RUSSIAN FEDERATION WARNS OF RETURN TO "COLD WAR" DIALOGUE, AS FIRST COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISARMAMENT DEBATE

Press Release
GA/DIS/3142

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WARNS OF RETURN TO ‘COLD WAR’ DIALOGUE, AS FIRST COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISARMAMENT DEBATE

Says Attempt To Revise 1972 ABM Treaty Will Undermine Disarmament; Ten Speakers Address Issues of Missile Defence, Outer Space Arms Race

Attempts to revise the 1972 treaty, by which the Russian Federation and the United States agreed not to deploy an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, would return the disarmament dialogue to the days of the cold war, the representative of the Russian Federation told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) this afternoon, as it continued its disarmament and security debate.

He said that, for more than a quarter of a century, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems –- ABM Treaty -- had halted the strategic offensive arms race and substantially reduced the number of offensive strategic weapons. Undermining it would cause the collapse of the whole structure of agreements on reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons, and threaten the system of international agreements on non-proliferation and arms control. Aware of such consequences, he said, the Russian Federation, along with Belarus and China, would call upon the General Assembly to take a stand in favour of preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty.

The representative of China said that the vigorous development and proliferation of advanced missile-defence systems would “poison the atmosphere” and risk a more advanced arms race. In North America, the accelerated pursuit of the so-called missile-defence programme to the detriment of strategic stability had posed grave challenges to the ABM Treaty. In Asia, certain countries were rapidly pressing ahead with their joint theatre missile-defence development programme in a bid to further strengthen their military alliance in the region, which should have died out with the end of the cold war.

The nuclear disarmament process between the United States and the Russian Federation was “bogged down”, he said. Then, there were the nuclear tests after the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In Europe, the only military bloc left over from the cold war, under its “new strategic concept”, had bypassed the Security Council and bombed, with the world’s most powerful and sophisticated military machinery, a weak sovereign State, thereby turning the Balkan region into a testing ground for its new strategy. Such developments had caused the international security environment to deteriorate and threatened the sound development of international arms control and disarmament.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3142 5th Meeting (PM) 13 October 1999

The representative of Colombia said the international community had lost at least two opportunities to rid itself of weapons of terror. The first chance was in 1945, and the second was at the end of cold war. Despite the irrationality of nuclear weapons, however, the “era of disarmament” had not yet arrived. Doctrines of defence that relied on nuclear weapons and technological development risked not only turning outer space into a field of military occupation, but of altering the military strategic balance. In the next century, children must not inherit a world in which arms expenditures and the research and development of new weapons was greater than the investments in social development, education and the eradication of poverty.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Argentina, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Kuwait and Uruguay.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 14 October, to continue its general debate.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general debate on a wide range of disarmament initiatives and a number of international disarmament agreements.

The nuclear disarmament debate is expected to take into account bilateral arrangements, including the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -- the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- by which the United States and the Russian Federation agreed to limit the deployment and development of anti-ballistic missiles.

Attempts to revise that cornerstone treaty of strategic balance could have other ramifications, such as the further delay in ratification by the Russian Duma of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II), which is the second of two treaties by which the United States and the Russian Federation agreed to significantly reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

The original treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START I, was signed in 1991 and called for a 30 per cent reduction in strategic weapons over seven years, with stringent verification. In 1993, START II provided for the elimination of heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and all other multiple-warhead ICBMs, as well as a two-thirds reduction of the total number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by both sides. Negotiation on further reductions under START III can commence only upon entry into force of START II.

Multilateral agreements, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), will also be emphasized in the Committee’s nuclear disarmament debate. The Treaty still requires the ratification of 18 countries critical to its success. Of the necessary ratifications by nuclear-weapon States, three are pending: the United States; Russian Federation; and China. Other States whose ratification is required under article 14 of the Treaty, namely, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India and Pakistan, still have not signed the Treaty, which opened for signature in 1996.

