CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS PRESENTATION FROM SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN LATIN AMERICA

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it heard a presentation from Gioconda Ubeda, Secretary General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America (OPANAL). The Conference then went on to discuss several items including nuclear weapons free zones and expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament.

In her address to the Conference, Ms. Ubeda said that they were facing renewed challenges in the field of nuclear disarmament. Addressing these issues was the responsibility of all States, particularly nuclear weapons States, multilateral bodies and organized civil society. The Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America (OPANAL) was conceived with a long term view which had been marked by stages of notable advances while other times progress had taken longer. The concept and practice of nuclear weapons free zones in densely populated areas started in Latin American with the Treaty of Tlatelolco which came into force in 1969. OPANAL was established to ensure compliance with the treaty by the 33 States who signed it. The 1990s saw a surge of ratifications of the treaty, and the decades that had passed since the treaty came into force showed there was a clear political will to achieve agreements on nuclear disarmament; this required trust and flexibility because of the realities of politics. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was a necessary response to events when nuclear dangers were at their apogee. The treaty was not only reactive, but preventive, with an eye to the future. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was a very important contribution to international law and it was a reference for other nuclear-free States and treaties as seen in Asia, the Pacific and Africa. They now had 5 nuclear weapons free zones as well as Mongolia. The treaty incorporated elements that defined it and were still in force, such as States limiting themselves in the production, acquisition, testing or sale of any nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons States also had obligations under the treaty and States committed themselves to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

All the delegations who took the floor welcomed the remarks from Ms. Ubeda and said that OPANAL had served as an inspiration and example for similar treaties around the world and the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones, and had thus played an important role in nuclear disarmament. It was important to remember that countries that had nuclear weapons only accounted for 40 per cent of the world’s population, whereas 60 per cent of the world population lived in nuclear weapons free zones. Before 1945, the entire planet was a nuclear weapons free zone and they should be seen as a means of disarmament, not an end in themselves. Nuclear disarmament should be the aim of their political and diplomatic efforts inside and outside the Conference.

During the general discussion following Ms. Ubeda’s remarks, speakers said that nuclear weapons free zones, in particular in the Middle East, were a reminder of the need for such a zone in that part of the world. Such a step would be an enormous contribution to the cause of peace, which was so elusive in that region. Other speakers noted that membership expansion could help revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament and they urged the Conference to give due consideration to this item in its work.

Delegations also took the opportunity to bid farewell to Arturo Hernandez Basave of Mexico, who would be leaving the Conference on Disarmament to take up a new post in his home country. Speakers thanked Mr. Hernandez Basave for his work in the Conference and wished him the best of luck and success in his new position.

Speaking this morning were Japan, Spain, Mexico, Austria, Pakistan, Serbia on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, Iran, the United States, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Turkey, Algeria and Ireland.

During the meeting Guinea and the United Arab Emirates were invited to participate in the work of the Conference.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

Statements

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), began by welcoming today’s guest, Gioconda Ubeda, Secretary General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America (OPANAL). He believed that the experience of OPANAL would be of great interest to the Conference. The body was created to guarantee the implementation of obligations contained in the Treaty of Tlatelolco and it was the first to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in an inhabited region in 1969. This treaty was unique in that it established an institutional body to ensure compliance with the instrument. The Treaty of Tlatelolco had inspired other regions to follow the same path and after this treaty there were the treaties of Rarotongo, Pelindaba, Mongolia and Central Asia. In recent years OPANAL had also played an important role in coordination between diverse nuclear weapons free zones in the preparation for conferences of States Parties to nuclear weapons free zones treaties in Mexico in 2005 and New York in 2010.

GIOCONDA UBEDA, Secretary General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America, said they were facing renewed challenges in the field of nuclear disarmament. It was the responsibility of all States, particularly nuclear weapons States, multilateral bodies and organized civil society. OPANAL was conceived with a long term view which had been marked by stages of notable advances while other times progress had taken longer. The concept and practice of nuclear weapons free zones in densely populated areas started in Latin American with the Treaty of Tlatelolco which came into force in 1969. OPANAL was established to ensure compliance with the treaty by the 33 States who signed it. The 1990s saw a surge of ratifications of the treaty, but the decades that had passed since the treaty came into force showed there was a clear political will to achieve agreements on nuclear disarmament; this required trust and flexibility because of the realities of politics. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was a necessary response to events when nuclear dangers were at their apogee. The treaty was not only reactive, but preventive with an eye to the future. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was a very important contribution to international law and it was a reference for other nuclear-free States and treaties as seen in Asia, the Pacific and Africa. They now had 5 nuclear weapons free zones as well as Mongolia. The treaty incorporated elements that defined it and were still in force, such as States limiting themselves in the production, acquisition, testing or sale of any nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons States also had obligations under the treaty and States committed themselves to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

On the importance of the nuclear weapons free zones and the role they played in disarmament more broadly, Ms. Ubeda said that they had contributed to the non-proliferation regime, but without a comprehensive nuclear disarmament agenda they were only halfway there. There needed to be legally binding guarantees for the non-use of nuclear weapons and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapons States that nuclear weapons would not be used or threatened to be used against them. The reason for nuclear weapons free zones went beyond their original concept and they needed to target their efforts to find ways and means to use nuclear weapons free zones to bridge the gaps in nuclear disarmament policy. OPANAL was also working on education for nuclear disarmament by offering online courses on the topic. They were also having conversations with nuclear weapons States to get them to withdraw their reservations to treaties that established nuclear weapons free zones. They also advocated the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that it was Japan and Australia’s view that the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in this body was the urgent next concrete step for international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In order to build confidence and to maintain momentum towards such negotiations, Japan and Australia had co-hosted side events on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. From 30 May to 1 June they held the third round of events in the Palais des Nations, which was attended by delegates and experts of more than 45 Conference on Disarmament Member and Observer States and international organizations. This event focused on the issue of verification. It was their hope that these side events would contribute the impetus necessary to start Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament and take them one step further down the road that would lead to a world without nuclear weapons.

