NON-PROLIFERATION OBLIGATIONS MARKED MORE OFTEN BY BREACH THAN COMPLIANCE, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE TOLD

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

7^th Meeting (PM)

NON-PROLIFERATION OBLIGATIONS MARKED MORE OFTEN BY BREACH

THAN COMPLIANCE, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE TOLD

Disarmament was in “a deep slumber” and the disarmament community heard more often about States breaching their nuclear non-proliferation obligations than complying with them, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) was told today, as it continued its general debate.

Adding to that bleak picture, the representative of Nepal said that nuclear-weapon States were stubbornly clinging to their deadly arsenals, thereby prompting other States to acquire nuclear capability of their own.  Meanwhile, multilateral forums, such as the Conference on disarmament and the Disarmament Commission, were locked in impasses.

Despite the non-proliferation commitments of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the representative of Libya noted that the number of States possessing nuclear weapons had doubled, and the number of nuclear warheads had increased, generating a destructive power greater than anybody had imagined.  Given numerous reports that Israel possessed nuclear weapons in the hundreds, with delivery means capable of reaching all Arab countries, and others in Europe and Central Asia, he called on Israel to adhere to the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

Also highlighting the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the Lebanese representative said that accession by all States -– including Israel -– to the NPT was critical to its success.  Given the close relationship between disarmament and development, his Government had reduced its military expenditures as far as possible, to nearly zero.  The Defence Ministry’s budget allotted payment for salaries and social welfare benefits only.

Within the NPT, non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament carried equal weight; one did not trump the other, the representative of New Zealand said.  Never before had there been a more urgent need for the five nuclear-weapon States to honour their NPT-related commitments.  The verifiable and irreversible destruction of all nuclear weapons was more vital than ever in the current international security environment.

Also stressing the importance that the nuclear-weapon States honour their “unequivocal undertaking” under the 2000 NPT Review Conference outcome to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, the representative of Myanmar said that only when the processes of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation went hand in hand would it be possible to maintain sustainable, balanced, coherent and effective nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Sudan, and Eritrea.  The representatives of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Yemen spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m., Tuesday, 14 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general debate on all disarmament and related international security items.

Expected to be under consideration is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Opened for signature in 1996, 169 States have signed it, and 105 have ratified it.  Of the States whose ratification is needed for its entry into force (the 44 Annex 2 States), 32 have ratified it.  Two nuclear Powers -– the United States and China -– have signed but not ratified the Treaty, and the United States no longer supports it.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India and Pakistan have not signed it.

Also up for discussion is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  With 188 State parties, it is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the most widely subscribed to disarmament treaty, yet some believe it cemented the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ because it classified States according to their nuclear weapons status, and ascribed different obligations to each.  The perception that it perpetuates the status quo has been expressed often in the Committee, and will likely be a theme in its debate.

Attention will also be focused on the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization in the United Nations family that serves as a focal point for nuclear cooperation.  Among its tasks is verifying, through its inspection system, that States comply with their commitments under the NPT and other non-proliferation agreements to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes.

The Agency's safeguards system comprises extensive technical measures for independently verifying the correctness and completeness of the declarations made by States about their nuclear material and activities.  Since 1992 -- in the aftermath of the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme -- the Board of Governors of the Agency has adopted or endorsed measures to strengthen the safeguards system.  Under a Model Additional Protocol adopted in 1997 that includes short notice inspector access to any place on a nuclear site, the IAEA has continued to negotiate Additional Protocols with States to strengthen that system by verifying not only declared nuclear material and activities, but also the absence of undeclared material and activities.

Multilateral agreements banning the development of other weapons of mass destruction will also be discussed, such as:  the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention); and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

Delegates are also expected to refer to the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament.  The Conference met in Geneva from 20 January to 28 March, 12 May to 27 June, and 28 July to 10 September.  It was unable to agree on the programme of work and did not establish or re-establish any mechanism on any of its specific agenda items, which included cessation of the nuclear arms race.

The creation and consolidation of nuclear-weapon-free zones will also be considered.  Existing zones include the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok), and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba).

Reference might also be made to the New Agenda Coalition, which comprises Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden.  Those States first submitted a draft resolution in 1998, entitled "Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: the Need for a New Agenda”.

