CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DECIDES TO APPOINT SPECIAL COORDINATOR ON LAND-MINES
Press Release
DCF/304
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DECIDES TO APPOINT SPECIAL COORDINATOR ON LAND-MINES
19970701 (Delayed in transmission; reproduced as received.)GENEVA, 26 June (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament approved this morning a proposal to appoint a "Special Coordinator" to explore the establishment of a possible mandate on the question of anti-personnel land-mines.
Chairwoman Maria Krasnohorska of Slovakia said she hoped achievement of consensus on the matter -- contained in a formal proposal tabled by Australia -- would lead to adoption by the Conference of a programme of work.
She further announced that she would hold informal consultations in the early afternoon with the hopes of appointing the Special Coordinator at a reconvened plenary at 3 p.m.
Several delegations said after the decision that the Conference should take a decision to focus as well on making substantive progress on global nuclear disarmament.
The Conference, halfway through its yearly session, has yet to reach agreement on a comprehensive work programme.
Earlier in its regular Thursday-morning plenary the Conference heard formal statements by representatives of Japan, Poland, New Zealand, Brazil, Chile, China, Germany, Cuba and Canada.
Statements
HISAMI KUROKOCHI (Japan) said that on June 10 Japan had notified the Secretary-General that Japan would consent to be bound by the Amended Protocol II on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, and the Additional Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons annexed to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Further, on June 6 the Japanese Diet had approved ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In the light of this news, she felt deep regret that the Conference had not started any substantial work. In particular, despite having agreed to it during her Presidency of the group two years ago, the Conference had still not begun negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. It seemed that one reason lay with
application of the consensus rule; perhaps each country should block proceedings of the Conference only when it needed to protect a basic security interest, and not when the point at issue was procedural. The same practice could apply in cases of treaty negotiations, she said; she wondered if it was the real aim of the consensus rule to deny the will of a majority members which strongly hoped to move treaty talks forward where there was already an agreed mandate, as in the case of fissile-material negotiations. She further called for appointment of a special coordinator on the topic of nuclear disarmament.
LUDWIK DEMBINSKI (Poland) said that in his personal view, the Conference was still modeled on cold war terms, with its triangular structure of east, west, and non-aligned countries; its agenda similarly represented a bygone era. It was therefore no surprise that for the moment the Conference was unable to move forward. Why should it stick to the triangular structure; why should it not update its agenda? Why should it not seriously examine further expansion of its membership rather than invoking ideological arguments, including that of "regional balance"? Obstacles on the road to disarmament were no longer ideological; they were eminently practical, such as know-how and cost involved; those practical issues should be faced in a step-by-step manner, with fissile-material cut-off as a point in case. The Conference also should turn its attention to conventional arms, anti-personnel land mines among them.
WADE ARMSTRONG (New Zealand) said that despite the impasse on reaching an agenda for Conference work, there were proposals on the table for the group's consideration. New Zealand was ready to start now on fissile-material cut-off negotiations; it was ready to begin a multilateral dialogue on nuclear disarmament, including consideration of steps to eliminate all nuclear weapons; it would not object to appointment of a Special Coordinator for negotiations on land mines if that decision came up today. As a parting message to the Conference, he wished to express the hope that common interest and a willingness to cooperate across group lines would again be generated among the entire membership -- in that way, the Conference would soon be able to get down to work. CELSO LAFER (Brazil) said that on 20 June the President of Brazil had requested Congressional authorization for Brazil to accede to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In addition, Brazil had in recent years created a Brazilian-Argentine inspection mechanism in the nuclear field, negotiated a full-scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and taken several similar steps, including renunciation of the development of nuclear explosive devices. Brazil continued to believe that the best guarantee against nuclear-weapons proliferation was to make sure nothing remained to be proliferated -- a certainty only obtainable by complete elimination of nuclear weapons. That was why Brazil would continue to stand alongside those who strove for commitment to such a goal within realistic phases and time frames.
- 3 - Press Release DCF/304 1 July 1994
JORGE BERGUÑO (Chile) said the agenda, programme of work, special coordinators, and other mechanisms for effective functioning of the Conference all reflected the same image -- the intent to reach a common goal of disarmament. The Chilean Government would submit a document to the Conference for updating of the Conference's now-anachronistic rules of procedure. Operations needed to be harmonized in keeping with today's world; as matters stood now, topics removed from their suitable contexts somehow became obstacles rather than means to progress. Whoever had legitimate problems with an agenda item or methods for dealing with it should say clearly and openly -- if that had occurred, he felt an agenda could have been developed by now.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said China was in favour of strict and feasible restrictions on land mines, thereby achieving an ultimate ban in a step-by-step manner. However, for developing countries like China which had long land borders and uncertain security environments, land mines remained an indispensable and legitimate means of national defense. China was not opposed to prohibition of mines in a phased approach, but could not agree to any immediate total ban, as it had to meet its legitimate territorial defense requirements with such devices until alternative means were found. China preferred achieving an ultimate total ban in a phased approach within the framework of the conventional weapons Convention, or CCW. In a spirit of flexibility, it would not object to appointment of a Special Coordinator by the Conference, however; for China what mattered was the objective of the negotiations rather than the forum. The country itself had made active efforts to accede to international humanitarian laws, strictly abided by the CCW, tried its best to provide assistance to land mine-affected countries, and exercised strict control on the transfer of land mines.
GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany) said Germany was fully committed to the Ottawa process on a land-mine ban, but at the same time believed the Conference had a role to play in this area and was deeply disappointed that it had been unable to reach agreement even on the appointment of a special coordinator on the topic. Germany also believed that following consensus in 1995 on a mandate for negotiations on a fissile-material cut-off treaty, the Conference had a solid basis for beginning work immediately. Events during the Conference's current session had demonstrated again the self-defeating effects of holding progress in one area hostage to progress in other areas; linkages were a recipe for blocking any kind of progress in the Conference and should be discarded once and for all. Germany thought it particularly inappropriate and illogical to maintain a linkage between a decision on the programme of work and the nomination of a Special Coordinator, whose task would be to explore the possibility of consensus on including a specific item in such a programme of work. He hoped the Conference would resume its work with a renewed sense of commitment towards meaningful and substantive work, and thus live up to its responsibilities.
- 4 - Press Release DCF/304 1 July 1994
CARLOS AMAT FORES (Cuba) reviewed the extent of death and damage that could be caused by nuclear weapons, using casualty figures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and called for substantive progress toward the goal of complete disarmament. Criticism of "linkages" by some parties to the Conference frequently cited "flexibility", he said; but would it not also be an indication of "flexibility" if those countries wanting negotiation of the issue of land mines also were willing to substantively negotiate true nuclear disarmament? It seemed clear that around the world many millions wished strongly for it. The use of land mines as legitimate weapons had not been banned -- although Cuba was concerned over their indiscriminate and improper use -- but by comparison the damage that could be caused by nuclear weapons could be much greater than that caused by conventional weapons; Cuba would never abandon the legitimate goal of true nuclear disarmament. Those claiming to be concerned for the lives of civilians, especially children, and the damage caused by land mines to civilians, should also act in good faith to prevent damage such as malnutrition and starvation caused by such weapons as economic blockades.
The representative of Canada said the country hoped a way would be found in the near future for the Conference to carry on with its work. On the matter of land mines, Canada had great regard for the views of other countries; it had not sought Conference endorsement of the Ottawa process. It did recognize the need for a multi-dimensional response to the land mine process; it agreed an additional protocol to the CCW dealing with mines was a good idea; and it had no objection to the Conference doing what it could do on the issue of land mines. Furthermore, it did not object to appointment of a special coordinator on the topic. But Canada nonetheless had the national objective of a comprehensive ban on land mines; it thought it was very important and would pursue it vigorously, and thought that goal stood up well under any objective examination.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said there was a need for a special coordinator on the work programme of the Conference. He regretted that the decision to appoint a Special Coordinator on the issue of land mines had been adopted while the Conference still had no work programme. How could an issue be discussed without such a programme? It should also be emphasized that the priority for the international community was nuclear disarmament. He suggested that when the question of land mines was taken up, the issue of mines left in formerly occupied countries by occupiers should also be discussed, as well as the legitimate use of such weapons in uninhabited territory that was difficult to defend otherwise.
The representative of Norway underlined that the Special Coordinator had been named in order to obtain the views of Conference members on the best way for the forum to address the question.
- 5 - Press Release DCF/304 1 July 1994
ARUNDHATI GHOSE (India) said the Group of 21 non-aligned countries were becoming accustomed to having their views ignored. The Group had submitted a proposal on a work programme (document CD/1462), yet there were no urgent efforts to agree on such a programme. And the Group had proposed last year already the appointment of a special coordinator on the question of nuclear disarmament. Further, in document CD/1463, India had proposed a mandate for an ad hoc group on nuclear disarmament, but there had been no reference to that proposal. India and other countries believed that, at least in the Conference, they would be treated as equal members. She pointed out that in order for today's decision to be adopted, one Conference member had not been present. India hoped that would not set a precedent.
The representative of New Zealand stressed his country's commitment to the Ottawa process and welcomed the efforts of the Conference on the issue of a land-mine ban. The appointment of a Special Coordinator would make it possible to determine whether the Conference was able to achieve consensus on the measures to elaborate a treaty banning those weapons. In the absence of such a consensus, the Conference would be unable to deal with the question.
The representative of Sri Lanka said the question of adopting a programme of work could be settled before the end of the second part of this session. No Conference member was opposed to the establishment of ad hoc committees on negative security assurances, transparency in armaments and an arms race in outer space.
The representative of Cuba said the country had joined the consensus on a Special Coordinator, although it felt the decision was partial, as it did not correspond to the priorities of the Conference.
The representative of Mexico said today's decision did not mean that the Conference had decided to negotiate on the issue of land mines. The Conference should take up the question of highest priority for the international community, namely nuclear disarmament. He stressed the importance of participating in the Ottawa process.
The representative of the United States said she hoped the Conference would soon be able to establish an ad hoc committee on anti-personnel land mines. She called for flexibility on the part of delegations and hoped this morning's decision would be the first in a series that would eventually allow the Conference to begin its substantive work.
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation was committed to reaching an agreement on a programme of work, which should include negotiations on a land-mine ban. He regretted that not all States were ready to make a commitment in that direction. The efforts at the Conference and the Ottawa process were complementary.
* *** *