CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DEBATES MIDDLE EAST, NORTH KOREAN WITHDRAWAL

FROM NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, OTHER TOPICS

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 30 January (UN Information Service) -- A series of national representatives addressed the Conference on Disarmament this morning, as a statement by Israel was followed by a debate on the Middle East conflict and as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other States sparred over North Korea's announced withdrawal on 10 January from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Other speakers called variously for universal accession to the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines; for support for a proposal tabled last week to enable to the Conference to agree on a programme of work for the first time since 1999; and for further subscribers to an International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, a code established at an international meeting at The Hague last November.

A pre-scheduled statement by Israel which touched -- among other things -- on the issues of terrorism and the threat of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction drew responses from Iraq, Algeria, and Syria.  Iraq and Syria charged that Israel had not taken steps towards nuclear disarmament and contended that those resisting Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories were not "terrorists".

Included in a statement by Argentina on a series of disarmament topics

was an appeal to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to reconsider its

10 January announcement to withdraw from the NPT, spurring a give-and-take between North Korea, the United States, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Sweden.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea contended that withdrawal from the Treaty had been caused by a "hostile policy" against the country by the United States, and was solely a bilateral issue to be resolved by negotiations with the United States.  The United States termed the withdrawal an international issue -- an opinion seconded by the Republic of Korea and Japan -- and said easing tension on the Korean peninsula required a halt by North Korea of its nuclear programme and a return by that country to the non-proliferation regime.

With Sweden, which is chairing the preparatory committee for the next NPT review conference, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea debated whether it was still a party to the Treaty, since its withdrawal was announced on 10 January and NPT rules prescribe a 90-day period between announcement and actual

withdrawal.  Sweden said North Korea remained bound by the pact; North Korea claimed its withdrawal was effective 11 January.

Participants in both the Middle East and NPT debates noted repeatedly that the Conference, which is dedicated to multilateral disarmament negotiations, was not the proper forum for such discussions.

Also speaking at today's plenary meeting were representatives of the Netherlands, Austria, Iran, Belgium, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru.

Statements

ALREDO CHIARADIA (Argentina) said Argentina attached particular importance to enhancing international security through strengthening the regimes on the banning and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as working towards consensus on arms control.  Argentina applauded Cuba on its accession to the Tlatelolco Treaty through which it had now joined the nuclear-weapons-free area and expanded it to include all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an essential instrument, and it was essential that it should be universally applied.  On 14 January, Argentina had encouraged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the NPT.  Argentina reiterated its appeal for the necessary signatures and ratifications to ensure the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the immediate launching of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile-material cut-off treaty and the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.

It was vital that global norms be established which both restricted the proliferation of missiles and prompted a worldwide culture that opposed ballistic missiles, Mr. Chiaradia said; Argentina supported the view that the relevant International Code of Conduct should be universal in scope.  It supported the establishment of a subsidiary body under the Conference on Disarmament to consider issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.  Argentina's chairmanship role in the Missile Technology Control Regime for the period 2003-2004 reflected the great importance it attached to export controls as part of its policy on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  It also thought it of fundamental importance to reaffirm the right of States to the development of peaceful space programmes.

Argentina fully subscribed to the basic mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and remained fully committed to the process of strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, Mr. Chiaradia said.  It considered the development of transparency and confidence-building measures to be a matter of fundamental importance, and at last year's eleventh meeting of the Permanent Committee on Bilateral Security, Chile and Argentina had approved the common standardized methodology for measuring defence spending agreed upon between the two countries, which served as a model for the region as a whole.  It should further be noted that the countries of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), together with Chile and Bolivia, had proclaimed their region free of anti-personnel landmines.  Argentina would continue to campaign actively for the unanimous international acceptance of the Ottawa Convention.

In addition to general political will, Mr. Chiaradia said, great efforts would be required to enable the Conference on Disarmament to resume meaningful substantive arms negotiations.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said establishment of peace in the Middle East should be accompanied and strengthened by confidence-building measures and arrangements regarding conventional weapons, culminating in the eventual establishment of a mutually verifiable zone free of ballistic missiles and of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  The absence of recognition, lack of direct contact, and the refusal of some States to accept the right of one State in the region to exist undermined the attainment of confidence and trust.  It was, therefore, Israel's strong belief that the regional context should be the primary and essential framework for advancing critical arms control measures, predicated on a comprehensive and durable peace in the Middle East.  In recent years, Israel had sought to lay the foundation for peace and stability, among other things, through bilateral peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994.