A conference to facilitate the Treaty's entry into force concluded last Friday, 8 October, in Vienna. In a Final Declaration, the participating States parties and signatories to the CTBT called upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible and to refrain from acts which would defeat its object and purpose.

On non-proliferation, the lack of positive results from the three preparatory committee sessions leading up to the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will be discussed. The Treaty, which was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, is considered by many experts to be the bedrock of the non- proliferation regime. With 188 States parties, it is the most universal of all disarmament agreements.

Treaties banning the production and stockpiling of other weapons of mass destruction were also expected to dominate the debate, among them the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention). The call has intensified to forge a consensus behind a protocol that would establish effective verification of, and compliance with, that 1978 Treaty.

The entry into force on 29 April 1997 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) triggered the operation of a complex verification mechanism, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which has completed 503 inspections and has witnessed the destruction of more than 3,000 metric tons of chemical agents. So far, 126 States have ratified or acceded to the Convention.

The Committee is also expected to focus on the establishment of nuclear- weapon-free zones. The zones already in existence are governed by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok) and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba). Committee drafts are anticipated for the establishment of such zones in the Middle East, Central Europe and South Asia.

Discussions will also continue on the subject of landmines, in the context of the two instruments to ban or limit their use. The first was Protocol II of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), a partial ban negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), a total ban, was agreed to in Oslo as part of the so-called "Ottawa process" and entered into force on 1 March 1999.

(For detailed background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3139 issued 8 October.)

Statements

ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones had secured its solid place in the international disarmament agenda, and Uzbekistan welcomed progress achieved in the realization and strengthening of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various parts of the planet. The position of his country was based on the conviction that the creation of zones free from nuclear weapons -- on the basis of the arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned -- represented an integral tool in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Since the last session of the First Committee, he said, a group of experts from the Central Asian States, with the active assistance of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, had carried out a number of intensive meetings, which had closely approached an agreement on all aspects of a treaty on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia. He hoped that all Member States would support the draft resolution on the establishment of such a zone in Central Asia, which would be submitted on behalf of the five States of Central Asia for the attention for the members of the Committee in due course.

He also said that strengthening the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the non-expansion of the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons were the highest priorities in the policy of his country in the field of international peace and security. His country was the initiator of the proposal for the Central Asian nuclear-weapons-free zone. It felt responsibility for strengthening nuclear non-proliferation and intended to participate actively in achieving further progress in the field of disarmament.

W.O. AKINSANYA (Nigeria) said he believed that the goal of general and complete disarmament should remain a central focus, and was attainable given the political will of all States. A world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction remained a legitimate expectation that would serve the security interests of all States. However, at a time when the developing countries were faced with the serious challenges of globalization, poverty and development, the world was still witnessing the pursuit of military doctrines and scientific research that resulted in new weapon systems and nuclear proliferation. That was unacceptable.

He added that Nigeria, as a developing country, was firmly committed to the non-proliferation regime. It continued to vigorously pursue a strong advocacy for general and complete disarmament. It remained committed to the CTBT, and the machinery had been set in motion towards Nigeria’s ratification of the Pelindaba Treaty.

A number of concerns demanded immediate attention, he said. The failure of the Conference on Disarmament was due to the lack of consensus on nuclear disarmament and outer space. Certain working procedures of the Conference were not suitable and needed to be reviewed, in order to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Also of concern were the stalled START process and the delayed entry into force of the CTBT.

His country’s priority remained crafting a new security and disarmament agenda for the next century. The current agenda was based on the Final Document of the first special session on disarmament of 1978. That document needed to be revisited in order for new strategies to be developed. Since the Disarmament Commission could not reach a consensus at its last session on the convening of a fourth special session, he suggested that the opportunity provided by the Millennium Summit be used to set new goals. He urged like-minded countries to come together to identify and discuss what was achievable during the Millennium Summit.

