REPRESENTATIVES OF BELARUS, SRI LANKA, FRANCE, HUNGARY, VENEZUELA AND CANADA ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
Press Release
DCF/326
REPRESENTATIVES OF BELARUS, SRI LANKA, FRANCE, HUNGARY, VENEZUELA AND CANADA ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
19980226 (Reissued as received.)GENEVA, 26 February (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued to hear statements from its member States on how to tackle, among other issues, nuclear disarmament and a fissile material cut-off treaty, anti-personnel landmines and negative security assurances. Representatives of Belarus, Sri Lanka, France, Hungary, Venezuela and Canada addressed the meeting.
Sergei Martynov, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that his country had invested honestly and heavily, both politically and materially, in an Eastern and Central Europe which was free of nuclear weapons. He said that one of the goals of a nuclear-free space in that region could be to enhance the disarmament process, in particular, the elimination of weapons on mass destruction.
The representative of Sri Lanka said that it was regrettable that the Conference on Disarmament's priority agenda for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons remained largely unrealized. It was time for the Conference to take at least a tentative step towards that deliberative process.
The representative of France said her country placed importance on three issues within the Conference: prohibition of fissile material; prohibition of anti-personnel landmines; and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Those three issues formed a balanced agenda for the Conference.
The Conference on Disarmament's programme of work should be based on negotiations which had realistic and feasible prospects of a successful conclusion, the representative of Hungary said. A fissile material cut-off treaty and a ban on the transfer of anti-personnel landmines corresponded to those criteria.
The representative of Venezuela said that progress within the Conference could only be made by exchanging views in wide-ranging and transparent negotiations. His country gave importance to all items, especially nuclear disarmament, anti-personnel landmines and transparency in armaments.
The representative of Canada also addressed the issue of how the Conference should deal with its agenda. He said that for the Conference on Disarmament to decide to work on any issue, there had to be general recognition within the body that the issue was of importance. Then, the Conference should explore with delegations what work would be appropriate within the Conference, drawing on facilitators and Special Coordinators when possible. Only then should the Conference proceed to establish an ad hoc committee with an appropriate mandate.
Statements
SERGEI MARTYNOV (Belarus) said that his country attached central importance to ensuring reliable security for its people within the context of subregional, continental and global arrangements. Belarus had invested honestly and heavily, both politically and materially, in an Eastern and Central Europe free of nuclear weapons.
He said that the President of Belarus in 1996 proposed to establish a nuclear-free space in Eastern and Central Europe, but Belarus did not intend to try to impose any rigid preconceived prescriptions. Belarus suggested that the international community, especially Europe, acknowledge the de facto nuclear-free status of the crucial region of Eastern and Central Europe and even convert the de facto into a de jure position. It also suggested that the notion of a nuclear-free space as compared to a nuclear-free zone be used to accommodate legitimate aspects of security policies of the region.
He said that as of 1999 Belarus would become a country with probably the longest boundary with the expanded North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and it wanted that boundary to be not one of confrontation and enmity, but a contact point of cooperation, interaction and mutual respect.
He said that the goals of a nuclear-free space in Central and Eastern Europe, could be, among other things, to enhance the disarmament process, in particular the elimination of weapons of mass destruction; to reduce the danger of resumption of nuclear confrontation in Europe; to enhance regional security and stability and, in particular, to promote confidence-building between NATO and those nations whose interests were affected by NATO's enlargement; to prevent geographical proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and to promote the development of cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy.
He said his country believed that after the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT), a logical next step should be negotiations on banning the manufacture of fissile material. If the Conference were to succeed in that regard, a great step towards nuclear disarmament could be reached. An ad hoc committee on the prohibition of fissile material should be established.
- 3 - Press Release DCF/326 26 February 1998
Transparency in armaments was another area which affected the security of States, and the Conference on Disarmament was bound to play an important role in that area. The Conference should also negotiate the issue of anti-personnel landmines and other important global problems.
S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said that while the Conference on Disarmament had many achievements to its credit, it was still endeavouring to define its mission. This year's pains might be less excruciating than last year's, but the Conference was now in its second month without much serious dialogue, let alone negotiations. Some of the priority issues seemed to have fossilized in time.
He said that, regrettably, the Conference on Disarmament's priority agenda for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons remained largely unrealized. No one believed that an ad hoc committee could or should proceed to immediate negotiations on any nuclear arms reduction. Yet, there was sufficient database to begin talks on a framework under which the shared objective of the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons could be pursued. It was time for the Conference to take at least a tentative step towards that deliberative process. Sri Lanka believed that a comprehensive regime on fissile material production and use in the context of a multilateral nuclear disarmament process was one of the most important barriers against more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-weapon States.
He said that beyond the nuclear agenda, there were other important issues on the table like the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and he hoped that an ad hoc committee could be established on that item. The Conference could and should also address conventional disarmament issues. Sri Lanka also had an open mind with regard to the appointment of a special coordinator to ascertain the views of the delegations on anti-personnel landmines.
JOELLE BOURGOIS (France) said that considering all the different regions represented in the Conference on Disarmament, one must acknowledge that even if threats had faded for some, dangers persisted for others. She noted that, especially at a time when countries had been trying to offset a new conflict in the Middle East, it should be stressed that the international community could not do without the Conference on Disarmament.
