CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND OUTER SPACE

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from Algeria, on behalf of the Group of 21 and in its national capacity, the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, Pakistan, Costa Rica, Austria, Venezuela and Australia.

Speaking about the issue of nuclear disarmament, Algeria, on behalf of the Group of 21, said that the Group expressed concern at the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and of their possible use or threat of use. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their proliferation would remain. However they had noted a number of official recent statements made by States, statesmen and scholars on issues related to nuclear disarmament and they hoped that they would lead to new opportunities to make serious progress on nuclear disarmament. There was also a genuine and urgent need to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons would ever be used. The European Union said that they attached a clear priority to the negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Such an effective treaty would constitute a significant step in the process of nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthen nuclear non-proliferation.

Also on the issue of nuclear disarmament, Brazil said that the Conference should now be ready to embark on the negotiation of a treaty on fissile material. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty could be the gateway leading to nuclear disarmament. Pakistan said that nuclear disarmament was the Conference’s raison d’etre; it was the fundamental issue around which all other issues revolved. Immediate negotiation of a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international controls was what was needed to create a world free of nuclear weapons. Austria said that the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was long overdue.

Speaking on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the European Union recognized the ever-growing dependence of the international community on outer space for economic and industrial development and progress, as well as for ensuring security. Activities in this respect should be developed in a peaceful, safe and secure environment: an arms race in outer space had to be prevented. The European Union had been preparing a draft proposal for an international Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. The main purpose of the project code was twofold: it aimed at strengthening the existing United Nations treaties, principles and arrangements and to complement them by codifying new best practices in space operations, including measures of notification and of consultation that would strengthen the confidence and transparency between space actors.

Costa Rica said that that they had great concern over the deadlock situation in the Conference. They considered that the difficulties faced by the Conference were not rooted in the agenda but in the military approaches and visions of each country. His country was however optimistic and they envisaged some positive advances this year. Venezuela said that the world was currently facing many crises, which included the economic crisis. This was a time of conflicts; this would lead to difficulties towards reaching a consensus in the Conference.

The President of the Conference on Disarmament, Mr. Le Hoai Trung, in concluding remarks said that during the period of his presidency, they had been able to expeditiously adopt the agenda for the 2009 session and agree to the organizational framework for the informal thematic debates on all the seven substantive items of the agenda. His delegation was glad to note that member states from all regional groups had kindly stated their willingness to be actively engaged in the work of the Conference and the first three informal debates had been marked with quite active participation and even concrete proposals. He expressed the hope that these modest activities could not only keep the conference in the “play mode” this year but also gear it closer to the “ready mode”.

Draft decision CD/1840, to which several delegations referred was submitted by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference on 13 March 2008, and contains a draft programme of work. According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions three of four core issues identified by the Conference: nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States. On the fourth item, a Coordinator would be appointed to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus "providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations".

Also, at the opening of the session, the President of the Conference, Mr. Le Hoai Trung, expressed its sadness at the high level of loss of life by the fires in Australia and asked the Australian delegation to convey the distress that the Conference on Disarmament felt over this tragedy to the Australian Government.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, which will also be the first under the 2009 Presidency of Zimbabwe, will be held on Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 10 a.m. in Room VII. At that meeting the Conference will hear an address by the Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister Mr. Bath Eide.

Statements

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said that the Group expressed concern at the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and of their possible use or threat of use. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their proliferation would remain. While recalling a number of documents on the elimination of nuclear weapons, such as the United Nations General Assembly 1 of 1946, the Final Document of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 and the Millennium Declaration, among others, the Group of 21 also drew attention to the contributions of the group to the deliberations on nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Jazairy said that the Group of 21 had noted a number of official recent statements made by States, statesmen and scholars on issues related to nuclear disarmament. While believing that the implications of these initiatives needed to be further investigated, the Group hoped that they would lead to new opportunities to make serious progress on nuclear disarmament. Stressing its strong commitment to nuclear disarmament, the Group reaffirmed its readiness to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-weapons convention. Such a convention would be an important step in a phased programme towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The Group also stressed that the fundamental principles of transparency verification and irreversibility be applied to all nuclear disarmament measures.

The Group further noted the measures taken by nuclear-weapon States for nuclear arms limitation and encouraged them to take further such measures and reaffirmed that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were substantively interrelated and mutually reinforcing. In the wake of the recent military escalation in Gaza, the Group also expressed the urgent need for implementing the Resolution on the Middle East of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference of 1995. The Group of 21 state parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty also remained particularly concerned about the lack of progress regarding the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear-weapon States to accomplish total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Mr. Jazairy said that the Group emphasized that progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects was essential to strengthening international peace and security.

