Fifty-ninth General Assembly

First Committee

6^th Meeting (PM)

Middle east nuclear proliferation highlighted, as disarmament committee

 

continues general debate

Conflicting views of the state of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East were highlighted this afternoon, as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) continued its general debate.

Israel’s representative told the Committee international decisions should not be seen as substitutes for national controls because confronting proliferation “begins at home”.  Criticizing States’ “irresponsible behaviour” and reluctance to honour their commitments, the representative of Israel drew special attention to Iran’s “serial non-compliance”, the case of Libya, and Abdul Qadeer Khan’s proliferation network, whose magnitude had still not been fully revealed.  Declaring that there were discrepancies between some Middle Eastern States’ official statements and their actual behaviour, he warned that the resulting dangerous situation would have ramifications beyond the region.

In view of regional threats, Israel enforced strict controls over conventional weapons exports, including the export of technology, he said.  On the other hand, certain States were abetting the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons in the region.  Such actions helped terrorists, he stated.  Other States in the Middle East were developing weapons of mass destruction capabilities, supporting terrorist organizations, and publicly threatening Israel’s very existence.  The combination of such policies was “leading our region far from the vision of peace and security”.

By contrast, the speaker from Libya noted that his country’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme showed its belief that an arms race would not provide security to the Middle East, but would instead make the path to a peaceful world more difficult.  Expressing the hope that all States in the region would follow Libya’s lead, without double standards, he pointed out that his country had only sought non-traditional weapons because its security and independence had been threatened by other States in the region that possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Although the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had entered into force long ago, nuclear Powers such as the “Zionist entity” still rejected the Treaty and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Calling on the international community to apply serious pressure on that entity to change its behaviour, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

The representative of Iran noted that the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East had actually been originally proposed by his country, but there had been no papers on the issue because of Israel’s refusal to respond to claims about its clandestine programme.  In keeping with the spirit of such a zone, Iran had made sure that weapons of mass destruction had no place in the country’s defence doctrine.  Declaring that using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was an inalienable right, enshrined in article IV of the NPT, he told delegates that his country had signed the IAEA’s additional protocol to enhance confidence, and had even gone so far as to implement it before ratification by Parliament.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of Myanmar, United Republic of Tanzania, Colombia, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Uganda, Dominican Republic, Botswana, Angola, Croatia and El Salvador.  The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee also heard from the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 12 October.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general debate on the whole range of arms limitation and security arrangements.  (For background, see Press Releases GA/DIS/3271 and 3272.)

Statements

GEREMY ISHASHAROS, Deputy Director General, Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, said the Committee could not afford to operate in a vacuum, divorced from existing or emerging threats.  In that context, he reasoned that if it wished to preserve its integrity and retain its importance, it would have to address today’s most pressing challenges.  Because the multilateral community was both continuing to obstinately deal with outdated, irrelevant issues, and taking an unhealthy “all or nothing” approach to negotiation, the various disarmament bodies were locked in a stalemate.

One of the primary challenges facing the international community today was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he said.  Criticizing States’ “irresponsible behaviour” and reluctance to honour their commitments, he drew special attention to Iran’s “serial non-compliance”, the case of Libya, and Abdul Qadeer Khan’s proliferation network, whose magnitude had still not been fully revealed.  He also stated that, over the past year, traditional verification mechanisms had been proven to be limited and unable to provide the necessary security assurances.

Referring to man-portable air defence systems (MANPADs), he called for the international community to exert more control over them –- by limiting access and taking steps to protect civil aviation.  For its part, his country had adopted the relevant export control guidelines.  Turning to terrorism, he said it must be discussed in its true form, without euphemisms.  Expressing concern that many terrorists aspired to acquire weapons of mass destruction, he said that those aspirations, combined with increased cases of “suicide terrorism”, constituted a “potentially apocalyptic vehicle”.

Noting that last week’s terrorist attacks in Sinai had killed Egyptians, as well as Israeli vacationers, he stressed that terrorists made no distinctions between countries or religions.  After all, they had attacked States as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Spain.  Rather, terrorism was fuelled by simple hatred –- hatred for the free world, democratic values, human rights, peace, and reconciliation.  Welcoming Security Council resolution 1540, he, nevertheless, stressed that international decisions should not be seen as substitutes for national controls.  In that regard, he stated that confronting proliferation “begins at home”, through clear policies and accountability.

