CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FINAL MEETING OF 1999 SESSION

Press Release
DCF/381

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FINAL MEETING OF 1999 SESSION

Speakers Decry Lack of Progress; Pakistan and India Continue Debate Draft Nuclear Doctrine

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 7 September (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament concluded its 1999 session today, adopting its annual report to be submitted to the General Assembly and hearing a series of closing statements from national delegations decrying a persisting stalemate which left the Conference unable to agree on a programme of work.

Representatives of Pakistan and India also exchanged remarks, as on 19 August, over the meaning and implications of a draft nuclear weapons doctrine released by India. Pakistan charged that the Indian document threatened a major nuclear and conventional weapons build-up in the region, while India stated that the draft doctrine was indeed a "draft" that was to be discussed by the Government and the Indian public and that India would maintain its nuclear capability only in a defensive and deterrent role.

Representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), the United States, Hungary, France, and the United Kingdom all expressed concern over the Conference's inability to achieve a programme of work, and in particular over its inability to re-establish an ad hoc committee that would resume negotiations on a fissile-material cut-off treaty (FMCT). The speakers said consensus supposedly had been achieved on the matter, that the General Assembly had approved of it, and that no delegation had spoken before the Conference in opposition to such a step.

Finland said the European Union considered that it was incumbent on the Conference to take an early decision to resume FMCT negotiations under an ad hoc committee. The United States said the Conference's year could only be described as "especially impoverished" and that flexibility and pragmatism on the part of all Conference members would be necessary to avoid "yet another sterile year".

The representative of Hungary said that given the Conference's failure to resume FMCT negotiations, he was afraid that the word "consensus" might have assumed a new meaning. The Ambassador of France said the concept of consensus had been "sorely tried", while the Ambassador of the United Kingdom said he wondered, given the publicly announced willingness to resume such negotiations, how the Conference had managed "to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".

A contrasting view was expressed by the Ambassador of Pakistan, who said he did not think those statements fully and objectively reflected the realities confronting the Conference and its members this year. Further efforts were needed to achieve consensus on two matters -- nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space -- but a few countries, a very small minority, had been unable to make the compromises necessary to satisfy the great majority of members, the Ambassador said.

He went on to announce that the Foreign Secretary of his country had delivered a statement this morning in Islamabad on the regional and global implications of India's nuclear doctrine, and that the text of the Foreign Secretary's statement had been circulated to the Conference. The nuclear doctrine announced by India was a prescription for a massive arms build-up -- nuclear and conventional -- in the region, the Ambassador charged.

The Ambassador of India responded that Pakistan's comments were ill- informed; that the draft document "Indian Nuclear Doctrine" was one input for consideration by the Government; that the draft was a indeed a draft and had been released to the public in order to encourage wide discussion of the matter; and that India's nuclear capability would only be maintained in a defensive and deterrent fashion.

Also addressing the Conference's Thursday morning plenary were representatives of Bulgaria and New Zealand.

Following the plenary, the Conference reconvened in an informal plenary to complete review of its annual report. It then resumed in formal plenary to adopt the document.

In closing remarks, current Conference Chairman Leslie Luck of Australia said, among other things, that while all had experienced disappointment that the Conference had not made more of a contribution to the international security system this year, participants could console themselves that the Conference could only be a microcosm of the wider international environment, which, from many perspectives, had provided difficult challenges over the past several years.

Statements

MARKKU REIMAA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that in 1993, the General Assembly unanimously had recommended negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. In 1995 and again in 1998, the Conference had decided to establish an ad hoc committee for such negotiations, and the General Assembly had welcomed this decision in 1998 and encouraged the Conference to re-establish this ad hoc committee at the beginning of the 1999 session.

The European Union believed that a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable cut-off treaty constituted, after the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a major step towards the achievement both of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The EU was convinced that an FMCT, by irreversibly limiting the fissile-material stockpiles available for use in nuclear weapons and by establishing an effective verification system, would strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. It was incumbent on the Conference to take an early decision to resume negotiations under an ad hoc committee. The EU was of the view that the negotiations should start immediately and that efforts should be pursued vigorously to reach an agreement on the remaining elements of a substantive programme of work.

