PROPOSED AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT STILL LACKS CONSENSUS, CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT TOLD

Press Release
DCF/356

PROPOSED AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT STILL LACKS CONSENSUS, CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT TOLD

A proposal by South Africa to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament had not achieved consensus and would require further consultations, the Chairman of the Conference on Disarmament announced this morning.

But Chairman Robert T. Grey of the United States said he agreed with a South African proposal that he attempt to appoint a special coordinator to carry out informal consultations in an effort to break the deadlock.

At the Conference's regular Thursday-morning plenary, South Africa expressed "deep regret" at the lack of consensus, contending there was broad support for taking up disarmament negotiations and remarking that there was no other suitable forum for such talks. Nuclear disarmament could not be "brushed under the carpet and forgotten," a representative of the country told the meeting; the issue was going to come up again and again.

Also speaking at the session were representatives of Finland, Mexico, and Brazil. Mexico and Brazil supported beginning nuclear-disarmament talks.

The representative of Finland said, among other things, that failure of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START-2) Treaty to come into force was creating a bottleneck in treaty-based nuclear arms reductions. He said it would be most unfortunate if the latest developments caused further delay and especially if the deadlock affected the work of the Conference, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) review process, and other disarmament and non-proliferation undertakings.

In other action the Conference authorized Ivory Coast and Luxembourg to participate in its work as observers.

Statements

MARKKU REIMAA (Finland) said it would be hard to justify a third year during which the Conference consumed its time in trying to organize itself and

its work; while a good start had been made last week with adoption of an agenda, it was obvious that the agenda had to be reviewed. Efforts under Article XIV of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty would soon be launched to speed up entry into force of the treaty, and he was pleased to announce that Finland had deposited its instrument of ratification in New York on 15 January. Meanwhile the Conference must place emphasis on its most important work, including fissile-material-cutoff negotiations, which should be begun under the relevant Ad Hoc Committee without delay. Finland also hoped the Conference would establish ad hoc committees on banning transfer of land mines and on negative security assurances; in addition, the country was in favour of renominating the Special Coordinators for outer space issues and transparency in armaments.

It would not be practical to seek launching negotiations on nuclear arms reductions per se in the Conference, since the topic was being pursued within the framework of commitments undertaken through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Ambassador Reimaa said; the START process was the most realistic and result-oriented way to move forward. Finland, however, regretted that START-2 had not come into force and was creating a bottleneck in treaty-based nuclear arms reductions; it would be most unfortunate if the latest developments caused further delay in entry into force, and Finland regretted this situation, which had a bearing on the work of the Conference, the NPT review process, and a large number of other disarmament and non-proliferation issues and was feeding doubts on the future direction of nuclear-arms reductions.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that after 20 years of disarmament work a great deal remained to be done; there was a less tense and confrontational atmosphere now, and advantage should be taken of that opportunity; nonetheless, there were delays in entry into force in START-2, challenges to the international non-proliferation regime, and a surge in military alliances offering potential new roles for nuclear armaments. The Conference would lose all credibility and prestige if it systematically ignored the greatest threat that continued to weigh on mankind -- the possible use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament must be taken up by the Conference, and it was regrettable that efforts to do so had so far failed; Mexico supported setting up an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. There was a need for a new agenda in the area of nuclear disarmament, and the General Assembly had adopted a relevant resolution on the topic by an overwhelming majority; Mexico hoped for a clear and supportive statement of this action from the Conference.

A comprehensive and effective fissile-material cut-off treaty was supported by Mexico, Ambassador de Icaza said; negotiations should begin quickly; Mexico also thought it important to re-establish the ad hoc committees on negative security assurances and on prevention of an arms race in outer space. Mexico had recently hosted a regional seminar on land mines, including participation of several non-governmental organizations which had

- 3 - Press Release DCF/356 28 January 1999

expressed hope that a definitive solution would be found to the ongoing humanitarian tragedy caused by land mines; they had expressed doubt about the effectiveness of drafting a third instrument focusing on transfers, and Mexico shared those concerns.

RICARDO AYROSA (Brazil) said a decision should be reached quickly on the Conference's programme of work. Brazil wished to reiterate its support for the proposal of South Africa to be considered at today's meeting, which it believed would break the current logjam and open the way for fair debate on the issue of nuclear disarmament.

PETER GOOSEN (South Africa) said it would have been useful to hear the rationale of those delegations which were not willing to join consensus on the proposal to set up a mechanism for consideration of nuclear disarmament; it would have been helpful, in fact, to have open debate on the matter rather than simply to hear that some could not join consensus. South Africa felt deep regret; there was clearly broad support for taking up the subject, as past soundings of opinion had shown, and there was no other forum where substantive negotiations could take place. He wished to emphasize that such negotiations would in no way undermine or compete with negotiations under way between the United States and the countries making up the territory of the former Soviet Union. Nuclear disarmament could not be brushed under the carpet and forgotten; the issue was going to come up again and again, and he urged the delegations opposed to the negotiations to reconsider, as the current proposal was moderate and reasonable.

South Africa called for appointment by the Chairman of a special coordinator to explore ways of possibly reaching consensus on such negotiations, Mr. Goosen said. He pointed out that under Conference rules such an appointment could be done unilaterally by the Chairman and did not require reaching consensus.

* *** *