PRESS BRIEFING BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

19 December 1996

Press Briefing

19961219 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

Alyaksandr Sychou, Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations, briefed correspondents at Headquarters today in his capacity as Chairman of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). He was joined by the Director of the United Nations Centre for Disarmament Affairs, Prvoslav Davinic, and the First Committee Secretary, Kuo-chung Lin.

Mr. Sychou said that it had been an historical year in the field of disarmament. The long-awaited Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed within a short period of time by 138 States. The sixty-fifth instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention) had been deposited, triggering the mechanism for its entry into force. The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty) had been signed in Cairo in April. Those combined events should provide a strong impetus for progress towards a more peaceful and secure world, he said.

The First Committee session had clearly demonstrated the readiness of Member States to rise to the new challenges in international relations, Mr. Sychou said. Discussions were conducted in a businesslike and cooperative manner, resulting in the adoption by consensus of 21 disarmament resolutions. On those resolutions which eluded consensus, Member States sought to minimize their differences and highlight their common ground. The opening for signature of the CTBT had had the most positive impact on the session of the General Assembly, in general, and the First Committee, in particular. And the Preparatory Commission for the CTBT Organization had made some progress towards laying down a foundation. He hoped that the serious problem it had encountered in its work would soon be resolved.

New developments in the field of chemical weapons had also been gratifying, he said. In a welcome and long overdue development, the Chemical Weapons Convention would enter into force on 29 April 1997. After a two-year absence of chemical weapons' resolutions, one had been adopted this year without a vote. It had not been an easy task. Rather, it had required compromise and cooperation by Member States who paved the way to its unanimous adoption. The Chairman of the Conference on Disarmament provided excellent work.

He said that, with the signing of the Pelindaba Treaty along with a number of persistent calls for the creation of new zones in various regions around the world, that issue had acquired a prominent place on the disarmament agenda. The establishment of such zones had always been considered a "second

front" of nuclear disarmament. Now, an overwhelming majority of delegations strongly supported the establishment of such zones, and believed that the experiences of other long-standing nuclear-weapon-free zones could be helpful in the elaboration and creation of new ones.

The issue of nuclear-weapon-free zones would be discussed in the forthcoming session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, he continued. In that connection, the resolution to establish such a zone in the Middle East had been adopted by consensus for 16 consecutive years. It was very gratifying to see consensus prevail on that text, given the problems of that difficult and sensitive region and the differences in the timing of its establishment -- the issue that had seriously threatened consensus.

Issues of nuclear disarmament remained a high priority in the First Committee, with some elements of that complex issue on the Committee's agenda for a long time, he said. Others had appeared more recently, such as the draft on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. Despite the differing emphasis placed on different elements of the Court's announcement, there was one issue on which he could not detect any divergence -- the necessity for further nuclear disarmament measures.

His own country had recently taken measures towards nuclear disarmament. For example, the last nuclear ballistic missile was withdrawn from Belarus in December, thereby rendering that territory in the centre of Europe nuclear- weapon free. All tactical missiles had been withdrawn in April 1992. The withdrawal of ballistic missiles was a significant contribution towards European and global security. All missiles were also withdrawn from Ukraine and Kazakstan. Furthermore, the implementation by the Russian Federation, United States, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan of nuclear reduction under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and the readiness of the Russian Federation and the United States to consider that process under START II were steps forward.

Those steps, however, were not enough, he went on. More was needed and more was expected. Yet, there were certain differences about how States would progress. Some emphasized a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament, with the conclusion of a cut-off convention on nuclear fissile material for weapons purposes as the next step. Others strongly suggested multilateral negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament, which would include the notion of a time-bound framework. He hoped those divergences would not stall the process altogether, particularly in the Conference on Disarmament.

Mr. Sychou said that,although issues of nuclear disarmament would likely remain the focus of multilateral disarmament efforts, the world had begun to take note of the destructive capacity of conventional weapons, as well. It had seen with remarkable clarity what those weapons could do. Anti-personnel land-mines -- which, by their indiscriminate nature, killed without regard -- had been compared to weapons of mass destruction. While countries continued

Disarmament Committee Briefing - 3 - 19 December 1996

to consider those weapons to be a necessary component of their defence, the magnitude of their damage could not be overlooked. The humanitarian aspect of that problem should outweigh all other considerations. That view was shared by the First Committee, which overwhelmingly supported a resolution on an international agreement to ban those weapons.

The issue of non-proliferation, not only of nuclear weapons but of all types of weapons, had gained considerable ground in the First Committee, he said. Such emphasis was an accurate reflection of the sources of instability that occupied the majority of governments. Indiscriminate proliferation did not take place in a vacuum, but was a component of increased terrorism, drug trafficking, and aggressive separatism. He said that the Committee was unable to adopt by consensus the resolution on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD IV). He was not discouraged, because once the issue of proper preparation was resolved, including the question of the agenda and definition of the session's objectives, consensus would be attained. The forthcoming session of the Disarmament Commission would provide an opportunity for common understanding in that regard.

Mr. Sychou said that the procedural aspects of the work of the First Committee had finally caught the attention of delegations. It seemed that thematic structure discussion had not produced the desired results, requiring a new approach. One suggestion was to link structured discussion to the specific topics covered by various draft resolutions, which could be submitted at an early time in the work of the Committee. While such changes should be fully discussed by Committee members, it was nevertheless a time when innovation should be encouraged.

A correspondent asked Mr. Sychou to comment on the disagreement over SSOD IV. Mr. Sychou said the question was under consultation, and was discussed during the organizational session of the Disarmament Commission. With only two States having voted against the draft, and one having abstained, there was a very good basis for compromise and consensus. Depending on the good will of all concerned States, consensus could be reached before the Commission's next substantive session.

Another correspondent asked Mr. Sychou to comment in his national capacity on the idea put forth by other representatives of Belarus of a central and eastern European nuclear-weapon-free space. Mr. Sychou said the proposal was valid, and consultations among interested countries were under way. Support was being sought from neighbouring countries. And with the withdrawal of all tactical and ballistic missiles from the territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan, the time was right for the creation of such a zone. It also depended, however, on the willingness of western countries. Ukraine supported the proposal of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in central and eastern Europe. He wished to know the views of neighbouring countries, as well, and he sought a dialogue with western European countries.

Disarmament Committee Briefing - 4 - 19 December 1996

A correspondent asked about whether the strong concern expressed by western European countries and members of the European Parliament over the recent referendum in Belarus consolidating power in the hands of Alyaksandr Lukashenka would affect the prospect for such a dialogue. Mr. Sychou said that the aim of the referendum was to open the possibility for democratic and economic reform. There was a sincere wish to start a dialogue with the western countries, and to show them that Belarus was in the European family. Time would tell. His country was currently consulting with the European Parliament and the European Union. It would fulfil all its obligations concerning multilateral agreements in the field of disarmament and in all forthcoming negotiations on conventional forces in Europe.

Another correspondent, noting the many votes against and in abstention of the resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, asked whether that resolution would influence future discussions in the Conference on Disarmament. Mr. Sychou said the opinion could influence Conference deliberations, adding that it was very important for the Conference to have a future agenda that includes other aspects of nuclear and conventional disarmament.

* *** *