CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES FIRST PART OF YEAR 2000 SESSION; SPEAKERS DECRY CONTINUING STALEMATE ON STARTING SUBSTANTIVE WORK

Press Release
DCF/393

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES FIRST PART OF YEAR 2000 SESSION; SPEAKERS DECRY CONTINUING STALEMATE ON STARTING SUBSTANTIVE WORK

GENEVA, 23 March (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament completed this morning the first part of its 2000 session with Member States expressing concern about the forum's continued inability to reach agreement on a work programme.

Among those addressing the Conference's weekly Thursday morning plenary were the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control of New Zealand, Matt Robson, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Carmen Moreno.

Mr. Robson said that the Conference should proceed with the next step in the process of nuclear disarmament -- negotiation of a fissile-material cutoff treaty; should deal with disarmament in a broader context; and should consider measures to keep the realm of outer space peaceful.

Ms. Moreno said, among other things, that the continued lack of consensus on an overall disarmament agenda was deplorable and that States had to recognize their general, shared responsibility for future peace, which required ultimate nuclear disarmament.

Germany, speaking on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States, proposed that the Conference take an immediate decision to start substantive negotiations on the following five elements, which it said had been common to various proposals put forward in 1999: re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate, on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator (CD/1299) and the mandate continued therein, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable treaty on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons; re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; reappointment of a Special Coordinator to seek the views of Conference members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to anti-personnel landmines, taking into account developments outside the Conference; reappointment of a Special Coordinator on "transparency in armaments" to seek the views of Conference members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to the matter; and reappointment of Special Coordinators to consider review of the agenda of the Conference, the expansion of its membership and its improved and effective functioning.

There also was agreement within the Conference on dealing with the issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space, although the

- 2 - Press Release DCF/393 24 March 2000

most appropriate mechanisms and their mandates remained to be determined, the German representative said. With regard to those two important outstanding issues, the 23 countries for which Germany spoke supported continuation of intensive consultations to find early agreement, including mandates and mechanisms.

The Conference did not take any action on the proposal.

Speaking over the course of the meeting were representatives of Canada, Chile, Russian Federation, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Spain and Ecuador.

The Conference on Disarmament will hold the second part of its session from 22 May to 2 July.

Statements

SERGEI MARTYNOV (Belarus), incoming President of the Conference, said it was time for action; not play acting, but real action; the curtain might come down on the Conference otherwise. Too little had happened for too long. The world was watching and was losing confidence. Right now the Conference was like a wavering candle flame in the wind; this flame was certainly not a torch. It was fragile. If delegations helped him, he would have a chance to sound more optimistic in his concluding remarks at the end of his presidency, he hoped.

Mr. Martynov said consultations he had carried out indicated that delegations did not feel it was possible to make further progress before the Conference resumed work on 22 May, but that delegations also felt hopeful that the stalemate in the Conference's work might yield to events then and to progress that might be achieved at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

MATT ROBSON, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control of New Zealand, said New Zealanders had declared the country nuclear free in 1987 and last month their Parliament had adopted a resolution calling for the fulfilment of the obligation affirmed in the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Today the resolution would be circulated at the Conference and would be tabled as an official document of the Conference. On strategic arms reduction talks (START), New Zealand urged the Russian Duma to ratify and implement START II; rapidly moving to START III negotiations would help restore confidence in article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meanwhile nuclear-weapons States should reduce their stockpiles and reduce the risk of their use. A lot of political spadework remained to be done before a nuclear-free Southern Hemisphere was achieved, but by banding together the countries, they could at least show that half the planet had disarmed for good.

New Zealand urged India and Pakistan to turn back from the path they had chosen in 1998; New Zealand opposed proliferation in any part of the world. It urged those who had yet to do so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It urged the Conference to proceed with the next step in the process of nuclear disarmament -- negotiation of a fissile-material cutoff treaty; to deal with disarmament in a broader context; and to consider measures to keep the realm of outer space peaceful. New Zealand was committed to the New Agenda Coalition as offering a way forward for the Conference, Mr. Robson said.

CARMEN MORENO, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said Mexico attached great importance to nuclear disarmament; lack of consensus on an overall disarmament agenda was deplorable; that situation had to be reversed as soon as possible, and starting the new century with another failure by the Conference would be unacceptable. The Conference was invited to begin its second work period of the year with action and to avoid being further sidetracked with procedural discussions when it should be concentrating on substance. States had to recognize their general, shared responsibility for future peace, which required nuclear disarmament. Yet in recent years, that goal seemed to have receded, if anything. Mexico had long been a fervent supporter of nuclear disarmament -- the mere existence of such weapons left them vulnerable to use by accident or mistake.

