CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM MYANMAR, NEW ZEALAND, MALAYSIA, SWEDEN, CHINA, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM MYANMAR, NEW ZEALAND,

MALAYSIA, SWEDEN, CHINA, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 15 February (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament today heard addresses from the representatives of Myanmar, New Zealand (also on behalf of South Africa), Malaysia, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), China, United States and Germany on a number of issues, including how to resolve the stalemate on reaching consensus on its programme of work.

The representative of Myanmar proposed that in order to revitalize the Conference and start a dialogue, and in the absence of an agreement on the programme of work, the Conference should convene plenaries devoted to substantive items on the agenda which was adopted at the start of the 2001 session.

The representative of Malaysia said that his country had completed on

23 January its stockpile destruction of antipersonnel landmines and had accordingly fulfilled its obligations under article 4 of the Convention.

Some speakers said they supported the Amorim proposal contained in CD document 1624.  Others stressed the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference held last year.  The issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space remained the two main major issues causing the impasse.  The importance of preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty was also underlined.

Ambassador Christopher Westdal of Canada, the outgoing President of the Conference, said the linkages in the long-pending Amorim proposal threatened to preclude any unprogrammed treatment whatever of any of its subjects, leaving the Conference in the awkward position of wanting to treat substance credibly, without touching fissile material, nuclear disarmament or the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 February under the Presidency of Ambassador Juan Enrique Vega of Chile.

      Statements

      MYA THAN (Myanmar) said the focus of the present consultations was to revitalize the Conference and to consider what kind of useful work the Member States could do in the absence of a programme of work.  The Conference was a

unique institution, the single multilateral negotiating forum dealing with arms control and disarmament.  All the existing multilateral agreements on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction were the product of the Conference, and it would be able to produce more agreements when the Members had the political will.  The present impasse was due to the lack of political will of the Member States. 

Ambassador Than said Myanmar believed there was still room for improvement in the methods of work of the Conference.  He would focus on how to revitalize and start a dialogue that would facilitate the endeavours to reach agreement on a programme of work and to start substantive work.  Myanmar admired the intensive consultations and efforts of the President.  Notwithstanding these endeavours, these consultations had so far yielded no positive results.  This was simply because of the current political situation and the underlying political issues.

The question now was what should the Conference do pending agreement on a programme of work.  The Conference should not remain idle while the programme of work remained pending. 

Myanmar proposed that while the President should continue his consultations, Member States should also be encouraged to make optimum use of the plenaries.  At the same time, the President should also convene plenaries devoted to substantive items on the agenda which the Conference adopted at the start of the 2001 session.  Discussion of these substantive items, devoting each plenary to an item, should not be a problem.  The President should encourage Member States to make general comments, submit working papers and put forward concrete proposals which should be compiled and added to the report.  The President should also conduct informal consultations on how the Conference could move forward. 

The representative of Myanmar said this proposal could be modified in order to achieve a consensus.  Its purpose was not to replace the current efforts, but to facilitate a process which was supportive of reaching consensus on a programme of work.  He put forward the proposal with the best of intentions in order to revitalize the Conference and commence on substantive work.  Myanmar believed that the proposed plenaries would provide the Member States with the opportunity to better understand each other's positions and to explore ways and means to move forward.

CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand), also speaking on behalf of South Africa in the context of the memorandum of cooperation on disarmament issues between the two countries, said that last year, while nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts had seemed to be faltering, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty had agreed on a package of new undertakings.  The intention was to promote a set of undertakings whereby the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation could be constructively reinvigorated and redirected.

Ambassador Pearson said two of the NPT undertakings bore particular significance to the programme of work of the Conference and could be used to build on the progress made in 2000.  These undertakings called for the establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament where the Conference was urged to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate establishment of such a body; and the necessity of negotiations on a fissile material treaty where the Conference was urged to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with the view to their conclusion within five years.  South Africa and New Zealand attached very great importance to the full implementation of the commitments entered into at the NPT Review Conference.

The representative of New Zealand said that the proposals in CD 1624 or the Amorim text were far from perfect, especially the mandate on nuclear disarmament.  Nevertheless, it was prepared to work with it.  At a time when there were disturbing signs of preference for unilateral solutions or options, it was essential for the continuation of multilateralism that the Conference re-engage its work.  New Zealand and South Africa fully supported unilateral arms reductions, but not unilateral action which might impact negatively on disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation.  While each State had the right to determine its own security and defence needs, history and common sense demonstrated that unilateralism would not guarantee international security.  At this crucial moment, disarmament was a security-building process and not an optional extra.  The disarmament pledges made at the NPT Review Conference were far reaching, but seven months had passed and the opportunity to build on the NPT success had not yet been grasped.  It was time for Nuclear Weapon States to settle their differences and to jointly start implementing their commitments with purpose and determination.  

