CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM ISR"L, UNITED STATES, ROMANIA, IRAQ AND MYANMAR

Press Release
DCF/402

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM ISRAEL, UNITED STATES, ROMANIA, IRAQ AND MYANMAR

GENEVA, 31 August (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning held its weekly plenary meeting, hearing statements from the Representatives of Israel, the United States, Romania, Iraq and Myanmar.

The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Petko Draganov of Bulgaria, said he would strive to build on the progress achieved by his predecessors towards a consensus on the programme of work. The common objective was not out of reach, but it would require still more patience and persistence. He said he did not subscribe to the opinions of those who considered that the Conference was in a crisis or was even dying.

Ambassador David Peleg of Israel said his country was actively involved in promoting peace with its neighbours. However, in spite of its continued efforts to extend the peace process towards the goal of a comprehensive peace, there were still States in the Middle East which threatened Israel's security and continued to negate its very right to exist. One of these States, Iraq, had devoted a major part of its vast income from oil to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It was against this background and threats that Israel had attempted to fashion its arms control policy.

Concerning the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), Ambassador Robert Grey of the United States said that holding the FMCT hostage to negotiations on outer space was simply a poorly disguised effort to block FMCT negotiations altogether. Others have argued that the Conference's decision to resume FMCT negotiations should be accompanied by parallel decisions to establish subordinate bodies that would deal with nuclear disarmament and outer space. The United States had made a serious effort to find a middle ground in order to get FMCT negotiations started. Ambassador Grey also noted that the National Missile Defense system which was under consideration by the United States was not designed against Russia or China, but was aimed to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack from certain countries of concern.

Ambassador Anda-Cristina Filip of Romania said she had asked for the floor a week after the Conference had again come close to a major breakthrough of the persisting, existing stalemate. Another lost chance, some would say, but the broad cross-regional appreciation expressed for the efforts aimed at seeking and building consensus for the adoption of the programme of work, as well as the readiness of some delegations to support the proposed language, was a clear indication that the willingness to bring the Conference to live up to its responsibility as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament and non- proliferation had not diminished.

- 2 - Press Release DCF/402 31 August 2000

The Ambassador of Iraq, Mohammed Al-Douri, said he took the floor in view of the attack that his country had been subjected to by the representative of a State which was trying to justify certain measures and to prejudice the reputation of Iraq. The Conference was the sole forum for multilateral negotiations on disarmament aimed at eliminating weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. Such weapons provoked terror and threat to the future of mankind. The State whose representative spoke was considered by all to be one of the greatest threats to international peace and security.

Ambassador Mya Than of Myanmar urged that the useful ground work of the successive presidents of the Conference be preserved; that these previous efforts be reflected in some way in the annual report which should be simple and factual; and that the draft resolution which the Conference would send to the First Committee for the Millennium Summit should send a clear, political signal which reflected the state of consultations at the 2000 session of the Conference and the strong commitment of the Member States to reach a consensus on the draft programme of work and to start substantive work at the start of the 2001 session.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will take place at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 September.

Statements

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria), the incoming President of the Conference, said his country regarded international arms control and disarmament as a priority in terms of its national security doctrine. He paid tribute to his predecessors who had guided the Conference with tireless effort and skilful diplomacy through what had been another year of doubt and frustration. Each had covered some ground and moved the Conference a little closer to consensus. He would strive towards the same goal, building on what had been achieved so far.

Today, the political and strategic environment in which the Conference on Disarmament was functioning had changed. The last two years had shown that it needed an even more determined and all-inclusive political and diplomatic effort to agree on advancing the Conference's work in the field of multilateral disarmament and arms control. The common objective was not out of reach, but it would require still more patience and persistence. He did not subscribe to the opinions of those who considered that the Conference was in a crisis or was even dying. He tended to think that when there was a problem in international relations and global security, then surely there was a job for diplomats and the Conference.

Mr. Draganov said he would continue to harmonize efforts in the Conference to the best of his abilities, while at the same representing the collective will of the Conference. The last President of the year's session had a special responsibility to continue consulting, if need be, after the closing of the session, and, come that time, he intended to use this prerogative to the fullest.

DAVID PELEG (Israel) said his country attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament, seeing it as a unique forum for negotiating freely issues of arms control and disarmament on a basis of consensus. As a multilateral forum with a global approach, the Conference should avoid assuming mandates of other fora, bilateral or regional.

Israel was actively involved in promoting peace with its neighbours. However, in spite of its continued efforts to extend the peace process towards the goal of a comprehensive peace, there were still States in the Middle East which threatened Israel's security and continued to negate its very right to exist. One of these States, Iraq, had devoted a major part of its vast income from oil to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It was in a process of developing these weapons, notwithstanding its ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has also developed chemical and biological weapons and had used the poison gas it had developed against both its own population and Iran. Other States in the region had also developed chemical weapons and ballistic missiles armed with chemical warheads, and still continued with these efforts.

Mr. Peleg said that it was against this background and threats that Israel had attempted to fashion its arms control policy. Israel believed that peace could be durable only if it provided security to both sides. It envisaged arms control as fundamentally a regional endeavour, incorporating, where feasible, the obligations of international instruments. Listing steps taken by Israel in its commitment to non-proliferation, he said it had signed the Chemical Weapons Convention but had not yet ratified it; Israel fully supported the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Israel complied fully with the provisions of the Missile Technology Control Regime although it could not join it technically; Israel was a party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; and Israel supported the principle of the register as a confidence building measure of transparency in armaments.