The control of conventional weapons, he added, called for concerted international action. Calling for control of those weapons, on the one hand, while pursuing an aggressive arms sales policy, on the other, was a disservice to the cause of peace. His country was very interested in practical disarmament measures, such as the collection and destruction of small arms, and welcomed the decision to convene an international conference on the illicit trade in small arms not later than the year 2001. Nigeria also aligned itself with the total elimination of landmines and was committed to acceding to the Ottawa Convention as soon as possible.

SERGEY V. LAVROV (Russian Federation) said that the twentieth century had emerged with unprecedented scientific and technical achievements, but it was also a century in which millions of people perished in the two world wars and innumerable regional conflicts that blazed still today. It was in this century that mankind had begun collectively looking for answers to the question of how to put an end to wars and give all the inhabitants of the Earth a chance to live in peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, a universal answer to that question had not been found.

He said the central role in the formation and realization of a world without wars was assigned to the United Nations -- the one and only universal mechanism to regulate international relations. In that context, the problems of disarmament and international security occupied one of the key positions. There were three main tasks in that sphere: strict observance of the agreements in the field of disarmament; step-by-step reduction with the ultimate goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, under strict and effective international control and together with limitation of other types of weapons; and the prevention of an escalation of an arms race in new spheres.

For more than a quarter of a century, the ABM Treaty had been the key element of strategic stability and the most important prerequisite for reducing strategic offensive weapons, he said. During its existence, the ABM Treaty had demonstrated its viability and effectiveness. Under the Treaty, mutual restraint of the parties in the sphere of ABM defence had halted the strategic offensive arms race, substantially reduced the offensive strategic arms and, now, in addition to that, maintained dialogue on a continuation of the process. As the Russian Federation had consistently stood for a reduction and limitation of nuclear arsenals, it had faithfully observed its obligations in accordance with START I. It was important that START II and other related instruments be ratified by the Russian Federal Assembly, and that procedures necessary for their ratification be fulfilled by the United States Congress.

He said the process of strategic arms reduction and limitation would have the most promising prospects under conditions of strategic stability. The Russian Federation was ready to hold talks on reducing strategic offensive weapons on the basis of basic elements defined during the meeting between its President and the United States President in Helsinki in March 1997, and confirmed in Cologne in June 1999. Within the framework of the future START III, the Russian Federation was ready to foresee a reduction of the overall threshold of up to 1,500 warheads – namely, to agree to a more substantial reduction of nuclear arms than had been foreseen in Helsinki.

He said all those achievements and prospects were directly connected to the observance of the central element of the ABM Treaty -- not to deploy an ABM system on the territory of either country and not to create a base for such a defence. Attempts to revise and infringe that central provision would, in fact, undermine the Treaty. In such a case, the observance of the START I and START II would become impossible. In fact, it would result in a collapse of the whole structure of the agreements on reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons. The disarmament dialogue would actually return to the point of departure of the cold- war era. The system of international agreements in the sphere of non- proliferation and control over armaments would be threatened. Besides, new factors would appear capable of destabilizing the international situation, both at the global and regional levels.

He said his country was conscious of the danger of the spread and sophistication of missiles and missile technologies. His Government supported the efforts undertaken by many countries to strengthen the regime of missile non- proliferation. For its part, it had proposed the creation of a global system of control over the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies, that would foresee, in particular, a regime of notification on the ballistic missile launches. Unfortunately, plans for deployment of a national ABM system could bring the opposite result, namely, to stimulate the creation and proliferation of more sophisticated missiles globally.

Aware of such consequences, which were extremely negative for all countries, he said his country had called upon the General Assembly to take a stand in favour of preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty. His delegation, jointly with the delegations of Belarus and China, had distributed a clear and non-confrontational draft resolution (document A/C.1/54/L.1), which was based on the provisions of the ABM Treaty itself, and on joint statements made by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States on that subject. He counted on the broadest possible support of the text and invited co-sponsorships.

