FOREIGN MINISTER OF JAPAN ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
| Press Release DCF/429 |
FOREIGN MINISTER OF JAPAN ADDRESSES CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
Conference Hears Statements by France, Cuba, Republic
Of Korea, United Kingdom, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan
(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 4 September (UN Information Service) -- The Foreign Minister of Japan this morning told the Conference on Disarmament that her country had pursued the achieving of economic development through peace, not through military build-up, increasing the welfare of its people, and promoting international peace and stability as a prerequisite for those aims. Japan had considered it important to demonstrate that it would not pose a threat to the world, and hence had renounced the option of nuclear armament.
Yoriko Kawaguchi of Japan said that her country was currently tackling the question of peace and disarmament from a new prospective to play a more proactive role to make peace sustainable –- a “consolidation of peace” approach. As a precondition to consolidating peace and promoting reconstruction, the population should be ensured a secure living environment, she said, adding that addressing the problems of anti-personnel landmines and small arms and light weapons was essential to that aim. The Official Development Assistance Charter (ODA), which laid out Japan’s fundamental principles of ODA policy, placed the concept of “consolidation of peace” as one of its top priorities, she added.
The representative of France said his country believed in the rule of law and it was favourable to all that might help to enhance the effectiveness and multilateral aspect of disarmament and non-proliferation processes. France was aware of the particular scourge of light weapons that were today so deadly, and France was in favour of continuing work in that field. Also, France had signed the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines and intended to energetically pursue its efforts to eliminate anti-personnel landmines in the world. Concerning the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, France was combating them with all means available to it, he added.
Cuba’s representative announced that his country would be the headquarters of the eighteenth regular session of the General Conference for the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms In Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) on 5 and 6 November 2003 in Havana, following the decision of the Council of the OPANAL. The hosting by the Government of Cuba of the General Conference also constituted Cuba’s affirmation that it was giving priority to issues pertaining to nuclear disarmament and had affirmed its political will by actively contributing to the full implementation of the international instruments relating to those themes.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his country stood for the comprehensive prohibition of biological and toxin weapons and opposed their proliferation. His delegation viewed the First Meeting of Experts held last August as meaningful and useful for the implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and hoped that it would function as a good basis for the more focused Meeting of States parties in November.
The United Kingdom’s representative said he welcomed the working paper tabled by Japan on 14 August on a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, which was a helpful and positive contribution to the debate. Pending the start of negotiations, the United Kingdom was maintaining a moratorium on the production of fissile material for weapons, he added.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, referring to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Japan, wondered why the Minster invoked his country’s obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to which his country was not a State party. He asked about her real intention by invoking the NPT while ignoring the true situation in the region. Japan should have oriented the six-country meeting in Beijing towards a spirit, which would have brought a solution to the problem and Japan should not focus on issues that would not bring solutions, he added.
The representative of Japan responded to the statement made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by saying that her country took part in the six-party meeting in Beijing with a very strong commitment to resolve the problem in the region in a peaceful manner, with the sprite of dialogue. Such spirit of peaceful resolution would produce more understanding, which view she hoped would be shared by North Korea. The Beijing meeting would continue to prove to the world that problems could be solved peacefully, she added.
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, 9 September, at 10 a.m., which will be its last meeting of this year’s session. On Tuesday, it will also adopt its annual report, which will be submitted to the General Assembly.
Statements
YORILO KAWAGUCHI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said after World War II, her country had chosen to establish its position in the international community as a nation dedicated to peace, with a strong determination that the devastation of war never be repeated. Since then, deeply convinced of the philosophy of peace, Japan had pursued the achieving of economic development through peace, not through military build-up, increasing the welfare of its people, and promoting international peace and stability as a prerequisite for those aims. Japan had considered it important to demonstrate that it would not pose a threat to the world, and hence had renounced the option of nuclear armament.
Japan’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1976 was an important security decision, Ms. Kawaguchi said. Her country joined the Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State, and internationally promised to renounce the option of nuclear armament. Japan had also accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards to provide transparency of its nuclear activities. Japan attached crucial importance to the NPT regime for its peace and prosperity, and was convinced that the recognition was shared by an overwhelming majority of the international community. As a concrete step to strengthening the NPT regime, Japan was seriously committed to promoting the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In order for the NPT regime to serve as a cornerstone underpinning international peace and security, its universality was essential. Nuclear-weapon States should take seriously the fact that, to date, almost all countries had committed to renounce the option of nuclear armament under the NPT regime.