In view of regional threats, Israel enforced strict controls over conventional weapons exports, including the export of technology, he said.  On the other hand, certain States were abetting the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons in the region.  Such actions helped terrorists, he stated.  Other States in the Middle East were developing weapons of mass destruction capabilities, supporting terrorist organizations, and publicly threatening Israel’s very existence.  The combination of such policies was “leading our region far from the vision of peace and security”.  Declaring that there were discrepancies between some Middle Eastern States’ official statements and their actual behaviour, he warned that the resulting dangerous situation would have ramifications beyond the region.

MYA THAN (Myanmar) said that the greatest security threat facing mankind today was the threat of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.  Another great threat starring the international community in the eye was terrorism.  The international community had been concerned about the possibility of a nightmarish scenario of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.  Efforts to deal with and overcome those horrendous threats needed to be stepped up.  Nuclear disarmament was, therefore, the highest priority on the international agenda for arms control.  The benchmarks for the implementation had been laid down by the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference.  The international community should, therefore, measure the progress in systematic and progressive efforts for nuclear disarmament against those benchmarks.

The early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was an imperative for the effective implementation of nuclear disarmament, he continued.  It was, therefore, essential that countries in the Annex 2 of the Treaty ratify it as soon as possible.  Another step in a systematic and progressive process of nuclear disarmament was the negotiation of a draft treaty banning fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear-explosive devices.

He noted that, although the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to agree on its programme of work and to begin its substantive work, there had been some significant developments in the Conference at its 2004 session.  On 12 February, it took a decision on the enhancement of the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference.  Agreement on the programme of work was the highest priority.  The international community should take a balanced approach, based on the three pillars of the NPT -- nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  The international community should recognize, respect, maintain and strengthen the interrelationship and synergy among those pillars of the Treaty.

AUGUSTINE A. MAHIGA (United Republic of Tanzania) welcomed Libya’s decision to get rid of its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes and said that all countries that possessed weapons of mass destruction should emulate Libya’s example.  There was no moral or military justification for any country to continue possessing and relying on weapons of mass destruction for its defence or deterrence when their use –- intentionally or accidentally –- could trigger total annihilation of the world and its civilization.

He said that, despite the fact that the international community agreed that the NPT was the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, some States did not seem prepared to honour their part of the agreement.  It was regrettable that, as the 2005 NPT Review Conference approached, the 13 practical steps agreed upon in 2000 had not been implemented.  That was in spite of the fact that the nuclear-weapon States unequivocally undertook to eliminate their arsenals.  Worse, the world was witnessing the development of new nuclear doctrines, which included the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.  In addition, new types of more sophisticated and concealable nuclear weapons and their delivery systems were being researched and developed.  All those actions undermined and contravened the spirit and letter of the NPT.

He reaffirmed his support for the efforts aimed at combating illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons.  Small arms in regional and internal conflicts in recipient countries in the developing world had fuelled violent conflicts, resulting in unrelenting civilian deaths, the destruction of livelihoods and mass human displacements.  Concerted international action was needed to arrest that situation.  His country had been and would continue to participate in subregional, regional and international processes aimed at addressing that problem.

He added that his country supported efforts aimed at improving the effectiveness of the work of the First Committee.  That reform of the Committee should be part of the revitalization of the General Assembly as a whole, and should not be done in isolation.  It should address the most urgent challenges that the international community faced today -– general and complete disarmament.  Nothing would have been achieved if the reforms did not bear fruit.

MABRUK MILAD (Libya) said that this was the Committee’s first session since his country’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme.  He said his country’s initiative showed its belief that an arms race would not provide security to the Middle East, but would instead make the path to a peaceful world more difficult.  Expressing the hope that all States in the region would follow Libya’s lead, without double standards, he pointed out that his country had only sought non-traditional weapons because its security and independence had been threatened by other States in the region that possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Listing five reasons why his country had decided to turn away from weapons of mass destruction, he said that, first, maintaining peace and security in today’s changing world was important.  Second, keeping weapons of mass destruction was not viable or feasible in the long run, and results could be tragic and unpredictable.  Third, weapons of mass destruction were dangerous for possessors, as well as potential targets.  Fourth, such arms, in addition to being a means for protection, actually needed protection themselves.  Fifth, building such an arsenal led to the “bleeding of funds”, which came at the expense of socio-economic development.

