FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELARUS ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
Press Release
DCF/359
FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELARUS ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
19990211 Representatives of China, Italy, Australia, Belgium, Morocco, Russian Federation and Mexico Also Address Conference(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 11 February (UN Information Service) -- The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, Sergei Martynov, this morning told the Conference on Disarmament that his country was extremely sensitive and responsible in its approach to all nuclear disarmament issues.
Mr. Martynov said that in the present geo-political conditions, the step-by-step movement towards the elimination of all nuclear arsenals was the only productive one. The next two steps could be the prohibition of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and the development of international laws on assurances for the non-nuclear weapon countries against the use or threat of use of nuclear force.
Also this morning, the President of the Conference, Ambassador Robert Grey of the United States, made his final remarks as President of the Conference. He said he had to report that none of his efforts had yet succeeded.
Mr. Grey said the Conference had now spent a month wrangling about whether or not to adopt a programme of work which would enable the 1999 session to begin where it left off in 1998. Very substantial efforts were required to agree on the 1998 work programme. Therefore, Ploughing over ground previously covered, making linkages and using procedural ploys to inch ahead on substantive issues where no consensus existed would get the Conference nowhere. The job of the Conference was to negotiate seriously on multilateral arms control issues where a consensus existed.
The outgoing President of the Conference stressed it was not the function of the Conference to resolve regional disputes which were beyond its competence. The Conference was also not here to impugn the motives which
caused members to take national positions. Conference members ought to respect such positions and dispense with cheap shots, distorted views of treaty obligations and sarcastic rhetoric about other Governments motivations. What the Conference had to do was negotiate multilateral arms control agreements. And if it failed to accept this basic responsibility, the public and Governments would draw the appropriate conclusion.
Mr. Grey wished the new President of the Conference, Ambassador Rodriguez Cedeno of Venezuela, a greater measure of success in beginning the work of the Conference.
The Representative of South Africa said it was regrettable that his country's request to hold open-ended informal consultations on a proposal for the President to identify a person to act as Special Coordinator on the issue of nuclear disarmament had not been carried out. Since it was clear that there were fundamental differences in opinions on how the Conference procedures should be carried out regarding this issue, he asked that the United Nations Legal Counsel provide an opinion on this issue.
There was a debate, in which the delegations of Australia, Belgium, Morocco, the Russian Federation and Mexico participated, after South Africa requested the President to ask the Conference if it could agree to appoint a Special Coordinator, who could be identified later, to consult on an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. The President concluded that it was clear to him that the Conference was not ready to make a decision on this question.
Representatives of China and Italy also addressed the Conference.
Statements
SERGEI MARTYNOV, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said his country attached particular importance to the issue of strengthening European and international security, the basic element of which was regional and global disarmament measures. Belarus had suffered severely from the disastrous effects of the biggest technogenic catastrophe at Chernobyl. Hence, it was extremely sensitive and responsible in its approach to all nuclear disarmament issues.
Mr. Martynov said that in the present geo-political conditions, the step-by-step movement towards the elimination of all nuclear arsenals was the only productive one. The next two steps on this way could be the prohibition of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and the development of international laws on assurances for the non-nuclear weapon countries against the use or threat of use of nuclear force. The scope of the "cut-off" convention should not only be limited to future production, it should strictly account for the available stockpiles of fissile material. The
- 3 - Press Release DCF/359 11 February 1999
treaty must stipulate an effective verification mechanism to provide the highest assurances that no fissile material were weaponized in State parties. Having renounced available nuclear force, Belarus could only secure the national interests of protecting its independence, sovereignty and integrity by irrevocable and legally-binding assurances against use or threat of use of any force, including nuclear one.
Belarus shared the view expressed by most delegations about the necessity of re-establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on the negotiations on assurances to non-nuclear weapon States, Mr. Martynov added. It also very positively considered the continuation of the consultations and exchange of views within the Conference on the issue of preventing the arms race in outer space. It was necessary to continue and strengthen peaceful cooperation in space while leaving no chances for its militarization.
The conventional weapons issue was another disarmament priority of Belarus, Mr. Martynov continued to state. Belarus supported the gradual and step-by-step prohibition of landmines. It believed the issue of the reform of the Conference was quite important for the effectiveness and workability of this respected forum and its ability to meet new challenges. In this connection, Belarus gave its full support to Ecuador, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Tunisia in their desire to join the Conference and called upon other members to swiftly resolve this issue. There was also a necessity to further improve some methods of work.
