Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

8^th Meeting (PM)

THREAT POSED BY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NON-PROLIFERATION REGIME

FOCUS OF DEBATE IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

The threat posed by non-compliance with the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and the reasons underlying recent, well-publicized cases dominated debate this afternoon in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Iran’s representative, whose country was recently found by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to have failed to meet its obligations as a State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) with respect to the reporting of nuclear imports and the subsequent processing and use of that material and the location of those activities, said his country had “never pursued a nuclear weapons programme and will never do so”. 

He said certain limitations and persistent threats to deprive Iran of fuel for nuclear power plants under construction had left it with no choice but to develop indigenous capability, even importing the necessary parts from intermediaries.  Iran had worked with the IAEA to rectify “technical failures”, but that had not meant that it should “give in to unreasonable demands that are discriminatory, selective and go beyond the requirements of non-proliferation” under existing IAEA instruments.  No nation should be deprived of utilizing advanced technologies for peaceful purposes, he said.

The speaker from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, whose Government announced its withdrawal from the NPT on 10 January, said his country’s “deterrent force” maintained strategic balance and stability, and would be able to defend the region and peace on the peninsula.  Asserting that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula was the result of “unilateral power politics”, he demanded that the United States reverse its hostile policy towards his country, essential to solving the nuclear issue there.  The “nuclear super-Power” had “misused the NPT to blackmail non-nuclear-weapon States with its nuclear weapons”. 

Despite recent accessions to the NPT, the representative of Thailand said that the announced withdrawal of a State party from the NPT clearly went against the trend towards universalizing it.  That and the continued impasse in the global disarmament machinery showed the signs of strain in the multilateral disarmament frameworks, raising questions about whether they were fundamentally flawed, and, if so, whether other alternatives should be sought.  It should be borne in mind, however, that in today’s globalized world, where the security of all States was intertwined, meeting the challenges of disarmament and non-proliferation was too heavy a burden for any one State to carry alone.

The Cuban representative worried that, in today’s unipolar world characterized by insecurity and an intervening super-Power, doctrines of pre-emptive force and breaches of international law were superseding matters of poverty.  Declaring that the only secure and effective method of avoiding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was to completely eliminate them, he also reiterated the importance of multilateralism in disarmament.  After all, the emerging trend of making arms control decisions outside the United Nations was not only dangerous, but also unacceptable.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Cameroon, Croatia, Bahrain, Togo, Morocco, Myanmar (on behalf of ASEAN), Mali, Lesotho, Singapore, and Cyprus.  The representatives of Turkey and Cyprus spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m., Wednesday, 15 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.

On 10 January, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea declared “an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT” and informed the Security Council of its decision.  Although accession to and withdrawal from a treaty is the legitimate sovereign right of any State party and is stipulated in article X, paragraph 1, of the NPT, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s decision has been a source of concern for its neighbours and, indeed, the entire international community.

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.

At its September meeting, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution deeming it “essential and urgent” that Iran remedy all failures identified by the Agency and cooperate fully with it to ensure verification of compliance with its safeguards agreement by taking all necessary actions by 31 October.  Those steps include a full declaration of all material relevant to Iran’s enrichment programme.

That action followed a report in June by the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, in which he states that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material imported into Iran and the subsequent processing and use of the material, and the declaration of facilities and other locations where the material was stored and processed.

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).

On conventional weapons, reference might be made to the First Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which was held in New York in July 2003.  There, after just two years of activity, over 100 States presented national status reports.

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.

The Committee will also have before it addendums to two reports.  The first addendum (document A/58/117/Add.2), to the report entitled “Missiles”, transmits a reply from Italy, on behalf of the European Union.  The second (document A/58/162/Add.1) concerns the Secretary-General’s report on the following topics:  “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  the need for a new agenda”; nuclear disarmament; reducing nuclear danger; and “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”.  It contains information received from Malaysia.

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

Statements

JACQUES-ALFRED NDOUMBE EBUOLE (Cameroon) said the Committee was meeting in a dangerous era, characterized by the increased threat of weapons of mass destruction, as well as biological and chemical terrorism.  Thrown into the mix were small arms and light weapons, which continued to claim millions of lives throughout the world.  The United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa was in a position to put forth initiatives that could counter such threats.  Nevertheless, it was currently hindered by extreme financial difficulties and, therefore, needed increased support from Member States.

