CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS INTERVENTIONS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND A FISSILE MATERIAL CUT-OFF TREATY

The Conference on Disarmament today heard addresses from a number of States on a range of issues, focusing on nuclear disarmament and the need to begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The President of the Conference also read out a message by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, on behalf of a number of women's non-governmental organizations, on the occasion of International Women's Day.

In their statements, Ukraine, Colombia, Switzerland and Peru expressed the opinion that negotiations on a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices could not be delayed any longer. On nuclear disarmament, Cuba and Peru stressed the need for an immediate start of negotiations on total and complete nuclear disarmament, the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Switzerland addressed the issues of nuclear proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and nuclear power for civilian use. It also addressed the issue of outer space, calling for the drafting of a code of conduct for space activities, as well as the elaboration of provisions to prevent the creation of space debris.

Introducing the statement by the women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs) group to the Conference, Conference President Juan Antonio March of Spain relayed the hope of the six Presidents of the 2007 session of the Conference that starting next year NGO representatives would be able to make their addresses directly before the Conference on Disarmament. The delegations of Pakistan (on behalf of the Group of 21), Norway, Syria and Algeria echoed that hope. China also made a brief statement.

In its statement, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom observed that, while Governments remained the ultimate decision makers, it was non-governmental organizations that allowed citizens around the globe to partake in the political process and make their voices heard. It noted that there were unilateral steps that could be taken to move the disarmament agenda forward. It also suggested that States build on the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference agreement around reporting requirements and that States be required to submit a public disarmament impact assessment to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, to accompany any planned investments in nuclear facilities and capabilities that were relevant to the development or maintenance of nuclear weapons or the production of fissile materials.

The President announced that the Presidents of the 2007 session intended to hold consultations with delegations with a view to preparing a framework for the tenth week of work. In that connection, a questionnaire was to be distributed to facilitate the inclusion and consideration of delegations' concerns and opinions. A number of delegations expressed their concern at that announcement, and asked to have the questions in advance, to allow for consultation with their capitals and to promote greater transparency. However, the President explained that the questionnaire had been instituted as a time-saving measure, was merely intended to facilitate an internal process, and, indeed, was intended to promote greater inclusiveness and transparency in organizing the Committee's work.

At the end of the meeting, the President of the Conference announced that, in conjunction with the High-Level Segment of the Human Rights Council starting next week, 11 visiting dignitaries had so far indicated that they would participate in the work of the Conference. On Monday, 12 March, at 3 p.m., the Conference would hear an address by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ecuador. On Tuesday, 13 March, at 10 a.m., the Conference would hear a speech by the Vice President of Colombia, as well as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Latvia, the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran and from a representative from Viet Nam, whose name was yet to be confirmed. On Wednesday, 14 March, at 3 p.m. the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria and the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea would address the Conference. Finally, on Friday, 16 March, at 12 p.m., the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain would make a statement to the Conference.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference will be held on Monday, 12 March at 3 p.m.

Statements

JUAN ANTONIO MARCH (Spain), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that for over 20 years now the non-governmental organizations community had organized seminars to consider the role that women could play in the disarmament field. Traditionally, the annual message addressed to the Conference on Disarmament by the participants of that seminar had been read out by the President. He recalled that, in 2004, the Conference had adopted a decision on the strengthening of the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference, in particular stipulating that a plenary meeting of the Conference would be devoted to hearing from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) after the Conference on Disarmament had adopted its programme of work. And, in recent years, many delegations had expressed their support for allowing the representatives of the women's non-governmental organizations to address the Conference directly. However, the Member States had not been able to agree to do so. It was felt that, since next year would mark the 25th anniversary of the interaction between NGOs and the Conference, that event might give Member States the impetus to allow the Conference to be addressed directly by the NGO representatives, and the six Presidents of the 2007 session of the Conference hoped that next year that would be the case.

The President, reading out the message submitted by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom on the occasion of International Women's Day, said the International League noted that non-governmental organizations had an important role to play in international decision-making. While Governments remained the ultimate decision makers, it was non-governmental organizations that allowed citizens around the globe to partake in the political process and make their voices heard. During the General Assembly in 2005, the Conference on Disarmament had appeared to be faced with a threat: it either had to begin working or the work would leave and begin elsewhere. The body had been charged with specific tasks, and it had not yet achieved them. However, there were unilateral steps that could be taken to move the disarmament agenda forward. Security Council resolution 1540 called upon all States to criminalize weapons of mass destruction activities undertaken by non-State actors. National parliaments should go even further and adopt national laws prohibiting and penalizing all forms of nuclear weapons activities, expanding the scope of such legislation to State actors.

