CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS ANNUAL REPORT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HOLDS LAST PLENARY OF 2000 SESSION

Press Release
DCF/403

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS ANNUAL REPORT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HOLDS LAST PLENARY OF 2000 SESSION

Representatives of Costa Rica, Russian Federation, Algeria, China, Ecuador and United States Address Conference

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 21 September (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning adopted its annual report to the General Assembly and held its last plenary of the 2000 session.

Ambassador Petko Draganov of Bulgaria, President of the Conference, said that his consultations so far had confirmed that the Conference was still short of a compromise on a programme of work. Although there was a broad measure of agreement on most of the elements for such a programme, there were two issues, nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, that still had to be tackled further.

The president said the annual report had delivered a forward-looking recommendation to the President and his successor to conduct during the inter- sessional period intensified consultations on the basis of the progress made. He intended these consultations to be open, pragmatic and cooperative. The only goal would be preparing a good beginning for the year 2001 session.

The meeting was addressed by the Russian Federation which warned against attempts to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) Treaty. The issue of the preservation of the ABM Treaty under current conditions was closely linked to the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which the Conference was supposed to deal with. Russia supported the re-establishment in the Conference of an ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in order to elaborate specific practical arrangements which would block the ways of transforming the space near earth to another arena of power confrontation.

China also warned that any amendment to a treaty ought to promote its purpose and objective and to enhance international peace and security. However, if it undermined the purpose and objective of the treaty concerned and jeopardized international peace and security, such an amendment must be rejected and opposed. The attempt to amend the ABM Treaty to allow the deployment of the National Missile Defence System was such a case.

The Representative of the United States regretted that China had seen fit again to misrepresent the plans and intentions of the United States. The way to

- 3 - Press Release DCF/403 21 September 2000

get the Conference on Disarmament back to work was to move along the lines of the work of three former Presidents of the Conference. The United States and the vast majority of the members of the Conference were willing to do so. Costa Rica, Ecuador and Algeria, on behalf of the Group of 21 also made statements.

Abdelkader Bensmail, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, and Director of the Geneva Service of the Disarmament Affairs Department, said in a farewell speech that the prolongation of the stalemate in the Conference was a source of concern for all. What was required was a common willingness of all the members of the Conference, making full use of its inbuilt flexibility and recognized expertise, to develop a workable and balanced programme of work which took into account the priorities and concerns of all. The difficulties of the Conference were a reflection of the complexity and the dynamics of contemporary international relations.

Representatives of China, Ukraine, India, France, Egypt, Algeria, the Republic of Korea on behalf of the Western Group, Romania on behalf of the East European Group and the President of the Conference, paid tribute to Mr. Bensmail. Speakers regretted that the "live encyclopedia" and the "memory of the Conference" was leaving the Conference and wished him a well-deserved retirement.

The President of the Conference said that next year, the Conference will be presided over by Canada from 1 January to 18 February; Chili from 19 February to 18 March; China from 19 March to 27 May; Colombia from 28 May to 24 June; Cuba from 25 June to 19 August; and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from 20 August to 31 December.

The next public plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 January 2001.

Statements

NORA RUIZ DE ANGULO (Costa Rica) expressed her country's renewed desire to become a permanent member of the Conference. Costa Rica had continued to participate in international agreements to reduce conventional armaments and weapons of mass destruction. It had abolished its army in 1949, reaffirming its commitment to peace and rejecting force as a means to solve conflicts. Costa Rica had entrusted its security to international laws and agreements. Initiatives to reduce conventional weapons would help development. Costa Rica had ratified nine international agreements and treaties concerning disarmament. It believed that multilateral forums were very important as they promoted international and regional security.

The achievements of Costa Rica had been the product of the just decision to abolish the army more than 50 years ago. It had also allowed the country to provide better resources for social investment to promote democracy. Costa Rica believed that it was necessary to continue with effective verification methods to guarantee that there was no production or use of weapons of mass destruction. For the past 50 years, Costa Rica had devoted its budget to education, health care and other social issues. The initiatives to reduce conventional weapons should help development. Not investing money in weapons was the best decision for people who wanted to promote their interests. Disarmament, demilitarization and reduction of military expenditure were very important for humanity and the promotion of a culture of peace.

