CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, FISSILE MATERIAL TREATY, FROM IRAQ, CANADA AND PAKISTAN
Press Release
DCF/363
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, FISSILE MATERIAL TREATY, FROM IRAQ, CANADA AND PAKISTAN
19990318 President of China to Address Conference on 26 March(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 18 March (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements on nuclear disarmament and a treaty to ban fissile material from Iraq, Canada and Pakistan.
Ahmed N. J. Al-Awad, Director of the Disarmament Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said the nuclear disarmament issue was the foremost priority. The world was witnessing an era of nuclear apartheid as there were nations which were allowed to keep massive arsenals of nuclear weapons, while others were divested of nuclear substance, even that used for peaceful purposes. The selectivity in dealing with this subject caused great frustration and kept the Conference far from its main objective. Thus nuclear disarmament was the essential factor in backing international security, improving mutual relationships, maintaining and consolidating confidence between nations, and offering certain guarantees for future generations to live in a safe, panic-free world.
Ambassador Mark Moher of Canada said his country regretted that the Conference was not in a position to address the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate the issue of fissile material. Canada had been one of the strongest supporters of a treaty on fissile material for approximately half a century. Canada wished at this early stage of substantive negotiations to begin to address some broad considerations, and it would do so in the following areas: critical conceptual parameters for the negotiations; specific strategic issues to be addressed; and structural questions which needed to be resolved. Canada distributed a working paper entitled "Elements of an Approach to Dealing with Stocks of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons and Other Nuclear Explosive Devices".
In response to the Canadian address, Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan said that according to Canada, the nuclear world consisted of the five nuclear-weapon States. This, however, was not the real world and it denied
the realities on the ground. Canada was proposing to conclude a universal treaty and to base it on a world that was legislated by one particular treaty, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Canada had argued that on the one hand, the NPT could not be changed because it had been accepted by the nuclear-weapon States, but it also argued that there was another reality which had to be acknowledged which was that the five nuclear-weapon States would not accept negotiation of their stockpiles in the treaty. The two positions were contradictory and incompatible. Pakistan could not accept a situation where this Treaty would freeze the inequality that existed not only globally, but also in sensitive parts of the world.
The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Nguyen Qui Binh of Viet Nam, said the Conference was about to conclude the first part of its annual session and go into recess without having yet found an acceptable basis to start its substantive work. Therefore, determined efforts were urgently needed to resolve the differences on the two outstanding issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Ambassador Binh said he had already embarked on a series of bilateral consultations with a view to ascertaining where the Conference stood on those two issues and to exploring possible ways and means of promoting early consensus. He would devote his full energy and attention to this common endeavour and was confident that political will and flexibility would enable the Conference to build the necessary consensus to adopt its programme of work.
At the end of the meeting, the President announced that the next plenary of the Conference would be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 March. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, Bronislaw Geremek, would address the plenary. There would be another plenary at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 25 March. And at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, 26 March, the President of China, Jing Zemin, would address the Conference.
Statements
NGUYEN QUI BINH (Viet Nam), incoming President of the Conference, said the immediate task facing the Conference, namely to develop consensus on its programme of work, continued to be the one his two predecessors had been trying to resolve. The Conference was about to conclude the first part of its annual session and go into recess without having yet found an acceptable basis to start its substantive work. Therefore, determined efforts were urgently needed to resolve the differences on the two outstanding issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space.
The President of the Conference said there were a number of proposals on the table on how to deal with these two issues. Attempts had been made by his predecessors to find compromise solutions, and what was now required was for
- 3 - Press Release DCF/363 18 March 1999
everyone to display the necessary flexibility which would allow the Conference to move forward. He had already embarked on a series of bilateral consultations with a view to ascertaining where the Conference stood on those two issues and to exploring possible ways and means of promoting early consensus. He would devote his full energy and attention to this common endeavour. He was confident that political will and flexibility would enable the Conference to build the necessary consensus to adopt its programme of work.
AHMED N. J. AL-AWAD, Director of the Disarmament Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said the role of the Conference on Disarmament was to get States positions and views closer and to create one consistent position that led to adopting practical and applicable resolutions concerning disarmament.
Mr. Al-Awad said that the concerns of the participating delegations in this Conference, which were expressed in their statements, were of a high level of importance. Iraq hoped the Conference achieved all its objectives, but there were some priorities in the present world which could not be neglected or postponed as they represented a common urgent target for a great number of States. The nuclear disarmament issue was the foremost priority.
The world was witnessing an era of nuclear apartheid, Mr. Al-Awad said. There were nations which were allowed to keep massive arsenals of nuclear weapons, while others were divested of nuclear substance, even that used for peaceful purposes. The selectivity in dealing with this subject caused great frustration and kept the Conference far from its main objective. Thus nuclear disarmament was the essential factor in backing international security, improving mutual relationships, maintaining and consolidating confidence between nations, and offering certain guarantees for future generations to live in a safe, panic-free world.
The international community today was stunned as it searched for reasonable justifications and reasons that made the Zionist entity, in spite of numerous calls from the international community, ignore for the past 18 years Security Council resolutions which demanded that its nuclear programme and facilities be subjugated to safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mr. Al-Awad said the year 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference should seriously and frankly address this concern and offer practical solutions.
