SPEAKERS SAY COMMISSION ON DISARMAMENT'S FAILURE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS CALLS ITS WORK INTO QUESTION

Press Release
DC/2550

SPEAKERS SAY COMMISSION ON DISARMAMENT'S FAILURE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS CALLS ITS WORK INTO QUESTION

The Disarmament Commission's failure to achieve consensus and concrete results on important issues in recent years has called into question its overall work, according to a number of speakers addressing that body this morning as it concluded its general debate.

The representative of Jordan said the casual failure of the Commission to carry out its mandate was not necessarily due to any inherent inferiority in its status, but rather to a lack of sufficient time and a lack of consensus. The representative of Egypt attributed the Commission's failure to achieve consensus on two out of three agenda items last year and on one so far this year to the lack of political will on the part of the nuclear-weapon States to achieve any results in the nuclear disarmament field.

Discussions this morning also centred on the issue of international arms transfers. Canada's representative expressed confidence that a concentrated pragmatic approach coupled with a spirit of compromise should allow the session to produce a text that would lay some intellectual foundation for future efforts in dealing with the conventional arms challenge.

The representative of the Republic of Korea called for more effective and progressive international efforts to attract wider participation in the Register of Conventional Arms. Japan's representative said the Register took on greater importance in light of the fact that many international arms transfers were veiled in secrecy.

The representative of Nigeria said that the arms exporting countries formed exclusive clubs which undermined negotiations in the area of illicit trafficking.

Speakers from the Middle East called attention to the need for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in their region. The representative of Syria said that if the Commission was serious about productive results at its current session, it should ask Israel to renounce nuclear weapons. The representative of Jordan added that nuclear-weapon-free zones were a valuable component in global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

Disarmament Commission - 1a - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

Also at this morning's meeting, the representative of Nicaragua was elected Vice-Chairman.

Statements were also made by representatives of Indonesia, India, Italy, Peru and the United Republic of Tanzania. Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

The next meeting of the Disarmament Commission will take place at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 24 April.

Commission Work Programme

The Disarmament Commission met this morning to conclude its exchange of views on international arms transfers and the proposed fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. The Commission had limited its discussion to three specific items, but consensus was not reached on a third item, which was to be a nuclear issue.

Statements

MYUNG CHUL HAHM (Republic of Korea) said each State was vested with the inherent right to acquire arms in its own defence, including from outside sources. However, international arms transfers must be addressed within the context of maintaining international peace and security and reducing tensions at the global, regional and subregional levels. More effective and progressive efforts should be undertaken by the international community to attract wider participation in the Register of Conventional Arms. The United Nations should play "a catalytic role" towards enhancing cooperation in arms transfers at all levels.

There was no precedent for the General Assembly convening a special session on the same subject four times, he said, speaking about the proposed fourth special session on disarmament. That clearly showed the primary importance of the task of disarmament. Since the first special session in 1978, hopes for substantial measures of disarmament were stronger than ever. While the fourth special session would provide opportunity, a deliberative account should be taken of the timing and the agenda.

Regarding nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said he was convinced they were one of the most effective means in a global non-proliferation regime. In that regard, he welcomed the signing of the Africa Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty on 11 April. The signing of the protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga by France, the United Kingdom and the United States last month was also welcomed. Regarding the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization on the Korean peninsula -- renouncing nuclear weapons, and signed by the two Koreas in December 1991 -- he regretted it had not been implemented to date. He looked forward to its immediate implementation as an effective means of peace and security on the Korean peninsula.

HISASHI OWADA (Japan) said that the issue of international arms transfers had long been a major focus of concern, and had gained even greater urgency with the eruption of conflicts since the end of the cold war. The recent trafficking in arms, linked to drug trafficking and terrorism, had also drawn considerable international attention. The Commission had been deliberating on that subject since its 1994 session. Since the issue was closely linked to the social, political, economic and legal landscape of each country, the task of setting international guidelines was by no means an easy

Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

one. However, intensive discussion on the subject at the current session of the Commission should bear fruit on the issue. International arms transfers often took place in veiled secrecy. It was appropriate to stress the important role of the Register of Conventional Arms. As of 12 February, 93 countries had submitted reports. Some countries were not reporting since they had not been engaged in arms transfers. However, their registration was just as important as those countries with actual transfers to report.