VASILY SIDOROV (Russian Federation) said his country was strongly convinced that the ABM Treaty remained the cornerstone of strategic stability and it continued to serve as a basis to ensure further reductions in strategic offensive arms. This connection would be further enhanced in the foreseeable future. The meaning and historic role of the ABM Treaty were not confined merely to the sphere of Russian-United States relations. It underpinned the entire modern-day system of arms control agreements. Therefore, the collapse of the Treaty would, in effect, disrupt the entire range of disarmament agreements created over the last 30 years. Hence, there was an increasing threat of erosion of the regimes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means. The creation and the deployment of the United States National Missile Defence System would give a strong impetus to the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. There would be a shift in the positions of many countries on nuclear disarmament.

Those who opposed the idea of preserving the ABM Treaty as it stood, often said that nothing would happen if it was a little bit amended to adjust to current realities. They were suggesting that the instrument be amended to permit the deployment of a "limited" anti-missile defence of national territory. This was contrary to the core provision of article 1 of the Treaty, which represented its substance. As a result of such a transformation of the Treaty, a precedent could be made in disarmament practices when addition to, or amendment of an agreement limiting and restraining the development of a most advanced weapon, would turn it into a Treaty permitting military build-up. This logic could not be accepted.

The decision by the President of the United States not to assume obligations to deploy a National Missile Defense System was a thought out and responsible step. However, the fact that the programmes concerning the creation of a National Missile Defense System in the United States were still underway could not be overlooked. It was difficult to conceive a United States National Missile Defence System which would not damage Russia's deterrence and, in addition, fall within the limitations of the ABM Treaty. Objective implications of creating any United States National Missile Defense System would involve violation of the current strategic stability, devaluation in one degree or another of Russia's strategic capability and ensuring a unilateral military superiority to the United States. In these conditions, the pledges by the United States side, that it was committed to the ABM Treaty, that the National Missile Defense System was allegedly not designed against Russia, and that the United States was prepared to a "trade-off" cooperation with Russia in the area of anti-ballistic missiles, could not relieve Russia's concern. The issue of missile proliferation could and must be dealt with without disrupting the ABM Treaty.

The issue of the preservation of the ABM Treaty under current conditions was closely linked to the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which the Conference was supposed to deal with. The ABM Treaty prohibited the development, testing or deployment in outer space of missile defense components. The Russian delegation supported the re-establishment in the Conference of an ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in order to elaborate specific practical arrangements which would block the ways of transforming the space near earth into another arena of power confrontation. The early elaboration of an international legal regime prohibiting the introduction into outer space of weapons other than weapons of mass destruction and, first and foremost, strike weapons, should be one of the principal tasks for the international community. However, the work of the Conference on outer space should not put obstacles to the peaceful exploration of outer space.

NOR-EDDINE BENFREHA (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 of Non-Aligned States, said the Group of 21 regretted that the Conference, as the single multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament, was unable once again to agree on a programme of work during its current session. This was primarily due to the continued inflexible positions of some of the nuclear weapon States regarding negotiations on nuclear disarmament and on measures to prevent an arms race in outer space.

The Group of 21 emphasized that nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority for the Conference and stressed the necessity of establishing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. The Group also emphasized that prevention of an arms race in outer space had assumed great urgency because of legitimate concerns that existing legal instruments were inadequate to deter imminent attempts for the further militarization of outer space. The Group emphasized the urgent need for commencement of substantive work in the Conference on this issue.

HU XIAODI (China) said he had taken the floor last week to speak on the National Missile Defence System issue and the work programme of the Conference and he wished to give further views on these subjects. The reason provided to develop and deploy the National Missile Defence System was that it would defend against the so-called missile threat from certain "countries of concern". However, it was known to all, that given their military capacity and technology, those countries were simply not in a position to pose any military threat in the foreseeable future to the militarily most powerful country in the world, let alone pose any threat by intercontinental missiles that carried weapons of mass destruction. What was more important was that there was no motive. Therefore, this reason was not convincing at all and was only a poorly designed excuse.

Any amendment to a treaty ought to promote its purpose and objective and to enhance international peace and security. However, if it undermined the purpose and objective of the treaty concerned, and jeopardized international peace and security, such an amendment must be rejected and opposed. The attempt to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty to allow the deployment of the National Missile Defence System was such a case. The space system would be an important component of the National Missile Defence System, and space would become the battlefield. The current system was only the first step. There would be more advanced National Missile Defence Systems and further weapon systems would be deployed in outer space. Therefore, the danger of the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space were real. It was absolutely necessary for the international community to negotiate now an international treaty on the issue.