Israel was aware of the difficulties and disagreements regarding the programme of work of the Conference, Mr. Levy said; it had followed carefully the different proposals that had been made, and when one of these was broadly accepted, primarily by the relevant parties to the current disagreement, Israel would determine its position on the merits.

Israel unfortunately had been at the forefront of countries victimized by terrorism, Mr. Levy said; terror had recently taken the unbelievable form of young people, brainwashed by their peers, committing the ultimate insanity of suicide bombings in crowded places.  Terror also had taken the form of cross-border attacks and hijackings and attacks on civil aviation.  Terror had become a strategic weapon not only in the Middle East but around the world.  The danger of a link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction cast a dark shadow, and there existed a real danger that countries that nurtured terrorism as a tool of diplomacy would provide terrorist groups with non-conventional weapons.  The threat of even unconventional attacks had become a normal aspect of daily life in Israel.  During the Gulf War 12 years ago, under the orders of the same leader who today was the cause of regional and worldwide instability, Israel had been the target of 39 unprovoked missile attacks.  This was the same leader who had used chemical weapons against his own countrymen and had threatened on more than one occasion to use non-conventional weapons against Israel.  It was important for member States of the Conference to reflect on the true purpose of their work; disarmament was a fragile and indispensable tool for ensuring the security and well-being of the world.  All needed to live up to the Conference's great responsibility.

CHRIS SANDERS (Netherlands) said that to address the rapidly growing problem of ballistic missile proliferation, an International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation had been launched at The Hague on 25 and

26 November 2002; already the number of subscribing States stood at 101.  The Code reflected the outcome of broad-based consultations and represented the widest possible common ground.  The Code had achieved its two main purposes: to establish certain fundamental principles regarding missiles where previously there were none; and to set up a framework for further work.  The Netherlands had been appointed to serve as the first Chair of the Code until the next regular meeting of subscribing States this autumn.

Considering the number of complex issues to be elaborated under the Code, it also had been decided to have an ad hoc intersessional meeting, open to all subscribing States, in the first half of 2003, Mr. Sanders said.  The meeting would attempt to elaborate on a number of issues regarding the implementation of the Code, including confidence-building measures.  The Code was open for further subscription.  Once countries subscribed, they could participate in the further development of the Code.  The Netherlands hoped the Code would grow and provide the basis for further work to combat the proliferation of ballistic missiles.  The Code had been sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for distribution.  The Netherlands also would send it to the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and request him to circulate it, along with the list of Subscribing States, as official documents of the Conference.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the Human Security Network, of which Austria was the current chair, said that on 12 September 2002 the Network had issued a Declaration on promoting the universalization of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.  Partners and Observers of the Network said in the Declaration that they remained strongly committed to further strengthening of the humanitarian norm established by the Convention.  The Declaration stressed members' conviction that no conceivable military utility could possibly outweigh and justify the devastating humanitarian costs of anti-personnel mines.  It emphasized the desirability of universal ratification of the Convention.  It welcomed the recent ratifications or accessions by Chile, Algeria, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Nigeria and Suriname and was encouraged by steps taken by other States to be formally bound by the Convention, including Greece, Turkey and Afghanistan.

The number of States that had declared their will to be bound by the Convention now stood at 131 after only three and a half years, Mr. Petritsch said.  The Network urged those States that were not yet so bound to accede to the Convention as soon as possible and to abide by the norm it contained until they did so.  In his capacity as co-chair of the Standing Committee of the General Status and Operation of the Convention, he wished to remind everyone that the first working week of the intersessional programme of work of the Convention would take place next week on the premises of the World Meteorological Organization, and encouraged all to participate in this work.

MOHAMMAD REZA ALBORZI (Iran), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Group stressed that the Conference's programme of work should be responsive to the interests and priorities of all its members and expressed its concern that the Conference had been unable to undertake substantive work on the basis of an agreed programme of work since 1999, in spite of the demonstrated flexibility shown by the Group and the number of formal and informal proposals introduced by some of its members.  The Group reaffirmed its proposal contained in CD/1570 and CD/1571 on a programme of work and a draft decision and mandate for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.  The group emphasized that nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority of the Conference.  It further expressed its serious concern about the lack of progress following the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.  The Group expressed its conviction that efforts for the conclusion of a universal and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapons States should be pursued.

