as the world’s single multilateral negotiating forum. Since the end of the Cold War, a number of instruments on disarmament had been developed and adopted, but regrettably none of them had been adopted by the Conference. South Africa attached great importance to consensus decision-making, but that practice had to be questioned when a tiny minority vetoed the will of the overwhelming majority. The consensus rule in the Conference was not meant to stifle progress. While not all States might be immediately ready to join instruments negotiated in the Conference, that should not prevent it from undertaking the task with which it had been entrusted. South Africa stressed that the nuclear non-proliferation regime was under significant stress, in the denial of the fact that nuclear weapons posed an existential threat to humanity. It was time to acknowledge that arguments in favour of the retention of nuclear weapons only served as an encouragement for proliferation and undermined the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Conference had been established to create new norms to secure a better world and future for generations to come, said South Africa.

China was deeply appalled by the heavy loss of lives in terrorist attacks across the world in recent weeks. China had always been opposed to terrorism of all kinds, which ought to be fought by the joint forces of the international community. China would continue to work with the President on defining a future programme of work. In June 2016, the Presidents of China and Russia had signed a declaration on strengthening global security. The two Presidents attached great importance to the maintenance of global strategic balance and security. Some States sought decisive advantages in military technology which had shaken the global security balance and ran counter to the norms of international monitoring. The major root cause undermining global security was that some States stubbornly refused reducing those weapons which guaranteed them strategic advantage. The unilateral development and deployment of anti-ballistic missiles, in Europe and the Asia Pacific, had affected international security, balance and stability. The weaponization of outer space was also intensifying, while terrorist and non-State groups were as likely as ever to reach chemical and biological weapons, which was why international instruments in those two fields were necessary. Disarmament and arms control needed to be balanced and fair, and should aim at strengthening every country’s security.

Russian Federation was ready to continue working to break the deadlock in the Conference. Russia and China were submitting, as an official document, the joint statement by the Presidents of Russia and China on strengthening global stability, which had been signed on 25 June 2016. In the last several years, global strategic stability had faced a lack of confidence by certain States. Certain blocs were developing global anti-missile defence systems and high-precision weapons able to reach targets in any part of the world. The threat of an appearance of weapons in space could not be overlooked, which was why the Conference should elaborate an international legally binding agreement in that regard. The basis for that agreement could be found in the joint Russian-Chinese draft. Weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists, which was another serious threat, and that was the reason Russia had proposed a draft proposal on combatting biological and chemical terrorism. Russia was asking its partners to look at the current situation in full seriousness and take steps to prevent the exacerbation of the already grave situation of the world. The problem of strategic stability was not a problem of nuclear weapon States only; instead, all countries had to work to address it together.

United Kingdom informed that on 18 July, the House of Commons had overwhelmingly voted for the motion concerning the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. The country’s independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent would remain essential to its security today and for as long as the global security situation demanded. Further shifts which would put the United Kingdom, or its NATO allies, under grave threat could not be ruled out. The past two years had seen a disturbing increase in Russian rhetoric about the use of nuclear weapons and the frequency of snap nuclear exercises. Abandoning the nuclear deterrent unilaterally would undermine the country’s security and that of its allies; no safer system than deterrence was yet in view. As long as nuclear weapons existed, NATO would remain a nuclear alliance. The motion also called for necessary steps required to maintain the current posture by replacing the current Vanguard Class submarines with four Successor submarines. The point was to maintain the existing deterrent rather than upgrade the capabilities. The United Kingdom would employ its nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances or self-defence, including the defence of its NATO allies. The United Kingdom continued to assure that it would not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any Non-Nuclear Weapons State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

United States said that, regarding strategic stability, President Obama maintained that the United States was committed to cooperating with China in that regard. Developing a common understanding on strategic stability was important, for which a proper framework ought to exist. United States ballistic defence missile programmes were defensive in nature, something that the United States was open about. Such systems were not threatening Russia and China. Regional missile defence deployments were due to the threats posed to the allies of the United States and the homeland; they were tailored for specific threats by the “DPRK” and would not hamper the regional balance. In response to the threat by “North Korea”, the United States and the Republic of Korea had consulted and agreed to deploy defence systems in the Republic of Korea for purely defence purposes. The United States would continue to take prudent steps in that direction, while the “DPRK” should continue to be pressured to denuclearize. The sites in Romania and Poland were in ideal positions to defend NATO allies against missiles coming from outside Europe. The United States and NATO were open about the systems capabilities. The United States condemned the 19 July missile launched by the “DPRK”. The American commitment to the defence of its allies, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, remained iron-clad.

Republic of Korea stated that on 28 June, a number of countries in the Conference had pointed at the unacceptable behaviour by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had launched a new missile on 19 July, in a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions; such acts of provocation had to cease immediately. The international community had to stand united to put an end to such provocations. The Republic of Korea kept the right to undertake all defensive measures.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that in mid-July, the British Prime Minister had mentioned a potential nuclear threat from countries such as Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In response, the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated that the United Kingdom was using it as a pretext for building up its nuclear programme. The United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons were not a threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom should not consider the “DPRK’s nukes” as a threat to itself. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believed in the principle of deterrence against the threat by the United States. Whenever missile launches were conducted, the United States and its allies called it a provocation, but the United States should look at the fact that it was posing a serious threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as it had brought serious assets to the Republic of Korea. The United States pursued an anachronistic foreign policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as part of its aggressive, neo-colonialist pivot policy towards Asia. Peace and security on the Korean peninsula were seriously threatened due to the American sabre rattling. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was only taking self-protective measures.

Japan echoed the statements by the United States and the Republic of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had conducted more missile launches on 19 July, violating numerous resolutions and disturbing peace and security in the region. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was called upon not to take any further provocative actions.

Spain recalled the responsibilities on the Sanctions Committee for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Security Council’s resolutions reflected the will of the international community and ought to be respected.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea asked all countries to take an unbiased stand on the overall situation and contribute to the peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and the entire world. Some countries’ actions were counter-productive. The root causes of the situation on the Korean peninsula ought to be looked at.

Australia expressed its concern over the strategy adopted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and urged that the relevant Security Council resolutions be implemented.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC16/031E