Moreover, the Conference should look at some of the regional security arrangements currently in place. How many States in this very room sat under a nuclear umbrella? How many of them sat in a nuclear-weapon-free zone? As security assurances were one of the core issues under discussion, it was important to bear those umbrellas in mind and to look for a moment at the actual value of that type of sharing. The Conference was also a confidence-building forum. The International League therefore suggested that States build on the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference agreement around reporting requirements. That could be done when States submitted
reports to the Conference that were substantive and which detailed measurable steps taken to implement their disarmament obligations, rather than declaratory statements. States should also be required to submit a public disarmament impact assessment to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, to accompany any planned investments in nuclear facilities and capabilities that were relevant to the development or maintenance of nuclear weapons or the production of fissile materials.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on the issue of the reading out of the statement by women's non-governmental organizations, said that the G-21 considered that it would be appropriate for a representative of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom to address the Conference directly on International Women's Day. She noted the comments by the President in that regard, and hoped that next year this issue would be seriously looked at. The G-21 sincerely hoped that next year new methods of work would be established to ensure effective relations of civil society groups with the Conference.

YEVHEN R. BERSHEDA (Ukraine) said that Ukraine believed that negotiating a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices could not be delayed any longer. The complexity of addressing multiple issues at the same time and at the same rate made it unlikely that they would see progress for many years. In the opinion of Ukraine, the one issue that had continued to appear in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences, in the First Committee of the General Assembly, and in the Conference on Disarmament, which would make a concrete contribution to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and which was simple enough to achieve, was a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT).

Last year's session of the Conference on Disarmament had set the stage for negotiations on an FMCT to finally begin. Ukraine called on all members of the Conference to concentrate on that very important and urgent issue and to express their readiness to participate in the development of a future agreement. Such a treaty was a building block for many other goals that they sought to achieve. In that context, it was worth mentioning that Ukraine's decision to forswear its nuclear capability had been crucial for the progress in the nuclear disarmament process and for the further fate of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and global security as a whole. Ukraine welcomed the submission by the United States of a draft FMCT and regarded it as a good basis for negotiations. Ukraine also associated itself with those delegations that had called for a moratorium on the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of an FMCT and its entry into force.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that Cuba attached the highest priority to nuclear disarmament, as it had been agreed by all Members of the United Nations in the Final Document of the first extraordinary session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament in 1978. That had been a position historically defended by the Non-Aligned Movement, and it had recently been ratified in the Final Document adopted in the context of its fourteenth Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government, held in September 2006 in Havana. It was contradictory that some States kept pressuring others to increasingly direct the attention of the international community to horizontal non-proliferation to the detriment of nuclear disarmament, when the only safe and effective way to avoid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was through their total elimination. It was their intention that nuclear disarmament be replaced by questions of horizontal non-proliferation and an approach whereby non-proliferation was seen as an aim in itself, when it should, in fact, be seen as a contribution to the efforts to achieve the final objective of nuclear disarmament. Cuba considered that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was illegal in any circumstances whatsoever. In that connection, the International Court of Justice's consultative opinion of 8 July 1996 regarding the legitimacy of the threat or use of nuclear weapons had become a historical document in the field of nuclear disarmament and constituted an important legal precedent that required an appropriate follow-up.
The lack of progress in the implementation of the unequivocal undertaking given by the nuclear weapon States at the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. They all had to work together to ensure that the next NPT review cycle produced positive results in that direction. Cuba considered that the adoption by the Conference of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, including the establishment of an ad hoc committee to begin negotiations on nuclear disarmament, was a fundamental and most urgent task. The proposals made by the Group of 21 in that direction maintained their full validity and usefulness. In that context, and unless some progress was made on the abovementioned, the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States could not be delayed any longer.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said that Colombia had always defended a policy of general and complete disarmament, as reflected in its participation in all bilateral, subregional, regional and global forums, which had focused on the need to destroy nuclear weapons completely as the only absolute guarantee against the threat of nuclear war. Although Colombia did not possess any nuclear weapons or indeed any weapons of mass destruction of any kind, or even a significant nuclear programme, it had worked actively to advance the cause of disarmament and non-proliferation. In that regard, Peru considered that the Five Ambassadors initiative continued to be a relevant and useful tool for achieving the objectives of the Conference on Disarmament.