On conventional weapons, in 2001, a Group of Governmental Experts on Tracing Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons was established by the General Assembly.  It concludes, in its July report to the Secretary-General, that the development of an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons is feasible.  It recommends that the Assembly take a decision at the current session on the negotiation of such an instrument.

The 2003 Group of Governmental Experts appointed by the Secretary-General to review the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which adopted its report by consensus on 1 August, recommended that Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) be included within the scope of the Register, particularly in light of recent reports of attempts by groups to acquire them and use them against commercial airliners.  The Register is a voluntary reporting instrument on the international transfers of major conventional arms, namely battle tanks, large-calibre artillery systems, armoured combat vehicles, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles and their launchers.

So far, 164 Member States have participated at least once in this voluntary reporting instrument, while a record number of 126 States submitted reports on arms transfers in 2001.  To date, 117 countries have participated in 2003.

Discussions will also continue on the subject of landmines, in the context of the two instruments to ban or limit their use:  Protocol II of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), a partial ban negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament; and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), a total ban agreed to in Oslo as part of the so-called "Ottawa process", which entered into force on 1 March 1999.

For additional background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3247 issued 3 October.

Statements

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) declared that the verifiable and irreversible destruction of all nuclear weapons was more vital than ever in the current international security environment.  In that context, his Government’s stated objective regarding such weapons fell in line with calls made for a world free of nuclear weapons, as put forth by his country’s partners in the New Agenda Coalition.  He added that, within the NPT, non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament carried equal weight.  One did not trump the other. Thus, he maintained that the world’s current preoccupation with proliferation matters must not divert attention away from the need for the five nuclear-weapon States to honour their NPT-related commitments.

Turning to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), he called on that country to abandon its expressed rejection of the NPT.  After all, rejoining the Treaty could lead to the resumption of energy and developmental assistance to the DPRK.  He also expressed grave concern about the stances adopted by India, Israel, and Pakistan, countries that were operating unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, and thus preventing universal adherence to the Treaty.  With respect to Iran, he stressed the important role of the IAEA in verifying the country’s peaceful intentions, and he called upon its Government to fully cooperate with the Agency.

Stressing the urgency of reinforcing the Biological Weapons Convention, he said States were currently embarking on a process, with respect to the Convention, that his Government did not necessarily prefer.  Nevertheless, he recognized that the strength of multilateral forums rested on agreement and unanimity.  Thus, he hoped that the present procedures would lead to meaningful outcomes.  Turning to his own region, he told delegates that his Government, currently serving as the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, was concerned with the impact of shipping accidents, especially radioactive ones.  In that context, he supported greater dialogue between shipping and coastal States.

IBRAHIM ASSAF (Lebanon) said that recent events had demonstrated that disarmament was not taking the right path.  On the contrary, military expenditures had increased, weapons stockpiles were growing, and there were more and more wars.  A number of doctrines had appeared, which allowed war to be declared, and terrorists had obtained more weapons, which had led to attacks in various parts of the world.  Multilateralism was an essential principle in the area of disarmament negotiations.  The United Nations, a nearly universal forum, must take collective measures to prevent any threats to international peace and security.  He had not wished to understate the importance of bilateral talks; those complemented multilateralism, but did not replace it. 

He said that the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East was a serious threat to international and regional peace and security.  The Committee, each year, adopted two resolutions on the nuclear threat.  Israel was the only country in the region that had still not acceded to the NPT.  The universality of that Treaty required accession by all States. 

Small arms and light weapons fuelled wars and conflicts because of their easy use and ready access, he said.  The illicit small arms trade and its spread threatened both victims and States, and also impeded development.  Effectively eliminating that scourge required dealing with the sources and causes of conflicts, first among them being foreign occupation.  Regarding the close relationship between disarmament and development, he noted that two thirds of the world’s population lived on less than $2 per day, while weapons expenditures had reached approximately $850 billion last year.  His Government had reduced its military expenditures as far as possible, to nearly zero.  The Defence Ministry’s budget allocated payment only for salaries and social welfare benefits. 