Turning to nuclear weapons, he emphasized the importance of the NPT and declared that only the total elimination of nuclear weapons could lead to greater international security.  In that regard, he urged those States that had not yet done so to accede to the Treaty.  Recognizing that the nuclear non-proliferation regime had recently been concerning itself with only certain offenders, he stressed that the nuclear-weapon States should not take advantage of that distraction to avoid reducing their arsenals.  For its part, his Government had worked hard to support the work of the second session of the preparatory committee for the 2005 review conference.  It had also encouraged the formation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, as long as the States involved had freely arrived at their own agreements.  In that context, he urged African States to ratify the Treaty of Pelindaba, which had not yet entered into force.

Regretting, on the one hand, the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to agree upon a programme of work, on the other, he welcomed the remarkable efforts made to make the Chemical Weapons Convention universal.  In comparison, the Biological Weapons Convention was weak and in need of an additional protocol that would make it just as strong.  Turning to small arms and light weapons, he said the threat they represented was as serious as that from other, more powerful weapons.  That was why his country was continuing to institute confidence-building measures in Central Africa.  Welcoming the report of the Group of Experts on the marking and tracing of small arms, he also highlighted the recent successes of the conference on the Ottawa Convention in Bangkok.

VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia) said his country had been transformed from one that had benefited last decade from the services of thousands of peacekeepers, to one that was currently sending experts and troops to United Nations missions throughout the world.  His Government was also engaged in advancing regional disarmament, good neighbourly relations, and confidence-building measures that could lead to increased regional stability.  Despite such positive work, however, he noted, with regret, that major multilateral disarmament-related bodies had failed to make any significant progress, the CTBT was still far from entering into force, and preparatory meetings for the next NPT review conference were characterized by “endless discussions”.

With respect to biological weapons, he said he was disappointed with the breakdown of negotiations during the fifth review conference of the Biological Weapons Convention.  In that context, he endorsed current proposals to institute national implementation measures, but stressed that that could only be a temporary solution.  After all, an additional protocol was vital for the Convention’s potency.  Turning to landmines, he appreciated the progress made by the Ottawa Convention with regard to stockpile destruction.  Nevertheless, financial assistance to mine victims had remained stagnant, despite a growing number of those injured.  In that regard, his Government did not wish to merely follow existing guidelines, but rather to foster greater communication between donors and recipients in an attempt to increase financial support.

Regarding the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, he said that, with respect to the recently negotiated protocol on explosive remnants of war, the primary responsibility for clearing such remnants lay with the country that deployed them.  On small arms and light weapons, he told delegates that his Government had been able to make practical use of the plethora of international instruments dealing with such weapons.  For example, it had submitted a report to the meeting that considered the Programme of Action to combat the illicit trade in small arms, and had actively participated in the work of the South-East Europe Clearing-House for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons.  Before concluding, he expressed regret that the Conference on Disarmament had failed to make any progress on enlargement.

SALAH AL-MALKI (Bahrain) said everyone agreed about the increasing danger of the risk of acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  Arms were a source of defence, but they were also a source of destruction and killing if they were misused.  His country had adhered to many arms treaties, in the staunch belief in cooperation with the international community in that context.  Recent developments had confirmed his deep concern about the possibility of the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons by some States.  The universality of, and full and active compliance with, the multilateral agreements and those still under negotiation were good and powerful means to reducing the use and proliferation of such weapons. 

He said that the objective of establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was “just a dream”, owing to Israel’s refusal to subject its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards.  He fully condemned the blatant aggression waged by Israel on Syria last week.  That had emphasized, once again, that possession of such weapons in the hands of a government that lacked the language of peace could lead to a war with very serious consequences.  At a time when the powerful and the super-Powers were reducing their strategic assault measures, in the belief that that would promote peace and security, there was still the problem of other countries seeking to acquire such weapons, in the Gulf region and elsewhere. 

