CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT; HEARS FROM MONGOLIA, IRAQ AND COLOMBIA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued its High-Level Segment. The Foreign Ministers of Mongolia and Iraq and the Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia were welcomed by Conference President Vaanchig Purevdori of Mongolia who invited them to address the Conference on Disarmament. Ukraine and Russia also took the floor to make general statements.

Lundeg Purevsuren, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, said it was a pleasure to address the Conference on Disarmament during Mongolia’s presidency of it. The Mongolian people had always sought a collective solution to difficult issues, and believed a dialogue and consensus were needed. The Minister urged the Conference to spare no efforts to move a bold step further towards nuclear disarmament.

Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said today the Conference on Disarmament was at a critical juncture, facing increasing numbers of regional crises and terrorist threats. The Minister referred to ongoing the P5+1 negotiations with Iran expressing hope that a peaceful solution could be found. Iraq, a pillar of civilization throughout history which was currently at the confrontation line with terrorism, could be counted on to support the Conference in its endeavours.

Francisco Echeverri Lara, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia, referred to the Doomsday Clock which was currently at the highest level of alert in history. He expressed concern about the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors. The issue of small arms and light weapons was of ultimate importance, said the Vice-Minister, as it was those, not weapons of mass destruction, that caused the largest amount of victims in the world.

Ministers of Mongolia, Iraq and Colombia, as well as representatives of Ukraine and Russia, made statements in this morning’s plenary.

The Conference on Disarmament will next meet in public at 3.30 p.m. on Monday, 9 March to hear an address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland. That address will conclude the High Level Segment of the Conference on Disarmament for 2015, after which the Conference will resume its normal plenary dedicated to a discussion on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Meeting summaries of previous Conference on Disarmament plenaries can be found here.

High-Level Segment

LUNDEG PUREVSUREN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, said it was a pleasure to address the Conference on Disarmament during Mongolia’s presidency of it. The Conference urgently needed to be brought back to work, said the Minister, who was encouraged to hear it had found ways to continue discussions on matters of substance and was making creative efforts to overcome the stalemate. Mongolia was firmly committed to non-proliferation and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty 2010 Action Plan had to be implemented in order to preserve the Treaty’s relevance, credibility and effectiveness, he said, hoping that the upcoming Review Conference would be a major step towards the fulfilment of that goal.

Mongolia had joined all major international frameworks as part of its efforts to promote the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and at a national level had enforced legislative acts which prohibited any non-State actor from manufacturing, developing, transporting, transferring or using chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes. Mongolia was making further efforts to contribute to international peace and security by promoting its nuclear-weapons-free status. Establishment of nuclear-weapons-free-zones had proven to be an effective regional measure of non-proliferation and disarmament. The existing zones needed to be strengthened and measures taken to promote the establishment of new zones, including in the Middle East and in north-east Asia.

Almost 20 years had passed since the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was opened for signature, but without the legally-binding effect of its entry into force a de facto norm remained fragile, said the Minister, calling on all remaining Annex 2 States to speedily ratify the Treaty. In concluding remarks the Minister said Mongolian people had always sought a collective solution to difficult issues, and believed a dialogue and consensus were needed. He urged the Conference to spare no efforts to move a bold step further towards nuclear disarmament.

IBRAHIM AL-JAAFARI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said today the Conference on Disarmament was at a critical juncture, facing increasing numbers of regional crises, terrorist threats and an escalation of risks posed by weapons of mass destruction, all of which deviated resources from constructive objectives and threatened international peace and security. The Minister reiterated Iraq’s commitment to all non-proliferation and disarmament instruments and its international obligations regarding the development, manufacture and use of chemical and biological weapons. The Minister hoped that the Conference would agree on a programme of work in 2015 and referred to the efforts of the Iraqi Presidency of the Conference in 2013 which led to the adoption of CD/1956, establishing an informal working group on a programme of work.

Iraq supported the inalienable right of States, especially developing countries, to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and to achieve economic growth, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Minister referred to ongoing the P5+1 negotiations with Iran, recalling that Baghdad hosted a round of the negotiations in 2012, and expressing his hope that resolution of controversial points and a peaceful solution could be found. The Minister welcomed the revival of the international discussion on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and said Iraq supported Austria’s commitment in that regard.