After an interval of almost a decade since the last special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, it was appropriate to convene a fourth such session, he said. Such a session would certainly be desirable at a future stage. But, at the current stage, it was important to achieve as much progress as possible in ongoing efforts. A further exchange of views on the timing and agenda of the session should be conducted. Convening a fourth special session would place a considerable financial burden on the United Nations, which was already in financial distress. It was for those reasons that his country abstained from the vote in the General Assembly on the convening of such a session.

GEOFFREY M. NKURLU (United Republic of Tanzania) expressed disappointment and frustration over the failure of the Commission to reach consensus last year on two important items: the process of nuclear disarmament in the framework of international peace and security with the objective of the elimination of nuclear weapons; and the review of the declaration of the 1990s as the Third Disarmament Decade. It was a major setback in the work of the Commission.

Contrary to expectations, he continued, the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) made it easier for the item to be put to rest, thus conferring legitimacy to indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by a few countries without any commitment to check qualitative and quantitative proliferation. Efforts to achieve a legal instrument for a time-bound framework to eradicate such weapons in various United Nations forums had systematically been thwarted. International diplomacy, not a nuclear arms race under the pretext of deterrence, was the cornerstone of world peace and security.

He went on to say the problem of the illicit transfer of arms had reached alarming proportions. Major producers of conventional arms, with their advanced technology, should lead the way in curbing the practice of illicit arms transfers, especially in the areas fraught with arms conflict. Recipient countries or factions should also refrain from soliciting illicit arms. On nuclear-weapon-free zones, he expressed support for the establishment of such zones and added that such efforts should be complemented at the global level by the exercise of deliberate political will by major nuclear weapon States to eradicate those weapons of mass destruction.

Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

MAGED ABDELAZIZ (Egypt) said the importance of the work of the Commission had been deliberately questioned for the last few years, due to the fact that the Commission had not been able to achieve consensus on concrete results for presentation to the Assembly on two agenda items in its 1995 session. The failure of the Commission to achieve consensus on those topics and on some other topics in previous sessions was due to the lack of political will on the part of the nuclear-weapon States to achieve any results in the nuclear disarmament field. What had been asked by those States was beyond any compromises, because it touched on the principles and objectives of the work of the Commission.

Egypt still attached great importance to the work of the Commission and would continue to oppose proposals made in other Assembly organs to make Commission meetings biennial or to reduce permanently services allocated to it. The agreement to hold the current shortened session did not constitute any precedent in the future work of the Commission. The Commission should continue to have three items on its agenda. In that regard, the third item proposed on the nuclear-weapon-free zones, supported by a large number of delegations, should provide an opportunity to revive the positive impact of the work of the Commission.

He said the signature of the Pelindaba Treaty establishing an African nuclear-weapon-free zone on 11 April and the signing of the Cairo declaration which emphasized the importance of such zones, especially in regions of tension such as the Middle East, marked the first anniversary of Security Council resolution 984 (1995) on security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapon States parties to the NPT. Egypt had used the occasion to remind the Council of its role in the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments in accordance with Article 26 of the Charter. He noted that the Cairo declaration also called upon all those States who had not yet done so to adhere to the NPT, which was a clear recognition by the African States of the serious situation in the Middle East resulting from the existence in Israel, which was not a party to the NPT, of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and its acquisition of nuclear capabilities.