Although the NPT had entered into force long ago, disappointments still remained.  For example, nuclear Powers such as the “Zionist entity” still rejected the Treaty and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Calling on the international community to apply serious pressure on that entity to adhere to change its behaviour, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  For its part, his country had ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT this year.  Its officials had also signed the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, received inspectors, and met with such figures as Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

Calling for the Conference on Disarmament to become active again, especially so that negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty could begin, he reiterated that multilateralism was the only means to bring about complete and general disarmament in the world.  Turning to landmines, he said his country had over 10 million such weapons embedded in its soil.  They had been buried there during the Second World War, and thousands of innocent civilians had died because of them.  In that context, he called on the countries that had planted them to assume their responsibilities, provide maps and information regarding the mines’ locations, and compensate victims.

Voicing his desire for the Mediterranean to become a zone of peace, he lauded Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s visit to his country last Thursday to inaugurate a pipeline carrying Libyan gas to Europe via Italy.  He also praised the European Union for lifting sanctions and its arms embargo against Libya.  To further improve pan-Mediterranean relations, all foreign navies and military bases should be withdrawn from the area, he said.  Additionally, outsiders should refrain from intervening in States’ internal affairs.  Before concluding, he said an international conference should be held to define terrorism, determine its causes, and find the necessary means to confront it.  As for reforming the First Committee, he said resolutions should be implemented, especially by the major Powers.

MARIA ANGELA HOLGUIN (Colombia) urged that the initiative to improve the working methods of the First Committee be assessed on its merits, rather than on the basis of the States or group of States that were sponsoring it.  The Committee was the most important forum for discussion of international security issues.  The international community must, therefore, keep the forum and reform it.  It was only by so doing that it could show that multilateralism could be effective.

She reiterated Colombia’s position that only the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction would make it impossible for such weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.  Colombia was committed to the total elimination of such weapons.  It had signed the CTBT in 1990.  It had, however, not been able to ratify it, because of internal requirements.  In that regard, her country had proposed the idea of finding ways to address the cases of countries that were in such situations, so that they could ratify the Treaty as quickly as possible.

She said that her country needed greater cooperation in combating illegal drugs.  Tighter control was also needed in the area of small arms and light weapons.  In addition, it was necessary to ensure universalization of the Ottawa Convention aimed at anti-personnel mines, to ensure that producers of such weapons were bound by it.  The international community should also ensure urgent demining throughout the world.  She noted that, after years of reduction, world military expenditures had begun to rise.

KIM SAM-HOON (Republic of Korea) said the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remained the gravest threat to international security today.  In that regard, clandestine networks, such as the one run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, had to be addressed, and the NPT’s inherent weaknesses and loopholes had to be remedied.  He also expressed concern that some countries were attempting to develop weapons under the guise of peaceful energy programmes.  Welcoming Security Council resolution 1540, he said it was a good step forward and complemented his country’s desires for greater international verification capabilities.  For its part, his country was fully cooperating with the IAEA, so that complete nuclear transparency would be achieved.

Underscoring the urgency of the entry into force of the CTBT, he called on all States, especially those whose ratification was required for entry into force, to ratify it.  He also highlighted the importance of a fissile material cut-off treaty.  Until such instruments were brought into force, it was imperative that States uphold moratoria on nuclear-test explosions and fissile-material production, he said.  Turning to the international multilateral machinery, he said its performance had been “rather disappointing”.  In that regard, he called on such bodies as the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission to break out of their stalemates.  He also noted that their deadlocks made the First Committee more important than ever, thus, rendering the need for reform even more significant.

He stated that the underlying causes of proliferation should be addressed, through the easing of regional conflicts.  In that context, he reiterated his commitment to a peaceful solution to the KoreanPeninsula issue.  Looking to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear programmes and to join the thriving East Asian mainstream, he called for the continuation of the six-party talks.  Turning to missiles, he lamented that the panel appointed by the Secretary-General to discuss the topic had failed to produce a report.  On conventional weapons, he welcomed the inclusion of MANPADs in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

NGUYEN DUY CHIEN (Viet Nam) expressed regret that continued endeavours at various multilateral disarmament forums, such as the Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament and the third NPT Preparatory Committee, had not produced encouraging results.  The current state of disarmament affairs could only be rectified if real political will prevailed and cooperative efforts to overcome existing difficulties and obstacles were renewed and redoubled.

