CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS PROPOSALS ON ANTI-PERSONNEL LANDMINES AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Press Release
DCF/324
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS PROPOSALS ON ANTI-PERSONNEL LANDMINES AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
19980213 (Reissued as received.)GENEVA, 12 February (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard proposals to create an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament and to reappoint a special coordinator on the question of anti-personnel landmines.
The representative of Belgium proposed the creation, within the Conference, of "an ad hoc study and consideration group on methods of creating within its forum talks to provide information about issues relating to article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". The representative said he was aware that that was a modest proposal, but, being realistic, it would enable the Conference to play the part that it has so far been unable to play.
Finland, on behalf of 23 countries, proposed the reappointment of a special coordinator on anti-personnel landmines. Poland, speaking on behalf of those countries, said the special coordinator would explore and establish the views of the members on the Conference on what the body could do to promote a more effective prohibition of anti-personnel landmines. The pursuit of a global landmines-export ban within the Conference would represent an important step in that direction.
Lars Norberg of Sweden, the outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he was encouraged by the "new and positive atmosphere" at the Conference this session. He said nuclear disarmament and a fissile material cut-off treaty had dominated the informal consultations, but further discussions were needed to bring about a convergence of views on those two issues.
Mr. Norberg said there was considerable support on the proposals to appoint a special coordinator for the prevention of an arms race in outer space; to re-establish the ad hoc committee on negative security assurances; to appoint a special coordinator on the question of anti-personnel landmines; and to appoint a special coordinator on transparency in arms. Further consultations were needed in order to establish a basis for formal decisions.
The representatives of Pakistan and South Africa noted the lack of consensus within the Conference on the main issues. The representatives of Brazil, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Netherlands, India, United States, France and Mexico also addressed the Conference.
Erwin Hofer of Switzerland takes over the presidency of the Conference at its next meeting for four weeks. The Conference will resume its plenary on Thursday, 19 February, at 10 a.m.
Statements
CARL PEETERS (Belgium) referred to his statement made at an earlier session expressing scepticism about the multilateralization of nuclear disarmament. However, it was right for the international community to establish official regular talks which expressed the rightful interest of other States in nuclear disarmament.
He attached importance to the South African proposal on creating an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. He also offered a new proposal for the Conference on Disarmament "to establish an ad hoc study and consideration group on methods of creating within its forum talks to provide information about issues relating to article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".
He was aware that that was a modest proposal, he said, but, being realistic, it would enable the Conference to play the part that it has so far been unable to play. If too ambitious progress was sought, no progress could be made. So, the Conference should take that first modest step.
GILBERTO VERGNE SABOIA (Brazil) said that consultations within the Conference on Disarmament were useful as a consensus-building tool, which might lead to the agreement on specific frameworks and mandates to deal with the issues before the Conference.
He expected that consultations on a special coordinator on outer space would lead to the re-establishment of an ad hoc committee on that issue with an updated mandate. Brazil was ready to consider positively a Conference role on the issue of anti-personnel landmines, if such a course of action could effectively contribute to deepening the involvement of those countries which remained currently outside the other international instruments and initiatives for their prohibition.
Nuclear disarmament continued to be the paramount concern, Mr. Saboia noted. Brazil had decided to lend support to the South African initiative on the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. That Committee would first need to identify issues for negotiation and could serve as a forum where ongoing discussions on nuclear disarmament could be the subject of periodic information and clarifications. Brazil also supported the
- 3 - Press Release DCF/324 13 February 1998
work on the negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off treaty, to be based on the Shannon Report.
He said that Brazil did not believe in the view that a Conference on Disarmament role in nuclear disarmament would negatively interfere with the process of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START). The current situation regarding nuclear weapons and the roles envisaged for them could only reinforce Brazil's long-standing conclusion that mankind's best guarantee against having to cope with nuclear disaster one day continued to be the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. The threat posed by them affected all States.
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said that members of the Conference on Disarmament had individual and collective responsibility for disarmament action. Algeria expressed its concern that issues within its competence were now being tackled outside the Conference. Algeria believed that all items on the agenda should be negotiated with an open mind, even though some items should have priority over others.
