DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE DISCUSSES WORK PRIORITIES

Press Release
DCF/314

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE DISCUSSES WORK PRIORITIES

GENEVA, 4 September (UN Information Service) -- Members of the Conference on Disarmament this morning outlined their priorities for future work within the forum as the 1997 session draws to a close.

Pointing to the lack of work on substantive items of the agenda this year, a representative of Finland said it was important that the Conference be able to start real negotiations right from the beginning of the 1998 session. Finland had welcomed the appointment of Special Coordinators on anti-personnel land-mines, the agenda, extension of membership and functioning of the Conference, he said. The terms of those Special Coordinators who called for it should be extended to allow them to conclude their work, he added, and they should be permitted to conduct consultations in the intersessional period.

The representative of Pakistan, meanwhile, said some had sought to give the impression that the Conference was an unwieldy body unable to agree on any negotiations. The truth was that a number of delegations assumed positions so rigid that they would not allow the forum to carry out its responsibility of undertaking negotiations on the items on its agenda. There was refusal by a handful of States to allow the Conference to negotiate on the highest priority of the international community, namely nuclear disarmament, he said.

Representatives of Ireland and Mexico explained their support for the "Ottawa process" to conclude a treaty banning anti-personnel land-mines. A representative of Indonesia, on the other hand, said the Conference was the only appropriate forum to address the issue of anti-personnel land-mines. He added, however, that Indonesia welcomed in principle any other endeavour aimed at eliminating those indiscriminate weapons.

Also taking a floor this morning, a representative of Israel said that as the tensions of the cold war era gave way to growing global confidence and cooperation, the international community should now turn its attention towards any as yet unresolved regional conflicts, characterized by the unprecedented build up of conventional and, in some cases, by the clandestine pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Apparently, that was exemplified by Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Iran was another example of a State currently engaged in acquiring non-conventional capabilities, in a

manner which was not consistent with its international obligations, he said, adding that Israel called on the international community to prevent such dangerous developments.

That statement drew replies from representatives of Iraq, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran. The latter said it was ironic to hear such allegations from a country which had not ratified the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) nor accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards. Israel should address the legitimate concerns of the international community over its acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Following the statements, the Conference went into an informal plenary session to discuss its draft report to the General Assembly. The next formal plenary meeting is set for 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 September.

Statements

EYTAN BENTSUR (Israel) said the peace process in the Middle East must enhance security for all concerned. The present political process, which reflected a growing recognition of the futility of the use of force as a means to advance political goals, had not yet fundamentally and irreversibly changed the basic strategic setting or, more correctly, the general state of threat in which Israel, but not only Israel, existed and operated.

Besides the necessity to maintain a regional military balance of power, Israel aspired to establish a regional security framework encompassing all countries of the Middle East to provide a cooperative multilateral response to all security problems, he said. In that context, Israel welcomed the establishment of the Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) as a part of the multilateral talks within the framework of the Middle East peace process initiated in Madrid. After peaceful relations and reconciliation were established among all States in the region, Israel would endeavour to establish in the Middle East, through direct negotiations among all its members, a zone free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as ballistic missiles, bases on mutual and effective verification. Israel had already declared a moratorium on the exportation of anti-personnel land-mines, recently extending it until 1999. Israel supported a gradual process in which each State would undertake to cease proliferation of anti- personnel land-mines, accept restrictions on possible use, and -- once regional and other circumstances permitted -- ban production and use.

As the tensions of the cold war era gave way to growing global confidence and cooperation, he said, the international community should now turn its attention towards many as yet unresolved regional conflicts, characterized by the unprecedented build up of conventional and, in some

- 3 - Press Release DCF/314 4 September 1997

cases, by the clandestine pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Apparently, that was exemplified by Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Iran was another example of a State currently engaged in acquiring non-conventional capabilities, in a manner which was not consistent with its international obligations. Israel called on the international community to prevent such dangerous developments.

ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) said there was a somewhat disturbing trend in many of the references to the Ottawa process in the Conference. Some delegations appeared to argue that negotiations on anti-personnel land-mines in the Conference would be essential because any agreement emerging from the Ottawa process would not be immediately universal. That implied that if an international agreement, negotiated in good faith through an opened-ended process, did not achieve instant universality then, in effect, negotiations on the same issue must be re-opened in a more exclusive forum in an effort to capture the non signatories. It was odd for the Conference, of all bodies, to suggest that an agreement which failed to attract immediate global support was so intrinsically flawed as to require a relaunching of the negotiations immediately after its opening for signature. What implications would such an approach have for other disarmament negotiations? One could confidently expect that, by January 1998, there would be an international agreement banning anti-personnel land-mines signed by a very large number of countries. It was difficult to envisage how the signatories to such an agreement could then embark on a separate negotiation dealing with exactly the same prohibitions with the final objective of concluding another, inevitably less stringent regime. Ireland was distinctly cautious about arguments which appeared to downplay, in advance, the status and significance of the agreement to be signed in Ottawa.