Nuclear weapons were posing the most serious threat to international peace and security, he continued.  Viet Nam had consistently called for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals and was committed to closely cooperating with the international community to get rid of such dangerous weapons.  His country attached great importance to the strengthening of the NPT.  It fully supported the Non-Aligned Movement’s proposal to establish, at the 2005 Review Conference, subsidiary bodies to the main committees to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, on security assurances and so on.  It hoped that the existing divergence of views among States parties on priorities and perspectives on the 2005 NPT Review Conference would be resolved soon through a broadly acceptable programme to assure its success.

He said that the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones constituted important steps towards attaining the objective of regional and global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  His country welcomed the announcement by China of its readiness to accede to the protocol annexed to the Treaty for the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and called on all nuclear-weapon States to do likewise.

KHUNYING LAXANACHANTORN LAOHAPHAN (Thailand) said that it was unfortunate that, despite the continuing efforts that the international community had exerted in the promotion of disarmament and non-proliferation, the world today was not any safer from the scourge of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons that it was over half a century ago when the United Nations was founded.  The Secretary-General’s most recent report on the work of the organization recalled that “the clandestine network and violations of non-proliferation commitments along with slow pace of disarmament and threat of terrorism which jeopardized international peace and security may increase the risk of new instances of unilateral or pre-emptive use of force”.  To prevent those developments from further weakening confidence in multilateralism, it was widely felt that a strong regime of compliance was vital to the effective functioning of a multilateral system.  As a developing country, Thailand fully recognized the difficulties that other developing countries faced in fulfilling their obligations, but stood ready to work with them in achieving the common endeavour.

His country believed that the NPT was the cornerstone of collective non-proliferation efforts and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, he went on.  In that regard, all nuclear-weapon States should become party to the NPT and all NPT parties should implement the Final Document adopted at the 2000 NPT Review Conference with a view to achieving the total elimination of nuclear arsenals.  He also hoped that the discussion that would take place during the upcoming Review Conference of the NPT in 2005 would bring about concrete outcomes that would eventually lead to a nuclear-weapon-free world.

While the world was faced with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, the problem of conventional weapons had never faded away, he continued.  Despite the continued effort of the international community in addressing the challenges posed by small arms and light weapons, hundreds of innocent lives were taken away by the scourge of those weapons each year.  Thailand supported the establishment of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument on marking and tracing of illicit trade of such weapons.  His country saw the merit and admired the work of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, which had contributed greatly to the effort to solve the problem of small arms and light weapons.  Those non-profit organizations needed to be given more opportunities to closely coordinate with government agencies and international organizations in raising public awareness and continuously campaigning in that arena.  As part of a capacity-building exercise and in accordance with the Plan of Action, Thailand, in collaboration with the United Kingdom, would hold a regional workshop on small arms and light weapons transfer in January in Bangkok.

ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that existing or multilateral instruments were no longer an adequate deterrent to terrorist elements and their bid to achieve their goals.  In today’s world, effective mechanisms for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction were still at early stages development.  On the other hand, implementing the provisions of existing multilateral treaties could substantially reduce that threat to international peace and security.  Further, priority must be given to the regional agenda.  It was only through step-by-step programmes at the regional level, implemented within the framework of multilateral agreements, that could ensure security and stability in the world.  In that regard, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia would be a positive step.  Uzbekistan welcomed the readiness of nuclear Powers to cooperate on the establishment of such a zone.

The NPT remained the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and complete disarmament in the world, he went on.  His Government expected a positive result in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, in spite of the failure to agree on a programme of work.  His country had been among the first to ratify the CTBT and had called on those countries whose ratification was necessary for the Treaty to go into force to ratify it as soon as possible.  Finally, he added that Uzbekistan considered the First Committee to be one of the most important forums for exchange of views on peace and security.  All delegations should, therefore, make a strong effort to help reform the Committee and ensure its effective functioning.

BISHER AL-KHASAWNEH (Jordan) began by expressing solidarity with Egypt, in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Sinai.  He then turned to the state of the world’s multilateral disarmament machinery.  Declaring that reforming and revitalizing the First Committee and, indeed, the entire General Assembly was important, he expressed concern over the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to make any progress.  Looking forward to the next NPT Review Conference, he hoped it would be more fruitful.