ROBERT T. GREY, JR. (United States) said yet another year had passed without any material progress to show to the international community; in fact, compared to last year, when two ad hoc committees were established, this year could only be described as especially impoverished. The Conference had allowed the best (or what purported to be the best from some national perspectives) to become the enemy of the good. It appeared that some might have used the best as a tactic to deliberately prevent any good from being done, especially the good that all had agreed to do - - a fissile material cut-off treaty.

While the glass wasn't even close to half full, it at least had a little bit of water in it. There had been long and sometimes painful debates that had at least brought out clearly what was possible and what was not. At least the parameters of the debate had been clarified. He hoped the Conference could build on this foundation to reach agreement on a work programme as early as next January. The United States planned to work to take advantage of any flexibility that might exist; it endorsed the call of the President of the Conference for flexibility and pragmatism on the part of all Conference members. It was the only hope the Conference had of avoiding yet another sterile year on the multilateral arms-control front, and for beginning the new millennium with a solid and full-scale arms control programme of work.

PETER NARAY (Hungary) said he would soon leave his post as Hungary's permanent representative to the Conference. Colleagues who recently had left had complained that they had done almost nothing in the last few years at the Conference, and it could be they were right and the Conference's results had been very meagre; but it was also a possibility that they just did not recognize the value of what they had achieved and that history would correct their judgement. In 1997 and 1998 he had served as Special Coordinator on review of the agenda; in both years after long hours and days of consultations, he had reportedly come to the conclusion that consensus on a future agenda was not within reach; of course he had been frustrated. Nonetheless, he still had a feeling of satisfaction over his work as Special Coordinator.

Mr. Naray said he was afraid that the word "consensus" might get a new meaning if the Conference continued its practice established in the last two years; if he was not mistaken, all members who took the floor this year and last said the time had come to start negotiations on an FMCT -- it seemed to him this could be called "consensus". Nevertheless, in terms of substantive work, nothing had happened.

He shared worries voiced by others about the future of the Conference, Mr. Naray said, but saw some hopes on the horizon. He still expected that early next year, without any linkages, the Conference would start negotiations on a text of an FMCT and that those negotiations would be finished in the foreseeable future. His suggestion in any case was that the Conference re-examines the prospects of disarmament negotiations at the Conference in general, including the root causes of the problems. He thought it was perfectly within the mandate of the Conference to address those underlying problems.

Mr. Naray said the Conference and its procedures had been shaped by a bipolar world that had ceased to exist 10 years ago; it needed to take account of the new world situation. A different matter should be considered more fully as well -- globalization. He was convinced that globalization had a substantial impact on disarmament issues -- it had accelerated the speed of history, had made the situation turbulent, and had made nations feel less secure.

HUBERT DE LA FORTELLE (France) said the conclusions of the session for 1999 were disquieting. A significant majority had opted for the easy way out, sticking with tradition rather than innovating to find new solutions. Reality also was a casualty; what was politically correct won out over candid speech. Consensus, the golden rule of the Conference, had been sorely tried; those who had given their word had not kept it -- he meant the agreement here and in New York to establish an ad hoc committee on an FMCT. That and other inconsistencies in the last week related to the annual report of the Conference would not be easy to forget.

The prospects for the year 2000 session appeared very bleak, the Ambassador said. The programme of work proposed by Ambassador Dembri, based on three main points -- nuclear disarmament, outer-space weapons, and the FMCT -- had been called seriously into question again during recent debates, and he feared for this proposal, which was the best hope for reaching consensus.

As for cut-off negotiations, if some countries refused this very practical and sensible step towards disarmament, then the Conference must be forced to draw the necessary conclusions.

The Conference must at all costs avoid a fourth year of paralysis, the Ambassador said. The Conference must not delude itself. It was gravely ill. The practice of links, of all or nothing, was in the process of killing an irreplaceable organization.

