CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM DIGNITARIES OF MEXICO AND SPAIN
The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from the Under-Secretary for Human Rights and Multilateral Affairs of Mexico, stressing the need for a renewed commitment from the international community to the obligations and rights enshrined in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, who analysed the future of disarmament from the standpoint of the interrelationship between peace, security and development. The Conference also heard three brief statements from the Representatives of Sweden, Venezuela and Tunisia, in praise of Spain's efforts in the areas of peace and disarmament.
Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo, Under-Secretary for Human Rights and Multilateral Affairs of Mexico, reaffirmed that nuclear disarmament continued to be Mexico's priority for the disarmament agenda. In the meantime, aware that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were inextricably linked, Mexico had made important strides in the fight against non-proliferation. Mexico was also prepared to begin negotiation on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, without preconditions, but underscored that such an instrument would have to provide a verification instrument and cover existing stockpiles. Finally, Mexico said that the international community's commitment to all the rights and obligations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had to be renewed. In that connection, Mexico was concerned that a State party to the NPT had concluded an agreement on nuclear cooperation with a non-State party, which, if not against the letter of that Treaty, was against its spirit, as it voided its fundamental objectives.
Miguel Angel Moratinos, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, said the international community expected effective contributions from this forum to address the future of disarmament, because peace was the condition sina qua non for the development of regions and countries. Today, insecurity was not exclusively the result of aggressor States, but also included non-State actors, terrorists and other criminal groups. The deterioration of security had made the development of nations and peoples more difficult, because violence made it impossible for people to progress. The new approach to security was not based solely on its military component, or determined by a conventional concept of war, or a lack of bellicose activity among States. The European Security Strategy identified five major threats: weapons proliferation, especially weapons of mass destruction; terrorism; failed States; regional conflicts; and organized crime, which today took the form of networks for the trafficking in persons, drugs, arms and other criminal purposes. The Conference had to offer effective solutions to combat those threats to global security. The most appropriate course to follow was that of diplomatic and political agreement including the negotiation of multilateral and legally binding arms control instruments.
At the end of the meeting, President Juan Antonio March of Spain announced that this was the last meeting under the Spanish Presidency, during which the members had completed their first round of consultations to worked out positions that would be assessed during the tenth week of the Conference.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 20 March, at 10 a.m., under the Presidency of Sri Lanka.
Statements
JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO, Under-Secretary for Human Rights and Multilateral Affairs of Mexico, noting that the procedure of "structured debates" had been undertaken in the Conference for three years now, said that, as a result, they had progressed in understanding each other better, in establishing a dialogue, and in clearing up sources of mistrust and misunderstanding. But they still had not been able to agree on a programme of work and, more importantly, had not been able to fulfil the mandate of the Conference, which was to negotiate disarmament agreements. The new working procedures had been useful, but they had to avoid becoming a mere debating society and to reassume their responsibilities. In 2005, in the context of the General Assembly's First Committee, Mexico and other countries had proposed an alternative mechanism that made it possible to move forward on disarmament issues. That proposal still remained valid. They needed to reopen discussion on disarmament and fill the vacuum left by a lack of results in that arena. For Mexico, it was a matter of particular concern that disarmament had not been one of the topics included in the Final Document adopted at the World Summit of 2005.
Mexico reaffirmed that nuclear disarmament continued to be its priority for the disarmament agenda. Mexico could not fail to reiterate that the mere existence of nuclear weapons posed a threat to international peace and security, and that the only guarantee against their use or threat of use was their total elimination, through a political and legal agreement among nuclear weapon States within the framework of a non-proliferation treaty, an undertaking which had yet to be accomplished. In the meantime, aware that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were inextricably linked, Mexico had made important strides in the fight against non-proliferation. In that connection, Mexico had expressed its interest in joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which contributed to global efforts to reduce the possibility of diversion of nuclear materials and promoted secure trade practices. Mexico was also prepared to begin negotiation on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, without preconditions, but underscored that such an instrument would have to provide a verification instrument and cover existing stockpiles. Finally, with regard to the upcoming review cycle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Mexico said that the international community's commitment needed to be renewed to all the rights and obligations of the NPT. Only in that way could the regime be strengthened for the benefit for all. In that connection, Mexico was concerned that a State party to the NPT had concluded an agreement on nuclear cooperation with a non-State party, which, if not against the letter of that Treaty, was, in Mexico's view, against it in spirit, as it voided its fundamental objectives.
MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, said that the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the brutal attacks of 11 September in New York, and of 11 March in Madrid, as well as other more recent events, had forced them to change their old concept of security. Concepts such as mutually assured destruction today had new nuances. The international community expected effective contributions from this forum to address the future of disarmament, because peace was the condition sina qua non for the development of regions and countries. Peace and development were inextricably linked concepts, and the work of the Conference should ultimately assist civil society to combat poverty and to promote sustainable development. Today insecurity was not exclusively the result of aggressor States, but also included non-State actors, terrorists and other criminal groups. The deterioration of security had made the development of nations and peoples more difficult, because violence made it impossible for people to progress. The new approach to security was not based solely on its military component, or determined by a conventional concept of war, or a lack of bellicose activity among States. The European Security Strategy identified five major threats: weapons proliferation, especially weapons of mass destruction; terrorism; failed States; regional conflicts; and organized crime, which today took the form of networks for the trafficking in persons, drugs, arms and other criminal purposes. The Conference had to offer effective solutions to combat those threats to global security. The most appropriate course to follow was that of diplomatic and political agreement including the negotiation of multilateral and legally binding arms control instruments. That meant promoting support for destruction of arms stockpiles, and non-proliferation of weapons and disarmament, which was the only way they could move closer to global peace.
An effective disarmament policy would allow for States and civil society to finance programmes to combat poverty. Mexico recalled that studies undertaken by the UN Development Fund and the World Bank had showed that extreme poverty and its sequels, such as disease and illiteracy, could be solved with relatively modest investments. The proliferation of arms and the lack of transparency in arms trades also contributed to impoverishment, as well as humanitarian crises, demographic changes, and institutional instability. Insecurity distorted and made more difficult growth for the international community as a whole, as well as posing obstacles to relations and exchanges in an increasingly complex and interdependent global reality. The Government and people of Spain reaffirmed their commitment to the universalization of the principle treaties, conventions and programmes of the multilateral non-proliferation system; that was an indispensable step in building a world free of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, Spain was increasingly concerned about proliferation and the risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors. In that regard, Spain considered the slowdown in action by this forum to be particularly worrisome. In the absence of action by the Conference on this topic, there had emerged a number of complementary initiatives, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and its Protocol on the safety of fixed platforms at sea, and Security Council resolution 1540, which called on States to take measures to limit access to weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors. Finally, Europe and Spain had benefited from scientific progress in the use and exploration of outer space. Spain therefore supported its preservation for peaceful uses and rejected categorically its militarization. The international legal regimes to prohibit the placement weapons in outer space and for the prevention of an arms race in outer space should be strengthened.
ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said that Sweden had listened very carefully to Spain's address regarding the interrelationship between peace, security and development in the twenty-first century. Sweden thanked Spain for the efforts undertaken under the Spanish Presidency of the Conference and, as one of the six Presidents of the Conference at this session, Sweden looked forward to close cooperation with Spain for the rest of the year.
JUAN ARIAS (Venezuela) thanked the Foreign Minister of Spain for his address and the consistency it reflected between words and deeds. For the people and Government of Venezuela it was a source of hope to see President Zapatero leading Spain and to see Mr. Moratinos leading its foreign ministry. The withdrawal of Spain's foreign troops was a sign of Spain's commitment to peace. Venezuela hoped that Spain would continue to show such unequivocal signs of its peace mission.
SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) welcomed the statement by Spain's Foreign Minister, which had showed his wisdom, as well as his in-depth knowledge of foreign affairs, and his untiring struggle for the cause of disarmament. As a Middle Eastern country, Tunisia appreciated the efforts undertaken by Spain towards peace. The European Parliament, together with Spain, gave a glimmer of hope for their work. It was to be hoped that in the next few years tangible progress would be able to be made in the Conference on Disarmament. Tunisia called on Spain to continue its efforts towards peace, in particular in the area of the Middle East.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC07015E