She said that France placed importance on three issues within the Conference: prohibition of fissile material; prohibition of anti-personnel landmines; and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Those three issues formed a balanced agenda for the Conference. The international community must consolidate what had so far been achieved in nuclear and conventional fields. It was important to ratify START II and to start negotiations on START III. Steps taken by States on unilateral reductions were also important. Concerning anti-personnel landmines, the Ottawa Convention imposed some
- 4 - Press Release DCF/326 26 February 1998
measures which certain important actors could not agree to. However, a consensus on a ban on transfer of landmines was not out of reach.
Ambitions should not be limited to consolidating achievement, but new fields should also be opened to substantial negotiations, she continued. Negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty was of great importance. If launching negotiations on that item were delayed, the Conference on Disarmament should informally discuss the issue in detail. Another new path which should be explored was the arms race in outer space. France looked forward to the reappointment of an ad hoc committee on this issue, or failing that, appointing a special coordinator. Yet, another path was the issue of small arms, and there was a need to ensure collecting such weapons in areas of conflict, especially right after a ceasefire.
She said that some might say that she had not mentioned nuclear disarmament, but that was not true since she had already mentioned the need for a fissile material cut-off treaty. That was a nuclear disarmament issue. It was also possible for the Conference on Disarmament to discuss other nuclear disarmament issues. Concerning negative security assurances, France had no objection to the immediate reappointment of an ad hoc committee on this item. The Conference had to give thought to overcoming obstacles facing it, and she suggested that maybe more work should be undertaken in a more informal manner.
PÉTER NARAY (Hungary) said that his country continued to believe that the Conference on Disarmament's programme of work should be based on negotiations which had realistic and feasible prospects of a successful conclusion. A fissile material cut-off treaty and a ban on the transfer of anti-personnel landmines corresponded to those criteria.
He said that a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable ban on the production of fissile material for weapon purposes and other explosive devices along with the CTBT would consolidate the deep cuts in the arsenals of the major nuclear-weapon States and create the necessary conditions for the continuation of their bilateral efforts. The fissile material cut-off treaty was a necessary and basic component of the progressive measures towards nuclear disarmament, irrespective of whether those further measures were negotiated in a bilateral or multilateral framework. Everyone was urged to overcome the present obstacles to the negotiations of such a treaty and start them as soon as possible on the basis of the mandate of the Shannon report. The Canadian proposal on that issue was also a constructive attempt to hammer out a compromise.
He said that his Government remained convinced that the subject of anti-personnel landmines should be one of the highest priorities of the international community. An active and purpose-oriented dialogue with several militarily significant States, which were not in a position to undertake the
- 5 - Press Release DCF/326 26 February 1998
full scale of obligations under the Ottawa treaty, should be maintained. The Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate forum to involve those countries in a dynamic and forward-looking process. Hungary supported the transfer ban as the first logical measure.
He said that the Ad Hoc Group of the States parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention had brought important results to prepare the ground for a legally binding instrument to strengthen compliance. Hungary attached the utmost importance to the completion of the work within the time lines defined by the Fourth Review Conference. It believed it was realistic to expect the submission of a draft of the new legal instrument for the consideration of a special conference to be held in 1999. In order to achieve that goal, additional efforts were needed to reinforce the negotiations in the Ad Hoc Group, including the allocation of the necessary time slots.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said that the international community expected progress on the agenda items within the Conference on Disarmament. Progress depended on the political will of the member States of the Conference. The Conference should move at the same pace and pattern to enter substantial negotiations on agenda issues and to overcome political hurdles. Progress could only be made by exchanging views in wide-ranging and transparent negotiations. It was essential to appoint special coordinators with a clear mandate and their consultations which facilitate the work of the ad hoc committees.
He said that Venezuela gave importance to all items, especially nuclear disarmament, anti-personnel landmines and transparency in armaments. Responsibility for nuclear disarmament was shared and was within the competence of all. Collective security should be approached in a multilateral manner, but that should not detract from bilateral negotiations. It was time for an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament to be established.
He said the Conference on Disarmament was not only competent, but also had a clear mandate to deal with the issue of anti-personnel landmines. There was a need to create a comprehensive, wide-ranging, universal and effective regime on landmines. The Ottawa process was part of that regime and the Conference's work should be complementary. Venezuela shared the view on appointing a special coordinator on that issue and possibly creating an ad hoc committee with a specific mandate. Another equally crucial issue was transparency in armaments, especially concerning conventional weapons, which the Conference should address.
MARK MOHER (Canada) said that for the Conference on Disarmament to decide to work on any issue, there had to be general recognition within the body that the issue was of importance. Then, the Conference should explore with delegations what work would be appropriate within the Conference, drawing on facilitators and special coordinators when possible. After that process
- 6 - Press Release DCF/326 26 February 1998
had taken place, the Conference should then proceed to establish an Ad Hoc Committee with an appropriate mandate.
On the issue of anti-personnel landmines, he reiterated that while Canada did not believe that work on landmines within the Conference was a priority, it recognized that it might be the priority for other delegations. Canada would not object to the appointment of a special coordinator with a neutral mandate to explore what work in the Conference would be appropriate. Any subsequent decision to establish an ad hoc committee would require similar clarity as to its mandate.
He said that concerning negative security assurances, Canada also believed that while this issue was not a Canadian priority, some delegations considered otherwise. Canada did not object to appropriate work on negative security assurances. A special coordinator could be appointed to explore further the substance of the subject. However, greater clarity was required before Canada committed itself to moving to an ad hoc committee with an agreed mandate.
* *** *