ISSLAMET POERNOMO (Indonesia) said some encouraging developments had taken place in arms limitation in the last year. Last December, at the fourth Summit Meeting of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) the Treaty on the South-east Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone was signed. The Cairo Declaration of 11 April, adopted on the occasion of the signing of the Treaty of Pelindaba, was of exceptional importance. Those were building blocks in the continuing effort to achieve a denuclearized global order. Though behind schedule, there were indications that negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament for a ban on nuclear tests could still be completed by the fifth- first session of the General Assembly. On the negative side, the second Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) had yet to be implemented and the pursuit of further deep cuts in nuclear

Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

armaments had yet to begin. In addition, the technological sophistication of weapons had gone unabated.

The complex issue of international arms transfers should be based on four cardinal principles, he said. First, they should be viewed in the context of weapons needed by newly independent countries. Second, they should be regarded as essential components of regional and subregional security and cooperation. Third, efforts at reducing and curbing conventional arms should be placed within a comprehensive context, focused on both supplier and recipient countries. Finally, their transfer in conflict-ridden areas could be dealt with more effectively through control over national production, as well as import and export policies coupled with greater coordination at the regional and global levels.

The importance of a fourth special session on disarmament could not be overemphasized, he said. A myriad of unresolved issues called for a reassessment of the disarmament agenda and the formulation of new strategies and approaches. Indonesia and other non-aligned countries had stated their preference for convening the preparatory committee in July of this year. Of special concern to the forthcoming session were multilateral accords for the elimination of nuclear armaments, including concrete steps for the further reduction of strategic arsenals, and renewed efforts towards the establishment of new nuclear-free zones.

ISAAC AYEWAH (Nigeria) said that the United Nations had been in existence for 50 years and cold war dispositions and the mindset of nuclear confrontation should have been left behind. However, time was now limited and complications were beginning to emerge in areas where agreements had previously been achieved or were about to be reached. The more or less isolated positive events in the field of disarmament had not prevented the emergence of security crises in strategic locations and on strategic issues. The disagreement that persisted in the negotiations on the comprehensive test- ban treaty, the inability to achieve a mandate for negotiating a fissile material cut-off, the lack of progress in the area of negative security assurances and the impossibility of moving forward on a realistic plan for nuclear disarmament belied the principles and objectives for nuclear non- proliferation and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The current session of the Commission "should serve to awaken the international community from the lull and self-commendation which set in since the end of the cold war", he said. It was timely to begin to talk about a special session of the General Assembly on disarmament. There was no doubt the international community was at a critical juncture in international relations. A post-cold war era needed a new security doctrine and an approach for a new millennium. The exchange of views at a fourth special session would result in a consensus on the necessity to review and revive the process of disarmament in anticipation of the twenty-first century.

Disarmament Commission - 6 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

On the subject of international arms transfers, he attached utmost importance to guidelines and recommendations on matters of arms control and disarmament negotiated in the Commission, and in the Conference on Disarmament. The Register of Conventional Arms, though not perfect, was a useful tool for promoting confidence-building. However, the arms exporting nations continued to proliferate "exclusive" clubs, which took unilateral decisions and set their own criteria and code of conduct for controlling the transfers of conventional arms and dual use materials and technologies. Those exclusive clubs undermined negotiations and led to abuse on the part of the exporters, and illegalities in international arms transfers.

There was a seeming paralysis in the multilateral effort at disarmament, he added. The Commission had suffered, its duration shortened two years in a row. Last year, consensus was not reached on two out of three items. In the current year, it had been difficult to agree on what to discuss. The Commission was the only avenue open to developing countries and non-members of the Conference on Disarmament for focused attention to disarmament matters and participation in matters of security. If the importance of the Commission was to be reduced, it would constitute a disservice to the aspirations of the international community in their justified bid to live in peace and security. He could not subscribe to that.

NALIN SURIE (India) said that while the ultimate objective of disarmament remained constant, the approaches and scope of negotiations had changed along with the international political environment. The two items on the agenda for the 1996 Commission session -- international arms transfers and an exchange of views on a proposed fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament -- were indeed timely. Appropriate decisions on them could substantially contribute to the cause of disarmament and peace.