He said that nuclear weapons were a challenge to the international community as a whole, and the nuclear disarmament was not in the exclusive competence of nuclear-weapon States. It was a matter of international concern, and the Conference on Disarmament must tackle it. The multilateral approach was essential and could be undertaken without affecting bilateral talks. Nuclear weapons were a threat, and their possession was less and less justified in the new world order. Nuclear disarmament must be an absolute priority, and it could be tackled if the political will existed.
He said if an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament was established, it should negotiate, not just reflect. If nuclear disarmament was tackled within the Conference on Disarmament, there was hope to achieve progress in transparency.
H.M.G.S. PALHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said that the members of the Group of 21 continued to attach highest priority to the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.
FRANK MAJOOR (Netherlands) noted that the Conference on Disarmament had developed an impressive set of international legal instruments, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, which was extended indefinitely in 1995; the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972; the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993; and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996. Those conventions, however, had to be signed and ratified by all. The Conference had to improve and expand those instruments, where appropriate, and new instruments would have to be added. For example, much remained to be done for negotiation of a treaty on a fissile materials cut-off as an agreed further step towards nuclear disarmament.
- 4 - Press Release DCF/324 13 February 1998
His country supported the reappointment of three reform special coordinators on the agenda and on the expansion and effective functioning of the Conference, he said. The Netherlands also accepted the establishment of ad hoc committees -- or, as a first step, the appointment of special coordinators -- on the items of outer space, negative security assurances and transparency in armaments. The Netherlands also agreed to the reappointment of a special coordinator on anti-personnel landmines.
Mr. Majoor said that nuclear disarmament and transparency in armaments were two items to which the Netherlands attached great importance. The Conference should start, without delay, negotiations on the prohibition of the production of fissile materials on the basis of the agreed Shannon mandate. That should not, however, stand in the way of the beginning of substantive work in an ad hoc committee on the issue. Transparency in armaments also remained one of the most important keys to peace and security, and work on that item should be resumed as soon as possible within an ad hoc committee with a broad mandate. Other items which the Conference should consider included the proliferation of small arms and arms of light calibre.
MARKKU REIMAA (Finland) took the floor to present officially, on behalf of 23 countries, the proposal for a draft decision on the reappointment of the special coordinator on anti-personnel landmines.
KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI (Poland) spoke on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela and Poland, on the issue of anti-personnel landmines. Those States assumed that the general task of a proposed special coordinator on anti-personnel landmines would be to explore and establish the views of members of the Conference on Disarmament on how that body might be useful to promote the broader objective of a more effective prohibition of anti-personnel landmines.
He said the pursuit of a global anti-personnel landmines-export ban in the Conference would represent an important step in that direction. Halting the flow of landmines between countries would significantly reduce the availability of landmines, a large portion of which were not manufactured in the countries in which they were placed. The Conference had to address that issue quickly because casualties resulting from mine explosions were increasing on a daily basis.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that her country remained committed to achieving general nuclear disarmament in a comprehensive manner which would enhance national and global security. The end of the cold war had raised hopes and expectations that the threat of nuclear weapons would also be terminated, but the danger of nuclear confrontations was persisting to this day. New types of nuclear weapons were being designed and new doctrines were
- 5 - Press Release DCF/324 13 February 1998
sought to justify those new possessions. The Conference on Disarmament was the most appropriate forum to discuss a convention to ban nuclear weapons and ensure their destruction in a comprehensive manner.
She said that India and other non-aligned and developing countries had submitted a programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons. There had also been other proposals urging the early start of negotiations. The Conference had to respond to calls for an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, within a time-bound framework through a nuclear weapons convention.
Ms. Kunadi said that India had expressed reservations on the tenuous nature of the compromise on a fissile materials cut-off. Since the General Assembly had recognized a fissile materials cut-off as an integral step leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework, India remained ready to participate in the consultations on the subject. India was also ready to start work on other issues such as anti-personnel landmines.
ROBERT T. GREY, JR. (United States) said his country's shared hope that the 1998 session of the Conference on Disarmament would avoid the errors of 1997 was dwindling rapidly. The United States had joined the consensus in approving the Conference's 1998 agenda, including the item on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. Other issues, such as banning the export of anti-personnel landmines and negotiations to ban the production of fissile materials, were also ripe for immediate multilateral work. Agreement on them would reinvigorate the Conference and end its deadlock.