RAJA REJA (Malaysia) said landmines were still a real and constant threat to millions of people, continuing to take innocent lives at an alarming rate.  Malaysia had signed the Ottawa Convention on 3 December 1997 and had deposited its instrument of ratification on 22 April, 1999.  The destruction of 94,263 anti-personnel landmines began on 15 January.  On 23 January, Malaysia had completed its stockpile destruction of anti-personnel landmines and had accordingly fulfilled its obligations under article 4 of the Convention.  Malaysia was now the first mine-free country in Asia.  Malaysia's decision not to retain any anti-personnel landmines for training and development purposes was another commitment that the country was proud of.

The representative of Malaysia said his country was a strong supporter of the Mine Ban Convention.  Malaysia was firm in its conviction that humanitarian suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines far outweighed their military utility.  In this context, Malaysia would like to see the political push for universal acceptance of this treaty continued and accelerated.  Malaysia also strongly believed that it was pertinent for the agenda of landmines to be placed high on the list of regional fora to complement efforts to universalize the Convention.

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, said the year 2000 had proved to be another year of standstill and stalemate for the Conference, which was unable to effectively launch its work.  So far, the beginning of 2001 had not been promising either.  The European Union deeply regretted this situation.  However, 2000 had not been a uniformly dismal year for multilateral efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation.  The NPT Review Conference had been an important success.  In the context of the Conference on Disarmament, the final document of the Review Conference referred especially to two important practical steps which were unanimously agreed upon by the States parties of the NPT -- i.e. the negotiations on a fissile material treaty and the establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. 

Ambassador Salander said the persisting stalemate within the Conference was preventing the body from working on what it had decided and started to do in

1998 -- the immediate and effective launch of the negotiation on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  The necessity of the immediate start of such negotiations was clearly reaffirmed in the final document of the NPT Review Conference and in resolutions of the General Assembly.  The European Union was still hopeful that the Conference would be able to overcome the obstacles to the effective launch of its work soon.  The success of this endeavour required that the security concerns of all States be taken into account. 

The Representative of Sweden said the European Union countries believed that CD 1624 or the Amorim proposal contained the elements for a rapid agreement within the Conference.  The EU was also convinced that other delegations and groups of countries shared this assessment of the situation.  The EU would not detail its views which were included in the Amorim proposal.  It would, however, like to recall that it was particularly attached to the prospective CD membership of Member States of the EU and associated countries which had applied for admission to the Conference.  The EU supported the continued enlargement process of the Conference.  The EU strongly urged the Conference to explore all avenues to start substantive work.

HU XIAODI (China) said the old security concept, based on military alliances and build-up of armaments and aimed at seeking absolute security for a single country at the expense of other countries’ interests, should be discarded.  The twenty-first century needed a new security concept, based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, cooperation and resolving disputes through dialogue.  The Chinese Government had all along pursued an independent foreign policy of peace.  It attached importance to and actively participated in the ongoing efforts of the international community to promote just and rational arms control and disarmament.  In the new century, China would stick to its set of principles, positions and proposals, such as preserving strategic security and stability, promoting nuclear disarmament and preventing the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.   China believed that progress in nuclear disarmament hinged on preserving global strategic balance and stability, as well as on ensuring the undiminished security of all countries.  As a nuclear weapon State, China had never evaded its responsibilities and obligations regarding nuclear disarmament.  In fact, China had made unique contributions to the international nuclear disarmament cause through its rational nuclear-weapon policies.

Ambassador Hu said that preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and checking the trend of weaponization of outer space were the most urgent and imperative tasks of the day.  They were indispensable for the follow-up steps as specified in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference to proceed.  And within the Conference, China supported the early negotiation and conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty, on the premise that the global strategic stability was maintained and the nuclear disarmament process was further pursued.

Ambassador Hu said the ABM Treaty was the cornerstone of preserving global strategic stability, therefore it should be strictly observed.  Any attempt to undermine its integrity and effectiveness, by whatever excuses, would bring far-reaching negative consequences to international peace and security.  At the same time, the missile defence systems currently under development posed a serious danger of outer space weaponization, which might trigger off a new arms race.   It had become a top priority task for the international community to take effective measures to prevent the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.  The Conference should immediately re-establish an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate and conclude an international legal instrument or instruments preventing the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.  China was deeply worried that the very country conducting space war exercises and weaponizing outer space had single-handedly obstructed the negotiations on prevention of an arms race in outer space in the Conference by denying the risk of the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.  Three months ago, someone had alleged that the impasse in the Conference should be attributed to China because it set up linkages between the agenda items.  This was a distortion of facts.  Today, it was evident that the threat to strategic stability and the introduction of weapons and an arms race in outer space constituted the root cause for the stalemate in the Conference.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Hu said, international arms control and disarmament efforts were currently at a crossroad.  The most outstanding menace came from the attempts to overthrow the ABM Treaty and weaponize outer space.  Under such circumstances, to formulate a comprehensive and balanced programme of work and start negotiations on such issues as prevention of an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament, a fissile material cut-off treaty and negative security assurances was not only the obligation of the CD, but also the only possible way to break the current stalemate and achieve progress.  China supported the Amorim proposal as a basis for further consultations.