Maintaining the integrity of the disarmament treaties was a key task, he said. His country was against attempts to revise or dilute the NPT under any pretext, or cast doubt on the decision on its indefinite extension. The preparatory process of the NPT in preparation for the 2000 Review Conference should be directed towards strengthening the Treaty and assist in the implementation of the 1995 NPT Review Conference. It was also important to undertake joint steps to advance the entry into force of the CTBT. India and Pakistan should join the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States, and other countries whose participation was necessary for its entry into force should also accede to it.

The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various regions of the world was welcome, he said. His country had recognized Mongolia’s non-nuclear status, pursuant to bilateral agreements, and was ready to consider, together with other countries, the provision of corresponding security assurances to Mongolia. The initiatives aimed at establishing such zones in Central Asia, the Middle East and other regions, as well as the proposal related to a nuclear-weapon-free space in Central and Eastern Europe, deserved support. The creation of such zones should be guided by internationally agreed principles and commitments made under current security agreements. The zones were an optimum way for States to receive legally binding security assurances. His country was also ready to consider the development of effective international arrangements on security assurances for non-nuclear NPT member States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and starting respective work in the Conference on Disarmament.

Clearly, the main threat to peace originated in aggressive nationalism, separatism, terrorism, and extremism, which recognized no borders and had instigated death and destruction, he said. It was natural, therefore, that the problem posed by the proliferation of small arms had occupied a central place on the agenda. The issue was an important and topical one, in which the United Nations should play the leading role. A global approach should be developed that harmonized States efforts in setting up a mechanism of international cooperation. As a first step, the focus should be to suppress illicit arms transfers, which were used to violate arms embargoes imposed by the Security Council. As such, his country supported the convening of an international conference on the illicit arms trade in 2001. His country also supported proposals to reconstitute the ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament.

SHEN GUOFANG (China) said that, since the last General Assembly session, the international situation had undergone profound and complex changes. The cold-war mentality was still present, coupled with new developments in hegemonism and power politics, thus, making the world even less stable.

In Europe, he said, the only military bloc left over from the cold war, under its “new strategic concept”, had bypassed the Security Council and bombed, with the world’s most powerful and sophisticated military machinery, the weak sovereign State –- the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -– thereby turning the Balkan region into a testing ground for its new strategy. In Asia, certain countries were rapidly pressing ahead with their joint theatre missile-defence development programme in a bid to further strengthen their military alliance in the region, which should have died out with the end of the cold war. In North America, the vigorous and accelerated pursuit of the so-called missile-defence programme had confronted the ABM Treaty with grave challenges. Those negative developments had worsened the international security environment and constituted an obstacle to the sound development of the international arms control and disarmament process.

He said the old security concept based on military alliance and arms build- ups would not resolve any problem. His country did not favour any attempts to seek, under certain excuses, military strength that went beyond one’s legitimate self-defence needs. Likewise, it was against any attempt to unilaterally seek an absolute security advantage for one country or country bloc by limiting and weakening other countries, under the pretext of arms reduction and non- proliferation. In order to promote disarmament, prevent an arms race and safeguard international security, it was imperative that a new security concept be established, consistent with the changed international situation. As a guideline for a new security concept, countries should recall the statement made by China’s President in the General Assembly last month.

Although the elimination of nuclear weapons was the common global aspiration, the nuclear disarmament process between the United States and the Russian Federation was now “bogged down” in a stalemate, following the achievement of certain temporary progress, he said. That was coupled with new nuclear tests after the conclusion of the CTBT. Such developments clearly indicated that the promotion of nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear proliferation would remain a formidable task for the international community for some time to come. The next nuclear disarmament step was for those countries that possessed the largest nuclear arsenals in the world to drastically reduce those arsenals and refrain from improving the quality and development of nuclear weapons. Also imperative was the conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty to cap the quantity of nuclear weapons.