There was also a genuine and urgent need to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons would ever be used, said Mr. Jazairy. The Group also reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Group further called for renewed efforts to resolve the current impasse in achieving nuclear disarmament, particularly in the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work of the Conference.

The Group further suggested that concrete steps be taken to promote the goal of nuclear disarmament, said Mr. Jazairy, such as the reaffirmation of the unequivocal commitment of nuclear weapon States to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons; the elimination of the role of nuclear weapons in the security doctrines; the adoption of measures by nuclear-weapon states to reduce nuclear danger, such as the de-alerting of nuclear-weapons; the negotiation of a universal, unconditional and legally-binding instrument to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; the negotiation of a convention on the complete prohibition of the us or threat of use of nuclear weapons and the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention.

IVAN PINTE (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, reassured the President and all his P-6 colleagues, that the European Union would continue to lend its full support to all their work aimed at overcoming the longstanding impasse in the Conference. They would spare no efforts to revitalise this unique forum in order to resume negotiations and substantive work without further delay.

Addressing the issue of nuclear disarmament, Mr. Pinte said that the European Union attached a clear priority to the negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Such an effective treaty would constitute a significant step in the process of nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. The European Union was ready to engage further in these issues as soon as a Programme of Work would have been agreed. In the meantime, the European Union would continue to constructively participate in the informal debates.

The European Union also called on the international community to work to promote the concrete and realistic disarmament initiatives the European Union had submitted to the United Nations General Assembly at its current session. These initiatives were relevant inter alia to the Conference’s work. The European Union called for the universal ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, said Mr Pinte. It also called for the dismantling of all nuclear test facilities in a manner that was transparent and open to the international community. They were encouraged by recent signs of political momentum toward the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The statements made by the new US Administration gave rise to some optimism for progress.

The European Union also called for further progress in the current discussions between the United States of America and Russia on the development of a legally binding post-START arrangement and an overall reduction in the global stockpile of nuclear weapons, said Mr. Pinte. They also favoured the establishment of transparency and confidence-building measures by the nuclear powers and proposed the start of consultations on a treaty banning short and intermediate range ground-to-ground missiles. They would also continue their efforts on the issue of nuclear disarmament in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty review process; it represented a unique and irreplaceable framework and its authority and integrity had to be preserved.

IVAN PINTE (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a second separate statement on the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, said that the European Union recognized the ever-growing dependence of the international community on outer space for economic and industrial development and progress, as well as for ensuring security. Activities in this respect should be developed in a peaceful, safe and secure environment: an arms race in outer space had to be prevented. Such prevention contributed to the strengthening of international security and promoted international cooperation in the field of free exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. The European Union also place great importance on the relevant existing agreements.

The European Union further appreciated the efforts of the Russian federation and the People’s Republic of China to enhance international peace and security, said Mr. Pinte and they had taken note of their proposal for a draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects, last year in the Conference on Disarmament. While the European Union identified with the overall goal to preserve outer space, further reflection and work was required on the elements for an effective international treaty. It remained a difficult challenge to achieve consensus on the definitions needed for a legally binding instrument. An effective and robust verification system had to be an integral part of any future treaty that was concerned with space security. Also, such a treaty would need to clearly address the issue of anti-satellite weapons test. Further substantive discussion concerning space issues would take place when the proposed programme of work was agreed.

Mr. Pinte said that the European Union had been preparing a draft proposal for an international Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities and on 8 December 2008, the Council of the European Union had approved an initial draft text. The draft included transparency and confidence-building measures, it was however not a legally binding document, nor did it seek to replace initiatives which worked towards that aim. It recognized that a comprehensive approach to safety and security in outer space should be guided by the principles of: freedom of access to space for all for peaceful purposes; preservation of the security and integrity of space objects in orbit; and due consideration to the legitimate defence interests o states. The main objective of the Code was to strengthen the safety, security and predictability of all space activities and covered civil as well as military activities.

The main purpose of the project code was twofold, said Mr. Pinte. It aimed at strengthening the existing United Nations treaties, principles and arrangements and to complement them by codifying new best practices in space operations, including measures of notification and of consultation that would strengthen the confidence and transparency between space actors. As the code would be voluntary and open to all states, it did not include any provisions concerning the specific question of non-placement of weapons in outer space. The purpose of the code was neither to duplicate nor to compete with the initiatives dealing with this specific issue, nor to oppose them.

The European Union was currently consulting other space-faring nations on the text, with the aim of reaching a consensus text. It was envisaged that an ad hoc conference would be organized in order for states to subscribe to the Code, said Mr. Pinte. The draft text of the Code is available on the website of the Council of the European Union under (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st17175.en08.pdf).