He said that those who called most loudly for nuclear disarmament could not simultaneously refuse to take steps on a fissile materials cut-off. By doing so, they called into question their motives and their objectives on both issues.
Mr. Grey said that the key to moving forward was consensus on the basis of widely consulted proposals. For its part, the United States was prepared to work with every Conference member in an effort to find a way forward that everyone could live with. Suggesting that the United States did not foresee a role for the Conference on Disarmament on the question of nuclear disarmament was straining credulity. The completion of the CTBT and continuing efforts to begin on a negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off bore unequivocal testimony to the vital role of the Conference.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) noted that, unfortunately, the developments of the past few days indicated that the Conference might once again revert to the situation that it faced last year and find itself unable to undertake substantive work on any of its agenda items.
- 6 - Press Release DCF/324 13 February 1998
He hoped that the Conference would be able to find a way to reach consensus on several items and commence work on them while continuing to debate issues on which consensus could not yet be reached. He believed that consensus was possible on the reappointment of the four special coordinators established last year. Even those countries which were not in favour of negotiations on anti-personnel landmines could express their views to the special coordinator.
He said Pakistan would be flexible on the mandate of a special coordinator on outer space as it believed that the Conference was close to agreement on that issue. Pakistan had also believed the Conference was close to consensus on establishing an ad hoc committee on negative security assurances. However, Pakistan was disappointed to hear one member expressing a different position in informal consultations. Consultations must continue on that issue, and also on nuclear disarmament, to overcome the new difficulties. It should be stressed that frustration with the inability of the Conference to reach agreement on that item should not prevent members from reaching consensus on other issues.
J.S. SELEBI (South Africa) noted the lack of progress on the issue of negative security assurances and the absence of consensus on establishing an ad hoc committee on the issue. In that context, he asked what would be the value of establishing that committee and whether the Conference was looking for a legally binding agreement on negative security assurances.
Turning to anti-personnel landmines, he asked about the ultimate intention of the various proposals made on that item. Was there a need for a third body to discuss landmines? he asked. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons also included the permanent producers and users of landmines who had been unable to sign the Ottawa Convention. Negotiations within that framework would be much simpler.
Mr. Selebi raised the issue of establishing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament and said that the Conference on Disarmament was at a crossroads on how to deal with the issue. No consensus on the committee had been reached in informal consultations, and the delegate asked whether it was not better to confront that problem right away rather than give it more time and allow it to be submerged in the Conference's procedural tactics and inaction. The issue of nuclear disarmament was unavoidable.
JOELLE BOURGOIS (France) responded to the questions of the Ambassador of South Africa and said that previous experience did not encourage the establishing of an ad hoc committee on negative security assurances. France would not be enthusiastic about the creation of that committee. Commitment on positive or negative security assurances had greatly increased, but France believed there was a need to reflect on what had already been gained and to
- 7 - Press Release DCF/324 13 February 1998
see what was still necessary. France believed in dialogue and an exchange of views.
Concerning anti-personnel landmines, Ms. Bourgois asked why the Conference should not offer States which did not sign the Ottawa Convention a forum to discuss the issue. She supported the idea of a special coordinator on landmines, saying that it would only show a commitment to discuss the issue, starting with more simple definitions. The members could sound their ideas with each other in the Conference.
She said that France could not support South Africa's proposal for establishing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament, adding that the Conference first needed to negotiate a treaty on a fissile materials cut-off. A committee on nuclear disarmament would only isolate certain States.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said it was important to break the stalemate in the Conference. Mexico was concerned about comments made on the universality of the Ottawa Convention and the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, both of which were considered highly useful. The 1980 Convention had a follow-up mechanism under which Protocol II and Protocol IV had been created. It was a serious error to believe that Protocol II could be revised to prevent the transfer of landmines. All that needed to be done was to create a new Protocol V on that issue.
He said that there was a pressing need to put the Ottawa Convention in force. Practical measures could be offered by the Conference on Disarmament, including a special coordinator on landmines.
* *** *