FOREIGN MINISTERS OF UKRAINE, NORWAY ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

Press Release
DCF/392

FOREIGN MINISTERS OF UKRAINE, NORWAY ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

Conference Hears Statement from Annual International Women's Day Seminar

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 9 March (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament today heard addresses from the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Norway who, among other issues, spoke of the importance of nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation.

Borys Tarasyuk, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, underlined his country's voluntary renouncement of the world's third largest nuclear potential and said it was regretful this was not followed by some other nuclear and threshold States. He noted the volatile region of South Asia where nuclear risks still had to be reduced and eliminated. The emergence of new States with nuclear weapon capability, as well as new strategic concepts and nuclear doctrines, deserved attentive consideration within the Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances which should be re-established in the Conference without further delay, he added.

Knut Vollebaek, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said the efforts to revitalize nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation must now be intensified and incorporated into the foreign and security policy priorities of all countries. It was important to address regional issues in the context of non-proliferation and disarmament. The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan highlighted the connection between regional instability and the danger of nuclear proliferation.

The Representative of Pakistan welcomed the recognition by the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Norway concerning the dangers in South Asia. The international community needed to engage the two parties concerned and to encourage them to promote nuclear and conventional weapons restraint. It should also urge the two States to re-open and revive their dialogue.

The Representative of India said her country did not believe that South Asia lent itself to regional security formations. India was committed to democracy as well as to strengthening transparency concerning its defence expenditures and arms transfers. It expected the same from others.

Ambassador Erwin Hofer of Switzerland, who addressed the Conference in a farewell speech, said the absence of a programme of work was not due to the lack of a commitment from the Presidency or the delegates. He warned that the world was facing in-depth changes in the balance of forces and strategic constellations were being created.

- 2 - Press Release DCF/392 10 March 2000

At the beginning of the meeting, Vladimir Petrovsky, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for Disarmament, read out a statement in the name of the Annual International Women's Day Seminar. The Seminar’s statement said the state of global insecurity demanded a greater effort on the part of Governments to make 2000 a year in which significant impasses in disarmament were overcome.

The Representative of Mexico, representing the Group of 21, expressed his appreciation to the women's groups for their continued interest and invaluable support to the Conference. The Representative of the Netherlands, in the name of the Western Group, thanked the women's organizations for their commitment to the Conference and issues of disarmament. She said the absence of an agreement on a programme of work should not be interpreted as lack of concern by the Western Group which believed, among other things, that a fissile material cut-off treaty should be negotiated within the Conference.

The Representative of the Russian Federation, on behalf of the Eastern European Group, thanked the representatives of the women's non-governmental organizations for their unflagging interest in the work of the Conference. The Representative of China said that women and children were always the main victims of wars. Women desired peace and security. That was why they exerted efforts in many fields including, arms control and disarmament.

At the end of the meeting, the outgoing President of the Conference, Ambassador Iftekhar Chowdhury of Bangladesh, said his endeavours had not found fruition in a programme of work. His initiative, which had entailed the appointment, for a limited time frame, of two coordinators for nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space, accompanied by presidential statement suggesting a course of action leading to a programme of work, did not result in a consensus. Views on it were shaped by perceived national self- interest, as indeed should be the case. The result however was that the Conference was back in the tunnel and the light at its end eluded it.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 March. The Representative of Belarus will be the incoming President of the Conference.

Statements

VLADIMIR PETROVSKY, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for Disarmament, read out a statement from the Annual International Women's Day Seminar which said that this year's Seminar on "The Reporting of War and Disarmament: The Role of the Media in Building Cultures of Peace" had been a timely contribution to the International Year for the Culture of Peace. The seminar had explored the role of non- governmental actors in international relations with a special focus on the role of the media in building cultures of peace. Experience had shown that the media could play a role in fuelling conflict through the misrepresentation of issues and history. It could also be utilised for transformative purposes and could contribute significantly towards peace building. Participants consistently affirmed the need to promote reconciliation at the local level in order to build communities living in peace. In this regard, women had demonstrated considerable leadership skills all over the world with their commitment to and capacity for the making and building of peace through regional disarmament programmes and participation in peace negotiation and reconciliation at the communal and national levels.

The statement said the state of global insecurity demanded a greater effort on the part of Governments to make 2000 a year in which significant impasses in disarmament were overcome. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be undermined if the five nuclear-weapon States continued to expect 182 States to fulfil their legal obligations whilst not really fulfilling theirs. The Seminar also believed that the failure of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to enter force was indeed a disappointment. And the contemplation of the deployment of ballistic missile defence systems was a serious source of concern.

Finally, the statement urged the Conference on Disarmament to work towards procedural changes to provide for greater NGO participation. In a world increasingly interconnected by the forces and impulses of globalization, comprehensive security derived its strength from its recognition of linkages with one another as people and nations. Common security was contingent on the ability to work with one another for mutual aspirations.