The Group was convinced of the need for a multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach towards missiles in all their aspects, the Ambassador said.  Pending the achievement of such a mechanism, any initiative to address such concerns should be through an inclusive process in a forum where all States could participate as equals, such as the Conference.  The Group was also deeply concerned about the progressive erosion of multilateralism and emphasized the importance of collective international efforts to enhance and maintain international peace and security.  The Group urged other groups to show matching flexibility and called upon the President of the Conference to intensify efforts to find agreement on a programme of work.

JEAN LINT (Belgium) said that as Chairman of the Fourth Assembly of States to the Convention on the Elimination of Anti-Personnel Landmines, he had sent invitations to the first consultative meeting that would take place in Room XXII at 10 a.m. tomorrow.  All were invited to the meeting and welcome at it.

A representative of Venezuela said Venezuela wished to express its support for the "Five Ambassadors" initiative for a programme of work.  The initiative had undeniable merit, and it was flexible enough to provide a real chance for the Conference to reach agreement and resume its work.

A representative of Ecuador said Ecuador reiterated its deep concern over the stagnation in the Conference.  It was discouraging, as this forum had a vital role to play.  Disarmament agreements were sorely needed in the world.  Countless efforts had been made and proposals put forward by the Group of 21 to enable the Conference to adopt a programme of work and begin substantive negotiations.  It was the duty of the Conference to ensure that multilateralism prevailed in the current world climate, and the Five Ambassadors' initiative was a laudable effort to achieve a programme of work; it was flexible and left room for improvement.  It was an opportunity that should not be wasted.  Ecuador supported the draft and appealed to all the main parties concerned to support this effort to break the stalemate in the Conference.

A representative of Iraq said it was necessary to reply to what was said by the Ambassador of Israel.  Israel, while showing no restraint itself, wished to forbid other people from doing as they wished.  Israel had put forward inaccurate statements.  The international community had not seen any real, practical steps taken by Israel to disarm in the nuclear field.  As all knew, Israel had nuclear weapons.  It had signed the treaties prohibiting chemical and biological weapons, and yet no one knew where its stocks of those weapons were.  Israel complained that it was subjected to terrorist actions yet forgot that it had annexed the territories of other countries, had erected unlawful settlements and killed women and children.  When people resisted such an invasion, there were called "terrorists".  Whereas Israel claimed it had peaceful goals, it constantly pursued expansionist designs that violated international standards and Security Council resolutions.  Since Israel's house was made of glass, it should not throw any stones.

A representative of Peru said the proposal for a programme of work put forward by the "Five Ambassadors" was a rational, reasonable, basically balanced proposal.  Peru therefore supported it.  The initiative was flexible and could be adjusted as needed.  Peru would elaborate its stand further in future statements.

A representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said his country's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty was a self-defense measure in response to the unfair resolution adopted by the IEAE against the DPRK, which unfairly infringed on North Korea's sovereignty.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not have the intention to produce nuclear weapons, as it had said when it declared its intention to withdraw from the NPT.  It could confirm this through separate verification by the United States.  The matter in fact was a bilateral problem between the DPRK and the United States.  Having other international forums get involved would not help solve the problem.  Taking one-sided attitudes would not help, either.  Encouragement for solving the dilemma was what was needed, not one-sided criticism.

A representative of Algeria said that, following that statements made by Israel and Iraq, he wished his remarks to be understood as free of any polemical elements.  But he felt some sadness that his distinguished colleague of Israel should have presented a strong statement.  He wished the representative of Israel could have announced, for example, that his country had decided to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  He would have welcomed a statement from Iraq stating that Iraq would comply with relevant Security Council resolutions.  He could only hope that these announcements would be made in the countries' next statements.  All condemned terrorism, and Algeria had suffered from terrorism long before 11 September, and in the face of universal indifference.  All were affected by all civilian victims of terrorism.  The Conference was here to work through peaceful dialogue and to build international peace and security.  It was time to see beyond the prevailing arguments to the opportunities in the region of the Middle East for peace, such as those broached by the Beirut Summit.  Israel's exercise of memory about efforts at peace had been somewhat selective, moreover -- what about the Oslo agreement, for example?  Why had Israel skipped over that agreement?  Was it that the Oslo agreement was no longer being adhered to?