The Conference had been unable to carry out substantive work for two consecutive years. China was deeply worried and strongly hoped that it would be able to break the impasse as soon as possible. The cause of the impasse was that different parties took different agenda items as their top priority. There was a need to take the concerns of all sides into consideration in a comprehensive and balanced way and to set up ad hoc committees and give negotiating mandates to all the priority items of all sides. China had repeatedly asked for the set up of an ad hoc committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space. It also favoured the setting up of an ad hoc committee to conduct negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Though the negotiation on a fissile material cut-off treaty was not its priority, China never rejected it. However, in view of the negative developments, including the setback of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and the ongoing National Missile Defence System, any formula would be unacceptable to China if it lead to negotiations on FMCT only without launching negotiations on prevention of an arms race in outer space as well.

In conclusion, Ambassador Hu said it was obvious there were two different approaches. One was that of China, envisaging the launching of negotiations on all priority items of all sides. The other was only negotiating on one's own priority, but no negotiations on the priorities of others. The approach of China, if reciprocated by all sides, could certainly lead to a consensus on the programme of work. The other approach would never lead to overcoming the impasse of the Conference.

ROBERTO BENTACOURT RUALES (Ecuador) said his country was committed to the fundamental objectives of the Conference on Disarmament and would contribute to its work in order to maintain peace and security. The uncertainties and challenges that had prevailed in the Conference in recent years might eventually dissipate if all Members heeded the call of the international community and cooperated more in order to foster consensus on the necessary programme of work. The Conference must not delay any further the discharge of its responsibilities. Nuclear disarmament was the priority aim of the international community and one of the greatest challenges of our times. There was a need to deal with this issue as soon as possible.

ABDELKADER BENSMAIL, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director of the Geneva Service of the Disarmament Affairs Department, said that as he was about to leave his position, he would share a few brief personal ideas with the Conference. It had been his honour to be with the Conference since its beginning in 1978. In 1979, Algeria had been the first country to preside over the Conference, and he had been a member of the Algerian delegation. Then he moved to the Secretariat of the Conference in 1980, serving all the delegations and seeking consensus. He had observed the hesitant steps of the Conference to forge a consensus, and had lived the hours of glory when negotiations were concluded on the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. He had also shared the frustration of the Conference in its inability to embark on its substantial work.

Mr. Bensmail said periods of inactivity and deadlock had happened before. However, while it was recognized that the Conference as an institution had served the international community well, and that its potential for other multilateral negotiations remained intact, the prolongation of the stalemate was a source of concern for all. What was required was a common willingness of all the members of the Conference, making full use of its inbuilt flexibility and recognized expertise, to develop a workable and balanced programme of work which took into account the priorities and concerns of all. The difficulties the Conference was now facing were not due to what was perceived by some as the rigidity of its rules of procedure and working methods. Rather, they were a reflection of the complexity and the dynamics of contemporary international

- 6 - Press Release DCF/403 21 September 2000

relations, and therefore all efforts should focus on the creation of a political climate conducive to the full use of the Conference as a negotiating forum, in particular on the restoration of a minimum harmony among the major players.

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) and President of the Conference, said in his closing remarks that he had set two principal objectives in his work as the year's last presiding officer of the Conference -- to continue the efforts towards finding a compromise on the programme of work, and to facilitate the adoption of the Conference's report to the General Assembly. The second task had just been accomplished. The report adopted was factual and accurate in accounting for the Conference's activities in the year 2000. With regard to the first task, he was compelled to conclude today that they had used yet another session mostly on trying to pre-negotiate the conditions for our possible future negotiations on the different topics of the agenda.

Mr. Draganov said that his consultations so far had confirmed that the Conference was still short of a compromise on a programme of work. Although there was a broad measure of agreement on most of the elements for such a programme, there were two issues, nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, that still had to be tackled further. In order to be able to agree about anything in the programme of work, the Conference seemed to be in need of agreeing about everything.

There had been a number of promising signs in the Conference in the past four weeks. Out of the two outstanding issues on the draft programme of work, the one on nuclear disarmament seemed to be a little closer to a convergence of positions today than it was about a year ago. The report adopted, delivered a forward-looking recommendation to the President and his successor, to conduct during the intersessional period, intensified consultations on the basis of the progress made. He intended these consultations to be open, pragmatic and cooperative, with the only goal of preparing a good beginning for the 2001 year session. Provided the Member States were able to produce the necessary demonstrations of political will, the Conference may very well be just a couple of critical steps away from the desired compromise and the start of substantive work. Quite like in a long distance race, the last few steps often proved to be the most difficult. But he believed they would not be impossible to make. In conclusion, Mr. Draganov paid tribute on behalf of the Conference to the Deputy Secretary-General Abdelkader Bensmail who would be retiring later this year after an illustrious diplomatic career, more than twenty years of which were devoted to the Conference.

* *** *