Ms. ANDERSON said that early in the 1997 session Ireland had indicated that the step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament had produced sufficient progress to justify continuing confidence in its utility. The next step in that approach should be the opening of negotiations on a fissile material cut- off convention in accordance with the Shannon mandate adopted by consensus in the Conference. At the same time, Ireland supported calls for a mechanisms in the Conference, an ad hoc committee if one wished, which would permit the examination of what further multilateral negotiations the Conference might usefully undertake in support of the goal of the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. The current rate of progress towards nuclear disarmament was unacceptably slow; the international community needed now, not in the next millennium, to consider how best to translate the goal of the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons into a more concrete reality and to explore and agree how and by what means that goal might be achieved.

AGUS TARMIDZI (Indonesia) said he wished to emphasize that Indonesia was open to any proposal presented at the Conference as long as it could result in

- 4 - Press Release DCF/314 4 September 1997

valuable progress to push deliberations or negotiations forward. If Indonesia had stated that its top priority was nuclear disarmament, it was because that always been the concern of the international community. But if members of the Conference thought that the time was not yet ripe to discuss those matters of concern and wished instead to discuss some or any single aspect of each issue, then Indonesia was willing to listen. In the context of nuclear disarmament, for example, the Conference could start discussions on a fissile material cut-off treaty or on negative security assurances. In the end, the completion of negotiation on those issues could strengthen efforts to achieve comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

On the other hand, if members wished to discuss any element of conventional disarmament, such as anti-personnel land-mines, his delegation was ready to do so as well, he said. Even though Indonesia was of the view that the Conference was the only appropriate forum to address that important issue, it also welcomed in principle any other endeavour, and among them the Ottawa Process, aimed at eliminating those indiscriminate weapons. However, a total ban should apply also to mines using "sophisticated technology" and not just to the traditional ones, for Indonesia could not support a policy which implied technological discrimination.

LOUISE HAND (Australia) speaking on behalf of the Special Coordinator on anti-personnel land-mines, John Campbell, said the Special Coordinator welcomed the suggestion by Ambassador Mounir Zahran of Egypt, the Special Coordinator on the effective functioning of the Conference, that the President should conduct consultations on how to proceed. Ambassador Campbell looked forward to taking part in any consultations held on anti-personnel land-mines, or on other issues, in any way the President found useful.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said he wished to refer to the report presented last week by the Special Coordinator on anti-personnel land-mines. Mexico had participated in the Ottawa process since its inception. It was not convinced that the Conference was the appropriate forum for the early conclusion of a ban on anti-personnel land-mines. Those weapons were indiscriminate, and as such violated international humanitarian law. The Conference was not the proper place to negotiate aspects of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the Conference was not known for the rapidity of its negotiating process, and a ban on land-mines could not wait for decades. None the less, Mexico had agreed on the holding of consultations on whether there was a common view on solving the humanitarian tragedy caused by such weapons. But there was no consensus in the Conference regarding the opening of negotiations on a land-mine ban; nor, as the Special Coordinator had reported, did it seem probable that a consensus would emerge in the foreseeable future. So much for the argument that negotiations on a ban within the Conference would bring in the major producers and exporters. It

- 5 - Press Release DCF/314 4 September 1997

seemed some did not want to prohibit anti-personnel mines, whether in the Conference or outside it.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said some had sought to give the impression that the Conference was an unwieldy body unable to agree on any negotiations. But the truth was that a number of delegations assumed positions so rigid that they would not allow the forum to carry out its responsibility of undertaking negotiations on the items on its agenda. There was refusal by a handful of States to allow the Conference to negotiate on the highest priority of the international community, namely nuclear disarmament. As the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, the Conference was the place where nuclear disarmament should be dealt with. He hoped that at this crucial moment, the silent majority of delegations committed to the single multilateral negotiating body would rally behind a position which was fair and just and not succumb to a process that had led the Conference into inactivity in 1997.

MARKKU REIMAA (Finland) said it was important that the Conference be able to start real negotiations right from the beginning of the 1998 session. To make that possible, intensive consultations were needed, including during the intersessional period. Finland had welcomed the appointment of Special Coordinators on anti-personnel land-mines, the agenda, extension of membership and functioning of the Conference; they had carried useful work, but had not had enough time to come up with specific recommendations. Therefore, the terms of those Special Coordinators who so wished should be extended to allow them to conclude their work. They should be permitted to conduct consultations in the intersessional period.

The Ottawa process had greatly strengthened momentum towards a total ban on land-mines, he said. But a total ban would only be possible if due consideration was given to the national security concerns of States; the Conference was the proper forum to address those concerns. Finland also wished to see negotiations start on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

Right of Reply

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said it was a matter of great concern to the international community that Israel was still occupying territory and causing suffering to the Palestinian people. It was no secret that in making statements such as the one made this morning, Israel wanted to divert attention away from its hostile policies. That sort of behaviour should not be allowed in the Conference in the future.

The representative of Iran said his delegation regretted the allegations made by the delegate of Israel. It was ironic to hear such allegations from a country which had not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

- 6 - Press Release DCF/314 4 September 1997

Weapons (NPT) nor accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards. Iran, for its part, had ratified the NPT and opened its activities to IAEA inspection. People who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. Israel should instead address the legitimate concerns of the international community over its acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of Iraq said his delegation suggested that members focus on the mandated activities of the Conference and leave other elements outside. The question of weapons was a strategic one in the Middle East because of a specific situation: if countries in the region had acquired strategic weapons it had been in reaction to the fact that Israel had acquired strategic weapons, including nuclear arms.

* *** *