IAN SOUTAR (United Kingdom) said the delegation had come to the Conference eight months ago fully expecting to start work on an FMCT; he had yet to hear a single delegation fail to support the early commencement of cut-off negotiations. He therefore was left wondering how the Conference had managed, in its own inimitable way, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The ad hoc committee had recommended that it be re-established at the beginning of the 1999 session, a recommendation forcefully endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Why, when consensus supposedly existed, was the Conference unable simply to pick up its work where it had left off only a few months before? There simply could not be nuclear disarmament without confidence that no new fissile material was being produced for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The United Kingdom had demonstrated its readiness to be flexible in translating its commitment to meaningful nuclear disarmament from words into deeds, Mr. Soutar said. It looked to others to do the same. It did not make sense that countries would refuse even to start negotiations on the matter because other things needed to be talked about at the same time.

The United Kingdom looked forward to participating in inter- sessional consultations with a view to starting substantive work at the beginning of the new year, Mr. Soutar said.

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said he wished to inform the Conference that on 2 September the National Assembly of Bulgaria had ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Bulgaria was one of the 44 States that had deposited their instruments of ratification with the United Nations Secretary-General so that the CTBT could enter into force. Today, however, only half of those States had ratified the treaty. Well-known political difficulties had created this situation, and it was of utmost importance for the international community to intensify its efforts to accelerate the ratification process and facilitate the CTBT's entry into force. Bulgaria called on all countries which hadn't yet signed or ratified the treaty to do so and to participate actively in the forthcoming Special Conference.

Now, more than ever, the disarmament process, and nuclear disarmament in particular, needed a breath of fresh air, the Ambassador said -- not to mention this Conference. Bulgaria sincerely hoped that the countries concerned by the current stalemate in the field of disarmament and global security matters would undertake the relevant responsible action.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said Pakistan would support endeavours to reach a balanced programme of work for the Conference next year. Pakistan did not think the statements made so far today had fully and objectively reflected the realities confronting the Conference and its members this year. There were common elements with which all could have worked to achieve a programme of work. Further efforts were needed to achieve consensus on two matters -- nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space. But a few countries, a very small minority, were unable to make the compromises necessary to satisfy the great majority of members.

It was necessary for the Conference to give nuclear disarmament the highest priority for its work. The nuclear arms States must also recognize that a potential arms race in outer space was an important issue needing concerted attention. It was not enough for the Conference just to focus on non-proliferation issues. The explanations given by other speakers had been partial explanations, Mr. Akram said. There had been a number of factors this year that had affected the work of the Conference that they had not mentioned.

In his statement of 19 August, Pakistan had outlined its concerns regarding the nuclear doctrine released by India on 17 August. This morning the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan had delivered a statement in Islamabad on the regional and global implications of India's nuclear doctrine. The text of the Foreign Secretary's statement had been circulated to the Conference. It examined developments since nuclear tests carried out last year and outlined Pakistan's proposals for strategic restraint in South Asia on nuclear-weapons matters. The nuclear doctrine announced by India was a prescription for a massive arms build-up -- nuclear and conventional -- in the region. It constituted a serious obstacle to prospects for nuclear and missile restraint in South Asia.

A lot had been said about a fissile-materials cut-off treaty, yet India's intention to manufacture 400 or more nuclear warheads would require a large quantity of fissile material. Under those circumstances, neither India nor Pakistan could accept a moratorium on manufacture or acquisition of fissile material, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary had noted in his address.

Pakistan had suggested 10 steps to India that, if carried out, would defuse the situation, Mr. Akram said. These steps included assurances that nuclear weapons would not be deployed and that India would agree not to acquire or possess the large quantities of fissile materials needed for such weapons; a balance also would need to be struck between the current unequal quantities of fissile materials possessed by India and Pakistan. Negotiations with Pakistan to elaborate a strategic restraint regime were also called for among the 10 steps.