The goal should be the universal eradication of nuclear weapons; non- proliferation was not an end in itself but a step towards that ultimate goal. Horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons was to be avoided, obviously, as well as vertical proliferation. Non-nuclear weapon States worried as well about the way the security systems of nuclear-weapon States continued to be based on their possession of the weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was a matter of concern for Mexico, as it would be taking place in an atmosphere of mixed intentions and disagreements on disarmament issues among important States. The situation was worrying. Among other things, possible deployment of an anti-missile defense system could shift focus away from the philosophy of disarmament and might set off yet another arms race. Much better results were expected and should be achieved in the twenty-first century. Mexico had been actively involved in the development of the new agenda and supported it. Mexico recognized the need to limit the use and sale and availability of light, conventional weapons and had played a constructive role in regional, bilateral and multilateral efforts to that end.

CHRISTOPHER WESTDAL (Canada) said Canada wanted the Review Conference to succeed by generating the political will, energy and leadership required in capitals -- and through them, multilateral organs such as the Conference -- to restore momentum to faltering nuclear-arms control and to correct the course of currently deteriorating disarmament trends. There was much public discussion in Canada on devaluing the political currency of nuclear weapons, whether in tha North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or in South Asia, where Canada resisted the idea of according status and rewarding proliferation with prestige. While there were some positive signs in the field of disarmament, there were disturbing negative trends, too: the rationalization of nuclear arsenals, the derailment of the CTBT, the stop of START, continuing stubborn faith in nuclear deterrence and in pride and presumed status in the possession of nuclear weapons.

Canadians' concerns about the future included the continuing paralysis of the Conference; people said that while the Conference could not be expected to do everything, it should at least be able to do something; and yet for four years, the Conference had negotiated nothing, and for the past two years had failed even to agree on a work programme. The key question for those who truly wished to get back to work in the Conference was how various perceptions and goals could be re-aligned to permit consensus on a return to substance. Canada was very willing to be flexible, but felt that loss of an Ad Hoc Committee to discuss a fissile-material cut-off treaty would be an unacceptable degradation of the Conference's work. It was prepared to proceed appropriately on each item suggested for a programme of work, separately or in combination, with no linkages and no rigid packaging. If the Conference was ultimately to fail, with the huge loss that would entail, it at least was vital that it should never be said that it was for lack of trying.

JAVIER ILLANES (Chile), in a farewell address, said that over the three years of his participation in the Conference, despite serious and sincere efforts, the Conference had been mired in stalemate. He shared the frustration and disappointment felt by others; it was clear, moreover, that the Conference was not the only site of such deadlock -- the preparatory process for the NPT Review Conference had been similarly beset. The main obstacle remained the controversy between countries that sought complete prohibition of nuclear weapons and others -- mainly nuclear Powers -- that opposed such a step. Another serious difficulty was divergent views on the potential for an arms race in outer space. It probably was naive, given those basic conflicts, to think that "reform" or "change in procedures" of the Conference would yield any truly valuable results.

Nonetheless, he thought certain limited functional measures might be useful to help the Conference move ahead, such as the creation of more-or-less permanent committees or working groups on each agenda item, at least to help in clarifying national positions. Other strictly informal, confidential discussions might also be useful. It should be remembered that the Conference was a negotiating forum and should not be mired in endless talks about how to talk. What was lacking, in the end, was political will. Perhaps adapting past practices to present realities might help.

VASILY SIDOROV (Russian Federation) said the treaty between the USSR and the United States on intermediate- and short-range missiles had eliminated two classes of dangerous weapons; the START I agreement had greatly reduced levels of longer range missiles; the START II treaty provided for yet more considerable reductions in the nuclear arsenal so that overall the strategic offensive arms in Russia and the United States would be reduced by two thirds as compared to 1990. The Duma was working at ratifying the START II treaty, but the process of examination was difficult, as the agreement touched upon the very premise of the State's military security. The United States also had not finished the START II ratification process. Meanwhile, further sweeping steps had been agreed to within the framework of the 1997 START III treaty, and Russia was ready to consider still greater reductions. Russia also had consistently pursued initiatives related to tactical nuclear weapons and had brought back to its territory all nuclear weapons located outside Russia, and had begun the process of their elimination.

