AUSTRIA WANTS IMMEDIATE TOTAL BAN ON ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES, REPRESENTATIVE TELLS DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Press Release
DCF/292

AUSTRIA WANTS IMMEDIATE TOTAL BAN ON ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES, REPRESENTATIVE TELLS DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

GENEVA, 13 March (UN Information Service) -- Austria wanted a total ban on anti-personnel land mines and it wanted it now, that country's representative told the Conference on Disarmament this morning.

According to Ambassador Harald Kreid, the momentum existed for the conclusion of negotiations on a land mine-ban treaty before the end of the year. Canada's initiative in this direction last year had seen the beginning of a process commanding the support of a growing number of States, he said, as had become apparent in a meeting held in Vienna from February 12 to 14 and attended by 111 countries. Proposals made at that meeting were being considered in the process of revising an Austrian draft treaty that would be sent out to all States by the end of March, he added.

Mr. Kreid said the Vienna meeting had not solved the question of where such a treaty should be negotiated. Austria was willing to pursue various tracks, but it considered that the Conference could not simply ponder the matter in its customary slow-motion fashion, he noted.

The representative's comments came as the Conference continued to search for agreement on a programme of work for the 1997 session. In closing remarks this morning, outgoing Conference President Pavel Grecu (Romania) said the intensive bilateral consultations on a work programme he had held with all delegations had not fulfilled the Conference's expectations. They had none the less been useful to reveal possible ways of compromise, and he intended to continue his efforts until the very end of his term of office.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference will be on Thursday, 20 March, at 10 a.m. The representative of the Russian Federation, Grigori Berdennikov, will take up the Presidency of the Conference for four weeks at that meeting.

Statement

HARALD KREID (Austria) said sober reflection on where the Conference stood revealed that compromise was not yet in sight. But even if members had not found common ground, positions had not remained unchanged. There was movement, and as long as there was creative thinking the chances of coming up with a viable solution were intact.

- 2 - Press Release DCF/292 14 March 1997

Mr. Kreid said he would concentrate on subject matters which had emerged as priority concerns in discussions, namely anti-personnel land mines and the various aspects of nuclear disarmament. With regard to the former, Austria's position could be summarized in one sentence: "We want a total ban and we want it fast". The momentum created in the wake of the Review Conference of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects in Geneva last year should be used for negotiating a total-ban convention before the end of the year. Austria was greatly encouraged by the response to last year's Canadian initiative, which had seen the beginning of a process commanding the support of a growing number of States. This fact had become apparent in a meeting held in Vienna from February 12 to 14 with the participation of 111 States. The wealth of proposals made at that meeting was being given due consideration in the process of revising an Austrian tentative draft convention. Austria intended to send out a revised version of its draft to all States by the end of March for comments.

The Vienna meeting did not solve, nor had it been meant to solve, the question of where the convention should be negotiated, he continued. Austria was willing to pursue various tracks provided they held the promise of success. But Austria had reason to believe that it was up against some major obstacles in the Conference. The Conference could not simply ponder the matter in its customary slow-motion fashion.

Turning to nuclear disarmament, Mr. Kreid said the view that a fissile material cut-off treaty would not be a genuine disarmament treaty and that it would mainly perpetuate the inequality between the nuclear weapon haves and have-nots was incomplete, if not erroneous. A cut-off treaty would make existing unilateral commitments of nuclear weapon States to end their production an obligation under a multilateral treaty; it would also open the door to verification measures. Negotiations would inevitably have to touch upon the question of stockpiles, even if they would remain outside of the treaty; it was hard to see how cut-off could be verified without transparency with regard to existing stockpiles.

After the end of the East-West confrontation, a window of opportunity for nuclear disarmament had opened, he went on. As the report of the Canberra Commission stated, "it must be exploited quickly, or it will be lost. There has been no better opportunity since the beginning of the nuclear age". But, could the Conference start to negotiate cut-off and, at the same time, set up some kind of mechanism to examine what nuclear disarmament measures could usefully be negotiated? The Principles and Objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not only called for a cut-off convention, but also referred to the need for simultaneous pursuit "by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

* *** *