He said that landmines were a genuine humanitarian problem at the global level.  Some 90 States were affected by those weapons, which claimed 15,000 victims, mostly civilians, each year.  Landmines prevented development and the return of refugees.  Lebanon was suffering from landmines, because the Israeli occupation had left 450 landmines on its territory.  Thus, the Government was carrying out de-mining activities.  Transparency in the control of conventional and strategic weapons played an important role in consolidating international peace and security.  He would strive to have weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, included in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  

IFTEKHAR AHMED CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said that, even though 2003 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, there was little to celebrate.  After all, the Disarmament Commission had failed to adopt a substantive report after four years of deliberation, and the Conference on Disarmament remained mired in a deadlock.  Additionally, his country was continuing to deal with a regional environment that featured two nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan.  Expressing concern that such a situation threatened peace and development in South Asia, he told delegates that, in a world where pre-emptive measures based on perceived national security threats had recently led to a war, the state of affairs in his region was especially worrying.

Expressing regret that rising global military expenditures were undermining social and economic development, he remarked that disarmament appeared to have “gone out of fashion”.  After all, major achievements made at the United Nations during the Organization’s first 50 years were falling by the wayside.  He did, however, acknowledge certain positive points.  For example, Cuba and Timor-Leste had acceded to the NPT, and the fifth meeting of States parties to the Ottawa Convention had been a success.  For its part, his Government was party to almost all disarmament-related treaties and conventions and supportive of their enforcement and verification mechanisms.  In that context, he urged Member States to follow his country’s lead in revitalizing multilateral, as well as unilateral, approaches to disarmament

Before concluding, he listed his Government’s disarmament priorities.  First, he supported the revitalization of the Conference on Disarmament and the promotion of nuclear-weapon-free zones throughout the world, as long as they were based on freely-arrived-at agreements.  Second, he called for the universalization of the NPT, with special international efforts made to persuade India and Pakistan to relinquish their nuclear options.  He also backed stronger safeguard measures throughout the world, which would prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and encouraged attempts to reverse the international trend of rising military expenditures.

AHMED OWN (Libya) called upon the international community to hold a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.  Despite the fact that the NPT had been in force since 1970, and six review conferences had been held on its implementation, the results had been disappointing.  Although the circumstances were difficult to predict, catastrophe now threatened all members of the international community.  The number of States in possession of nuclear weapons had doubled, and the number of nuclear warheads had increased, adding up to a destructive power greater than anybody had imagined. 

He said that the international community, and particularly the nuclear-weapon States, had a great responsibility to fulfil the purposes and objectives of the NPT by entering into serious negotiations, in good faith, leading to irreversibly binding bilateral and multilateral disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation treaties.  The pledges made under the NPT and in the outcomes of the review conferences must be implemented.  Of special importance were article VI of the NPT, the final document of the sixth review conference in 2000, and paragraph 4(c) from the 1995 review conference outcome concerning the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Highlighting the importance of reducing strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons through bilateral and collective initiatives, he also called for the formulation of confidence-building and transparency measures.  Without delay, the Conference on Disarmament should establish an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament, leading to a non-discriminatory, effectively verifiable ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and any other nuclear devices.  The international community should take up its responsibilities, particularly the “major States”, to pressure the Israelis to adhere, without delay, to the NPT and submit all nuclear facilities to full-scope IAEA safeguards.

He said that Israel was the only “regime” in the Middle East that was still outside those obligations, yet, according to many reports by many sources, Israel possessed nuclear weapons in the hundreds, with delivery means capable of reaching all Arab countries, as well as countries in Europe and Central Asia.  Many mass media sources this week had reported that the Israelis were developing submarines to fire those missiles.  That showed the seriousness of the situation, which was being deliberately ignored by some major States. 

He emphasized Libya’s adherence to many relevant global treaties, including the NPT, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Geneva Protocol of 1925, concerning toxic gases.  He wished to help all those peoples still under the yoke of colonialism and occupation, and to put an end to all forms of injustice and terrorism.  With no fewer than 10 million mines buried in Libyan soil during the Second World War, Libyans were being killed and injured, and the nation was confronting great obstacles to economic and human development.  He called on all countries that had implanted those mines to respond immediately and provide Libya with maps and technical and financial assistance.  Those nations, namely Great Britain and Germany, should follow Italy’s lead.  The latter had signed a declaration in 1998 to demine Libyan soil and, in 2001, had established a mechanism to implement that declaration. 