He said the non-proliferation of those weapons should be ensured through the NPT. An international legal instrument should be negotiated on the unconditional no-first use of nuclear weapons, no use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear- weapon States or in nuclear-weapon-free zones, as well as a comprehensive prohibition on the use of those weapons. Ultimately, the international community should conclude a treaty on the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons, in order to genuinely achieve the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Reaching that goal required the maintenance of global strategic stability and the safeguarding of the security interests of all countries.

The vigorous development and proliferation of advanced missile defence systems would obviously not contribute to international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, he went on. On the contrary, those would only “poison the atmosphere” and breed risks for a more advanced arms race. The comprehensive prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons should be the ultimate goal of the international community. The elimination of those weapons would lead to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and of long-range missiles, thus, also eliminating the missile threat.

As his country was subjected in the 1950s and 1960s to the nuclear threat and blackmail on several occasions, he said China had been compelled to develop a limited number of nuclear weapons. It had all along adopted a responsible attitude towards the question of nuclear weapons and had contributed to promoting nuclear disarmament. It had always pursued a no-first-use policy at any time and under any condition, and it had rejected participation in the nuclear arms race. Moreover, China had not deployed nuclear weapons outside its territory. His country’s nuclear weapons were purely for self-defence, and had not constituted a threat to anyone. Moreover, China’s extremely limited number of nuclear weapons had been placed under strict control, thereby removing the risk of an accidental launch.

An overall international environment of peace, security, stability and trust was imperative in any discussion of the transparency of nuclear arsenals and in de-alerting those weapons, he said. Such measures, therefore, should be linked with nuclear disarmament negotiations. Presently, there was a very wide gap among nuclear-weapon States in terms of their nuclear strength. A certain country was pursuing its nuclear-deterrence policy based on the first use of nuclear weapons, while vigorously developing its missile defence systems, to the detriment of the strategic balance. That country also “wantonly” resorted to or threatened to use force in international relations. Under such circumstances, it was both premature and unfair to indiscriminately call for the adoption of transparency measures on the nuclear front.

He said his country had always attached importance to the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Of particular concern were the latest developments on that front. A certain country had tried hard to block the establishment of the ad hoc committee on an outer space arms race in the Conference on Disarmament. At the same time, it had pressed rapidly ahead in pursuing its outer space and missile-defence programmes in an attempt to seek military advantage on the ground through dominating and controlling outer space. The developments in the vigorous pursuit of missile-defence systems since the beginning of the year was most disturbing. The global community was confronted with the danger of the weaponization of outer space and the repudiation of the ABM Treaty.

Under such a circumstance, he went on, it had become a pressing issue for the international community to strengthen its efforts against an outer space arms race. The Conference on Disarmament, however, had failed to re-establish that ad hoc committee, due to the obstruction by a certain individual country. The relevant resolution adopted by the current General Assembly should continue to urge the Conference to re-establish the ad hoc committee at an early date next year and immediately begin its substantive work in order to reverse the negative developments concerning an outer space arms race and the development of missile defence. The current session should also take measures to preserve the integrity and validity of the ABM Treaty. In that context, his country fully supported the efforts of the Russian Federation to table a resolution on the issue. FERNANDO ENRIQUE PETRELLA (Argentina) said that it was both odd and contradictory that just when it seemed that the NPT was on track, serious threats had emerged, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation. His country believed that renouncing all nuclear arms and arms of mass destruction constituted the highest priority.

He said that, while Argentina had mastered all the cycles of nuclear fuel, it had renounced its use for military purposes. All States should renounce their nuclear weapons capability. Argentina would continue to work for strict compliance with the NPT, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT. He was watching the debate currently taking place in the United States concerning ratification of the CTBT, since it reflected the sensitivities and political challenges posed by the disarmament process.

His country would continue to promote a conference on the destruction of fissile material for weapons purposes, as well as efforts to control the excess accumulation of conventional weapons, in particular small arms. He fully supported the international conference on the illicit traffic in small weapons to be held not later than 2001. His country ratified the Ottawa Convention this year, and hoped to extend its status to the whole hemisphere.