The representative of Israel, responding, said the statement he had made outlined Israel's views and policies in relation to the Conference.  There were sufficient forums elsewhere for discussing the wild accusations launched by the representative of Iraq and the more reasoned issues raised by the representative of Algeria.  Israel could discuss terrorism with similar concern and compassion as that expressed by the representative of Algeria.  Israel did feel the Oslo Agreement had been abrogated -- by one party, the Palestinian State.  But these issues were more for other forums of the United Nations, not for the Conference on Disarmament.

A representative of the United States said that in response to the remarks of the representative of the DPRK, he wished to underscore that the withdrawal of the DPRK from the NPT was not solely a bilateral matter between the United States and DPRK.  It was a threat to the peace and stability of North Asia and a threat to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and was of deep concern to the entire international community.  The United States called on North Korea to cease entirely its nuclear programme and to return to the international non-proliferation regime.  It welcomed today's statement that North Korea had no intention of producing nuclear weapons.  A return to the NPT would help to reassure the international community on this matter.

A representative of Syria said that as if the dilemma of the Conference in not being able to resume its work was not bad enough, the representative of Israel had complicated the matter by talking about things that had nothing to do with this forum.  Syria did not want to raise any polemics, but wanted to shed light on some points.  Syria, along with other Arab States, condemned terrorism in all its forms, and particularly State terrorism, a form at which Israel had distinguished itself.  Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons was a huge danger to its neighbours and to the region as a whole.  Israel not only had these weapons but had means of delivering them to all the countries of the Middle East.  And it refused to open its facilities to inspection.

Israel talked of being exposed to terrorism, but when one looked at the Israeli statement today it sounded like what Israel itself was practising -- attacks, cross-border attacks, hijackings ...  Who was actually perpetrating all this?  Who was attacking its neighbours?  Israel had attacked Egypt in 1956; it had attacked in 1967 its Arab neighbourly countries; it had attacked Lebanon twice and occupied its territories.  Who had attacked an Egyptian airliner and downed it, and a Libyan airliner?  Israel had.  Israeli mercenaries had abducted Palestinians across borders, and these people were still in detention.  Who had led the suicide bombers to the "insanity" the Israeli representative mentioned?

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said the United States had said the DPRK's withdrawal was an international issue, but the DPRK saw it otherwise.  The withdrawal was caused by United States hostility to the DPRK, and so had to be resolved by bilateral negotiations.  The United States, in bringing in the international element, was trying to confuse the issue.  The DPRK's withdrawal from the NPT would pose no threat to the region once the DPRK's sovereignty was respected.  The withdrawal had resulted from an increase in the United States' hostile policy against the DPRK.  The United States could help matters by signing a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK.

The representative of Israel said this was not the place for polemics on the situation in the Middle East; there were other forums for that.  And he would not therefore go into the history of Syrian aggression in the region, nor would he go into details about the Syrian regime's atrocities against its own citizens and against people in other countries.  He would, however, read the names of

10 terrorist organizations based in Syria, along with the names of their leaders.  It would be a pleasure for the Conference if the Syrian Government took action to close the offices of these organizations and to arrest these leaders of terrorist organizations.  This would be much more productive than any eloquent speech Syria could deliver.

The representative of Syria said the drift in this debate was away from disarmament, and this was sad.  Perhaps it was because the representative of Israel wished to avoid mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal, let alone discussion of whether Israel would allow inspections of its nuclear facilities.  In his other remarks, the Israeli representative had turned truth upside down.  The Palestinians mentioned were present in Damascus because Israel was occupying Palestine.  If Israel would leave, they would not be in Syria.  These groups were protecting Palestinians' right to an independent State and to self-determination.  Despite the accusations made, there were only information offices in Syria related to Palestine, and this was a legitimate activity.