SURIYA CHINDAWONGSE (Thailand) said, that despite all efforts at promoting disarmament and non-proliferation, the world was not a safer place today than it was a year ago.  The challenges to disarmament and non-proliferation, and to security, had grown.  New threats, or as the Secretary-General called them, “`old threats in new and dangerous combinations’”, had shown no signs of abating.  Old threats, ranging from the presence of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to the excessive accumulation of small arms and light weapons, remained unresolved.  In parallel with that rise in threats and challenges was a gradual erosion of the foundation of multilateralism and the multilateral disarmament frameworks.

He said that, despite recent accessions to the NPT, the announced withdrawal of a State party from the NPT clearly went against the trend towards universalizing that Treaty.  The continued impasse in the Conference on Disarmament, the failure of the Disarmament Commission to agree on any recommendations this year, and the inability of the open-ended working group on the fourth special session on disarmament to agree on the objectives and agenda of such a session demonstrated the signs of strain in the multilateral disarmament frameworks.  Those developments raised questions about whether there was a fundamental flaw in the existing multilateral frameworks, and, if so, whether other alternatives should be examined.

Multilateralism and multilateral disarmament frameworks had served as a strong foundation for disarmament and non-proliferation efforts for decades, he said.  In a globalized world, where the security of all States was ultimately intertwined, meeting the challenges of disarmament and non-proliferation was too heavy a burden for any one State or group of States to bear alone.  Multilateralism and multilateral disarmament frameworks were realistically the only viable long-term alternative to address disarmament and non-proliferation challenges globally and effectively.  Rather than discard multilateralism, the best should be made of what already existed.

In that context, he said that compliance was central, and must be applied to all aspects of multilateral disarmament agreements.  Their universalization was also vital, as was cooperation between States.  He supported the strengthened safeguards system of the IAEA, and was considering signing the Additional Protocol next year.  On the issue of nuclear safety and security, he was prepared to cooperate fully with the Agency in implementing its activities in that field, especially on capacity building and preparedness in South-East Asia.  His country had ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention at the end of last year, and had participated in the first review conference in May as a party.

Concerned about the threat posed by the transhipment of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and dual-use goods, he said his country was dealing with that threat through stringent import and export laws and measures, including in the framework of the Container Security Initiative undertaken in cooperation with key partners, which should become effective by 2004.  As the current President of the Ottawa Convention, his country looked forward to working closely with States and all relevant actors to achieve the Convention’s core humanitarian objectives, namely, mine clearance, stockpile destruction, victim assistance and universalization of the treaty.

KOKU MBEOU (Togo) said peace and security were related concepts.  In that regard, one could not speak of peace in the world when people continued to live under the threat of weapons of mass destruction and small arms and light weapons.  In order to move away from such a threat and the suffering it entailed, the international community needed to commit itself to general and complete disarmament.  He added that, with so much poverty in the world, it did not make sense to devote such large quantities of money to military expenditures and endless peace conferences.  Emphasizing that universal adherence to the NPT was an essential precondition for nuclear disarmament, he also appealed to States that had not yet done so to accede to that Treaty.

Stressing that the best way to achieve peace was to stop the arms races and thus make weapons unavailable to terrorists, he asked States to refrain from conducting nuclear arms programmes.  Telling delegates that, for its part, his country had crafted a foreign policy that advocated the peaceful resolution of conflicts and good neighbourly relations, he added that Togo had worked hard to curb the traffic of small arms in West Africa.  After all, if the subregion could be converted into a zone of peace, that could lead to greater economic integration, he said.

Turning to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, which was located in his country, he said it had worked hard to carry out regional activities to promote peace, eliminate weapons, and encourage disarmament.  However, dependent on sporadic voluntary contributions, the Centre was encountering severe financial difficulties.  Its limited capacity, therefore, did not allow it to meet increasing requests from States.  Inviting delegations to help support the Centre, he suggested that its expenditures should be taken care of by the regular budget of the United Nations.  Mere updates of resolutions concerning the regional centres were not really helpful, and showed a lack of commitment to disarmament.