Ms. Kawaguchi said that her country was currently tackling the question of peace and disarmament from a new prospective. Japan was eager to play a more proactive role to make peace sustainable -– a “consolidation of peace” approach. As a precondition to consolidating peace and promoting reconstruction, the population should be ensured a secure living environment. Addressing the problems of anti-personnel landmines, small arms, and light weapons was essential to that aim. The Official Development Assistance Charter (ODA), which laid out Japan’s fundamental principles of ODA policy, placed the concept of “consolidation of peace” as one of its top priorities.
The Minister said that Japan was deeply concerned about North Korea’s declaration of its intention to withdraw from the NPT. Japan could not accept any development, acquisition or possession, test and transfer of nuclear weapons by that country. It strongly urged North Korea to comply with all its obligations under the NPT and, consequently, obligations under the safeguards agreement with the IAEA, to refreeze its nuclear related facilities, and to take prompt actions to dismantle its whole nuclear weapons programme in a verifiable and irreversible manner. Japan welcomed the convening of the first meeting of six-party talks and the fact that it had given a clue to solving the problem through dialogue. A high level of transparency could contribute to confidence building among States parties. That was particularly relevant for States, which undertake, or were planning to undertake, advanced activity. Japan had called upon Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and to promptly and unconditionally conclude and implement the Additional Protocol.
The problem of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction should be addressed, Ms. Kawaguchi continued. The terrorist attacks of 11 September had brought about a complete change in people’s “threat awareness”, bringing to light the imminent danger that such non-State actors as terrorists could threaten States’ security. The magnitude of the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists was immeasurable. The international community had taken new steps to respond to that new threat, and Japan had actively participated in those efforts. In order for such new steps to be truly effective, disarmament and non-proliferation regimes should function effectively.
Turning to the current situation of the Conference, Ms. Kawaguchi said that since the formulation of the CTBT in 1996, the Conference had been unable to enter into substantial negotiations. The stalemate should be resolved promptly. Japan strongly hoped that the Conference would agree on a programme of work as soon as possible and begin substantive discussion. Japan would support any constructive efforts to break the current stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament. It placed great importance on the commencement of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). It was highly regrettable that the Conference had failed to commence FMCT negotiations, despite the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
Concluding, Ms. Kawaguchi said disarmament and non-proliferation had never been so important for the peace and security of humankind, and the international community had great expectations for the Conference to fulfil its role. Japan ardently hoped that, making use of the wisdom of humankind, the Conference would contribute to peace and prosperity for the generations to come. The Conference should be assured that Japan would continue to make every possible effort to promote disarmament and non-proliferation.
FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said his country was today living in peace, and like the neighbouring European countries with which it was tied to, France was going through a period of a particular nature. Possibly for the first time in its history, it was not directly confronted with a specific geographic threat from a given country, but with new dangers. Nothing could be further from the truth than to believe France enjoyed increased security. It was not so. Globalization and the development of global threats implied that France’s interests could be affected by a crisis wherever it might break out in the world. One should measure the security-related costs implied by mutual dependence, interconnection, technological complexity and the highly serious pollution risks that might result from any conflict in the world. Only the warring parties did not sustain those risks. The spread of proliferation and its corollary of practices based on mistrust were part of a more unpredicted world, in which new players were emerging, with new demands and expectations.
France believed in the rule of law and it was favourable to all that might help to enhance the effectiveness and multilateral aspect of disarmament and non-proliferation processes. France was aware of the particular scourge of light weapons that were today so deadly. France was in favour of continuing work in that field. Also, France had signed the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines and intended to energetically pursue its efforts to eliminate anti-personnel landmines in the world. Concerning the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, France was combating them with all means available to it.
Last Friday, the French President once again stressed that the issue of weapons of mass destruction proliferation was one of the gravest threats of the modern world. The President had said that a number of countries were failing to live up to their international commitments and were seeking to create facts on the ground. In gambling on the divisions of the international community, they had miscalculated. One expected North Korea to completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its military nuclear programme. France hoped that the current discussion process, brought about, thanks to China’s efforts, would pave the way for an overall settlement of the North Korea issue. Iran’s nuclear policy raised serious concerns. To establish confidence, that country should demonstrate the full transparency required.
OSCAR LEON GONZALEZ (Cuba) announced that his country would be the headquarters of the eighteenth regular session of the General Conference for the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms In Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) on 5 and 6 November 2003, following the decision of the Council of OPANAL. Cuba incorporated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Tlatelolco Treaty. The hosting by the Government of Cuba of the General Conference also constituted Cuba’s affirmation that it was giving priorities to issues pertaining to nuclear disarmament. In reaffirming its political will, Cuba had actively contributed to the full implementation of the international instruments relating to those themes.