Russia thought it important to strengthen the CTBT, and regretted the failure of the United States to ratify the CTBT, although it hoped that efforts to that end would continue. Russia supported providing assurances to non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and thought the Conference was a suitable place to pursue that goal. It also supported the principle of Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zones, and although it did not consider it timely to start work in the Conference on a programme of nuclear disarmament within specified time-frames, it was seriously committed to the issue of nuclear disarmament and had repeatedly shown flexibility on the subject. Russia supported a truly global ban on landmines and was in favour of transparency in conventional armaments.

GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany), speaking on behalf of 22 other countries -- Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States -- proposed that the Conference take a decision now to start substantive negotiations on the following five elements, which had been common to various proposals put forward in 1999: re- establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate, on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator (CD/1299) and the mandate continued therein, a non- discriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable treaty on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons; re- establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; the reappointment of a Special Coordinator to seek the views of Conference members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to anti-personnel landmines, taking into account developments outside the Conference; reappointment of a special coordinator on "transparency in armaments" to seek the views of Conference members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to the matter; and reappointment of Special Coordinators to consider review of the agenda of the Conference, the expansion of its membership and its improved and effective functioning.

There also was agreement within the Conference on dealing with the issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space, although the most appropriate mechanisms and their mandates remained to be determined. With regard to those two important outstanding issues, the 22 countries for which Germany spoke supported continuation of intensive consultations to find early agreement, including mandates and mechanisms. Those countries would continue to make every effort to that end, taking into account past proposals and future initiatives.

CHRIS SANDERS (Netherlands) said the Netherlands strongly supported the goal of a world without nuclear weapons but realism told it that the process had to be gradual: arms reductions and disarmament were one and the same process, with the latter following from the relentless pursuit of the former. The Netherlands had been an active player on issues related to small arms and light weapons; land mines; the United Nations Arms Register; and transparency in chemical and biological and toxin weapons.

The Netherlands thought the NPT Review Conference was very important, although the political landscape did not look inviting at the moment. It thought a concerted effort by nuclear-weapon States was a necessary condition for revitalization of the NPT and it was concerned about the prospects for entry into force of the CTBT; it hoped non-ratification by the United States would not cause delays in the ratification process by others. It was hoped that the Review Conference would build on the principles and objectives of the 1995 review, especially in the context of nuclear disarmament; on transparency, the Netherlands thought the United Kingdom had set a good example; on accountability, it would try to see if agreement could be reached on a more binding and systematic procedure whereby the five nuclear weapon States committed themselves to providing periodically an account of what progress they had made towards disarmament. The country furthermore believed there were creative and innovative ways to deal with legitimate calls for more legally binding negative security assurances. And it would prefer that at least a debate be started within the Conference on nuclear disarmament rather than continuing the current long stalemate.

GIUSEPPE BALBONI ACQUA (Italy) said Italy supported the statement and proposal just made by Germany and wished to draw attention to the specific part of the statement which concerned the proposal to nominate a Special Coordinator on the landmines issue. Italy had signed and ratified the Ottawa Convention and was taking part with strong commitment to its implementation. Just before Italy's signature on the Convention, the Italian Parliament had passed one of the most advanced pieces of legislation on that matter, banning in a full and very strict manner anti-personnel mines.

Italy wished to demonstrate its commitment to the combat against those weapons and to contribute to the further development of international humanitarian law. It had firmly resolved to work with the whole of the international community and to contribute to the continuing improvement of the global and coordinated strategy defined by the Ottawa process for the complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines.

A series of brief, unscheduled statements followed.

A representative of Ukraine said he wished to reiterate the call made by the Foreign Minister of Ukraine on 9 March for a return to substantive work by the Conference on issues recognized as non-controversial. Ukraine also felt, among other things, that work should resume under an Ad Hoc Committee on a fissile material cutoff treaty. Ukraine stated its support for the statement made by Germany.

A representative of Bulgaria said Bulgaria supported the statement made by Germany on behalf of a number of countries. Bulgaria felt substantive work on "common elements" could and should be made and that such a decision might open the way for work on other issues in the future. Not to take such a decision would be a sheer waste of time and taxpayers' money.

A representative of Lithuania said Lithuania strongly supported the statement of Germany. It felt the proposal was feasible and might create momentum for overcoming the deadlock in the Conference.

A representative of Slovakia said Slovakia supported the statement of Germany. It believed these common elements deserved to be the subject of substantive work.

A representative of Romania said Romania supported the statement of Germany and especially supported the early reinstatement of an Ad Hoc Committee on a fissile material cutoff treaty.

A representative of Albania said the delegation fully supported the statement of Germany.

Representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Spain, and Ecuador praised the work of the departing Ambassador Illanes of Chile.

* *** *