Complete nuclear disarmament was Iraq’s priority. The international arena had witnessed positive steps towards nuclear disarmament but there was no doubt that technological progress escalated the risk, said the Minister. As such Iraq encouraged negotiations between nuclear-weapons-States to achieve a serious reduction in nuclear weapons. A legally-binding international instrument of negative security assurances must be achieved against the use or threat of use of such weapons, although negative security assurances could not be an alternative to the final objective of complete nuclear disarmament. The continued productive of fissile materials was a threat to achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and Iraq supported the negotiating mandate to establish an international Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The Minister also urged the Conference to work on a legal instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space and prohibit the deployment of weapons there; Outer Space was for all humanity and its militarization would only be destructive, he said.

The failure of international efforts to hold the Helsinki Conference in 2012 regarding the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East was a denial of the commitments contained in the final document of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and had a negative impact upon the credibility of the Conference, and on nuclear disarmament in general. The indefinite postponement of the Helsinki Conference under certain pretexts was the responsibility of the United Nations and the international community in general. The Minister called for the implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East as well as the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference Action Plan. The world was in dire need of action to combat corruption, to combat crime, to enhance the rights of women, the rights of children, of human beings, and to spread a culture of love, peace and security. The Conference on Disarmament had to get back on track to perform its real role and Iraq, a pillar of civilization throughout history which was currently at the confrontation line with terrorism, could be counted on to support it in that endeavour, he concluded.

FRANCISCO ECHEVERRI LARA, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia, referred to the Doomsday Clock, a symbolic clock face, representing a countdown to possible global catastrophe as a result of the accumulation of nuclear arsenals and climate change. He said the Experts who made up the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their sponsors, including 17 Nobel Laureates, earlier this year took the decision to bring forward by two minutes the Doomsday Clock – we were now just three minutes before the final hour of the world. That level of alert was one of the highest in history. Colombia firmly endorsed the outcomes of the conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, held respectively in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna. It was party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco which declared Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace and a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. That treaty also called for the establishment of more such zones in the world, noted the Vice-Minister.

Colombia was concerned at the possibility of the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors. At all levels Colombia advocated full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1540. Colombia had hoped the Conference would also deal with the control of conventional weapons, especially their illicit trafficking, but regretted that the issue had been put on the backburner – instead progress in that field had taken place outside the Conference. The issues of small arms and light weapons were of ultimate importance, said the Vice-Minister, as it was those, not weapons of mass destruction, that caused the largest amount of victims in the world. He thanked the Conference and international community as a whole for their support extended to the peace process in Colombia.

The Vice-Minister called on the Conference to overcome the stagnation in which it was mired. During the seventeen years in which Colombia had been a member of the body it had acted constructively, not least by putting forward CD/1913, which was adopted, to promote reflection on analysis and strengthening of the Conference. Colombia listened closely to voices that suggested parallel paths to the Conference in which work on the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons could proceed. Colombia highlighted the need for political will of all States in the Conference if it wished to ensure the forum fulfilled its mandate and aims. After nearly twenty years of baffling standstill the Conference must show its relevance.

General Statements

Ukraine said it took the floor because it had been repeatedly mentioned during the High Level Segment of the Conference on Disarmament, both in statements by ministers and in right of reply comments. The representative of Ukraine thanked Germany, Georgia and Latvia for the solidarity they had demonstrated with Ukraine in their speeches, supporting its tireless efforts to protect its sovereignty and stabilize the situation in the south-east of the country. Unfortunately this week the Conference had also heard groundless and cynical statements in the right of reply statements by Russia, which Ukraine totally rejected. Ukraine wished to set the record straight, not politicize the issue.

Regarding Russia’s apparent non-breach of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine said indeed, Russia had not used nuclear weapons against Ukraine, which was prohibited under Article 5 of the Budapest Memorandum. However, on the twentieth anniversary of that fundamental document for the entire international security architecture, Russia violated every other article. That included respect for the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, refraining from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and refraining from economic coercion of Ukraine. That document was signed by Russia at the highest level.

Concerning the status of Crimea, Ukraine reminded Russia that there was neither legitimate choice of the Crimean population nor a free so-called referendum. On the contrary there was a treacherous scenario performed at gunpoint in the autonomous republic by the self-proclaimed unlawful authorities, who were later identified by the Russia President as Russian servicemen. That resulted in the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia, unrecognized by the international community. United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014, which was overwhelmingly backed by the international community, underscored that the so-called referendum in Crimea of 16 March 2014 had no validity, and called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

Russia’s latest allegations regarding eventual deployment of nuclear weapons on Crimea were very irresponsible and destructive. Moreover the seizing by Russia of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, installations and materials located in Crimea contradicted the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ukraine noted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s clear position that provisions of the agreement regarding safeguards in connection with the Non-Proliferation Treaty between it and Ukraine remained fully effective and applied to the nuclear facilities and materials in Ukraine, including those located in the temporary occupied territory of the autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

Russia’s claim that it was not party to the conflict in Ukraine was a case of Russia trying to prove that black was white, said the Ukrainian representative. There was abundant evidence of Russia’s invasion on the territory of Ukraine not only from the Ukrainian side but also through reliable sources of information, including very explicit satellite data from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as well as reputable international non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International. Russia continued fuelling separatist movements in the eastern part of Ukraine and providing mercenaries, ammunition and training for armed terrorist groups in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. It supplied heavy weaponry to terrorists in Donbas.

