DELEGATIONS SUPPORT SOUTH AFRICAN PROPOSAL ON AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT WITHIN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
Press Release
DCF/320
DELEGATIONS SUPPORT SOUTH AFRICAN PROPOSAL ON AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT WITHIN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
19980126 GENEVA, 22 January (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard support from delegations for a proposal made by South Africa at the opening of the 1998 session earlier this week for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.The representative of Japan welcomed South Africa's concrete proposal and said it was now time to consider how nuclear disarmament could be adequately dealt with in the Conference. The representatives of Egypt and Ireland said the proposal deserved the attention of the Conference. Belgium noted that the South African proposal was worthy of interest because it would open up new dialogue and allow transparency.
The representative of Mexico said the terms and spirit of the South African proposal were designed to foster dialogue with a view to the progressive elimination of nuclear weapons. Chile said his country supported South Africa's proposal which was comprehensive and balanced.
The representative of Canada acknowledged that nuclear disarmament was a primary preoccupation of the global community. The Conference could make a further contribution by the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. The representative of Ireland said that while the bilateral processes between the United States and the Russian Federation were important stepping stones on the way to reduce their nuclear arsenals, global elimination of nuclear weapons could not be achieved without multilateral negotiations.
The representative of Belgium said that his country did not believe that the revival of the bilateral negotiation process in a multilateral context would serve nuclear disarmament. Transparency was the only way to handle this issue. The representative of Egypt said that making progress on nuclear disarmament must be the top priority for 1998. Egypt believed much work had to be done within the Conference to ensure nuclear weapons reductions, not only in the United States and the Russian Federation, but also in other nuclear weapon States.
Some of the speakers in this morning's meeting raised the issue of trafficking of light arms and weapons. Canada suggested that the Conference develop a longer-term global approach to meeting the challenge of the licit
and illicit trade in conventional weapons and light arms. The representative of Mexico said that conventional disarmament would continue to be a subject of concern to the international community and there was an urgent need for a worldwide agreement to stop the illicit trafficking of small weapons.
Anti-personnel landmines were also discussed. The Egyptian representative said that measures aiming at curbing landmines should be accompanied by serious and concrete steps geared towards mine-clearance from affected countries which were unable to achieve it on their own. The representative of Japan said his country strongly believed that in order to achieve the universal elimination of anti-personnel landmines, the participation of main producers and users that remained outside of the Ottawa Treaty in the negotiation process was indispensable.
At the end of this morning's meeting, Jamaica was admitted as an observer to the Conference. The next plenary meeting of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 January.
Statements
AKIRA HAYASHI (Japan) noted that the first stage of the Conference's annual session was always difficult, and that might be especially true this year. To maintain the credibility of the Conference, the repetition of what had happened last year had to be avoided. Each delegation should address itself to the Conference with a fresh spirit of cooperation. Among subjects for substantive negotiations, Japan attached importance to the issues of a fissile material cut-off treaty as a means for promoting nuclear disarmament, and anti-personnel landmines.
He said that nuclear disarmament was Japan's invariable priority in disarmament. Last year, Japan had put forward a proposal to appoint a special coordinator on nuclear disarmament in order to identify the issues which could be negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. Japan was open to all formats, such as a special coordinator, an ad hoc committee or any other mechanism, but it was Japan's firm belief that the Conference on Disarmament should make its own effort to identify possible items in the field of nuclear disarmament to be negotiated in the Conference. Japan welcomed the concrete proposal made by South Africa for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.
He said that although there were a number of important measures in nuclear disarmament, a fissile material cut-off treaty was the only item already identified and agreed upon as a subject for negotiation in the Conference. Japan continued to view that such a treaty should be the next practical step for negotiations after the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If appropriate, Japan would propose to put the cut-off treaty in the context of nuclear disarmament, but without being bound by the
- 3 - Press Release DCF/320 26 January 1998
so-called time bound framework. Should agreement not be reached on commencing these negotiations, Japan suggested starting some discussions on the technical aspects of a treaty together with experts.
Concerning anti-personnel landmines, he said that at the humanitarian level, Japan had decided to extend 10 billion yen (approximately $80 million) over five years for the implementation of the so-called Tokyo Guidelines adopted last March, which covered mine clearance, development of technologies for mine detection and removal, and assistance to surviving victims. In the field of elimination of landmines, the Foreign Minister of Japan, Keizo Obuchi, had emphasized at Ottawa the need to start treaty negotiations as early as possible at the Conference on Disarmament. Japan strongly believed that it was indispensable that a ban on anti-personnel landmines be negotiated with the participation of those main producers and users who remained outside of the Ottawa treaty.
MARK MOHER (Canada) said that his country remained firmly convinced that nuclear disarmament had been and continued to be a primary and priority preoccupation of the global community. While acknowledging progress to date, Canada remained committed to the promotion of continuing progressive and dynamic process towards the elimination of these weapons. The Conference on Disarmament could and should be appropriately and substantively engaged in nuclear disarmament issues. Canada did not consider that the Conference should be mandated to negotiate nuclear weapon reductions per se or specific operational issues concerning such weapons. The Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) process at this stage was rightly conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation. The implementation of the agreements resulting from the START process were key to international efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide. Canada continued to consider that the Conference could make a further contribution by the negotiation of an effective fissile material cut-off treaty. Other issues appropriate for negotiation in the Conference might emerge in the future, not least as the result of substantive discussions in the Conference on general nuclear disarmament issues and developments.
