CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS FIRST PART OF 2005 SESSION

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS FIRST PART OF 2005 SESSION

UN Secretary-General Says Disarmament Critical

For Conflict Prevention, Peace-Building, Realizing Millennium Goals

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 27 January (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first plenary of the first part of its 2005 session and heard the message of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan which was delivered by Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva.

In his message, the Secretary-General said the Conference on Disarmament opened its current session with renewed hopes of overcoming the impasse that had impeded its work for so long.  He noted that disarmament was critical for conflict prevention, peace-building and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.  Disarmament matters also figured prominently in the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and would be a major part of discussions among Member States in the months ahead leading up to September’s summit-level review of the Millennium Declaration.  He called upon the Members of the Conference to seriously consider the Panel’s recommendations.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands, stressed that if the present problems persisted, the Conference might well lose its relevance and follow in the footsteps of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.  He wanted the Member States to think about whose interests would be damaged if this were to happen.  He said that he would make his ultimate efforts to get the Conference back to real work and would try to see if there was any chance of overcoming existing difficulties in the interest of those who felt that the Conference on Disarmament was of interest to their security.

On behalf of the Conference, the President expressed his condolences to the governments and peoples affected by the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean on 26 December.  At his request, the Conference observed a minute of silence in memory of the victims of the catastrophe.

Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia thanked the Conference for the condolences addressed to their countries and for the solidarity expressed by the international community to help the victims.

The Russian Federation and Kenya took the floor this morning to speak about landmines, and Peru and France spoke about the 2005 session of the Conference.  Poland and Germany addressed the issue of the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

At the end of the meeting, the Conference decided to accept requests by 33 States to participate in the 2005 session of the Conference as observers.  The States are Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Estonia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Iceland, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Uruguay.

After the decision was taken, Turkey said that it accepted document CD/WP.537 concerning the participation of the non-member States as observers within the framework of letters addressed by Turkey to the Secretary-General of the Conference CD/1438 and CD/1738.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 February.  It will be followed by a private plenary.

Statements

CHRIS SANDERS (Netherlands), President of the Conference, said that a month ago, two massive earthquakes and aftershocks which followed had triggered a tsunami, provoking an unprecedented disaster.  According to the data available, the total death toll so far was 160,000 according to data received by the General Assembly, but the figure of those who perished was likely to rise.  Tens of thousands were still missing, hundreds of thousands had lost their homes and a million had been displaced.  The tsunami had also impacted heavily on the national economies of the countries it affected and had cost thousands of millions of dollars in damages.  Roads, homes, schools and hospitals had been swept away or extensively damaged.  This catastrophe had triggered an unprecedented worldwide response.  On behalf of the Conference on Disarmament and on his own behalf, he presented his most sincere condolences to peoples and governments of the affected countries.  He invited the Conference to observe a minute of silence in commemoration of the victims of the tsunami disaster.

Ambassador Sanders said that he would only give a brief statement as the Conference would soon hear the message of the United Nations Secretary-General, which he fully shared.  He would refrain from giving a detailed analysis of the situation.  If the present problems of the Conference persisted, the Conference might well lose its relevance and follow in the footsteps of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.  He wanted the Member States to think of whose interests would be damaged if this were to happen.

Ambassador Sanders said he wanted to be pragmatic and would make his ultimate efforts to get the Conference back to real work.  He had so far consulted with 52 members, and would continue to consult with the remaining Member States next week.  His time had been too limited to meet them all before he had circulated his non-paper last week which gave his initial preliminary findings from his consultations.  The non-paper was only a factual summary of what he felt and understood was the case according to the delegations he had spoken to.  Next Tuesday, he hoped to discuss with Member States the substantive part of this non-paper and anyone wanting to rectify any information in it could do so.  Today, the conference would concentrate on two issues, the agenda and observers.