LOFTI BOUCHAARA (Morocco) said the common approach to security had been based on the United Nations Charter, which said that those States threatened by armed aggression could exercise self-defence, but that the legitimacy of such defence must be conferred by the United Nations.  Today, some States questioned that agreed interpretation, and reserved the right to use force unilaterally.  Such a development could lead to an increased use of force, and was a major global threat.  On the international scene, nothing could replace that legitimacy.  It was essential, therefore, that international affairs conform to the Charter.  As the Secretary-General had stated, nothing could replace the norms of international law, which must be respected by all parties, in order to save the world from the scourge of war and chaos.

He cited, among the new global challenges, the risk that non-State entities could acquire nuclear or other mass destruction weapons, especially since there was presently no multilateral instrument that could effectively face up to such a threat.  That led to the question of the wisdom of a system of international security based on the possession of nuclear weapons by a limited number of States.  Only the total elimination of those weapons could provide an effective solution.  He had viewed, with concern, the continuing research to create new generations of military weapons, as well as the advent of military doctrines.  With the notable exception of the 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (Moscow Treaty), between the Russian Federation and the United States, little progress had been achieved.

It was urgent to preserve and strengthen existing international instruments and to strengthen multilateralism as the main negotiating mode in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, he said.  His country, which was a State party to the NPT, urged its universality and full implementation, including of the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  He was very concerned about the situation in the Middle East.  Particularly deplorable had been that the opposition of one State -– Israel –- to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.  That State was still not party to the NPT, and had refused to subject its nuclear installations to IAEA safeguards.

U MYA THAN (Myanmar), on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), reviewed all global disarmament and arms control developments.  In that context, he stressed the urgent need for a comprehensive approach towards missiles in a balanced and non-discriminatory manner, as a contribution to international peace and security.  Concerns related to missile proliferation were best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory agreements.  He noted the entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, and called for its implementation under principles of irreversibility and transparency.  Concerning biological weapons, progress should be made to strengthen the Convention banning their use.

He said the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones were positive steps towards attaining the objective of global nuclear disarmament.  The ASEAN countries had successfully established such a zone in South-East Asia, which entered into force in March 1997.  Concerning the protocol annexed to that Treaty for accession by nuclear-weapon States, he welcomed the announcement by China in November 2002 of its readiness to accede to it.  He reiterated his call on other nuclear States to do so as soon as possible.  Also welcome, had been the agreement at the expert level among the States of Central Asia to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone there.

As 2003 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the convening of the first special session devoted to disarmament, he reiterated the Association’s deep concern over the lack of consensus on the deliberations held by the Disarmament Commission in 1999 on the agenda and objectives.  He called for further steps, leading to the convening of a fourth special session to review and assess implementation of the first.  He noted the historic declaration of the ninth ASEAN Summit, held in Bali, Indonesia from 7 to 8 October, to establish an ASEAN Community that would be supported by three pillars:  political and security cooperation; economic cooperation; and socio-cultural cooperation.  They also agreed to continue to promote regional peace and stability, security, development and prosperity.

Concerning the Conference on Disarmament, the ASEAN countries believed that its expansion was necessary.  In that regard, they fully endorsed the applications of Thailand and the Philippines.  He appreciated the effective contribution towards international peace and security made by the United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and in Africa.  He valued the Regional Centre in Asia and the Pacific for its dynamic activities, security dialogue, and for raising awareness on regional disarmament issues.

PAK GIL YON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that international peace and security today was threatened as never before, and global disarmament efforts faced serious challenges.  The military threat and the use of force based on unilateralism were openly perpetrated.  Attempts to retain a nuclear supremacy and control, through the nuclear threat, over world politics were undisguised.  The theory of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, which had supplanted the nuclear deterrence theory, was now being put into practice. 

He said that 35 years ago nuclear-weapon States committed themselves to abolishing their nuclear weapons in the shortest time span when they upheld nuclear non-proliferation.  The “nuclear super-Power”, however, had developed new types of nuclear weapons and expanded the nuclear arms race into outer space.  As a result, it had “realized its nuclear monopoly, and misused the NPT to blackmail non-nuclear-weapon States with its nuclear weapons”.  No one could accept its promotion of nuclear non-proliferation while, at the same time, it accumulated nuclear weapons and sought their qualitative improvement.  The international community should set priority tasks on the basis of a precise analysis of the realities, in order to achieve substantial disarmament and ensure lasting peace.