It had been argued that positive action along the lines suggested by Canada would convert the Conference from a substantive negotiating forum to a talk-show, he continued. However, a better informed Conference in which substantive discussion could take place would be the fulfilment of precisely the serious role and mandate to which the Conference on Disarmament should be devoting itself. It had also been said that such a substantive discussion process would complicate the START process and related activities. But Canada considered that the providing of information to an expert body like the Conference on Disarmament would complement these bilateral activities and contribute to developing a considerably better informed debate on progress on the nuclear disarmament front.
- 4 - Press Release DCF/320 26 January 1998
Concerning conventional armaments, he said Canada believed that the Conference on Disarmament had allowed work on this issue to be dormant for too long. Excessive build-ups of conventional weapons by States could lead to destabilising competition and could promote and exacerbate tension between States which could escalate to conflict. Illicit arms trafficking also affected the internal security and socio-economic development of States. The Conference could provide a unique focal point for developing a longer-term global approach to meeting the challenge of the licit and illicit trade in conventional weapons and light arms.
On the issue of outer space, he said that while there was currently no arms race in outer space, more than 30 countries were engaged in space related activities. At the same time, outer space was already being heavily used for such military purposes as surveillance, intelligence-gathering and communications. Canada had indicated its interest in the negotiation in the Conference of a legally binding instrument that would prevent the weaponization of outer space.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said that fundamental changes in international security following the end of the cold war had made possible outstanding achievements in disarmament negotiations, arms control and non-proliferation. However, there was still a need to explore new approaches to address priority disarmament issues and to move away from outmoded nuclear deterrence strategies and doctrines.
Egypt considered the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory process for the Review Conference in the year 2000 as an important phase, he said. Efforts should be consolidated to achieve the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to enhance the implementation of all its provisions.
He hoped that in 1998, the Conference would be in a better position to commence its work as early as possible in order to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to it by the international community and to focus on the issues which reflected the imperatives for disarmament. It was imperative for the Conference to assure the international community of its continued role and relevance as the sole multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament.
Mr. ZAHRAN stressed that nuclear disarmament issues had to remain at the heart of the work of the Conference. The use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons was an affront to humanity, yet nuclear disarmament continued to progress at a very slow pace without a legally binding instrument for the predictable achievement of complete nuclear disarmament. Much work had to be done at the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament. The proposal of South Africa to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament deserved the Conference's attention.
- 5 - Press Release DCF/320 26 January 1998
He said that measures aiming at curbing landmines should be accompanied by serious and concrete steps geared towards mine-clearance from affected countries which are unable to achieve it on their own. He regretted that the Ottawa Convention had no reference to acknowledge the responsibility of States involved in the deployment of mines, and disregarded exceptions to accommodate national security concerns of States and their legitimate right of self-defence.
ANDRE MERNIER (Belgium) said that the success achieved by the Conference on Disarmament in recent years was significant. There was however danger of paralysing the body by pointless confrontation of maximalist positions. It was important to be sure of the vision of the international community with which the Conference was entrusted. It was always possible to improve the Conference's methods of work, but what was in question was not the body's procedure but its vision.
The most important element of this view was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, predominantly nuclear weapons because of their sophistication and destructive effects. Belgium's priority was reaching a treaty on fissile material for military purposes and the Conference had a mandate which should enable it to go ahead on this issue.
He noted that the world's two super-Powers were conducting negotiations to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Belgium did not believe that the revival of this process in a multilateral context would serve nuclear disarmament. Multiplication of the actors would block the progress, therefore multilateralism of nuclear disarmament was a dangerous illusion. Transparency was the only way to handle this issue, and in this context, the proposal of South Africa was worthy of interest because it would open a way towards more dialogue.
ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) welcomed the South African proposal concerning the possible future work of the Conference on Disarmament in the area of nuclear disarmament. Ireland fully acknowledged the importance of the bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation on the progressive reduction in their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. While the bilateral processes were important stepping stones on the way to elimination, they could not focus on achieving global elimination of nuclear weapons. There had to come a time when the international community took account of the progress of the bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and started consideration of multilateral negotiations.
He said Ireland supported the balanced accommodation which the South African approach represented. The proposal had the potential to bring the Conference to a reasonable compromise which could open the way to the launching of negotiations on those key issues of nuclear disarmament which might appropriately be dealt with by the Conference.
- 6 - Press Release DCF/320 26 January 1998
ATONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that there was no greater danger for the security of all States than the continuing stockpiling of nuclear weapons. As long as one nuclear device remained, everyone was in danger. The General Assembly had asked the Conference to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament so that it could start negotiations on a phased nuclear disarmament in 1998.
Mexico welcomed the initiative of South Africa. Its terms and spirit were designed to foster dialogue for progressive elimination of nuclear weapons. Mexico reserved the right to make adjustments to the initiative, but for now, it wanted to hear reaction from others.
He stressed that Mexico did not want the issue of elimination of nuclear weapons to keep all other items off the agenda. In 1978, in establishing the priority of nuclear disarmament, the Conference also spoke of balancing it with conventional weapons and the need to limit the transfer of such weapons. Conventional disarmament would continue to be a subject of concern to the international community. Numerous initiatives taken testified the growing concern about the production and illicit trafficking of small weapons. Organized civil society had taken a stance, but there was an urgent need for a universal position to stop this trade.
It was important to start consultations on the proposal of South Africa. But there was also a need to explore the possibility of a worldwide agreement to combat trafficking of small weapons and fire arms.
JAIME ACUNA (Chile) said his country welcomed and supported South Africa's proposal on the creation of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. The proposal was comprehensive and balanced. It could help the Conference achieve its goal of nuclear disarmament.
* *** *