LUIZ FELIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil), said that Brazil came to the 2009 session of the Conference in the same spirit that had oriented its participation in the previous years. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest goal in international relations insofar as such weapons might thwart all the other aspirations including development. They were confident that progress could be achieved and they knew that all States represented at the Conference shared this understanding. However, the difficulties they faced were not the same for each one of them. It was neither unjust nor superfluous to remind that a heavier responsibility fell upon those States that possessed nuclear arsenals.

Touching briefly on some topics hat seemed to pose here and there some interrogation, Mr. Macedo Soares said that the uniqueness of the Conference derived from political realities, among them the acceptance by the nuclear States to meet institutionally and permanently. Since the objective was a world free of nuclear weapons all the different aspects and negotiations thereon could not be detached and treated as separated matters in different bodies. Every substantive item on the agenda of the Conference was essentially linked to the overall objective. In other words, he said, the obstacles they faced were not of an institutional nature.

On the principle of equal security among States, Mr. Macedo Soares said that the existence of such a principle was doubtful. It was not only in conflict ridden areas, but indeed everywhere, that the right not to be aggressed or threatened had to be assured. In fact, the sense of insecurity was a fertile soil not only for the reluctance to disarm but also for the ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. The way out of this dilemma was to face with determination the moral and political obligation to sit at the negotiating table. It was likely that the barriers that had been preventing the effective functioning of the Conference were about to be lifted. The Conference should now be ready to embark on the negotiation of a treaty on fissile material. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty could be the gateway leading to nuclear disarmament.

Also, agreed measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space were undoubtedly in the interest of the very nations that were in a position of enterprising such dangerous, unfortunate adventure, said Mr. Macedo Soares. For Brazil, it was not only viable but also desirable to commence negotiations in more than one agenda item. However, they refused a position of all or nothing.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), sharing Pakistan’s perspective on the broad spectrum of arms control and disarmament issues, said that it was their conviction that the Conference was the sole disarmament negotiating forum and they supported this important body and would oppose any effort to undermine it. It was unfortunate that the Conference was passing through a decade long impasse. It was an accepted fact that States represented at the Conference would only participate in the negotiations that would promote their national security. It followed that they had to pursue objectives that ensured equal security for all. The security of some states could not be built upon the insecurity of others.

Mr. Akram underscored that there was a direct relationship between disarmament and respect for self-determination and national independence, the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the strengthening of international peace and security. Every item on the conference’s agenda had its significance and relevance. The end objective of any deliberations in the Conference should be negotiation of a legally binding treaty. Nuclear disarmament was the Conference’s raison d’etre; it was the fundamental issue around which all other issued revolved. Immediate negotiation of a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international controls was what was needed to create a world free of nuclear weapons.

While negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention would be along drawn process, nuclear weapon states had a major responsibility to assure non-nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons would no be used against them. There was no reason why such commitments could not be transformed into a legally binding instrument, said Mr. Akram.

Pakistan also believed that outer space had to remain peaceful; it should not be weaponized nor colonized. Prevention of an arms race in outer space had gained urgency given the growth and expansion in space activities as well as the level of advancement in space technology. The distinction between benign and malign use of space was too blurred to be left uncontrolled and unchecked, noted Mr. Akram. The existing legal regimes were not sufficient and adequate. The time was ripe for negotiations on the prevention of an arms race in outer space item.

Turning to the issue of a fissile material treaty, Mr. Akram said that it was a key to the cessation of a nuclear arms race. Pakistan had remained consistent in its support for a verifiable treaty and remained prepared to resume negotiations at the earliest. Their stance on this issue was clear and unambiguous. Attempts by some states to blame Pakistan for blocking the so-called progress on this item were not only disingenuous but designed to deflect attention form the real reasons for the breakdown of negotiations.

Pakistan further strongly favoured international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and technology, under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Their rapidly growing economy required energy from all sources, including nuclear energy. However, adoption of discriminator policies or double standards relating to nuclear cooperation, whether in South Asia or the Middle East, could only be counter-productive and self-defeating. Also Mr. Akram noted that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was purely defensive. They had put forward numerous proposals to stabilize the nuclear equation in South Asia. Among these was the concept of a Strategic Restraint Regime. They also remained concerned about the introduction of new weapons systems and the build up of strategic and conventional forces in the region.

Mr. Akram also informed the Conference that Pakistan had ratified on 19 January 2009 the Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War and they would actively take part in next week’s negotiations on cluster munitions.

CARLOS GARBANZO, (Costa Rica), said that they had great concern over the deadlock situation in the Conference, which had gotten worse over the last few years in the Conference. He noted that Costa Rica was free of armed forces and thus was the only of the countries which had achieved the ultimate goal of disarmament. This historic decision had allowed his country to devote funds that would have been otherwise wasted, to strengthen their public health system as well as their educational system; allowing them to have a higher political and social stability. Costa Rica further considered the Conference as the principal disarmament forum and supported its work. They had engaged in its work since 1994 and they had unfortunately not seen any positive result since then.