BORYS TARASYUK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said the present pattern of international security was directly linked to the progress or its lack in disarmament and non-proliferation. Ukraine had made a significant contribution to the process of disarmament. The voluntary renouncement of the world's third largest nuclear potential brought its obvious dividends in the form of a wide recognition and strengthened political and economic cooperation with the world. Regretfully, this good example was not followed by some other nuclear and threshold States. The progress in disarmament was often put hostage to diverging national security considerations, foreign policy ambitions, internal political debates, or confrontation between neighbouring States.

Mr. Tarasyuk said that the lack of political will on the part of the leading world powers, insufficient cooperative ties among them - and as a result underdeveloped international instruments for enforcing disarmament -- had led to additional negative phenomena, though against their own will. All this resulted in that some States had learnt to manipulate the differences among the acknowledged nuclear powers to proceed with their nuclear programmes. The non- accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the key States played into the hands of individual nuclear terrorists who saw more opportunities to obtain necessary technologies. And the slow pace of global disarmament gave to some States reasons to argue about the discriminatory approach and pushed them to openly declare their own nuclear programmes. It was obvious that further reductions of nuclear weapons would be possible only with marginalization of their role in national security considerations of the nuclear-weapon States.

Mr. Tarasyuk noted the volatile region of south Asia where nuclear risks still had to be reduced and eliminated. The emergence of new States with nuclear weapon capability, as well as new strategic concepts and nuclear doctrines, deserved attentive consideration within the Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances, which should be re-established in the Conference without further delay, he added.

In conclusion, Mr. Tarasyuk said that the Conference on Disarmament faced the challenges similar to other international mechanisms in this field. It required modifications and new approaches to become more operational and effective. Ukraine would strive to promote the disarmament process within the United Nations. In this regard, of paramount importance was the reform of the UN Security Council by enlarging its membership, reviewing the veto procedures and delegating more powers to the non-permanent members. It was most important that the political will of the leading world powers -- permanent members of the Security Council -- seek a common platform for the future of disarmament and for the future of indivisible international security. The politicians ought to become more responsible to the people and less vulnerable to military lobby influence. They should also learn to sacrifice the national interests of their respective States for the sake of universal human interests. There would actually be no sacrifices if everyone worked together for the common objectives.

KNUT VOLLEBAEK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said his country believed that the Conference on Disarmament must retain its role as a major disarmament forum. Norway had been disappointed by the lack of progress on many issues over the last couple of years. Norway hoped that the members of the Conference could now join forces to ensure the effective operation of the body with a view to achieving concrete results. The current situation was making great demands on the non-proliferation regime. The efforts to revitalize nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation must now be intensified and incorporated into the foreign and security policy priorities of all countries.

Mr. Vollebaek said that at the forthcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the challenge would be to find ways and means to translate the agreed principles and objectives for nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation into concrete action. Another challenge would be to develop new measures and initiatives that all parties could endorse. The Conference should spur everyone on to achieve concrete and lasting results in this regard. It had to be acknowledged that the review process for the NPT had not functioned as well as had been hoped. This was due partly to underlying political realities and disagreement on a number of issues. Norway also believed that members had not been willing to take on the responsibility for finding viable solutions on which everyone could agree.

In order to maintain the credibility of the NPT, its review process had to be revitalized, Mr. Vollebaek said. Three elements could be incorporated into a strategy for this revitalization: first, it was important to preserve the integrity of the principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament adopted in the 1995 review conference; second, the review process needed a mechanism that could help to transform principles and objectives into action by facilitating their implementation; and third, the review process should be extended from three to four sessions in order to combine implementation of decisions with preparations for subsequent review conferences.

Mr. Vollebaek said it was important to address regional issues in the context of non-proliferation and disarmament. The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan highlighted the connection between regional instability and the danger of nuclear proliferation. It was important that India and Pakistan develop confidence-building measures, as provided for in the Lahore Declaration of 1999, in order to reduce tension and prevent further conflict escalation. The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan should serve as a strong reminder that these two countries could not afford to allow their differences to get out of hand.

In conclusion, Mr. Vollebaek said that Norway advocated that the Conference should serve as an important forum on nuclear transparency in order to replace distrust with confidence and cooperation. In this spirit, Norway, Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands had submitted a proposal last year to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to study ways and means of establishing an exchange of information and views on efforts towards nuclear disarmament. To ensure further and irreversible reductions in nuclear weapons arsenals, international assurances should be given that weapon-grade fissile material was no longer being produced. Assurances should also be provided that existing stockpiles were being brought properly under control with a view to net reductions.

ERWIN HOFER (Switzerland) said that as he left his post, he wished to give his deepest gratitude to all those who had supported him in his functions. He listed achievements by the Conference and said they would not have been possible without the expertise and skilled negotiation among its members. The question was whether the goals achieved in the past reflected on the present. The absence of a programme of work was not due to the lack of a commitment from the Presidency or the delegates. So what was the cause of the stalemate? The world was facing in- depth changes in the balance of forces and strategic constellations were being created. Yet the only means of action that the Conference had was creating legal frameworks to augment the security of States.

