CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM ROMANIA, ALGERIA AND UNITED STATES

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM ROMANIA,

ALGERIA AND UNITED STATES

In Farewell Remarks, Japanese Representative Says

‘Breath of Fresh Air’ Needed for Conference to Carry Out its Work

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA,, 25 March (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament closed the first part of its 2004 session this morning after hearing statements from Romania, Algeria and the United States on national disarmament policies and practices, and farewell remarks from the Ambassador of Japan, who said among other things that a “breath of fresh air” was needed for the Conference to carry out its work. 

In opening the meeting, the President of the Conference, Ambassador Pablo Macedo of Mexico, expressed condolences to the Government of the Netherlands for the death of Queen Juliana.  He also paid tribute to departing Ambassadors Kuniko Inoguchi of Japan and Jorge Bernales of Peru.

Romania drew attention to a ceremony being held today in the Romanian town of Cislau entitled “Romania Free of Anti-personnel Landmines”.  This important event marking the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines in Romania fell one year ahead of the deadline as dictated by the Ottawa Convention.

Algeria said nuclear disarmament should be the Conference’s major priority so that the planet could definitively be spared this version of the apocalypse.  The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the cornerstone of the international disarmament regime, and should be reinforced by effective measures negotiated by the Conference.  The NPT also should be universally ratified. 

The United States said, among other things, that Libya’s decision to forego its nuclear weapons programme and come into compliance with the NPT was of great importance and had significantly advanced the treaty’s goals.  Effective disarmament around the world could not take place in an international security vacuum, and sweeping, unfocused approaches to disarmament such as a nuclear weapons convention or timetables were illusory and would not work. 

In reaction to the statement of the United States, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said, among other things, that the settlement of the nuclear issue between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea depended on the will of the United States. 

Also reacting to the speech by the United States, Iran said the statement of the United States was proof that it was at odds with competent international bodies and this attitude would only exacerbate the suspicion of Iran that the United States had alternative political motives for its policies. 

The President of the Conference said the priority was for the Conference to adopt a definitive programme of work so that it could pick up its substantive work, which had been interrupted for so long.  Ambassador Macedo said he would to continue consultations to achieve this objective.

The next meeting of the Conference will take place at 10 a.m. on 13 May and will be followed by an informal plenary meeting on nuclear disarmament.

Statements

KUNIKO INOGUCHI (Japan) addressed the Conference to bid farewell after having completed two years in her capacity as disarmament member for the Japanese mission in Geneva.  She highlighted the importance of multilateral instruments, given their universality and broad time-frames, as a means of achieving peace and security.  The issue of small arms and light weapons was one area in which multilateralism in disarmament was indeed functioning.  The 2003 United Nations First Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms and Lights Weapons, for which she had served as Chairperson, had offered a landmark opportunity for strengthening partnerships for action and enhancing the collective sense of ownership and responsibility in the lead up to the second Biennial Meeting in 2005 and a scheduled Review Conference in 2006.  The fifth protocol of the Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons, adopted last November, was a significant measure for dealing with major humanitarian problems in post-conflict situations.  Furthermore, mine actions, including mine clearance, had strengthened the momentum of the anti-personnel mine ban Convention process.

Ambassador Inoguchi said a “breath of fresh air” was needed for the Conference to carry out its work and for it to execute the agenda provided by the Special Session of the General Assembly in 1978.  The cross-group effort initiated by the “Five Ambassadors” to reach agreement on a programme of work for the Conference had introduced new momentum.  The Conference had created a number of important disarmament treaties, including the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  However, it was currently going through a challenging period.  In the current world of globalism and interdependence, challenges were transnational. 

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania) bid farewell to Ambassador Inoguchi and thanked her for her contribution to the work of the Conference.  Romania expressed its appreciation for the addresses of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Canada, Ireland, Bangladesh, Sweden, the Netherlands and Sri Lanka last week in which they had highlighted their Governments’ firm commitments to disarmament matters; their speeches also had demonstrated the political will necessary for the work of the Conference to be resumed while at the same time they had reflected the risks of the Conference’s continuing lack of activity.  Romania hoped that the inter-sessional period in the coming weeks would be helpful and the Conference soon would be able to move onward and keep abreast of worldwide developments.

Ambassador Costea drew attention to a ceremony being held today in the Romanian town of Cislau entitled “Romania Free of Anti-personnel Landmines”.  This important event marking the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines in Romania fell one year ahead of the deadline as dictated by the Ottawa Convention and was also a significant step towards the upcoming Nairobi Conference on Landmines.  Romania hoped that it would be able to increase its contribution to another pillar of the Convention – that of assistance to victims of landmines.  Romania recently had taken steps to ratify the firearms protocol which soon would be submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General.  Romania strongly believed that this protocol would contribute to efforts to fight organized crime. 