Costa Rica also considered that the difficulties faced by the Conference were not rooted in the agenda by in the military approaches and visions. His country was however optimistic and they envisaged some positive advances this year. Mr. Garanzo also proposed to open some space for civil society in the Conference. Further, disarmament was not exclusive to countries that had weapons but included all countries, which could be affected by the use of weapons. In the word of his president, the time had come to recognize the link that existed between the squandering of resources on arms and the need for those resources to advance them to greater levels of human development. Costa Rica supported the revitalising of the Conference on Disarmament and appealed its members to act in this direction. It was high time to do so.

CHRISITIAN STROHAL (Austria), addressing issues pertaining to the three agenda items that had been discussed in an informal setting this week, said that, with regard to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, that his delegation was of the opinion that code of conducts significantly contributed to enhancing security of outer space activities. They also noted with satisfaction that more than two-thirds of the United Nations members had already subscribed to the Code and called upon all Subscribing States to respect their obligations under the Code and encouraged those states that had not yet subscribed to the Code to take such a step in the near future.

As regards nuclear disarmament, Mr. Strohal said that the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was long overdue. Austria had been involved in several activities last year that had aimed at speeding up the ratification process and facilitating its entry into force. There was undoubtedly a global momentum towards the entry into force of the Treaty and Austria was hopeful that the new US Administration’s positive attitude towards it would act as further booster to accelerate the process.

In the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency framework, Mr. Strohal said that Austria actively contribute to the debate on the multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle. They believed it was time to design a framework suited to the nuclear realities of the 21st century. One of the most tangible projects so far was the establishment of a nuclear fuel reserve under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The ultimate goal should be the multilateralization of all new existing enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. Also, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should be the next step towards complete nuclear disarmament, said Mr. Strohal. It went without saying that such a treaty could and had to be verified and effective verification had to comprise any enrichment and reprocessing facilities.

Further, any fissile material for civil purposes should be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. All nuclear weapons power should be obliged to apply the highest security standards to curb the proliferation risk and to enhance confidence through higher transparency on their military stockpile. Austria believed that the international community needed to pursue such an incremental approach on their way towards a world without nuclear weapons, said Mr. Strohal and the Conference on Disarmament should play a central role in this regard. Extended discussions on a programme of work were only a pretext for an unwillingness to engage in substantive negotiations due to a lack of political will, he added.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela) said that as the last country that had exercised the role of president in 2008, they had been respectful of the manner with which the current President had conducted the work of the Conference. Taking into account the responsibility that was linked to the first president of a session, Venezuela was pleased with the style of the President, which had had led to the adoption of the Conference on Disarmament agenda for 2009. Having been one of the Presidents of 2008, he was ready to assist the current President in his efforts. The world was currently facing many crises, which included the economic crisis. This was a time of conflicts; this would lead to difficulties towards reaching a consensus in the Conference. The active participation of Venezuela was driven by the belief in the validity in the forum and they had to continue to work to strive in its quest.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in his national capacity and on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, said that he had expected the European Union to indicate how their Code of conduct would have helped to avoid the collision that had happened yesterday between a Kosmos and an Iridium satellite. It would be interesting to see how the Code’s paragraph four could help to minimize the risk of collisions between satellites.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, expressed, at the end of the first Presidency of the 2009 session, the Group’s deep gratitude for the work the President had accomplished. The President had not spared any efforts to put the 2009 session on track and to allow the Conference to begin its work. He thus deserved full recognition for achieving this difficult task. He had contributed within the framework of the Conference’s agenda in bringing closer different points of view, thanks to the broad consultations he had held with talent. The Group further commended him for his able leadership.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), thanked the President and all delegations which had taken the floor for their kind words on the bushfire raged Australia was currently facing. She also expressed her appreciation for the work done by the President and said that despite little obstacles he had maintained good humour.

LE HOAI TRUNG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in concluding remarks said that this plenary was the last one of the period under the Presidency of Viet Nam. During this period, they had been able to expeditiously adopt the agenda for the 2009 session and agreed to the organizational framework for the informal thematic debates on all the seven substantive items of the agenda. His delegation was glad to note that member states from all regional groups had kindly stated their willingness to be actively engaged in the work of the Conference and the first three informal debates had been marked with quite active participation and even concrete proposals. To prepare his presidency, his delegation had had about 60 bilateral consultations with member states in the last months of 2008. Since then they had had 23 more bilateral consultations. He hoped that these modest activities could not only keep the conference in the “play mode” this year but also gear it closer to the “ready mode”. Mr. Le Hoai Trung also fully subscribed to the disappointment over the lack of progress in the work of the Conference and strongly shared the view that the Conference should be able to function as a negotiating body.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09007E