EMILIO IZQUIERDO (Ecuador) said that, in order to have faith in the future, important steps taken towards arms control and disarmament should not be forgotten. Particularly worthy of mention was the success, although partial, of the third meeting of the Preparatory Committee on the NPT, which had made it possible to advance some very high levels of discussion on the issue. Also noteworthy was the success of the Disarmament Commission in adopting guidelines regarding conventional weapons control and the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones. The Commission had made a significant contribution by adopting a range of specific recommendations within the framework of peace-building, disarmament, and nuclear non-proliferation. It was with sense of great responsibility that Ecuador had assumed membership in that body.

Precisely this month last year, he said, a peace agreement between Ecuador and Peru was signed, ending a century-long dispute. That achievement provided an excellent example of overcoming a past of distrust and allowing for a future of mutual cooperation and the full utilization of resources for human development. Ensuring compliance with peace and disarmament agreements was essential, and conventional disarmament must be accompanied by the disarmament of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

Small arms and light weapons were a universal source of concern, he added. It was essential to establish mechanisms to improve restrictions on the production and marketing of those weapons. The illicit traffic and stockpiling of small arms constituted a great scourge confronting society, since the victims were nearly all civilians. Statistics on the trade of those weapons were alarming, and Ecuador fully supported the conference on illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. He said his country also advocated the strengthening and improvement of nuclear- weapon-free zones as part of an uninterrupted process of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. His country urged complete, universal adherence to the NPT, as well as the ratification and entry into force of the CTBT and the treaty on the production of fissile material. Together, those would complete the broad universal body of norms in the nuclear sphere.

BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said that disarmament in all its forms, demilitarization and the reduction of military expenditures were of paramount importance to Costa Rica. Not investing in arms was the best choice for those countries committed to the well-being of their people. The preservation of society required a resolute policy of reduced military expenditures and a strengthened national authority. His country had devoted much to education, health and the building of an infrastructure. Organized society must focus on attaining the noble objective of disarmament. The reduction of military expenditures was particularly important to developing countries, whose resources were scarce and must not be mismanaged. Those countries must fight for such goals as economic development and social justice. In that context, armaments were a heavy budgetary burden.

He said that the $191 billion squandered on the armed forces of developing countries would be better spent on health; the $22 billion spent on arms transfers to the developing world would be better spent on education. There was a positive relationship between disarmament and development. Measures were needed to combat arms transfers that undermined national or regional security and development. Arms producers must exercise effective control over their exports, as well as over the illegal traffic in weapons. Broadening the scope of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms had his country’s support.

He said his country had also advocated a ban on the transfer of material and military personnel, financial and logistical support to those States whose security forces had been engaged in human rights violations. Such a ban should also be extended to those States which had not extended a minimum human rights guarantee to its people. Moreover, arms exports should be prohibited to those countries that had not declared their imports to the United Nations, or that had not signed the main instruments on human rights, international humanitarian law or disarmament. Such measures should be incorporated into an international agreement, binding on all States.

In addition, he said that all States should adopt measures to control and restrict the use, possession, and transfer of all types of small arms, as well as measures to collect and destroy those weapons. Costa Rica supported an international conference on the illicit trade in small arms in 2001. It also endorsed the Ottawa Convention and had appealed to all States to ratify it as soon as possible. The international community must continue to support mine-clearance activities.

In the field of nuclear disarmament, he said his country had been concerned about the nuclear testing in South Asia. In that context, it had strongly appealed to those countries not yet party to the NPT to immediately cease nuclear weapons development and, as soon as possible, to unconditionally adhere to that universal instrument. Similarly, all countries that had not yet signed the CTBT should do so without delay. The nuclear-weapon States, in particular, had a special obligation to ratify or sign the CTBT and, thus, demonstrate their leadership. Their ratification was indispensable if a new arms race was to be avoided. The entry into force of the CTBT was an urgent step towards guaranteeing the security of all humankind. As such, his country had supported the appeal made last week in Vienna.