Mr. Hofer said he was sure that a consensus would emerge in the Conference sooner or later. Meanwhile, the Conference remained the sole negotiating platform on disarmament issues, even if its membership remained restricted. The Conference was also a forum for dialogue and transparency. Ambassador Hofer said he had been appointed Head of the Swiss Department of Combined Services to International Organizations, the United Nations and Conference Disarmament. He had also been appointed to prepare for the federal vote on Switzerland’s possible joining of the United Nations as a member. He said this vote would probably take place before the end of 2002.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said he wished to respond to remarks made in the Conference today on the nuclear dangers in South Asia. The present period was not a good time for disarmament and the reasons for this were quite evident. There had been a deterioration in the relationship between the great powers and there had been setbacks concerning nuclear disarmament. Pakistan welcomed the recognition by the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Norway concerning the dangers in South Asia. In particular, he agreed with the need of what Norway had called a separate arms control regime for the region. He recalled that after the nuclear explosions in South Asia last year, and when nuclear arms had become a reality, Pakistan had proposed a strategic restraint regime for the region. This regime had envisaged mutual nuclear weapons systems restraint; mutual conventional military restraint and confidence-building measures; and efforts to address and resolve the main core dispute, Jammu and Kashmir. It was unfortunate that the bilateral dialogue had broken off.

Mr. Akram said that now, a nuclear doctrine had been declared and the defence budget of India had increased by 28 per cent while Pakistan’s budget for defence had decreased by 6 per cent. The Foreign Minister of Norway had suggested that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference deal with regional issues in a more comprehensive manner, including South Asia. However, such measures could not evolve without the participation of the States concerned. Therefore, the Review Conference should invite Pakistan and India to participate fully in issues discussed on South Asia. He said Pakistan would respond positively to such an invitation. However, it would not be in a position to accept or endorse any ex-party decisions. The international community needed to engage the two parties concerned and to encourage them to promote nuclear and conventional weapons

* *** *

restraint. It should also urge the two States to re-open and revive their dialogue.

SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said she wished to comment on Pakistan’s unwarranted remarks on India’s budget. India did not believe that South Asia lent itself to regional security formations. The comments by the Ambassador of Pakistan obviously flowed with that country’s single point obsession of India and was an attempt to waste the time of the Conference. India’s defence budget needed to be seen in light of its challenge of, among others, cross border terrorists and mercenaries. The progressive ballistic missiles race in the neighbourhood also added to India’s challenge. India was guided solely by its self defence. Its budget for defence remained low and consistent, around 2.7 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product. It was also one of the lowest in the region. Research and development accounted for only 5.5 per cent of the defence budget which substantiated that India was not involved in any nuclear arms race.

Ms. Kunadi said the concept of democracy and transparency was not familiar to Pakistan and was not evident in many countries in the region and beyond. India was committed to democracy as well as to strengthening transparency concerning its defence expenditures and arms transfers. It expected the same from others.

AMBASSADOR AKRAM said he sought in his first intervention to reflect on the situation in South Asia and to respond to the statements made on the dangers in the region. He had not introduced the subject. Everyone realised the danger in South Asia. Pakistan believed it needed to be addressed. He trusted and hoped that the international community would be able to convince the Indian Government to stop its venom and aggression against Pakistan and to resume their dialogue. If India was advertising its democracy, let it advertise it in Jammu and Kashmir. Why did India hold them in bondage? Democracy started at home. As for justifying the defence budget with the border conflict, he noted that India’s 1.5 million strong army was deployed mainly against the smaller Pakistan which obligated it to spend a lot on defence. India could reverse this and Pakistan proposed that this should take place through dialogue. In conclusion, he noted that the increase in the budget of defence of India was equal to the entire defence budget of Pakistan.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh), outgoing President of the Conference, said his endeavours had not found fruition in a programme of work. He recalled that at the outset he had set himself modest goals, to point the way. His initiative, which had entailed the appointment, for a limited time frame, of two coordinators for nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space, accompanied by a presidential statement suggesting a course of action leading to a programme of work, did not result in a consensus. Views on it were shaped by perceived national self-interest, as indeed should be the case. The result, however, was that the Conference was back in the tunnel and the light at its end eluded it.

Mr. Chowdhury said the Member States in the Conference today were often too far apart. It had often been said that the Conference reflected existing global realities. Or was it that the Conference was out of tune with the real world. For how could it remain inactive while wars and violence across the world continued to kill and maim in such enormous scale. How could it be at ease when a plethora of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and conventional, remained as potentials for the total annihilation of the world. It was not that the Conference was marching to a different drummer, it was not marching at all, and this immobility could be at a horrendous price. He urged the leaders of the world to focus on the Conference in order to encourage and energize it.

* *** *