CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM CANADA, UKRAINE, SWITZERLAND AND NIGERIA

The Conference on Disarmament today heard a statement from Sri Lanka, as incoming President of the Conference, as well as speeches from Canada, Ukraine, Switzerland and Nigeria on general issues of disarmament, including an Arms Trade Treaty and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, the incoming President of the Conference, said the Council Members needed to redouble their efforts to create the conditions for the realization of their shared objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world. All of them had a collective responsibility and engagement in the historic cause of disarmament and non-proliferation initiated by the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly calling for the elimination of atomic weapons and "all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction". During Sri Lanka's Presidency, an evaluation would be made on the basis of which the planning of activities for the second half of this year would be determined.

Canada introduced a working paper on the connection between verification and scope in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). The paper started from the premise that an effective verification mechanism was an important element that, at least initially, should build upon existing verification tools used by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The paper also assumed that an FMCT would only cover future production, but, in light of the potential diversion risk, provided for alternatives to address existing stocks.

Ukraine, speaking on the issue of an Arms Trade Treaty, said Ukraine's policy in the sphere of international arms transfers was based on the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as on the international regime of control of exports of munitions and dual-use goods, the Wassenaar Arrangement. Nevertheless, as there was currently no comprehensive international binding instrument available to provide protection from arms transfers to terrorist groups, Ukraine believed that the Conference should move without further delay to commence negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty.

Switzerland addressed a number of issues, including mine action, efforts to combat illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, the negative effects of armed violence on development and the need to draft a treaty on submunitions. With regard to armed violence and development, Switzerland recalled the Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development, adopted last year, and said Switzerland and other States were working on a plan of action to implement the Declaration's commitments, including a quantifiable reduction in global armed conflicts by 2015.

Nigeria, in a wide-ranging general statement, said it accepted the first logical and sensible step in addressing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was an early start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). Such a treaty should address existing stocks and future production, which was not only necessary to build confidence, but also for erecting the building blocks to drive collective efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. In addition, Nigeria believed that providing unconditional, uniform, comprehensive, effective and legally binding negative security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was both urgent and necessary.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Friday, 23 March, at 5 p.m.

Statements

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament,
first read out a message of good wishes addressed to the Conference by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka, Rohitha Bogollagama, which said that Sri Lanka's assumption of the Conference Presidency was yet another manifestation of its commitment to and belief in multilateral diplomacy as the indispensable means to address major global challenges and enhance the prospects of a stable, just and peaceful world. The Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament matters, had a proud history of codification and remained relevant in its constant endeavour to free the world from all weapons of mass destruction. The international community was eagerly waiting for the Conference to get down to substantive work, and the Foreign Minister wished them the very best in endeavours towards achieving that goal.

Continuing with her own statement, the President observed that Sri Lanka was assuming the Presidency of the Conference at a time of both critical challenge and opportunity for that body. Having remained in impasse over the last several years, many appeared disheartened over the prospects of the Conference, reasoning that it was a reflection of a broader global malaise affecting the entire multilateral disarmament machinery. The Members of the Conference needed to redouble their efforts to create the conditions for the realization of their shared objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world. All of them had a collective responsibility and engagement in the historic cause of disarmament and non-proliferation initiated by the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly of 24 January 1946 calling for the elimination of atomic weapons and "all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction". It was against that background that that initiative had been born in 2006 and 2007 to build a common platform for the year, in the hope of enabling Member States to narrow their differences and reach common understandings. At the same time, they needed to keep in mind that the Conference, although the master of its own proceedings, was nevertheless responsible to the international community as a whole. They needed to ask themselves whether they had discharged their responsibilities diligently. Sri Lanka's Presidency would also cover week 10 of the Six Presidents' (P6) platform during which an evaluation would be made on the basis of which the planning of activities for the second half of this year would be determined. In conducting that exercise, Sri Lanka would be acting together with the other 2007 Presidents, wielding the collective responsibility that was the cornerstone of the P6 platform, in an open, transparent manner.

The President announced that the P6 would hold consultations with regional groups this week, at the end of which the Presidents would make proposals concerning the P6 programme in an informal meeting on Friday. That informal meeting would be followed by a formal plenary at 5 p.m.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), introducing a new working paper on the connection between verification and scope in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), said that the Canadian paper started from the premise that an effective verification mechanism was an important element of an non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament agreement. An FMCT verification regime should involve measures to ensure confidence that all States parties were complying with their treaty-based commitment not to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. But the paper also recognized that the characteristics of an appropriate verification mechanism depended to a large degree on the scope of the agreement. It also bore in mind that the verification system should, at least initially, build upon existing verification tools used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in which States already had a high degree of confidence.

The paper looked at two other challenges for verification, namely existing stocks of fissile material, and production of fissile material for non-explosive purposes. The paper assumed that an FMCT would only cover future production. In light of the potential diversion risk, however, existing stocks would be addressed in some manner. Canada suggested that nuclear weapon States and States not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) should complement a production cut-off by declaring existing fissile material inventories to the broadest extent possible, and accepting the application of verification provisions to the degree possible. Those States should also ensure that fissile material declared surplus to military needs be subject to international control, as indeed some had already done. The paper also assumed that an FMCT would not prohibit production for military, non-explosive purposes, such as for naval propulsion, nor would it prohibit production for civilian uses, such as the production of radioisotopes. That was certainly a challenge for a verification mechanism, but not an insurmountable one. Such a scenario was already addressed under the safeguards system of the IAEA.