One the issues to which Colombia attached priority importance was the commencement of talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. That appeared to be the issue the most ripe for action in the Conference. Such a treaty should be transparent, address the question of stocks, contain effective verification measures, and should be undertaken without preconditions or linkages to any other negotiations. Many delegations had mentioned the example of the Convention on Chemical Weapons, which had established an effective system of verification that allowed for confidence-building between States and encouraged sharing of best practices in the area.

JÜRG STREULI (Switzerland) said Switzerland would like to address certain issues that were essential in view of the resumption in May this year of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review cycle. In the area of proliferation, the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had reiterated that the Agency was not in a position to determine the exact nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. The IAEA admitted that only an enhanced transparency of the Additional Protocol to the Safeguard Agreement could resolve such continuing questions as well as new ones. With regard to Iran, Switzerland remained convinced that only a diplomatic solution could resolve the issue. With regard to the situation in the Korean Peninsula, which had continued to evolve in a positive direction over the past few weeks, Switzerland encouraged the States parties to the Six Party Talks to continue their efforts. In the field of disarmament, Switzerland felt that the decisions of certain nuclear weapon States to allocate funds for the development or replacement of such weapons ran counter to the spirit of Article VI of the NPT, because it reduced the chances for nuclear disarmament in the coming decades. Furthermore, they gave an increased importance to nuclear weapons, which did not facilitate measures to discourage other States from acquiring them. In the area of civilian use, the production of energy from nuclear fuel had become a goal of more and more States, and had considerably increased the risk of proliferation in the near future. Switzerland therefore called for initiatives to be drawn up to meet concerns of non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as guaranteed by the NPT. In that context, Switzerland was of the view that particular emphasis had to be placed on the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Finally, Switzerland observed that the importance of space was continually growing. The development of confidence-building measures in regard to space affairs was of particular importance at this stage. In particular, the drafting of a code of conduct for space activities was a worthwhile avenue to explore. Such a document could include measures to better
regulate space traffic, prevent dangerous manoeuvres or prohibit those whose peaceful objectives were questionable. The elaboration of provisions to prevent the creation of space debris was another such confidence-building measure. Switzerland was also of the opinion that the Conference should seek greater interaction with Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in this area.

DIEGO BELEVÁN (Peru) said that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were processes that were substantially related and mutually reinforcing. In past years they had seen unlawful programmes for the production and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction not only by States, but also by non-State actors. The post Cold War world had not only seen a tendency towards nuclear proliferation, it had also been confronted with the unusual behaviour whereby States had denounced the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and then carried out tests of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The world had also been faced with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of international terrorists. The logical response to the uncertainty generated by such proliferation would be the formulation and consolidation of a multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament. Paradoxically, however, the world was witnessing a weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. That was seen both by States trying to evade their international commitments, as well as those that were changing their nuclear policies.

Peru regretted the failure of the last NPT review cycle, which had not been able to adopt a substantive final document. It hoped that this year the NPT would be strengthened, in particular with regard to the control and transfer of technology for peaceful uses of nuclear technologies, as provided for under Article VI of the NPT. The existence of a Nuclear Suppliers Group, who controlled the transfer of so-called dual use technology to other States parties to the NPT, generated distrust among some developing countries, but Peru felt it could serve as a basis for the creation of a larger group, which would permit the greater participation of States committed to international security in decisions on the transfer of technology. In any case, they needed to find new and innovative instruments that would allow for that more equitable participation. Finally, Peru considered that there was a need to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty without delay, and reiterated its position that it was ready to do so with no preconditions whatsoever.

WEGGER STRØMMEN (Norway) said, as regarded the statement made by the women's non-governmental organization group today, that Norway placed great emphasis on interaction between civil society and Governments. That was also true with regard to challenges relating to disarmament and security. It was Norway's hope that in the future non-governmental organizations would be able to interact directly with the Conference. The practice of the President's reading out the non-governmental organizations' statement was peculiar. Also, it was unclear what the specific relation was between International Women's Day and the subject of disarmament and Norway hoped that the annual statement and International Women's Day could be delinked.

ABDULMAOLA ALNUQUARI (Syria) said Syria associated itself with the statement made by Pakistan relating to the participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Conference. Syria also appreciated the statement made by the International League for Peace and Freedom today. It was to be hoped that next year a decision regarding a broader participation of non-governmental organizations in the Conference would be adopted.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said that Algeria associated itself with the statement made by Pakistan on the issue of non-governmental organization participation in the work of the Conference, and it was to be hoped that representatives of civil society would be able to participate directly in the Conference's work in the near future.

LI YANG (China) said that China continued to believe that the Five Ambassadors proposal presented a comprehensive and balanced solution to the effective deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament regarding its programme of work.