Stating that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constituted a “present and clear danger”, he rejected all forms of terrorism.  In that context, he told delegates that, a few months ago, his Government had discovered a terrorist conspiracy involving weapons of mass destruction.  The clandestine plan had been stopped immediately, because his country believed in facing and confronting international terrorism.  In that regard, he appreciated Security Council resolution 1540, and noted that one of the best safeguards against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction would entail holding important negotiations on a relevant convention.

Complete nuclear disarmament was a necessity, he said.  In the meantime, all nuclear Powers should pledge not to use or threaten to use such arms against non-nuclear-weapon States.  Turning to his own region, he criticized Israel for refusing to adhere to the NPT.  Calling on Israel to do so immediately, and to subject its facilities to international inspections, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  Regarding small arms and light weapons, he noted the link between such arms and drugs and crime.  In that context, he voiced support for an international convention on the marking and tracing of such weapons.

CHARLES WAGABA (Uganda) expressed the hope that the 2005 NPT Review Conference would reiterate and underline the umbilical link between non-proliferation and disarmament.  The failure of the third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference to agree on substantive recommendations was indicative of the big task that still remained to be accomplished in order to advance the agenda of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  The CTBT was still not in force, due to the non-ratification by required States.  That treaty was a vital instrument in the nuclear non-proliferation arsenal and the concerned States must immediately ratify it.  In the meantime, the moratorium on nuclear tests should be maintained.

He stated that it was more urgent than ever before that weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated, before they fell into the hands of mindless terrorist who had, by their actions, demonstrated that they would use them to devastating effect.  All States should ratify or accede to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) in order to bring them into universal application.

He underlined the devastating effects of the inundation of small arms and light weapons on the political, economic and social fabrics of countries across the globe, particularly developing countries.  Those weapons had wrought havoc and mayhem through their easy availability and indiscriminate use.  Uganda, therefore, welcomed the work that continued to be carried out with a view towards the prevention, combat and eradication of the illicit trade in those weapons.  An International Conference on the Great Lakes Region would take place next month in Dar-es-Salaam to grapple with the problems of the inundation of the region with small arms and light weapons in the hands of non-State actors, resulting from the unending conflicts in the region.  The international community should support that conference and should extend political and financial support to the resultant programmes.

Global military expenditures, after falling off following the end of the cold war, had resumed its growth, currently by more than 5 per cent annually, he noted.  Conversely, the flow of official development assistance (ODA) from developed to developing countries was falling steadily.  Additionally, products from the developing countries were finding it difficult to enter the markets of industrial economies.  That dual assault had exacerbated the conditions of underdevelopment and poverty in the developing countries.  Those conditions, in turn, bred insecurity and conflict.  There was, therefore, an urgent need to re-examine the relationship between disarmament and development.

ENRIQUILLO DEL ROSARIO (Dominican Republic) said that, because of the phenomenon of terrorism, which did not respect international borders and spared no one, it was important to strengthen all multilateral disarmament machinery.  At the same time, however, it was important to acknowledge that other threats, which were perhaps more subtle but equally important, existed, as well.  They included hunger, extreme poverty, and the inability of Member States to meet socio-economic goals.  Such soft threats generated sources of conflicts and could, thus, not be ignored.

Turning to his own region, he highlighted the problems posed by the transport of radioactive material and dangerous waste through the Caribbean. After all, because his country depended on tourism to drive development, the maintenance of pure waters and scenic coasts was of the utmost importance.  Other countries in the region felt that way, as well.  Proposing solutions to the problem, he suggested that offending parties should offer:  guarantees against the pollution of the marine environment; commitments to recover material that was dumped; pledges to decontaminate affected areas; and agreements on effective norms in the case of damage.

Turning to small arms and light weapons, he said the illicit trade in such arms was inherently connected to organized crime.  In light of that link, his country was doing its part to improve security for its citizens by fighting crime, effectively using the judiciary, and modernizing its police forces.  However, the international community could help.  Specifically, voicing support for an international instrument to track such weapons, he said that such a mechanism would lay the foundation for lasting peace.