The impact of the illicit arms trade on the social stability of countries and its destructive consequences, such as fueling terrorism and mercenary activities, were dangers to which all countries were subject, he said. The question of the illicit arms trade pertained to diversion to non- State entities. There was at present a lack of legal control to minimize or prevent the flow of weapons at the national, regional or international level. The problem required innovative means for international cooperation and consultation to control such transfers. The objective would be to eradicate illicit arms transfers through tighter national controls, exchange of information, harmonization of national policies and unequivocal condemnation by the international community.

On the issue of an exchange of views on a proposed fourth special session of the Assembly, he said the Commission would have an opportunity to review the progress in the field of disarmament in the changed post-cold war context. It would also provide an opportunity to identify the issues that would have to be addressed at the meetings of a preparatory committee for such

Disarmament Commission - 7 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

a session. In the third special session devoted to disarmament, India had submitted an action plan outlining a methodology leading towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework. It also described the building of a new world order based not on militarization and threat, but scrupulous adherence to the principles of peaceful co-existence and the Charter.

MARK GWOZDECKY (Canada) said that action by some nuclear-weapon States had given reason to hope and expect more. There were many new opportunities for real progress in dealing with weapons of mass destruction. There was equal reason to hope in the area of conventional weapons. One such conventional weapon, the anti-personnel land-mine, had been aptly described as a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion. Currently efforts were under way in Geneva to attempt to strengthen the inhumane weapons Convention, which would increase restrictions on the use of those weapons. It was not, however, clear that there was yet the necessary collective determination to seize the moment and deal with those weapons in a manner which would ensure their elimination. Increasingly, humanity was rejecting their legitimacy as weapons of war. More than a dozen countries had taken concrete action to ban their use and there was every indication that by this time next year the numbers would grow dramatically.

He went on to say that Canada encouraged the Commission to take up the cause of conventional weapons -- particularly the land-mine issue -- with renewed vigour. Excessive spending on conventional weapons and excessive stockpiles of those weapons did more than kill. They fueled tensions, stole scarce resources and hindered good governance. Issues of conventional weapons should be an important part of the work of the Commission. The document on international arms transfers, to be completed in the next two weeks, could clarify the issue considerably. The existing text before the working group had many good elements. It did not need major surgery. "Two weeks of concentrated effort and a good dose of pragmatism, practicality and compromise should permit us to produce a useful document that will lay some intellectual foundation for our future efforts in dealing with the conventional arms challenge", he concluded.

TAMMAN SULAIMAN (Syria) said the Commission, being the deliberative body of the General Assembly in disarmament, should be no less important than the Conference on Disarmament, and should complement its work. The Commission last year was unable to reach a consensus concerning the final document. He hoped for agreement on the agenda items in the current session.

He said excessive production and stockpiling of conventional weapons should be curbed, taking into consideration the right of self-determination of States. The States that possessed the largest weapon arsenals should work to achieve a drastic reduction in the production and possession of such weapons, with a view to international peace and security. The genuine efforts of the

Disarmament Commission - 8 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

international community in 1978 met with success with the adoption of the final document from the first special session on disarmament. A fourth special session was warranted to review the latest developments in the field of disarmament. He welcomed its convening next year.

He attached special importance to the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones. He hoped the Commission would reach agreement in that respect. It was a universal demand, a cornerstone in promoting the objectives of disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as a first step towards eliminating the nuclear threat. He welcomed the Treaties of Pelindaba, Talateloco and Rarotonga. He hoped for such a treaty in the area of the Middle East.

However, he added Israel was the only State in the region possessing nuclear weapons. It was also the only State in the Middle East that had not acceded to the NPT or subjected its nuclear installations under the full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It was, therefore, the only obstacle to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Israel's statement at the General Assembly that the nuclear issue should not be resolved apart from the peace process was a tactic aimed at evading resolution of the nuclear issue. If the international community reflected in the Commission was serious about productive results in the current session, he expected Israel to be asked to renounce nuclear weapons and to start with real and serious steps to subject its nuclear installations to the IAEA, as well as to accede to the NPT.