MOHAMED SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the continued impasse over the Conference’s programme of work made it clear that, in a spirit of compromise and synthesis, its members must not remain prisoners of existing national postures; the Conference had a heavy responsibility to meet and must find a way to carry on with its work, especially as the world, unfortunately, was more and more a frightening place, menaced by terrorism and the dangers of nuclear proliferation.  Proliferation threatened to be horizontal as well as vertical; and faced with this danger, it was clear that the best response the international community could provide would be to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons and their components, because it was certain that non-State actors were eager to get their hands on such weapons.  Nuclear disarmament should constitute the Conference’s major priority so that the planet could definitively be spared this version of apocalypse.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the cornerstone of the international disarmament regime, and should be reinforced by effective measures negotiated by the Conference and should be universally ratified.  It also was vital that the nuclear test-ban treaty receive sufficient signatures to enter into force.  Iran and Libya were to be congratulated for signing the additional protocol to the NPT.

Consciousness of the dangers facing the planet had led the “Five Ambassadors”, of which he was one, to offer their proposal for a programme of work, which had been tabled on 23 January 2003.  The Five Ambassadors had repeatedly made clear that they were open to all reasonable suggestions, amendments or modifications, and had discussed proposed changes with numerous delegations, and had accepted, for example, an amendment proposed by China in relation to the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  Although many Member States had expressed support for the proposed programme of work, it had not yet approached the level of consensus, and some delegations simply had not given a response.  How, it had to be asked, could consensus be achieved in the face of silence?  All means had to be considered to elicit any remaining points of view and to try to bridge gaps between delegations.

Algeria had long favored universalization of the Conference and the expansion of its activities to allow a role for civil society and non-governmental organizations, and it supported recent proposals to this effect.

JACKIE W. SANDERS (United States) said Libya’s decision to forego its nuclear weapons programme and come into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was of great importance and had significantly advanced the treaty’s goals.  But other challenges to the agreement were major: there had been startling revelations about nuclear black market activities, and Iran’s continued unwillingness to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a matter of serious concern to the international community.  There was a need to strengthen the IAEA as a tool for ensuring compliance with NPT safeguards and it also was vital to find a way for NPT parties to continue to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear programmes without undermining the NPT’s central purpose of preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The United States wished to underscore its strong commitment to meeting its NPT obligations.  It would continue to ensure that its cooperation with non-nuclear-weapons States did not assist them in acquiring such weapons, and it was the largest contributor to the IAEA’s technical cooperation programme, which was increasingly responsible for making the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy a reality for developing countries.  It was important to remember that the NPT’s article IV required parties to negotiate a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control; today, members were focusing on a step-by-step approach to that seemingly distant goal.  Nuclear disarmament was a gradual process that would be long and difficult.  It was obvious that effective disarmament could not take place in an international security vacuum; sweeping, unfocused approaches to disarmament such as a nuclear weapons convention or timetables were illusory and would not work.  As history had taught everyone, progress would come only through incremental approaches that took account of States’ threat perceptions.

Large numbers of non-strategic nuclear weapons belonging to the United States already had been withdrawn from deployment over the past decade, and the last of those withdrawn had been dismantled last year.  The United States and Russia had removed enough fissile material from military stockpiles to build 30,000 nuclear weapons.  Cooperative threat-reduction programmes had yielded enormous dividends to collective security over the past decade, and the risk that States or terrorists might acquire weapons of mass destruction had added new urgency to such efforts.  The United States reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT.

JOSE LUIS SALINAS (Peru) expressed his delegation’s thanks for the kind words addressed to Ambassador Bernales and, speaking for the Ambassador, conveyed his appreciation for the support he had received over the past six years in the Conference and especially from the Secretary-General. 

JANG CHUN SIK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the statement made by the United States was ridiculous.  The United States still talked of nuclear compliance by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea although his country had withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The truth was that the nuclear issue between his country and the United States was caused by a hostile policy on the part of the United States.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was making every effort to be demilitarized.  Testament to this was its participation in the second round of talks in Beijing in February, where it had made clear its willingness to scrap its nuclear programme; unfortunately the talks had ended without result.  The United States had the biggest nuclear programme in the world and was also the first country to use nuclear weapons against humans.  The settlement of the nuclear issue between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea depended on the will of the United States.

HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran), reacting to the references made to Iran in the speech of the United States, said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been very explicit in admiring Iran’s full compliance with IAEA safeguards.  The statement of the United States was proof that it was at odds with competent international bodies.  Its attitude would only exacerbate the suspicion of Iran that the United States had alternative political motives for its policies.  Iran was fully committed to nuclear disarmament and to the provisions of the Conference. 

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he intended to hold tentative informal plenary meetings during the inter-sessional period, as agreed to by Member States.  The priority for the Conference was for it to adopt a definitive programme of work so that it could pick up its substantive work, which had been interrupted for so long.  He intended to continue consultations to achieve this objective.   The Conference was embarking on its eighth year without agreement on a programme of work.  All members were called on

to think about the causes of this stalemate.  It was necessary to re-establish a climate of trust in order to bypass this stalemate.

* *** *