JAVAD ZARIF (Iran) said the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was a matter of serious concern for the international community.  Calling for a global ban on all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, he said the NPT, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention should all be strengthened.  The reluctance of certain nuclear-weapon States to follow the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament was disappointing.  What was perhaps more worrying, however, was news that one nuclear Power had plans to produce new types of nuclear weapons and had already allocated millions of dollars towards research in that area.  Possible efforts by other nuclear Powers to maintain balances might start a new arms race, he warned.

On the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, originally proposed by Iran, there had been no progress because of Israel’s refusal to respond to concerns about its clandestine nuclear programme.  Declaring that using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was an inalienable right, enshrined in article IV of the NPT, he said his country had invested a lot of financial and human resources in that area.  Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, had no place in Iran’s defence doctrine. In line with its obligations and commitments, his country was cooperating with the IAEA.  Furthermore, having signed the body’s Additional Protocol to enhance confidence, Iran had even gone so far as to implement it before ratification by Parliament.

Voicing support for negotiations on an international instrument to trace small arms and light weapons, he noted the dangerous link between such arms and drug trafficking.  On missiles, the failure of the Secretary-General’s panel of governmental experts to produce a report should prompt the international community to work more seriously and with more preparation, so that missiles could be adequately addressed within the United Nations framework.  Before concluding, he said that improving the efficiency of the world’s multilateral disarmament machinery was of great importance.  In that context, he also noted that it was unfortunate that the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission were mired in stalemates.

ALFRED DUBE (Botswana) said that his country continued to abide by the principles of the international weapons of mass destruction treaties and the conventions to which it was party.  To date, it had acceded to the NPT, the CTBT, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Botswana called on all States to abide by the NPT and to comply by all its articles, as well as the agreed 13 steps towards nuclear disarmament.  It also joined those who believed that non-nuclear States should be assured against attack by nuclear-weapon States.  The Conference on Disarmament should facilitate the move towards a binding international instrument in that regard.

He attached the utmost importance to the twin issues of small arms and light weapons, and anti-personnel landmines, he continued.  Those two classes of conventional weapons represented a far greater danger to the African region.  He hoped that the proceeding of the First Committee would significantly benefit from the common African position on anti-personnel landmines recently adopted in New York.  Focused and united consideration of the challenges in that area was of the utmost importance, if the menace was to be adequately addressed.  He felt that it was not enough to deal only with the clearing of mined areas and the provision of assistance to victims.  Instead, there should be a total ban on the production, stockpiling, export and use of anti-personnel landmines.  Those weapons deserved the same level of abhorrence that the international community had reserved for nuclear weapons.

His Government subscribed to the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, he went on.  It would continue to participate in the process of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace illicit small arms and light weapons in a timely and reliable manner.

ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said that, coming from a country that had recently emerged from conflict, he was greatly concerned by the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.  Noting that the number of countries with nuclear capabilities was growing, he stressed that a concerted international effort to tackle nuclear proliferation was needed.  Declaring that multilateral cooperation was the most appropriate and effective way to prevent the production and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, he welcomed Libya’s decision to abandon its previously clandestine programmes.

Telling delegates that in 2001 two bullets had been manufactured for each person on the planet, he emphasized that the spread of small arms and light weapons constituted an “insidious phenomenon”, especially since it was so closely linked to deadly civil wars, political instability and international organized crime.  In that context, he noted that his Government supported the Bamako Declaration, a common African position on the proliferation of such weapons.  Turning to landmines, he said that 3 million such weapons still littered Angolan territory.  For that reason, his country had made demining one of its priority national policies.

VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia) said that his country was convinced that only effective multilateralism based on the rule of law could provide an adequate answer to the complex global challenges and threats facing the world today.  Weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists would constitute unprecedented and potentially destructive prospects for humanity as a whole.  It was, therefore, incumbent upon the international community to continually galvanize support for multilateral legally binding agreements and enhance their verification mechanisms.

He said that in the past two years Croatia had taken numerous steps in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their components, and their means of delivery.  It had tightened its national export legislation and continued institution building at inter-agency levels, while at the same time increasing its participation in international and regional non-proliferation efforts.  Croatia had given support to the Proliferation Security Initiative and its Counter-Proliferation Principles, and had expressed readiness to actively contribute to the cause of the Initiative in accordance with existing institutional capabilities and national legislation.  Croatia had also applied for membership in the Wassemar Arrangement and the Missile Technology Control Regime and had expressed interest in joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australian Group and the Zangger Committee.