NGUYEN DUY CHIEN (Viet Nam) expressed regret about the lack of progress in the field of disarmament and security.  For example, the Disarmament Commission had failed to make any progress on nuclear disarmament or confidence-building measures.  Declaring that weapons of mass destruction represented the most serious threat to the world today, he expressed a desire for their total elimination and his Government’s commitment to cooperate with the rest of the international community to achieve that objective.

Extolling the virtues of the NPT, which he called the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, he said all States parties must fully comply with the obligations delineated by the Treaty and implement the 13 steps contained in the 2000 review conference’s final document.  He also expressed hope that the 2005 review conference would make substantive progress.

He declared that nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament were related themes and mutually reinforcing.  In that context, he urged nuclear-weapon States to honour the commitments they had made at the 2000 review conference and work towards the total elimination of their arsenals.  He also welcomed and expressed support for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones throughout the world.  Such zones represented practical steps towards true global peace and security.

U MYA THAN (Myanmar) stressed the importance that the nuclear-weapon States honour their “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, made at the 2000 review conference of the NPT.  The 13 steps towards nuclear disarmament, to which the nuclear Powers had agreed, should be implemented in a progressive and irreversible manner.  Only when the processes of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation went hand in hand would it be possible to maintain sustainable, balanced, coherent and effective nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.  That meant that a systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament process was a prerequisite for strengthening and enforcing non-proliferation.

In that regard, he said that an urgent and necessary step was the early entry into force of the CTBT.  Another was the negotiation and conclusion of a treaty banning fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.  Regrettably, the Conference was still unable to launch such talks.  Also disappointing, was that it had remained “bogged down” in an impasse over its work programme.  Next year should not be another “blank year” for the Conference.  He had been heartened by the tangible results accomplished by the States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Hopefully, the eighth session of the Conference of States parties, to be held later this year, would be able to develop an action plan on national measures to implement the Convention.

Turning to biological weapons, he regretted that the States parties to the Biological Weapons Convention had been unable to take concrete measures to strengthen implementation.  Hopefully, the first annual meeting of States parties, to be convened in Geneva in November, would be able to make significant progress.  He recognized the clear and present danger of small arms and light weapons, whose illicit trade must be addressed in an effective manner.  He called for a rededication and renewal of the firm commitment to multilateralism in the field of arms control and disarmament. 

MURARI RAJ SHARMA (Nepal) said that, presently, international security was in turmoil, and disarmament efforts were mired in a “deep slumber”.  With respect to provisions of the NPT, it was more typical to hear of States breaching, instead of complying, with them.  Additionally, the fear that terrorists might acquire weapons of mass destruction was growing everyday.  Despite such a bleak situation, multilateral disarmament forums, such as the Conference on Disarmament and Disarmament Commission, were locked in impasses, and nuclear-weapon States, which were stubbornly clinging to their deadly arsenals, were simply prompting other States to acquire nuclear capabilities of their own.  In that context, he called on nuclear-weapon States to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals.

Addressing the recent entry into force of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, or Moscow Treaty, he remarked that the Treaty represented a positive development.  After all, nuclear technology could be misused and pose a great danger to humankind.  He was careful, however, to not entirely condemn such technology, stressing that, with proper precautions and non-discriminatory safeguards, it could be peacefully used as a helpful energy source.  Keeping with the theme of nuclear weapons, he also expressed support for the nuclear-weapon-free zone that would soon be established in Central Asia, and the consolidation of Mongolia as a nuclear-weapon-free State.

Turning to small arms, he stressed that, despite the consensus surrounding the Programme of Action to combat the illicit trade in those weapons, a genuine global partnership was still lacking, especially given the fact that non-State actors were continuing to grossly abuse such weapons.  He also expressed support for expanding the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as an effective confidence-building measure.  Regarding the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament for Asia and the Pacific, he reaffirmed his commitment to moving it to his country.  In that context, he urged the Secretariat to quickly make the necessary revisions to the relevant host country agreement.

HASSAN HAMID HASSAN (Sudan) said the world was undergoing a number of changes.  The only way to ensure international peace and security and revitalize multilateralism was to face up to the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, in order to ensure that the imbalance between nuclear and non-nuclear States was not accentuated.  Despite several initiatives to reduce nuclear stockpiles and strategic weapons, a number of States were developing their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons technologies, and were competing in the area of experimentation, under the pretext of prevention and the maintenance of international peace and security.