In summary, Ambassador Sanders said that he would use these four weeks to his utmost and would try to see if there was any chance of overcoming existing difficulties in the interest of those who felt that the Conference on Disarmament was of interest to their security.  That was the fundamental question which the Conference had to face.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Under-Secretary General, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, delivering the statement of Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, said that the Secretary-General had sent his greetings to the Conference on Disarmament as it opened its 2005 session.  Mr. Annan said the Conference on Disarmament opened its current session with renewed hopes of overcoming the impasse that had impeded its work for so long.  After many years of debate on its programme of work, the Conference had engaged itself, albeit informally, in a substantive discussion of issues on its agenda.  He noted that the Conference had also addressed other issues relevant to the current international security environment, including ways to strengthen compliance with arms control and disarmament agreements, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery falling into the hands of terrorists.

Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that the Secretary-General had said he had been encouraged to see the strong political support given to the Conference by foreign ministers who addressed it last year.  Such high-level statements could create political impetus towards reinvigorating the Conference, and he urged the Conference to continue this practice.  The Conference might also benefit from establishing closer contacts with other international arms control and disarmament agencies and organizations, and inviting the heads of such bodies to speak on issues of mutual interest.

The Secretary-General underlined that the Conference still faced the demanding task of finding ways to move forward.  Disarmament was critical for conflict prevention, peace-building and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.  Disarmament matters also figured prominently in the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and would be a major part of discussions among Member States in the months ahead leading up to September’s summit-level review of the Millennium Declaration.  He called upon the Members of the Conference to seriously consider the Panel’s recommendations.  Mr. Annan said that with so much at stake, he urge the Conference Members to do their utmost to enable the Conference to play its envisaged role, and to place its accumulated knowledge and experience fully at the service of the world’s people.

ENRIQUE ROMAN-MORAY, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said the Conference in 2005 had at its disposal 10 fully serviced meetings per week, including interpretation in all the official languages of the United Nations.  However, the budget recently adopted by the General Assembly put some constraints on the capacity of conference services.  This affected, among other things, unscheduled meetings, meetings outside of normal working hours, and the publication of documents.

MR. ORDZHONIKIDZE said that the information just relayed by Ambassador Roman-Moray was based on the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly which had been adopted by the Member States.  He hoped that all the measures would be respected.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) joined in the words of condolences expressed concerning the countries affected by the tsunami.  The tsunami had been a horrible tragedy in light of which the international community had displayed remarkable solidarity.  He hoped that the same sort of solidarity and interaction was expressed to resolve other problems facing mankind, including problems facing security and bringing about disarmament.

Ambassador Skotnikov said that he would like to inform the Conference that on 7 December 2004, the President of the Russian Federation had signed into law the Bill on Ratification by the Russian Federation of the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.  Thus, Russia had shown its full commitment to the solution of the “landmine” problem.  Russia regarded the Protocol as an effective mechanism with a proper balance of military interests and humanitarian concerns with respect to various types of landmines.  The Protocol did not lose its unique value after the signing of the Ottawa Convention.  In fact, it was still an important legal instrument which regulated relations of States and non-State actors in the area that covered handling of not only anti-personnel landmines but other types of mines as well.  Russia was interested in the full materialization of the Protocol’s potential.

Even prior to its ratification, the Russian Federation had fully complied with all the provisions of the Amended Protocol II, Ambassador Skotnikov said.   The Russian Federation shared the concern of the international community about irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines and the ratification of the Amended Protocol II proved that.  A mine-free world remained Russia’s goal.  The Russian Federation also supported in principle the idea of joining the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, but that could only be done when Russia found itself capable of fulfilling its obligations.

In conclusion, Ambassador Skotnikov said he had listened carefully to the statement of the President and the message of the Secretary-General and he shared the views of the Secretary-General regarding how disarmament was critical for conflict prevention, peace-building and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.  Last year, Member States had been able to revitalize somewhat the atmosphere in the Conference.  Member States had to proceed to the main goal, which was launching substantive work.  The Russian Federation was prepared to make efforts to get the Conference moving so that it could finally get down to work in accordance to its mandate.  The Five Ambassadors proposal was a good basis for a compromise, and it was open to improvements.  He appealed to all Member States to study the proposal.

ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru) said she had listened to the message of the Secretary-General on the importance of strengthening efforts to ensure that the Conference on Disarmament could resume its substantive work and contribute to international peace and security.  The Conference, which had been unable to reach agreement over the past eight years, needed to find a formula that would address the security concerns of all its Member States.  This did not mean that the key to success meant that all the concerns of all States should be reflected.  After all, negotiations were the foundation of the work of the Conference, and negotiations required all to express good will and flexibility.

The Peruvian representative said that it should be born in mind that according to United Nations estimates, the world in 2002 had spent $839 billion on armaments, and that in order to provide basic social services to the world, $40 billion over 10 years would be required -- which was less that half of what was spent annually on arms.  While outlining Peru’s efforts towards disarmament at the regional level, she noted that Peru had been the first Latin American country to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Peru supported all initiatives which would help achieve the main goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  She noted that the General Assembly had mentioned in a resolution the decreasing commitment to the 13 specific steps towards nuclear disarmament which had been developed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000.

In conclusion, she said that Peru was aware that the international system had changed since the Conference had been founded.  However, the traditional issues on the agenda of the Conference were still extremely relevant to the international community and must remain so.  Peru was convinced that the Conference should be able to adapt to deal with the current issues which were of interest to the international community.  It must find a balance in order to meet the security concerns of the Member States.  The Conference must follow the steps of the First Committee and improve its work in order to ensure that it became once again relevant to international disarmament and security.

PHILIP OWADE (Kenya), reading out a statement on behalf of Ambassador AMINA MOHAMED, said that she had wished to make a few remarks on the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World which Kenya had had the honour and privilege to host in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December 2004.  She was grateful to everyone who had attended the conference.  The Nairobi Summit would no doubt go down in the annals of history as a landmark conference in the path towards the total elimination of the menace of landmines and unparalleled assistance to mine victims.  For the first time since 1997, the international community had gathered at a high political level to examine the humanitarian problems caused by anti-personnel mines and the steps being taken to address them.  The Summit had made a significant step in the direction of universalization.  Positive signs of growing acceptance of the Convention had come from other States that were still outside it, including China, Indonesia and Somalia.

After outlining the commitments which the States parties had adopted in the Nairobi Plan of Action 2005 to 2009, Mr. Owade said Ms. Mohamed’s statement had noted that the Nairobi Summit had sent a strong and resolute message to those who were still outside the treaty that the international community could no longer tolerate those weapons which killed and maimed innocent civilians.  She congratulated Croatia for offering to host the next meeting of States parties from 28 November to 2 December 2005.

FRANÇOIS RIVASSEAU (France) noted that in 2004, modest efforts had been made to try to revitalize the Conference.  Last year, when France and a number of countries had raised the question of “new issues”, they had asked that in additional to the conventional issues, the Conference could look at other relevant subjects relating to disarmament and security.  The group had wanted the Conference to engage in thinking about how to respond to the threats facing the world today and the security expectations.  As a result, informal sessions had been held and had discussed “new additional issues”.  In its 2004 report, the Conference had recognized the importance of new issues which were pertinent in the new security environment and the First Committee had welcomed this step in a resolution adopted by consensus.

Ambassador Rivasseau said that the Conference now was resuming its work with the ambition to work even more concretely than last year.  The first step would be to agree on the programme of work which would not prevent the Conference from discussing other issues, but would reflect the priorities placed by the Conference for the past 25 years.  For eight years, the Conference had been agreeing on is agenda and then remaining paralysed.  Last year, fresh momentum had been injected.  This year, Member States should take a little bit of time to debate the issue of the agenda again.  He suggested that a new point could simply be added on “new and additional themes”.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that the world today was commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the concentration campAuschwitz-Birkenau.  Though it was but one death camp among many, Auschwitz had become for the world a symbol of terror, genocide and the Holocaust.  It was established by the Nazis in 1940 in the suburbs of the city of Oświęcim which, like other parts of Poland, had been occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second World War.  It was a complex consisting of a concentration, extermination and forced-labour camp, and 39 sub-camps.  At first, only Poles were imprisoned and killed, but then they were joined by Soviet prisoners of war, Roma and almost 30 other nationalities.  In 1942, it became the site of one of the greatest mass murders in the history of humanity perpetrated against European Jews by Hitler.  It was estimated that among the 1.6 million people brought to Auschwitz, there were at least 1,100,000 Jews from all the countries of occupied Europe, more than 140,000 Poles, approximately 20,000 Roma from several European countries, more than 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war and thousands of prisoners of other nationalities.  Approximately 1.5 million persons died in Auschwitz.