Croatia was still a mine-affected State, although mine contamination was a gradually decreasing problem in the country, he went on. It believed that, through the joint efforts of government authorities, numerous hardworking personnel involved in mine action on the ground and with generous international assistance, it should be free of mines by 2009.  The country was ready to host the 2005 meeting of the States Parties of the Ottawa Convention directly following the Nairobi Conference on a Mine-Free World.  That would be a unique opportunity to organize, for the first time, a meeting of States Parties in South-East Europe, a region that was still heavily contaminated with anti-personnel landmines.

GUILLERMO MELENDEZ (El Salvador) said the policies of large and medium-sized Powers sometimes impeded disarmament, as well as the progress of peoples in the least developed countries.  Declaring that serious structural and development-related problems had not been solved over the years, he lamented that they were now compounded by new threats, such as organized international crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Because multilateral forums were the appropriate places to reach consensus on contentious issues, such as nuclear weapons and landmines, more political will was needed to break existing deadlocks, he said.

Several developments were causing the future to look increasingly uncertain.  For example, some States were failing to comply with their disarmament- and non-proliferation-related commitments.  Additionally, there had been scant progress vis-à-vis the NPT’s 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament, the CTBT had still not entered into force, and the Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament continued to display a lack of progress.  In that context, he stressed that a more secure world for present and future generations depended on implementation of internationally agreed conventions.

GEORGES PALISANU, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the priorities of the ICRC were based on the “Agenda for Humanitarian Action” adopted by the States parties of the Geneva Convention at the twenty-eighth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent last December.  Those priorities included strengthened control on arms transfers –- especially small arms and light weapons; the rapid ratification and implementation of the new protocol on explosive remnants of war; the universalization of the Ottawa Convention and success of its first review conference in Nairobi; preventing the misuse of rapid developments in the life sciences for hostile purposes; and ensuring that all States established internal mechanisms to review the legality of new weapons and methods of warfare.

He said that a huge proportion of the civilian suffering witnessed in the field each day resulted from the easy availability of small conventional weapons and ammunitions to forces that acted with no regard for the norms of international humanitarian law or human rights.  Yet, all those weapons originated in States parties to the Geneva Conventions and fell into the hands of those who violated those norms through inadequate controls on their transfer.  The commitments made at the twenty-eighth international Conference should be converted into intensified implementation of all aspects of the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in advance of the biennial review meeting in 2005, and should result in the strengthening of national laws and policies on arms transfers.  Increasing attention needed to be given to demobilization and disarmament in post-conflict situations and the destruction of massive volumes of surplus weapons currently in circulation.  States needed to conclude, at the earliest possible time, ongoing negotiations on measures that would enable them to effectively trace small arms, light weapons and their ammunition.

He added that the human cost of explosive remnants of war grew higher with each successive conflict.  The burden of clearing those devices continued to expand far more rapidly than resources available.  The new protocol on explosive remnants of war provided a prescription for both preventing and remedying the problems caused by unexploded and abandoned munitions.

Rights of Reply

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply, in response to earlier remarks made by the speaker from the Republic of Korea.  Declaring that for over 50 years the United States had maintained military outposts equipped with nuclear armaments in the Republic of Korea, he said that, even at this moment, all kinds of sophisticated equipment were being deployed in and around the KoreanPeninsula.  The military situation prevailing there had, in fact, proven once again that his country had legitimate reasons for building up its self-defence capabilities.  Stating that his country did not even have a uranium enrichment programme, he urged his southern neighbour to reveal its own clandestine nuclear programmes, which were being conducted with the help of the United States.

In response, the representative of the Republic of Korea replied that the scientific experiments to which his colleague was referring had been carried out by a small group of scientists on their own.  They had nothing to do with any sort of official national nuclear weapons programme, since no such programme existed.  What the Republic of Korea had, instead, was the world’s sixth largest civilian nuclear programme, one which was permitted under article IV of the NPT and one which abstained voluntarily from uranium enrichment procedures.  The experiments to which the speaker from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had referred involved amounts of nuclear material that were too trivial to have any relevance.  Furthermore, the disclosure of such experiments showed that his Government would accept new safeguards standards and reveal even the smallest details of its activities.  There should be no doubt about his Government’s firm commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and the use of nuclear energy for only peaceful purposes.  He expressed hope that the matter would be cleared up when the IAEA presented its report in November.

* *** *