The core issue of disarmament was nuclear disarmament, and the fundamental task in achieving it was the real abandonment by the “nuclear super-Power” of its nuclear threat policy, he said.  High-handedness and unilateralism had derailed the disarmament process at the threshold of the century.  Practical disarmament could never be expected in an environment of nuclear weapons and the continued nuclear arms race.  The United Nations should give a timely warning against unilateralism, which recently had exceeded all limits.  In that context, a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament should be convened at the earliest possible date.

He said that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula was also an outcome of “unilateral power politics”.  His country was threatened by the persistent attempt of the nuclear super-Power to stifle it.  He demanded that the United States “switch over” its hostile policy towards his country.  That was essential for peace and security on the peninsula, and for solving the nuclear issue there.  The six-party talks had been held in Beijing in late August, thanks to his country’s reasonable demands and positive and flexible efforts.  But, he had not perceived a sincere attitude on the part of the United States to find a solution to the nuclear issue between the two countries.

He said it had been his country’s consistent position to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and through dialogue and negotiation.  The present reality clearly showed that abandoning the hostile policy to stifle his country was indispensable for regional peace and co-existence.  Because of his country’s deterrent force, peace on the peninsula and in the region could be defended.  Its “Songun” policy of independent politics deterred war and, accordingly, maintained strategic balance and stability.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would exert every effort to remove the threat of outside forces and guarantee lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.

BABA CHEIBANI (Mali) said that, to remain credible, the Committee should follow concrete recommendations regarding its agenda.  Focusing on small arms, he lamented that the illicit trafficking and stockpiling of such weapons had a disastrous impact on civilians and undermined socio-economic development.  His Government was, therefore, determined to combat them.  For that reason, at last July’s meeting dealing with the Programme of Action to fight the illicit trade in such weapons, his country had presented a detailed report on its activities, which referred to increased border controls, cooperation with the Register of Conventional Arms, and steps taken to draft legislation that was harmonized with international norms.

On marking and tracing small arms, he expressed hope for a legally binding international instrument and a mechanism that would allow for systematic follow-ups.  After all, without adequate tracing procedures in place, the level of human and international security would continue to deteriorate.  For its part, his country had chaired a network of States, which was working towards completing a framework convention on transferring weapons.  It had also introduced a resolution on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) concerning assistance to States seeking to curb the illicit trade in small arms.

With respect to multilateralism, he stressed its importance in the area of non-proliferation.  In that context, he encouraged the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones that had been based on freely-arrived-at agreements, since they contributed significantly to international peace and security.  He also urged the international community, particularly countries with nuclear weapons, to do everything possible to assure that terrorists could not obtain weapons of mass destruction. 

LIPUO MOTEETEE (Lesotho) said she welcomed the outcome of last July’s meeting dealing with the Programme of Action to fight the illicit trade in small arms, and appreciated the report of the Group of Governmental Experts, which stated that an instrument to trace illicit small arms was indeed feasible.  For its part, her country was committed to implementing international disarmament instruments.  For example, last month, it had acceded to the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, which supplements the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.  It had also requested technical assistance from South Africa to destroy 4,240 State-owned small arms and light weapons.

Stressing that only through multilateral efforts could States beat terrorism, she shared her concern that non-State actors might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction if such arms were not protected or destroyed.  In that context, she urged all relevant States that had not yet done so to join the following treaties and conventions to which her country already belonged:  the CTBT, NPT, Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, Ottawa Convention, and the Treaty of Pelindaba.  She also urged the relevant States to honour the 13 steps agreed upon at the 2000 NPT review conference.

She lamented that the Conference on Disarmament had failed to make any significant progress, and that the Disarmament Commission had not done anything to advance nuclear disarmament or confidence-building measures.  She also found it discouraging that the working group dedicated to considering, among other things, the objectives and agenda of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, had failed to reach a consensus.

YAP ONG HENG, (Singapore), said that even as technological advances and globalization were bringing about positive changes globally, those same driving forces were leading to new threats and vulnerabilities, which knew no boundaries or nationalities.  Perhaps it was time to reinvigorate the Committee and ensure that it could rise to the challenges and make a real contribution towards international peace and security by re-thinking existing paradigms.  Perhaps the need for reform had not yet sunk in, due to narrow political interests “riding roughshod” over the broader interests of the international community.  Or, it might be that the debate had become too politically charged and bogged down in combative and polemical repartee. 