JAVIER GIL CATALINA, (Spain), introduced a document titled CD/1910, a working paper which contained elements of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. They deeply regretted that to date, due to reasons well know to them, this body had not been able to start these negotiations and was therefore not performing the task for which it was created. This current paralysis and the lack of prospects for action were now calling into question the credibility and thereby the very existence of this negotiating forum. They were, however, of the opinion that despite the paralysis of this body the international community should continue its preparations for the negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. In this regard, they welcomed the activities of many different countries and non-governmental organizations like the Japanese-Australian initiative to host a series of side events. The conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would be a significant contribution and an indispensable step towards a world without nuclear weapons. It was therefore of great importance to the international community that they start these negotiations; inactivity and passivity were not an option.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), said that they had to acknowledge the inoperativeness of this body. Mexico concurred with the Brazilian ambassador and in addition they wanted to say that the Conference on Disarmament should remember that countries that had nuclear weapons only accounted for 40 per cent of the world’s population, whereas 60 per cent of the population was in nuclear weapons free zones. Before 1945, the entire planet was a nuclear weapons free zone and they were a means of disarmament, not an end in themselves. Nuclear disarmament should be the aim of their political and diplomatic efforts inside and outside the Conference. Mr. Hernandez Basave said that he would be leaving the Conference on Disarmament to take up a new post.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL, (Austria), referred to a statement that had been delivered last week on behalf of 29 States and they had requested the secretariat to circulate it as an official document. They would not repeat the document here.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said that nuclear weapons free zones, in particular in the Middle East, were a reminder of the need for such a zone in that part of the world. Such a step would be an enormous contribution to the cause of peace, which was so elusive in the region. He thanked Italy for their coordination and leadership of informal discussions on articles 1 and 2 of the agenda. They had been able to focus discussions, particularly on the production of fissile material. The Algerian delegation had participated in those discussions and had made significant contributions in terms of expressing their views on various articles. They expressed the hope that the oral presentations regarding these meetings would include the contributions of Algeria and their position on item 2 would also be reflected.

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN, (Pakistan), also thanked Italy for chairing the informal discussions on articles 1 and 2 of the agenda. He wanted to place on the record what his delegation said during these discussions regarding the Shannon Mandate. In view of the discriminatory arrangements in their region, they could not be addressed by the structural ambiguity contained in the Shannon Mandate. Perhaps this would have been the case in 1995, but it was not the case now.

UGLJESA UGI ZVEKIC, (Serbia), on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, acknowledged the support of a number of Member States to start a serious debate on the issue of enlargement of the Conference on Disarmament. This process would contribute to reinvigorating the body.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), said that building an atmosphere that enhanced trust and confidence was part of the work of the Conference on Disarmament, and one of the tools for this was to stick to conducting the work of the Conference based on an agreed framework.

WALTER SCOTT REID, (United States), said that the Treaty of Tlatelolco had long played a role in establishing nuclear weapons free zones in multiple regions of the world. As Ms. Ubeda noted, the United States continued to extend that work to new regions and he thanked her for noting recent efforts by President Obama to present other treaties and protocols to the United States Senate. With regards to comments made by other delegations, one of the central aspects of dialogue in the Conference was that any delegation could raise any issue at any time in the Conference and he felt that this was the spirit in which their Italian colleague had made his comments.

NELSON ANTONIO TABAJARA DE OLIVEIRA, (Brazil), wished the Mexican ambassador luck in his new post.

LUCIANO PARODI, (Chile), thanked the Secretary-General of OPANAL for her thoughts and celebrated the achievements of the nuclear weapons free zones and hoped to expand them, particularly in the Middle East. He wished the Mexican ambassador success in his new position.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said Germany attached great importance to the role of nuclear weapons free zones in nuclear disarmament and he wished Ambassador Hernandez Basave of Mexico well in his new post. Regarding the comments made by Pakistan, Algeria and Iran on the oral intervention from the Italian ambassador at a previous meeting, the written report would be distributed via the president to the Member States. Mr. Hoffmann said he was not sure it would help their work to go into such minute procedural issues when they were challenged to make progress on their real work. He wasn’t sure it reflected well on the Conference on Disarmament and perhaps they should look at more productive areas of debate rather than these types of issues.

VOLKAN OSKIPER, (Turkey), said he believed they were at a critical juncture in the Conference on Disarmament. It was highly important for the secretariat to play a key role in unifying issues rather than divisive issues. There was no doubt Turkey would play an important role when it came to revitalizing the Conference on Disarmament and moving forward and he asked them all to be mindful of this critical juncture they were passing through.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), apologized for taking the floor again, but he wanted to make some clarifications relating to their earlier statement. He would speak in French because perhaps his message did not come across clearly in Arabic. Their aim was not call into question the freedom of the Italian ambassador to give his opinion on items under the agenda. However, what they wanted was the report drawn up by the coordinator relating to items 1 and 2 of the agenda and they needed to reflect Algeria’s views on item 2, the prevention of nuclear war.

JAMES C. O’SHEA, (Ireland), said that Ireland was one of the most recent additions to the Conference so they knew what it was like to be an Observer State arguing for membership in the Conference and they supported the statements made by Serbia and Turkey regarding membership expansion.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico) thanked everyone for the kind words addressed to him today.


Concluding Remarks

CARLOS ENRIQUE VALENCIA MUNOZ, acting President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the next plenary session would be on Wednesday, 22 June at 3 p.m.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/035E