The eighteenth General Conference of OPANAL would allow to build a new scenario for the Latin American and Caribbean countries in consolidating their position on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It would be an opportunity to reaffirm that Latin America and the Caribbean would be the first habited zone of the planet completely free of nuclear weapons. Also, it would be a framework to strengthen the relationships between OPANAL and other organizations of a global and regional character working on disarmament, particularly nuclear weapons.
The human species were being threatened against extinction by the existing thousands of nuclear weapons. According to the International Institute of Stockholm for the Study of Peace, there were 16,500 nuclear weapons deployed, including 36,500 nuclear warheads, which were a colossal force of destruction. The Conference on Disarmament was not able to adequately deal with the problem and nuclear weapons continued to exist, even to improve. Cuba had always expressed its position that the only durable solution to nuclear weapons was to eliminate them totally.
CHUNG EUI-YONG (Republic of Korea) said that as the Conference was preparing to conclude its seventh annual session without any tangible outcomes since 1997, more energy and efforts should be placed on exploring the possibility of an agreement on a programme of work that would allow the Conference to recommence its substantive work. Successive efforts to that end had recently culminated in the proposal of the five Ambassadors as contained in CD/1693 and as amended by the Ambassador of Belgium in June on behalf of the five Ambassadors. The Government of Korea considered that proposal to be a constructive framework for compromise. China and the Russian Federation, among others, had shown flexibility by indicating that they were prepared to join consensus on the initiative. While placing the top priority on the prompt initiation of the FMCT negotiations, his delegation expected that the flexibility would work as a momentum leading to the adoption of a programme of work.
It was acknowledged that one of the greatest challenges in the field of conventional arms was the illegal proliferation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons. The international community had achieved significant progress in that work by adopting the Programme of Action to fight against the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in 2001. By reaching an agreement on a number of measures related to the manufacturing, marking, tracing, record-keeping, export control, stockpile management, surplus reduction and destruction of those weapons, the Programme had substantially contributed to the establishment of a mechanism for the effective control of illegal proliferation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons.
The Republic of Korea stood for the comprehensive prohibition of biological and toxin weapons and opposed their proliferation. His delegation viewed the First Meeting of Experts held last August as meaningful and useful for the implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and hoped that it would function as a good basis for the more focused Meeting of States parties in November.
DAVID BROUCHER (United Kingdom) welcomed the working paper tabled by Japan on 14 August on a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, which was a helpful and positive contribution to the debate. Like Japan, the United Kingdom was ready to start work immediately based on the Shannon mandate. Pending the start of negotiations, the United Kingdom was maintaining a moratorium on the production of fissile material for weapons and it was hoped that those who were still producing fissile material for weapons would join it.
The United Kingdom welcomed the Japanese suggestions for dealing with the issue of stocks, which it found a constructive contribution. In particular, it agreed that linkage between the issues of future production and existing stocks would only complicate the debate and harm the negotiation process. That kind of linkage was in fact one of the obstacles to the Conference getting back to work. The United Kingdom did have reservations about establishing a group of experts before the negotiations would begin as proposed by the Japanese paper. Unlike the CTBT technical groups, for example on seismic monitoring, an FMCT technical group would not be working with clear parameters. It would run the risk of getting into policy debate rather than genuine scientific contribution. That would need to be avoided. It would also be difficult for such a group to discuss verification when scope had not been agreed. One also wondered about the composition and status of the group. Despite those reservations, the United Kingdom would continue to believe that there was a close identity of view between the United Kingdom and Japan on the issue of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
JANG CHUN SIK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), referring to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Japan, wondered why the Minster invoked his country’s obligations under the NPT to which his country was not a State party. He asked about her real intention by invoking the NPT while ignoring the true situation in the region. The Government of Japan, without any provocation, could bring a peaceful solution to the problem. His country’s nuclear programme for defence purposes had been a response to the threat targeted against the country. Japan should have oriented the six-country meeting in Beijing towards a spirit, which would have brought a solution to the problem. Japan should not focus on issues that would not bring solutions. Referring to the French statement, the speaker said that peaceful measures could only resolve the problem without making complications.
KUNIKO INOGUCHI (Japan), in her capacity as head of the Japanese delegation, responded to the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s statement. She said that her country took part in the six-party meeting in Beijing with a very strong commitment to resolve the problem in a peaceful manner, with the sprite of dialogue. It was also committed to resolve the problem in the region in a peaceful manner. A lot of positive results would have been achieved in the meeting. Such spirit of peaceful resolution would produce more understanding, which she hoped that that view would be shared by North Korea. The Beijing meeting would continue to prove to the world that problems could be solved peacefully.
* *** *