If a change in this trend set by India did not occur, Pakistan would be forced to take the steps necessary in response, Mr. Akram said, and unfortunately that would greatly reduce the chance of avoiding an arms race in the region. Pakistan called on the international community to condemn India's nuclear doctrine and to halt any sales of nuclear arms or components to India. Even at this late stage, Pakistan was committed to pursuing contacts and consultations within the international community to defuse the mounting threat posed to peace and security by India's nuclear strategy.

CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand) said the New Agenda coalition had apparently been alleged to be inconsistent in its approach to negotiations on an FMCT. That claim, apparently made by France, was absolutely not true. But New Zealand was able, meanwhile, to draw a distinction between a need to "score points" in the annual report of the Conference, and the need to give an accurate account in the report of the Conference's activities.

SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said certain remarks made by Pakistan required a response. As she had mentioned during her speech on 19 August, Pakistan's comments were ill-informed. Further, the Conference was not the forum for discussion of such issues. In any case the facts had once again to be set out clearly. The document "Indian Nuclear Doctrine" was one input for consideration by the Government. It was a draft and had been released to the public in order to encourage wide discussion of the matter. India believed that as a responsible nuclear- weapons State, it should have a transparent and clear nuclear doctrine. Moreover, it was a democracy, and issues of national security had to be based on popular support.

The Ambassador said she wished to reiterate India's position that nuclear weapons posed a grave threat to international security, and that it was important for nuclear-weapons States to confine the role of such weapons to defence and to deterrence of potential attacks by other nuclear-weapon States. India declared that it would not use such weapons in a first-strike approach but only in response to an attack by another nuclear-weapon State. Its approach to such weapons was defensive. Pakistan's response to the Indian draft nuclear doctrine was misguided. Pakistan was not building on the Lahore process but had eroded the spirit of compromise and progress of the process because of its aggressions carried out against India this year. The statement by the delegation of Pakistan rang hollow.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said he had listened carefully to the statement of the Ambassador of India, because he had hoped to hear from her a positive response to the proposals made by the Pakistani Foreign Secretary in an effort to arrest an arms race in South Asia. While India had said its doctrine was a matter for debate, the report was the final report of the National Security Advisor of India, and had been officially released by the Government. Pakistan could not but conclude that the report carried the official support and weight of the Government of India. If that was not the case, India should say clearly in public that the Government of India disallowed the recommendations in the report. That would certainly constitute a confidence-building measure. The international community should take note of the doctrine of India, should call on India not to implement it, and should halt any sales of relevant arms to India.

LESLIE LUCK (Australia), Conference Chairman, said in closing remarks that while all had experienced disappointment that the Conference had not made more of a contribution to the international security system this year, participants could console themselves that the Conference could only be a microcosm of the wider international environment, which, from many perspectives, had provided difficult challenges over the past several years.

Mr. Luck said he hoped the planned inter-sessional consultations would bring the Conference closer to early substantive work. He hoped it soon would be possible for the Conference to undertake fissile-material negotiations, for which there already existed compelling international priority and impetus; to take up the genuine interest expressed in an exchange of information and ideas which could contribute to further nuclear disarmament; to address resurgent concerns about the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and to address other widely shared work- programme priorities.

Annual Report of Conference on Disarmament

The report (CD/WP.503/Rev.1) includes an introduction, a section on organization of work, and a chapter entitled "substantive work" that covers the issues of cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapons states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; transparency in armaments; consideration of other areas dealing with the cessation of the arms race and disarmament and other relevant measures; and consideration and adoption of the annual report and any other report as appropriate to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The report notes, among other things, that "The Conference did not re-establish or establish any mechanism on any of its specific agenda items during the 1999 session". It also notes that "To promote substantive progress during its 2000 session, the Conference requested the current President and the incoming President to conduct appropriate consultations during the inter-sessional period and make recommendations, if possible, that could help to commence early work on various agenda items. These consultations shall, among others, take into account views presented and discussions held during the 1999 session.

* *** *