Regarding groundless accusations of Ukraine’s alleged use of cluster munitions, the representative of Ukraine said unlike Russian terrorist groups Ukraine had never used and did not use cluster munitions. Ukraine had never shelled areas where civilians could be affected, and its military was strictly prohibited from using rocket and cannon artilleries. The cluster munitions which had caused causalities in the south-east of Ukraine were fired from territory not under Ukrainian control, and exactly where the Russian-supported terrorists were located. Their deadly sophisticated weaponry came from the same place as their Russian-made Buk anti-air missile launchers, one of which shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, taking away 298 lives. In conclusion Ukraine called on Russia to stop its insinuations and to strictly abide by the Minsk Agreement approved by it on 12 February 2015 at the highest level.

Russia said referred to ongoing attempts to politicize the work of the Conference on Disarmament, which complicated its work on key agenda issues and undermined its work. The Budapest Memorandum contained no obligation to recognize an anti-constitutional uprising and its consequences in any country. It contained no obligation to recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine when one part of its territory, following complex social and democratic processes, decided to leave the country. During the twenty year period since the Budapest Memorandum was established, when there were legitimate authorities and constitutional order in Ukraine, nothing of this kind had happened and Russia respected all of the points contained in the Budapest Memorandum.

The Minsk Agreement referred to economics, politics and what needed to be done. Ukraine had stopped paying pensions, social benefits, broken off rail links in Luhansk and Donetsk Republic, and even stopped gas supplies despite temperatures being below zero and people freezing. So Russia had to step in and supply gas to people in Luhansk and Donetsk. Two million people in Crimea had to be listened to; so many people could not possibly be forced to vote at gunpoint. The Russian servicemen deployed there at the time were faced with groups of Ukrainian servicemen, but despite provocations managed to avoid shooting and bloodshed in Crimea.

Regarding the supply of arms, Russia said everybody knew that Ukrainian and Russian arms were basically the same; they had the same sources, the same manufacturers. It was not realistic to distinguish between Russian and Ukrainian arms from a satellite photograph. The fighters in Luhansk and Donetsk had received arms from the Ukrainian army.

Ukraine regretted that its appeal to stop insinuations was not heard, and there were new insinuations with regard to the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities. The Government was legitimate, following fair and democratic Presidential and Parliamentary elections. It would significantly help implement the Minsk Agreement if Russia provided some gas to Ukraine, rather than militants, munitions and weaponry.

Russia said it was sending hundreds of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid to the region, not just gas, but also food. No aid was coming through from the Ukrainian side: it was probably just sitting in the hands of the Ukrainian forces. Russia supplied not only gas but also electricity and coal to Ukraine. Russia would not wish such a situation on its neighbouring country: on the contrary it wished it peace, wellbeing and prosperity. What happened last February in Kiev could not be considered a democratic procedure, said Russia. After the uprising one part of Ukraine started questioning their relationship with the rest of the country, they did not want to live under the authorities installed in Kiev but to follow their own path. The outcome was a very complex crisis which involved many different stakeholders, including the United Nations Security Council. The Conference on Disarmament should not try to replace the Security Council which dealt with issues of war and peace.

Ukraine said the event last February was called the Revolution of Dignity, and Ukrainian people recently celebrated the first anniversary of the revolutions. The humanitarian convoys were sent in violation of the existing international norms and principals. Only Russia knew what was inside them because neither the International Committee of the Red Cross nor the Ukrainian authorities could access them to check the contents. Ukraine paid the highest price in Europe for Russian gas, the representative noted. Ukraine was committed to peace and to finding the right solutions, including the decentralization of power, to ensure peace and stability in the south-east of the country.

Russia said it informed Ukraine authorities every time there was a humanitarian convoy, and there were Ukrainian border guards at crossing points who had the right to look at the loads, but apparently had no desire to inspect the convoys.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/019E