LI CHANGHE (China) said the importance of the work of the Conference, the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had been underscored by the international community. In 1998, the Conference had finally ended its stalemate, began substantive work and achieved some progress. China hoped that by building upon the achievements of the past year, all parties could further demonstrate flexibility with a view to working out at an early date the programme of work for the current session of the Conference and embarking on substantive work. In formulating such a programme, the Conference should take into account the current international situation, especially the latest developments in the field of disarmament, focusing on issues which had a direct bearing on world peace and security.
Mr. Li said that cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament was the first item on the agenda of the Conference and the top priority for the international community. China fully understood and endorsed the proposals to establish in the Conference appropriate working mechanisms, including an Ad Hoc Committee to address the issue of nuclear disarmament. There were still different views regarding such mechanisms at the current stage. China supported a joint effort by all parties to find, on the basis of a full exchange of views, a commonly acceptable solution, and to establish an appropriate mechanism to work on the issue of nuclear disarmament.
- 4 - Press Release DCF/359 11 February 1999
China maintained that a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices would be conducive to the prevention of nuclear proliferation and the promotion of nuclear disarmament. Mr. Li said his country supported the re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate, on the basis of the mandate contained in the Shannon report, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
China had always maintained that the large number of non-nuclear weapon States were entirely reasonable and justified in demanding security assurances under which the nuclear-weapon States undertook not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them. Mr. Li said the nuclear-weapon States should adopt a more positive attitude towards this issue, rather then moving in the opposite direction by expanding their nuclear deterrence strategy. China supported the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on this issue to continue its substantive work on the basis of its work last year, with a view to concluding an international legal instrument on negative security assurances.
Mr. Li said that the Conference should live up to its obligations and responsibilities and address the important issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space before it was too late. China urged that an Ad Hoc Committee be established as soon as possible to negotiate legal instruments to prevent an arms race in outer space. It hoped that Conference members would demonstrate the necessary political will and flexibility in order to re-establish the Ad Hoc Committee as early as possible to begin negotiations on the effective prevention of an arms race in outer space.
In conclusion, Mr. Li said China had always attached great importance to the humanitarian concerns caused by landmines and was in favour of appropriate, reasonable and feasible restriction on landmines, in particular anti-personnel landmines. It also attached great importance to mine clearance and agreed to appoint a Special Coordinator on the issue of anti-personnel landmines to build upon the work of last year. The Chinese delegation also agreed with the re-appointment of Special Coordinators to further explore ways to address the expansion of the membership of the Conference, improved and efficient functioning of the body, and the review of its agenda.
GIUSEPPE BALBONI ACQUA (Italy) said it was over a month ago that Italy's Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Patrizia Toia, had addressed the Conference. Ms. Toia had requested the immediate establishment of Ad Hoc Committee to formulate a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. She had underlined that Italy was confident that the Conference could advance rapidly to the realization of such a treaty of vital interest, in order that the process of
- 5 - Press Release DCF/359 11 February 1999
nuclear disarmament became intensified and irreversible and led to the elimination of nuclear arsenals.
Mr. Balboni Acqua noted his country had also presented with the delegations of Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands a proposal on nuclear disarmament. Italy believed that the time had come to create within the Conference a forum which would allow the regular and official exchange of information and views on nuclear issues. Italy also wished to stress the unproductive nature of proposals designed to steer the Conference towards multilateral negotiations on reduction of nuclear armaments.
ROBERT GREY (United States), who is also President of the Conference, said he was grateful to all delegations for meeting with him over the past several weeks and assisting in the effort to get the Conference to the point where it was now. Unfortunately, that was not as far as it should be. He had begun his Presidency with the basic and simple suggestion to pick up where the Conference had left off last September. He had continued to adhere to this suggestion and had tabled a formal proposal to that end. He had also decided, together with his predecessor and successor as President, to continue work on an informal basis on nuclear disarmament issues without prejudice to and pending adoption of whatever was eventually agreed by the Conference regarding its work during the 1999 session. He had also accelerated his bilateral meetings with delegations in an effort to begin work in a timely manner.
Mr. Grey said he had to report that none of these efforts had yet succeeded. The several informal presidential consultation meetings on nuclear disarmament that he had held had elicited no forward movement on this issue. The many bilateral meetings he had had, while privately encouraging, had yielded no public results. The Conference had not even been able to agree yet on admitting five new members. He could only hope that his successor, Ambassador Rodriguez Cedeno of Venezuela, would enjoy a greater measure of success in beginning the work of the Conference.