In conclusion, Mr. Al-Awad said hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens had been infected with cancer and congenital diseases as a result of the use of depleted uranium shells against Iraq in 1991. If there had not been an air embargo imposed illegally on Iraq, it would have demonstrated one live example which would have saved the delegation from describing the horrible effects of using such weapons without any sense of legal or moral responsibility. He
- 4 - Press Release DCF/363 18 March 1999
appealed to the Conference to take practical and serious steps to come to a binding international convention to ban the use of components of nuclear weapons like depleted uranium in conventional weapons.
MARK MOHER (Canada) said his country's priorities for the Conference on Disarmament had been clearly stated: nuclear disarmament, fissile material, the non-weaponization of outer space, and small arms and light weapons. Canada acknowledged that the degree of consensus on each varied, therefore, it was willing to begin to work on those issues which could immediately be agreed upon while continuing to pursue agreement on others.
Mr. Moher said Canada regretted that the Conference was not in a position to address the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate a fissile material treaty. Canada had been one of the strongest supporters of a treaty on fissile material for approximately half a century. Canada wished at this early stage of substantive negotiations to begin to address some broad considerations, and it would do so in the following areas: critical conceptual parameters for the negotiations; specific strategic issues to be addressed; and structural questions which needed to be resolved.
Concerning conceptual parameters, Mr. Moher said the negotiation of any disarmament, non-proliferation or arms control treaty must reflect the overall security context in which that negotiation process was taking place, must respond to relevant challenges, and must take into account certain political realities. First, an eventual treaty would need to address both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation concerns. This treaty should not change or redefine certain key political and legal principles. Second was the question of existing stocks. Canada had decided that while it will not argue that stockpiles be addressed by the treaty itself, it will be vital that in parallel with its negotiation that all States with stockpiles engage in measures - national, bilateral and multilateral - to enhance transparency and to reduce those stockpiles irreversibly. As for the third conceptual parameter, Canada understood that the five nuclear-weapon States had already ceased production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes. What it could not welcome was the inability of the five States concerned to confirm their cessation of production through formal moratorium commitments. Canada also circulated a working paper entitled "Elements of an Approach to Dealing with Stocks of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices".
Mr. Moher said that strategic issues included that the treaty had to deal with weapons-usable fissile material, not just weapons-grade fissile material. And while the focus should be on the classical production facilities -- enrichment and reprocessing -- it would want to ensure that other production technologies and facilities as well as facilities that might be associated with newly-produced fissile material were adequately covered by the treaty. As for the issue of fissile material for military non-explosive
- 5 - Press Release DCF/363 18 March 1999
uses, the treaty should provide for such uses and the production of such material in the future if necessary. And the verification regime had to deal with both declared and undeclared fissile material as well as production and other relevant facilities. This regime should be appropriately comprehensive and should satisfy similar concerns as to thoroughness and reasonable assurances.
Concerning structural questions, Mr. Moher said early considerations to be noted were governance; verification mechanism; financial provisions; and entry into force. Other structural issues such as amendment, protocols, dispute settlement and compliance would arise as the Conference went forward. In conclusion, he said Canada looked forward to participating in and contributing constructively to a responsible, serious negotiation process in the very near future.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said, in response to the statement by Canada, that his delegation had had the opportunity at the last session of the Conference to outline its general approach and some considerations with regard to a fissile material treaty. Earlier this session, Pakistan had stated it would respond to some views and positions expressed, and Canada's statement added to the list of those issues which required comments, and on which he believed the Conference would need to conduct pre-negotiations before it could proceed to the actual stage of negotiations.
Mr. Akram said that according to Canada, the nuclear world consisted of the five nuclear-weapon States. This however was not the real world and it denied the realities on the ground. Canada was proposing to conclude a universal treaty and to base it on a world that was legislated by one particular treaty, the NPT. Canada had argued that on the one hand, the NPT could not be changed because it had been accepted by the nuclear-weapon States, but it also argued that there was another reality which had to be acknowledged which was that the five nuclear-weapon States would not accept negotiation of their stockpiles in the treaty. The two positions were contradictory and incompatible.
Pakistan could not accept a situation where this treaty would freeze the inequality that existed not only globally but also in sensitive parts of the world. The moratorium proposal suffered principally from this defect. If certain States had security requirements, so did others. The mandate of the treaty said it had to be "non-discriminatory, multilateral, internationally and effectively verifiable", but the moratorium could not match this mandate. Mr. Akram said the safeguards under the new treaty had to relate to obligations undertaken under it and not under the NPT. Pakistan also did not think the IAEA had an automatic role to play in verification of the treaty. The issues were complex, but the negotiations would also be complex as long as certain States continued to insist that they be discriminatory and politically unfair. Unless these issues were clarified, the Conference would not be able
- 6 - Press Release DCF/363 18 March 1999
to move forward to the stage of elaborating on the treaty. There was a need for more in-depth clarification of the issues and Pakistan was ready for this stage.
* *** *