The Polish representative said it was a different world which countries lived in now.  Nations which had fought each other 60 years ago were now cooperating and together confronting new challenges.  Whatever the new threats to humanity, countries must learn the lesson of Auschwitz and be brave enough to act.  They should not fear to undertake the task to make the world a more secure place for future generations.

VOLKER HEINSBERG (Germany) said he also wished to make some remarks on the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the death camps.  It was 60 years to the day that Auschwitz and other extermination camps had been freed and he commemorated the millions of victims, innocent men and women and children, Jews, Sinti, Roma, handicapped persons, prisoners of war, and dissidents and others from around Europe.  Germany bowed its head in deep mourning.  Auschwitz would forever be a symbol of the genocide, the most horrific sign of a system which had been blinded by hatred and which had brought untold suffering to humanity.  It was difficult to find words for the suffering and pain which the victims had gone through.  This would always be part of the history of Germany, a denial of all civilized things.  The new democratic Germany had a historic and moral responsibility for Auschwitz which had left an indelible sign on it.

It was Germany’s responsibility to promote peaceful cooperation and confidence-building in the new world in order to prevent another genocide against mankind.  This included working against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Effective multilateralism was the safest way to reach this goal.  The Conference on Disarmament had been given an important mandate by the United Nations.  He strongly appealed to all the Member States to undertake renewed efforts to fulfil their responsibility.

MR. SANDERS said that the world this week was marking the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the many other camps that fell to the Allied Forces in the winter and spring of 1945.  The United Nations was created to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to ensure that the horrors of these camps would never re-occur.  He emphasized that disarmament was crucial to the ongoing efforts to build confidence, and eventually significantly improve relations among States, in order to honour these commitments of the United Nations founding fathers.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) expressed his satisfaction at what he hoped would be the adoption of the Conference’s new agenda after a fruitful debate which was required by the rules of procedure.  Algeria looked forward to the 2005 session at a time when international circumstances did not make it optimistic.  The world today faced among other things increased stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, proliferation of weapons in outer space, and international terrorism.  Member States had a duty to react in a multilateral framework to provide a suitable solution to this sad state of affairs.

The Algerian representative said that on the issue of nuclear disarmament, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the cornerstone and its universality must be ensured.  In the NPT Review Conference, 13 steps had been spelt out to reduce nuclear arsenals to pave the way to general disarmament.  It was regrettable to note that to date, these 13 steps remained dead letters and no progress had been made.  The risk of nuclear proliferation and the seriousness if international terrorists obtained nuclear weapons was a serious concern.  Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were two aspects of the NPT which were mutually dependant.  He welcomed steps taken by certain regions to declare them free of nuclear weapons.  However, he regretted that it was not possible for the Middle East to do so as Israel refused to join the NPT and to open its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Algeria was in favour of agreeing on a binding, non-discriminatory legal instrument to cover both the future production and the stockpiles of fissile materials, Mr. Jazairy said.  This instrument should have multilateral verification methods.  Also, the issue of the militarization of outer space was another source of concern as it jeopardized international peace and security.  Algeria urged that outer space be reserved for peaceful uses and called for a subsidiary body to conduct negotiations on all issues which required multilateral solutions which took into account the concerns of all.

In conclusion, Ambassador Jazairy said that it was a pity that the Conference had been paralysed because of the lack of consensus on the programme of work.  The Five Ambassadors initiative had the support of the majority of the delegations and provided the best basis on reaching a consensus on the programme of work.  The proposal remained open to all suggestions and amendments.  Algeria still supported this proposal and hoped that the presidential consultations would conclude with a consensus on the basis of the proposal.  Disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were not an end in themselves, but the ultimate goal was the preservation of mankind and human civilization.  However, he noted that a lasting solution could not be achieved without tackling the economic situation because of extreme poverty and marginalization.  The international community should create a more just and stable world.

* *** *