He said that, now, more than ever, it was vital not to allow the process to be stymied.  Dealing with the complex, multifaceted security challenges of the day required the adoption of a practical, multi-pronged and multidimensional approach, in which the United Nations had a vital role to play.  The Committee might also be effective by tackling the challenges from all angles –- from strengthening international legal regimes, to putting in place the stringent measures necessary to prevent terrorist attacks and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Although he was not sure how many existing disarmament regimes had truly been successful, new initiatives should not come at the expense of efforts to entrench and effectively implement those regimes. 

RODNEY LOPEZ CLEMENTE (Cuba) wondered why, if the cold war had truly been surmounted, were international military expenditures continuing to rise, and why half of the global total could be attributed to just one country.  Also questioning why certain States continued to involve nuclear weapons in their security concerns, he stated that the resources devoted to acquiring and maintaining such weapons would be better directed towards poverty alleviation and closing the gap between rich and poor.  However, in today’s unipolar world, characterized by insecurity among weak countries and an intervening super-Power, matters of poverty were being superseded by doctrines of pre-emptive force and breaches of international law.

Declaring that the only secure and effective method of avoiding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was to completely eliminate them, he also reiterated the importance of multilateralism in disarmament.  After all, the emerging trend of making arms control decisions outside the United Nations was not only dangerous, but also unacceptable.  In that context, he called on renewed political will from the international community to revitalize such multilateral bodies as the Conference on Disarmament, the Disarmament Commission, and the First Committee.  He also stated that the United Nations must be made more democratic, in order to allow it to better confront the world’s realities.

Turning to the United States, he rejected that country’s false accusations, declaring that his country’s work in biotechnology was only focused on improving health and fostering social development.  He then speculated that such attempts by the United States to link his country to bioterrorism was merely a ploy to justify its criminal embargo policy.  Rather than engaging in any form of terrorism, Cuba had taken several steps towards fulfilling its disarmament goals.  Those steps included signing a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the IAEA and ratifying the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

MOHAMMAD H. FADAIFARD (Iran) said that, unfortunately, the tragic event of 11 September had become an opportunity to pursue the unfinished ambition of forging a new world order, through applying military power to arbitrarily reshape one of the most strategic regions in the world.  The unsanctioned Iraq war had been openly advertised as the first attempt in that direction.  Waging it under the pretext of removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction had not only undermined the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, but had weakened multilateralism and the United Nations, itself.

He said that it now seemed that the predictable consequences of the unlawful Iraq war had forced the occupying Powers, and indeed, the advocates of unilateralism, to think twice and send signals for the possible return to the multilateral mechanisms.  Turning to the United Nations could be positive if the “unilateralists” truly and in good faith abandoned their misguided approach.  Certain things, however, indicated otherwise.  For example, the occupying Powers had not agreed to the central role of the United Nations in Iraq, and had not yet agreed to a timetable for returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

Also, threatening other countries with pre-emptive attacks and encouraging others to do so had continued, he said.  There were even plans for developing new mini-nuclear weapons, and preparations for testing those weapons were on the agenda.  Opening parallel tracks to the United Nations and international regimes and setting up exclusive groupings under the pretext of arms control and security was also being vigorously pursued.  It was not surprising, therefore, that those nuclear-weapon States that had worked continuously to ensure that their ability to transit nuclear weapons had not been hindered by nuclear-weapon-free zones were currently advocating selected interdiction of such suspected materials, even with civilian applications, to and from certain States under the pretext of preventing proliferation.

Meanwhile, he said, those countries themselves transferred the largest amounts of missiles and weapons to other States each year, even to non-parties to non-proliferation and disarmament treaties.  New suggestions for bringing some exclusive control initiatives already created outside into the United Nations to legitimize and generalize them were yet additional signs of the shift in tactic.