He reasserted the need for the nuclear Powers, through serious and urgent initiatives, to take steps to reduce weapons expenditures.  These must also provide security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  International peace must be consolidated.  Nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties were important, but those only covered 5 per cent of the world’s surface.  Further zones should be created, particularly in the Middle East.  Yet, despite that call, Israel refused to submit its nuclear installations to international control.  That threatened international peace and security and undermined regional stability.

At the meeting of African States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention in August 2002, the parties expressed the wish for an Africa free from chemical weapons.  The multilateral approach was the best way to implement existing international agreements and treaties.  For its part, Sudan had acceded to the Ottawa Convention, the CTBT, and the Biological Weapons Convention, and it had always actively participated in ending the illicit small arms trade, especially given the close link with organized crime, terrorism and the illicit drug trade.  To complement bilateral efforts to strengthen customs control, his Government was working with the framework of the African Union and the Arab League.  Industrialized countries must not export those arms to non-State actors.  They should also provide technical support to States emerging from conflict, especially to reintegrate former combatants.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said nuclear non-proliferation can and must be achieved.  In that context, he stressed that the NPT and CTBT were the only viable options for complete and universal non-proliferation and disarmament.  In the third world, however, conventional weapons reigned as the major instruments of destruction, and that reign was being prolonged by improvements in production technology, the easy availability of such weapons and competition between producers.  Highlighting the case of Somalia, he told delegates that it was suffering from an influx of small arms and light weapons, which were being supplied by a neighbouring country that wished to destabilize it.

With respect to landmines, he said his countrymen, including many civilians, were continuing to suffer from mines that had been planted in their country by Ethiopia after the two countries had signed a peace agreement.  For that reason, his Government was committed to creating a landmine-free environment in its region.  While lauding the Ottawa Convention, he also warned that signing and ratifying it would remain a meaningless gesture as long as a few rogue States continued to produce, sell, and use such weapons against countries that were faithfully implementing the Convention.

He informed delegates that his deep interest in peace and security stemmed from his country’s tragic experiences with conflict.  In that context, he remarked that, despite Ethiopian incursions into Eritrean territory, his country had consistently advocated a peaceful settlement to the dispute, and had accepted the decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Arbitration Commission, which had been sanctioned by the Security Council.  Unfortunately, the decision had not been implemented, due to Ethiopia’s unwillingness to respect it.  Regarding his country’s other neighbours, he announced that Eritrea had also accepted the verdict of the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Commission, and peacefully solved any problems it had experienced with Djibouti.

Rights of Reply

The representative from Ethiopia found it ironic that the Eritrean representative had spoken about peace.  After all, the international community knew that, after only 10 years of existence, Eritrea had invaded almost all its neighbours.  He also found it telling that Eritrea, a poor country with a population of 3 million, had over 300,000 people, or 10 per cent of its total population, serving in its army.  He added that, despite the fact that Eritrea continued to blame Ethiopia for simply defending itself, the international community had already acknowledged that Eritrea was the aggressor, and Ethiopia the victim.

The representative of Eritrea responded that the Algiers Agreement and Boundary Commission had confirmed that Badame rightfully belonged to Eritrea.  In that context, he asked delegates how Eritrea could be carrying out aggression against a piece of its own land, adding that no country committed aggression against its own territory.  He also stated that the international community had already recognized Ethiopia’s failure to cooperate with the Commission and accept its legal and binding decision.

The representative from Ethiopia said his country remained committed to the Algiers Agreement and the Boundary Commission’s decision.  He added that it was unfortunate that numerous United Nations forums had to continue hearing about this dispute.  Telling delegates that he did not wish to be dragged into an argument, he lamented that they had had to witness such a spat.

The representative from Eritrea pointed out that the Security Council had told Ethiopia to cooperate with the Boundary Commission, but Ethiopia had responded that nothing worthwhile could come from the Commission’s decision.

Also exercising the right of reply, the representative of Yemen referred to the Eritrean representative’s stated acceptance of the verdict of the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Commission without conditions or reservations.  While expressing appreciation for the sentiment, however, the Yemeni delegate reiterated that problems still remained.  For example, Eritrea was not fully respecting fishery-related decisions.

* *** *