RAJAB SUKAYRI (Jordan) said the Commission -- as the only United Nations deliberative body with universal membership in the field of disarmament -- was supposed to play an extremely important role. The casual failure of the Commission to carry out its mandate was not necessarily due to any inherent inferiority in its status, but to the lack of sufficient time allocated to its substantive sessions, as well as to the lack of consensus among members on specific sensitive matters under consideration. He urged the convening of a special Commission session designed to enhance its effectiveness. He regretted the failure to reach agreement on two of three of the agenda items last year.

Regarding illicit arms transfers, he said all ways and means should be considered for their eradication. The Commission was supposed to conclude deliberations on that item. The elements of last year's document would constitute a good basis for current deliberations. A fourth special session on disarmament was of great importance. It came at a time when the entire agenda of disarmament and international security was being reshuffled in preparation for the next century. It called for careful preparation to pave the way for constructive results. Deliberation of that item was no substitute for the preparatory work. Such a meeting should be convened early.

Disarmament Commission - 9 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

He regretted the lack of consensus on a third agenda item, adding that nuclear-free zones were the best option. They were a valuable component in global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. He hoped the States of the Middle East would be able to establish its own nuclear-weapon-free zone. He noted a most recent resolution, 50/66 of 12 December 1995, which provided for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and which called upon the parties to the NPT to extend their cooperation and to exert their utmost efforts towards the establishment of such a zone.

LUIS SALAZAR-MONROE (Peru) hailed the signing of the Pelindaba Treaty in Cairo, which brought the world closer to the banning of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. He praised those nuclear-weapon States which had signed such documents. Due to the Commission's failure to reach consensus on important issues in 1994 and 1995, it had yet to comply with its basic mandate to seek world-wide disarmament. The Commission's problems had several dimensions, including those which were strictly functional and organizational. There was a lack of political will on the multilateral level to pursue disarmament in all its aspects.

He said the items on the agenda for the current session were of considerable importance to his country. The nuclear-weapon-free zones were an important concept. Just as the mandate of the Commission was taking on a renewed relevance, the international community should agree on specific measures to foster disarmament. The proposed fourth special session would offer an important opportunity in that regard. The terms and objectives of such a session should be made quite explicit to avoid achieving results which could not be implemented. While supporting the NPT, Peru saw the danger of reducing disarmament to only the nuclear issue. Progress was necessary on conventional arms as well. The existence of conventional weapon build-ups should be considered and curbed by the international community. The Commission must complete its guidelines on international arms transfers -- not an easy task. The Conventional Arms Register should be updated to include new categories of weapons. The problem was even greater when it concerned illicit arms transfers.

Right of Reply

Mr. KIM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said he regretted that the representative of South Korea had implied that the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, which was signed in full agreement by the two Koreas in December 1991, could not be implemented because of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. His country had proposed in the 1970s that the Korean peninsula be turned into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, but its proposal had been rejected by the other side. It was not possible to settle any nuclear issues with South Korea. Any agreement would be meaningless unless the United States was

Disarmament Commission - 10 - Press Release DC/2550 202nd Meeting (AM) 23 April 1996

included. South Korea had asked to be included under the United States' nuclear umbrella. The nuclear issue should be settled primarily between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. There would be no difficulties once such an agreement had been reached and implemented. The terms of the Joint Declaration had been essentially met by his country.

Mr. HAHM (Republic of Korea), also exercising the right of reply, said that in his earlier statement he had only emphasized the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones and in that context had mentioned the 1991 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, which had not been implemented because of North Korea's obstructionist attitude. His Government was fully prepared to implement the Declaration. He called for a bilateral dialogue with North Korea in order to implement without delay the Joint Declaration.

Mr. KIM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), exercising the right of reply, reiterated that his Government could not settle any security matters with South Korea, which did not have the prerogative over its military and no say over the nuclear weapons deployed by the United States. It was meaningless to talk about denuclearization with South Korea, while excluding the United States. The matter should be settled first with the United States. Then there would be no obstacle to denuclearization between North and South.

* *** *