The Conference had now spent a month wrangling about whether or not to adopt a programme of work which would enable the 1999 session to begin where it had left off in 1998. Mr. Grey said very substantial efforts were required to agree on the 1998 work programme. But with accommodation on the part of all, the Conference had been able to reach such agreements. Ploughing over ground previously covered, making linkages and using procedural ploys to inch ahead on substantive issues where no consensus existed would get the Conference nowhere. The job of the Conference was to negotiate seriously on multilateral arms control issues where a consensus existed.
In conclusion, Mr. Grey underlined that the Conference was not here just to talk. Neither was it here to resolve regional disputes which were beyond its competence. The Conference was also not here to impugn the motives which
- 6 - Press Release DCF/359 11 February 1999
caused members to take national positions. Nations did not adopt policies on these issues lightly. Conference members ought to respect that and dispense with cheap shots, distorted views of treaty obligations and sarcastic rhetoric about other Governments motivations. What the Conference had to do was negotiate multilateral arms control agreements. And if it failed to accept this basic responsibility, the public and Governments would draw the appropriate conclusion.
A Representative of South Africa said that two weeks ago, his country had put a proposal to the President to identify a person to act as Special Coordination on the issue of nuclear disarmament. The President had not reported on this proposal.
The President of the Conference said that on 28 January, he had been asked to identify a Special Coordinator and he had tried to do just that. He had posed a number of questions to members of the Conference through their respective coordinators. Among the questions was whether the members would name candidates, could the President appoint a Special Coordinator, and how long should the Coordinator's mandate be. However, there was no shared agreement among the members on how to go ahead on this issue. The practise had been for the Conference to approve a person and his or her mandate before appointing a Special Coordinator. He could identify many candidates, but once identified, it was evident that there was no agreement on how that person could be given a mandate. Therefore, he had decided not to identify a person and leave him or her to the squabbles and derision of the Conference.
Mr. Grey said that for some members of the Conference, the way to move forward on item 1 of the agenda was to move forward on a cut-off treaty and the troika consultations. Others wanted an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. He hoped his successor would have more luck in resolving these positions.
A Representative of South Africa said that last week, his country had requested open-ended informal consultations on the issue of whether or not a Special Coordinator should be appointed, and no delegation had objected to the holding of such consultations. It was regrettable that such consultations were not held. It was clear that there were fundamental differences in opinions on how the Conference procedures should be carried out. Therefore, South Africa asked that the United Nations Legal Counsel provide an opinion on this issue, and it would abide with the outcome. Also, South Africa requested the President to put the following question to the Conference: Could the Conference agree to appoint a Special Coordinator, who could be identified later, to consult on an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament?
Mr. GREY took note of the request regarding the Legal Counsel. As for the issue of the open-ended informal consultations, he said he had considered
- 7 - Press Release DCF/359 11 February 1999
this request, but after several discussions, he had reached the conclusion that there was no consensus on the issue, and therefore there was no hope for the consultations to produce a difference outcome. Therefore, he had decided to turn this issue over to his successor. He asked if anyone objected to putting the question requested by South Africa to the floor?
A Representative of Australia said this was a farcical situation. Last year, a similar exercise was carried out towards the end of the session. At the time, the Representative of Morocco had offered his views on this situation. Australia could support a mechanism to discuss nuclear disarmament as long as there was a consensus on it. However, if this issue was pushed, other issues would be put on the floor in a similar manner. This would call the credibility of the Conference into question.
A Representative of Belgium, speaking in his capacity as Coordinator of the Western Group, said it was the tradition of the Conference to raise such questions during presidential consultations after meetings of the various Groups had been held. He would not like to give an answer to this question without giving the Group the chance to meet and take a new position. Right now, he saw no new position in the Group, therefore, there was no consensus.
The Representative of Morocco said as his name was mentioned earlier, he wished to indicate that he had not changed his mind and was sticking by his principles. There should be no surprises in the Conference unless members agreed in consultations that such a question was raised.
The Representative of the Russian Federation said that as Chairman of the East European Group, he supported the statement by the Representative of Belgium.
The Representative of Mexico said this had been a very interesting and rather amusing exchange. He had heard delegations invoke traditions that did not exist. Indeed one of the delegations, when faced with a similar question last year, had given a very eloquent discourse. He wanted it noted how delegations changed their opinions according to the side of the table from which the question originated. The Conference was here to negotiate and it should try to find a consensus. Mexico had no difficulty with designating a Special Coordinator to find a consensus on an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament.
The President of the Conference said it was clear to him that the Conference was not ready to make a decision on this question. He presumed consultations would determine whether the situation was any different the following week.
* *** *