JOSÉ RENATO SALAZAR (Colombia) said the relaxation of cold-war tensions had been an incentive to States to reduce the production of weapons and reallocate resources to development. The current century would be remembered as the century in which the most powerful weapons had been invented and used. In the next century, a new collective consciousness must be directed towards international peace and security. Children must not inherit a world in which arms expenditures and the research and development of new weapons were greater than the investments in social development, education and the eradication of poverty.

The international community had lost at least two clear opportunities to rid itself of the weapons of terror, he said. The first was in 1945, after their first use and after witnessing their terrible effect. The second opportunity was at the end of the cold war. How many more opportunities must be lost before becoming fully aware of the irrationality of those weapons? he asked. Nonetheless, the “era of disarmament” had not yet come. Doctrines of defence that relied on nuclear weapons and technological development had risked not only turning outer space into a field of military occupation, but of altering the military strategic balance. The world was far from the ideal, where research and technology would be used for education and the eradication of hunger and poverty.

On the subject of small arms, he said the killing of women and children, which was happening in most conflicts, had brought no honour. The fighting had left the battlefields and had entered the villages and towns. The warriors had become children, and the enemy had become the villagers. Further, those conflicts had negatively affected international peace and security. As a result, their consideration had gained political impetus, as evidenced by the recent Security Council debate on the subject. His country had attached much importance to the convening of an international conference on small arms, and it had welcomed the recommendations of the Panel of Experts on Small Arms, particularly on the objectives and scope of the conference. It was time to set a specific date and venue for the conference, as well as to define an agenda, scope and expected outcome.

He said the nuclear tests in South Asia had indeed challenged the non- proliferation regime. Unless the international community could show some true nuclear-disarmament progress, it risked a setback in the advances associated with the NPT regarding the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That goal required a deeper commitment by the nuclear-weapon States. Concerning a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, it was important to take advantage of the work achieved so far by the Disarmament Commission and to press for a consensus that would allow the session to be convened in the near future. Such a session would enable the world community to consider the consequences of the continued modernization of weapons and technological advances for military purposes.

HISHAM AL-GHANIM (Kuwait) said that history had proven that international solidarity and cooperation were the best deterrents to any action that threatened security. The proliferation of conventional weapons called for serious international cooperation. The United Nations Register for Conventional Arms was an excellent mechanism for countering mistrust and fostering confidence-building. Anti-personnel landmines were also of great concern, and the international community needed to look into the best means for their elimination. He urged all States to immediately ratify treaties and conventions that aimed at halting the production and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. It was not enough to sign those treaties, without a sincere wish for their implementation. The goals of the NPT were shared by all Arab States, he said. Only Israel refused to sign. The international community must continue to apply pressure on Israel to accede to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. He also called for continued international pressure on Iraq to remove all its weapons of mass destruction, as well as release all prisoners of the Gulf War and restore plundered Kuwaiti property. Those steps would lead to more stability in the Gulf region. His country was also following the situation in South Asia with great concern. He called upon the two brotherly countries to resort to wisdom and avoid being plunged into an arms race.

JORGE PEREZ-OTERMIN (Uruguay) said that the United Nations had an enormous responsibility to ensure that the object of human security did not remain mere theory on paper. Strict compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation regime remained the cornerstone of macro-disarmament, and it was inadmissible that any State should digress from it. It was also necessary to achieve a consensus of new norms on the multilateral level, so that the ABM Treaty would become a mechanism to stop the deployment of new missile-defence systems.

He said that rapid and effective action to halt the proliferation of small arms remained one of the most important challenges in coming months. All were aware of the importance of the subject, since the number of deaths caused by those weapons was almost equal to those caused by weapons of mass destruction. His country fully supported the aims of the international conference on small arms to be held not later that 2001.

* *** *