ROBERT GREY (United States) said Ambassador Amorim’s proposal remained a sound basis for reaching consensus in the Conference.  A few weeks after Ambassador Amorim had tabled his proposal, Abdelkader Bensmail, the former Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference, had delivered farewell remarks to the Conference, noting that "Preparing the ground for future negotiations through discussions and technical work is a prerequisite for the start of genuine negotiations.  All major negotiations have been preceded by a pre-negotiations stage, in which some shared understanding is reached that a security problem exists and that it must be addressed multilaterally.  This process may be arduous and time-consuming..."  Mr. Bensmail had by implication been commenting on efforts of the Conference for handling the three topics that had been at the centre of ongoing controversy: negotiations to conclude a fissile material cut-off treaty, and deliberations of the Conference on issues related to nuclear disarmament and outer space.  The pre-negotiating stage for the fissile material cut-off treaty had been concluded long ago.

Ambassador Grey said that in recent statements, Russian and Chinese officials seemed to be making linkages between fissile material cut-off negotiations and on a new outer space treaty.  The United States did not link the start of FMCT negotiations to anything else.  The United States was prepared to agree to a CD work programme that called for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament and an Ad Hoc Committee on outer space, in the context of active and ongoing negotiations on an FMCT.  The United States believed that outer space issues were not ripe for negotiations in the Conference, and did not understand why those who did not share its views were unwisely and unrealistically insisting on immediate negotiations on a new outer space treaty, a diplomatic tactic which had the net effect of blocking discussion of the very issues they said they cared about.  The United States was willing to participate in an organized discussion aimed at examining those issues in the context of active and ongoing negotiations on an FMCT.

The United States and the Russian Federation had made significant reductions in their nuclear arsenals and the United States remained committed to further reductions in nuclear arms.  It was exceedingly difficult to believe that the physical security and ultimate fate of hundreds of millions of human beings must forever be held hostage to the prospect of instant annihilation.  Although the new Administration in the United States would review these issues over the coming weeks, it would not be premature to point out that missile defence systems could enhance strategic stability and further reduce the danger of nuclear weapons being

used.  In order to facilitate the long-term process of nuclear disarmament, Member States of the Conference could decide to launch negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.  On its part, the United States could agree to the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in which Member States would discuss issues related to nuclear disarmament.  The United States had also agreed with great reluctance to the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in which Member States would discuss issues related to outer space.  Having taken these two important and difficult steps, the United Sates had gone as far as it could. 

GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany) said his country could have supported both the original Amorim proposal and the President's proposal and it believed that consultations must continue.  It was now time to reflect on what the Conference could do until the key issues could be resolved.  Germany welcomed the initiative of Myanmar and would carefully examine it.  Germany was ready to explore all possible avenues to continue work within the Conference. 

CHRISTOPHER WESTDAL (Canada), the outgoing President of the Conference, said his presidency of the Conference ended on Friday, 16 February with his mandate unfulfilled.  While not surprised, he was still disappointed that he had not found it possible to end the impasse in the Conference and achieve a work programme agreement.  He had sought to prepare a recommendation for immediate programmed work on the basis of CD 1624, but consensus on it was not achievable because of lack of agreement on the mandate of the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space in the document.  There had also been widespread support for a stronger mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee in charge of nuclear disarmament.  The broader context in which change in the nuclear disarmament mandate and/or other mandates in CD 1624 might be effected consensually would naturally be a subject of intense inquiry for his successors. 

Ambassador Westdal said it was clear that not only would none of the formal work begin until all of it began, but now, because negotiations and talks were integral parts of CD 1624, and because some parties did not want talks without any negotiations, the linkages in the long-pending proposal threatened to preclude any unprogrammed treatment whatever of any of its subjects, leaving the Conference in the awkward position of wanting to treat substance credibly, without touching fissile material, nuclear disarmament or the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  The Member States had also learned over the past month that given current circumstances in major power relations, dominated as they were by doctrinal upheaval and related security declarations and gestures of great sweep, a CD work programme agreement was currently not possible, nor would it be possible for some time to come.  The Member States might decide that the time had come to address the role and work of the Conference in the absence of an agreed work programme, which would mean to seek and define value the Conference might add to members’ shared interests while the search for agreement on a formal work programme went on.   There were a number of questions that the Conference would have to credibly answer, including whether it had to be all or nothing.

In conclusion, Ambassador Westdal said that he urged that the Member States use the Conference to build human solidarity, enough to avoid forever what would be the last major no-holds-barred war .  The Conference should be used to seek common ground, to serve interests which all shared, and to respect the natural duty to control, contain and eliminate nuclear arsenals.

* *** *