Developments in the areas of disarmament and non-proliferation had not been promising, he said.  Among those setbacks, was the continued ideological opposition of one nuclear-weapon State to the CTBT.  More dangerously, that State was re-examining its testing policy for the development of new nuclear weapons.  Convening a two-day secret conference in Nebraska on the development of those weapons on the very week of the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima had been shocking.  Without a doubt, that ran contrary to that State’s claim that its policies helped to curb weapons of mass destruction.  At the same time, the much-advertised Moscow Treaty was weaker than its predecessors and could not substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons.

Regarding nuclear technology, he said that certain limitations and persistent threats to deprive Iran of fuel had led it to work towards self-sufficiency and to develop indigenous capability in that respect.  Hence, in the area of peaceful nuclear technology, Iran had had no choice but to work in “different” ways, even importing the necessary parts from intermediaries, in order to guarantee the future supply of fuel for the nuclear power plants under construction.  It had already been accepted that some technical failures, like other similar cases in the IAEA, had occurred.  Iran’s case, however, had been unjustifiably politicized.

He said his country had worked with the IAEA to rectify those technical failures, but that had not meant that it should “give in to unreasonable demands that are discriminatory, selective and go beyond the requirements of non-proliferation” under existing IAEA instruments.  The benefits of advanced technologies belonged to humanity, and no nations must be deprived of utilizing them for peaceful purposes.  Iran had declared on many occasions that it had “never pursued a nuclear weapons programme and will never do so”.  Iran’s nuclear programme was solely for peaceful purposes.  It, therefore, had no problem, in principle, with transparency, including implementation of the provisions of the Additional Protocol.

In that regard, he said his country had worked and would continue to cooperate with the IAEA to “remove all doubts about the peaceful nature of our nuclear programme at the earliest possible time”.  Hopefully, all outstanding issues would be solved if and when the politically motivated propaganda allowed that.  The issues related to the technical failures would eventually be clarified, but the non-compliance of others, including the United States, who, after 35 years had yet to implement the provisions of nuclear disarmament under article VI of the NPT or its non-compliance regarding the transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Israel in clear violation of article I of the NPT, must be addressed.

YIORGOS CHRISTOFIDES (Cyprus) informed the Committee that, earlier this year, his country had deposited its ratification instrument to the Ottawa Convention, thus reaffirming its support for the international community’s efforts to eliminate landmines, which he called a “totally inhumane method of warfare”.  Detailing his Government’s attempts to respect the Convention’s aims, he told delegates of his Government’s mine clearing operations and stockpile destruction.  He also announced that, over the past two decades, his country had cleared ten minefields adjacent to the buffer zone and destroyed over 11,000 mines.  Such action had proceeded despite the occupation of 40 per cent of the island by

40,000 foreign troops.

Turning to weapons of mass destruction, he expressed his firm commitment to their non-proliferation, and said his Government had ratified all of the relevant international instruments.  Additionally, as a member of the Australia Group and the Nuclear Suppliers Group for the past three years, Cyprus had recently applied to become a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime.  It had also modelled its system of export controls after European Union guidelines.  Finally, he told delegates that three months ago his Government had deposited its ratification instrument of the CTBT.

Right of Reply

The representative of Turkey, in response to the representative from Cyprus, said there were two peoples with two distinct languages living in Cyprus.  Additionally, because the island was home to two separate democracies, neither party could speak for, or claim jurisdiction over, the other.  Regarding accusations about invasion and occupation, she reminded delegates that Turkey, as a guarantor State, had exercised its legitimate right to prevent massacres of Turkish Cypriots.

The representative of Cyprus responded that he had not been trying to politicize anything.  Instead, he had merely been describing his Government’s demining efforts.  However, because the theme had been brought up, he reminded delegates that, according to the Security Council, there was only one State in Cyprus, and he was proud to represent it.  Regarding the supposed massacres of Turkish Cypriots, they had been exposed as a myth last year.  Therefore, Turkish Cypriots did not need 40,000 Turkish troops for protection.  Interestingly, it appeared that Turkish Cypriots desired peace and greater contact with Greek Cypriots.  Before concluding, he mentioned that today there had been a demonstration of 10,000 Turkish Cypriots, all clamouring for reunification with the southern part of the island, and inclusion into the European Union.

* *** *