ROBERT GREY (United States) said he would speak about outer space which was a topic of great interest to all members of the Conference. The American space programme had been born at the height of the cold war, amid a looming rivalry for supremacy in missiles and space. Even then, much of the space effort of the United States was directed toward strictly scientific exploration and international cooperation. Current uses of outer space involved an unprecedented degree of cooperation. There was also a growing marketplace in space for commercial service. Free access to and use of space for all were central to the preservation of peace and protection of every nation's security, civil and commercial interests. The United States was committed, through its National Space Policy, to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humanity.

Mr. Grey said lawful military uses of space could enhance international peace and security in significant ways and provided broad benefits to the international community. A number of standing agreements regulated military activities in outer space. There was already an extensive and comprehensive system for limiting the uses of outer space to those that were peaceful. The system also provided a framework for the legitimate military uses of outer space.

Certain Member States had insisted that the Conference on Disarmament should not and could not resume negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) unless it also conducted negotiations on outer space issues, Mr. Grey said. This was inappropriate. Holding FMCT hostage to negotiations on outer space was simply a poorly disguised effort to block FMCT negotiations altogether. Others had argued that the Conference's decision to resume FMCT negotiations should be accompanied by parallel decisions to establish subordinate bodies that would deal with nuclear disarmament and outer space. The United States had made a serious effort to find a middle ground in order to get FMCT negotiations started. The United States had stated that it could agree to simultaneous establishment of subordinate bodies to discuss nuclear disarmament and outer space issues under appropriate mandates.

Mr. Grey said that unfortunately, the principle of outer space discussions had not yet been accepted. There were some who called for immediate negotiations to prevent what were said to be several grave consequences that might result from the United States plans for a National Missile Defense system. These concerns were groundless. The National Missile Defense system under consideration was not designed against Russia or China, but was aimed to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack from certain countries of concern.

Regarding the risk of an arms race in outer space, he said the Outer Space Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty already prohibited key activities associated with many concerns about putting weapons in outer space. The United States fully respected those treaties' constraints. The weapons of the ballistic National Missile Defense systems that the United States was considering were terrestrial, not space-based. The United States remained committed to the arms control and disarmament process and saw no contradiction between that process and pursuit of a limited National Missile Defense system. The limited National Missile Defense system would promote further nuclear arms reductions and would not threaten Russia's strategic deterrent.

ANDA-CRISTINA FILIP (Romania) said she had asked for the floor a week after the Conference had again come close to a major breakthrough of the persisting, existing stalemate. Another lost chance, some would say, but the broad cross- regional appreciation expressed for the efforts aimed at seeking and building consensus for the adoption of the programme of work, as well as the readiness of some delegations to support the proposed language, was a clear indication that the willingness to bring the Conference to live up to its responsibility as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament and non-proliferation had not diminished.

Romania attached great importance to the international agreements in the field of disarmament, non-proliferation of weapons and arms control, as these were part of its national security approach. The conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 was valid and standing proof that the Conference could continue to pay its contribution to international security and peace. Starting negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty was a logical step forward to consolidate the process of nuclear disarmament. The re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on FMCT was a top priority for Romania.

Ms. Filip said the provisions and the language contained in the final document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 2000 gave a clear guidance on the future of nuclear disarmament and its successful conclusion. Romania also attached important consideration to the contribution extended to this process by the reductions of nuclear weapons and the strategic talks in the bilateral framework between the United States and the Russian Federation. Romania was ready to participate in a debate concerning the issue of transparency in armaments. All the above questions, along with the procedural issues such as the agenda, improved and effective functioning and membership, constituted priorities of Romania and it was ready to participate in the debate on other topics of interest.

MOHAMMED AL-DOURI (Iraq) said it had not been his intention to make a statement but he found himself forced to do so in view of the attack that Iraq had

been subjected to by the representative of a State which was trying to justify certain measures and to prejudice the reputation of Iraq. The Conference was the sole forum for multilateral negotiations on disarmament aimed at eliminating weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. Such weapons provoked terror and threat to the future of mankind. The State whose representative spoke was considered by all to be one of the greatest threats to international peace and security.

Mr. Al-Douri said that the representative of that State had tried to blacken the reputation of Iraq, a country which had been subjected to the worst disarmament operations over the last 10 years, and whose people had been oppressed and prejudiced against as a result of the selective policies of well-known States which were well-known permanent members of the Security Council. The Conference should not be subjected to the influences and pressures which other United Nations bodies suffered from. The representative of that country had spoken as a cover-up to justify the non-accession of his country to several nuclear disarmament instruments. That country possessed hundreds of nuclear bombs which threatened not just the region but the whole world. That country also refused the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the Syrian Golan Heights in order to justify its colonial presence there.

MYA THAN (Myanmar) said he did not underestimate the difficulties facing the Conference on Disarmament. In the event that consensus on a programme of work could not be reached this year, then the Conference should start preparing for consensus at the beginning of the 2001 session. He wished to make a number of points. The useful ground work of the successive Presidents of the Conference should be preserved. The new President should build on Ambassador Amorim s draft programme of work which was an important step and could provide a good basis for further consultations. It was also essential that these previous efforts be preserved and reflected in some way in the annual report which should be simple and factual. Finally, the draft resolution which the Conference would send to the First Committee for the Millennium Summit should send a clear, political signal which reflected the state of consultations at the 2000 session of the Conference. It should reflect the strong commitment of the Member States to reach a consensus on the draft programme of work and to start substantive work at the start of the 2001 session.

* *** *