YEVHEN BERSHEDA (Ukraine) said Ukraine commended the increased attention of the Security Council to the acute problem of the need to combat illicit arms. Ukraine was seriously concerned, however, about violations of the Council-imposed sanctions against illegal arms trade. Ukraine had always strictly followed the policy of selling arms and military equipment to legitimate Governments or to the companies authorized by such Governments. Ukraine had established an effective and reliable export control regime system for arms sales and was taking further measures to strengthen it. At the same time, global practice now indicated that no matter how strong the export control measures a particular State established, it could not give a total guarantee against subsequent violations by third parties. Therefore, Ukraine supported the project of an Arms Trade Treaty, which aimed to elaborate effective measures that would prevent the re-selling of arms from the "end-users" to third parties, and to close gaps in relevant international instruments.

Ukraine thoroughly considered applications for transfers of weapons and dual-use goods, especially in cases of transfers to embargoed destinations or to the countries and regions which had triggered the concern of the international community. Ukraine's policy in the sphere of international arms transfers was consistent and responsible, and was based on the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as on the international regime of control of exports of munitions and dual-use goods, the Wassenaar Arrangement. Nevertheless, Ukraine was concerned by the presence of serious drawbacks in certain international export control regimes that allowed third countries to violate arms trade regulations. As there was currently no comprehensive international binding instrument available to provide protection from arms transfers to terrorist groups, Ukraine believed that the Conference should move without further delay to commence negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty.

JÜRG STREULI (Switzerland) recalled that it would soon be the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Ottawa Convention on landmines, which, with the recent accession of Indonesia, now had 152 States parties. While progress had been made, challenges remained. For Switzerland, the universalization of the Ottawa Convention was a priority. In addition, the Conference could not ignore the challenge presented by armed non-State entities that used anti-personnel mines if it wanted to prevent further victims. This year Switzerland would adopt a new mine action strategy and ensure adequate funds to meet the challenges in that sphere till 2009 and beyond. Switzerland also supported and contributed to national dialogue on the integration of mine action into development. With regard to victim assistance, which was another priority, Switzerland recalled that it did not end with rehabilitation, but required continued support to provide for the socio-economic reintegration of victims. Turning to the combat against illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, Switzerland was convinced that the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was a major achievement. It was the only UN instrument containing a comprehensive catalogue of means to prevent illegal trade in small arms and light weapons and it was the only such document that had been accepted by all Member States. Switzerland, while welcoming the global follow-up programme which would hold its biannual review in 2008, felt that progress in this field could be made in the context of the informal working group that was to be held in Geneva this August.

Switzerland was also committed to the need to take greater account of the negative effects of armed violence on development. For that reason Switzerland and the UN Development Programme had taken the initiative to hold a ministerial summit on armed violence and development in Geneva last year, which had adopted the Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development, signed by 42 States. Since then, many others had joined the Declaration and Switzerland and other States were working on a plan of action to implement the Declaration's commitments, including a quantifiable reduction in global armed conflicts by 2015. Finally, Switzerland welcomed the new forum of discussion for submunitions, which had been launched by Norway during an International Conference on Submunitions held in Oslo a few weeks ago. Fifty States were party to that forum, and Participating States, encouraged by the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and civil society, had declared their political will to conclude, by 2008, an international treaty prohibiting the use, production, transfer for stockpiling of such weapons which represented an unacceptable humanitarian threat. Switzerland called for universal adherence to such a treaty.

MARTIN I. UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said that, over the years, they had witnessed some positive, though slow progress towards nuclear disarmament. On the positive side, the Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions were now being implemented, even though the world could do with more effective measures to strengthen those legal regimes, including their universalization. However, on the flip side, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would have put a stop to the quantitative and qualitative research and development of nuclear weapons, had yet to come into force. In view of its importance for collective security, Nigeria called on those States that had not yet done so to ratify that instrument without delay.

The only effective and credible guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination. The reality was that non-proliferation would remain a mirage unless there was total commitment towards nuclear disarmament. That was why Nigeria fully accepted that the first logical and sensible step in addressing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was an early start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). Such a treaty should address existing stocks and future production, which was not only necessary to build confidence, but also for erecting the building blocks to drive collective efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. However, while they all had to work assiduously to see the total elimination of nuclear arsenals and their means of delivery, the Conference did not have to wait. Nigeria believed that the international community had to begin now to create effective measures to assure the security of non-nuclear weapon States. The unilateral declarations made by the four nuclear weapon States and Security Council resolutions on security assurances had not fulfilled the expectations and requirements of non-nuclear weapon States. Nigeria believed that providing unconditional, uniform, comprehensive, effective and legally binding negative security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States parties to the NPT was both urgent and absolutely necessary. In conclusion, Nigeria invited the Conference to recognize the grave danger posed by small arms and light weapons and to drive the ongoing UN process to negotiate a Global Arms Trade Treaty.