A representative of the Republic of Korea said the Republic of Korea did not think the Conference on Disarmament was the proper forum for discussing North Korea's recent decision to withdraw from the NPT.  However, he felt he had to respond.  The Republic of Korea regarded North Korea's recent steps as an unacceptable and serious breach of its international agreements.  These steps were truly an international issue and not just a bilateral matter between North Korea and the United States.  They were a challenge to the region and to the international non-proliferation regime.  North Korea was called upon to retract its decision to withdraw from the NPT, to completely dismantle its nuclear-weapons programme, and to comply fully with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.  The

6 January resolution of the IAEA on the matter had been adopted by consensus by

45 members of the IAEA's Board of Governors.  South Korea welcomed the statement today by North Korea that it did not have the intention of producing nuclear weapons.  It called on North Korea to respond to the various international initiatives made in a positive and prompt manner.

The representative of Israel said he wished to remind the Syrian Ambassador that this was not the Commission on Human Rights; the Commission provided six weeks for exchanging these barbs.  But he wished to state that the political and electoral procedure in Israel was free and democratic; he would recommend its establishment in the country the Syrian Ambassador represented.  It might prove a useful and enlightening innovation.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said the country's withdrawal from the NPT was an exercise of its right to do so according to the terms of the treaty.  It was quite wrong that someone asked the DPRK, which was now not a member, to adhere to the treaty.  Instead of asking for a reversal of the withdrawal, he hoped that South Korea would ask the United States to withdraw all nuclear weapons so that the Korean peninsula could be turned into a nuclear-free zone.

A representative of Japan said Japan shared the view of the United States as expressed this morning on the issue of security in East Asia.  But she agreed with all members of the Conference, including the DPRK, on the claim that the Conference was not the most appropriate forum for discussing this issue.  She further agreed that this problem was to be solved in East Asia through dialogue and other peaceful means.

The representative of Syria said he had not talked about the political regime or the elections in Israel; he had talked about the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, not the electoral process.  With their ideas, they had inspired the one who had killed Prime Minister Rabin.  That was what he had said.  How Israel managed its elections was a matter of its own sovereignty and Syria had nothing to say about that.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that in response to the statement of Japan, the issue on the Korean peninsula was a matter between North Korea and the United States.  No one could solve the issue as long as the hostile policy of the U.S. was unchanged.  All members of the Conference were called upon to ask the two sides to sit together and reach a peaceful solution to the problem.

The representative of Israel said that, for the record, the accusation made by the Syrian Ambassador just now, and others he had made, were false.

The representative of Sweden said that as current Chairman on the preparatory committee on the NPT, he wished to correct an incorrect statement made by the DPRK on the terms of the NPT.  The DPRK, under the rules of the Treaty, was still a member of the NPT.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that since the issue had been raised, he wished to make it clear that the DPRK was no longer a member of the NPT, following its withdrawal declaration earlier this month, on 10 January.  The decision to withdraw was effective 11 January.

The representative of Japan said the United States appeared, as she understood it, to be seeking dialogue and a peaceful solution to the issue of North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said the "peaceful solution" mentioned by the United States was not the real solution.  The United States had asked North Korea, always, to move first, by disarming itself; but with an empty hand it could not negotiate with the United States as long as the United States' hostile policy against the DPRK remained.  The United States had no reason not to accept this simple demand; it could easily solve the problem peacefully if it wished to.

The representative of Sweden again stated that States parties to the NPT did not recognize that it was possible to "save" parts of the 90-day withdrawal procedure from one occasion to another.  Thus, the DPRK was still a party to the Treaty.

The representative of Japan said she wished to repeat that she agreed that the Conference was not the most appropriate forum for the discussion of these issues.  All had a vested interest in preserving the Conference as a very important and meaningful and constructive place of multilateralism and dialogue.  It was not a good idea to create excessive difficulties here that would hinder delegations from the enormous mission the Conference was supposed to be addressing.

The representative of the United States said the United States was interested in pursuing a peaceful diplomatic solution to the situation and had no hostile intent against North Korea.  A discussion was needed based on the parties agreeing to and returning to and following and implementing their international commitments.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said this was, indeed, not the proper forum for discussing these matters.  North Korea repeated again that it was no longer a party to the NPT, as in 1993 it had informed the relevant authorities that it had withdrawn.  Ninety days was normally the period, but its withdrawal back then was also recognized by the United States and the Security Council, and had thus accepted North Korea's unique status under the NPT.  Based on that precedent and its 10 January withdrawal this year, the country was not longer a party to the Treaty.