RUSSIA, INDIA, ALGERIA, POLAND, TURKEY ADDRESS DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

 

ON NUCLEAR, OTHER ISSUES

Conference Opens Second Part of 2005 Session

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 2 June, (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament today opened the second part of its 2005 session, hearing addresses from the Russian Federation on nuclear terrorism, India on nuclear non-proliferation, Algeria on the result of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the impasse facing the Conference on Disarmament, and from Poland and Turkey on the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu of Nigeria, the President of the Conference, spoke about the results of his consultations during the intersessional period.  He noted that the seventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which concluded in New York last week, appeared to have further widened the gap between the positions held by the delegations in the Conference on Disarmament.  However, he urged Member States not to be frustrated or deterred by the failure of the Review Conference but to seize this opportunity to be more committed and yet flexible enough to enable them to break the jinx and reach a consensus on a work programme in the Conference on Disarmament.  He said he intended to continue his consultations with a view to identifying any window of opportunity.

Ambassador Leonid Skotnikov of the Russian Federation drew the attention of the Conference to the adoption, on April 13, by the General Assembly of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.  He said the convention would facilitate uniting States in their fight against the challenges to civilization coming from terrorists and called on all States to sign and ratify it.  The Russian Federation was convinced that the Conference on Disarmament could contribute to fighting international terrorism by adopting at the earliest possible moment a balanced programme of work, which would enable it, inter alia, to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).

Ambassador Jayant Prasad of India informed the Conference about the passage in both houses of the Indian Parliament, on 13 May, of the Bill on Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery System (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities).  This bill was illustrative of India’s abiding commitment to prevent nuclear proliferation.  India had taken steps to underline that its nuclear policy was one of restraint, responsibility, predictability, transparency and defensive orientation, and it had an unblemished non-proliferation record.

Mr. Hamza Khelif of Algeria said the task of the President of the Conference was very difficult, given the present international context and the dismal result of the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The outcome of the seventh NPT Review Conference, which concluded on 27 May, was frustrating for the international community as a whole.  The question of nuclear disarmament and the freeing of mankind from this lethal weapon was the foremost priority that the world must strive to achieve so as to strengthen its security.  Algeria hoped that the President of the Conference would continue with his consultations to reach an agreement on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work based on the “A5” proposal and the ideas that had been raised after it.

Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland said that he wished to take the floor on the occasion of the second anniversary of the launching of the Proliferation Security Initiative, also known as the Krakow Initiative.  The aim of the initiative, presented by the President of the United States in Krakow on 31 May 2003, was to advance international cooperation in relation to the interdiction of shipments of weapons of mass destruction and materials required to develop such weapons to State and non-State actors of proliferation concern.  The initiative had grown to a global dimension and today, more than 60 countries from all over the world had expressed their readiness to support it.

Ambassador Türkekul Kurttekin of Turkey said that since Turkey had announced its support for the Proliferation Security Initiative, it had followed very closely and supported all activities conducted within its framework, including prevention exercises.  Turkey aimed to increase its contribution to the initiative in coming years and, in this context, it had been decided to hold a joint land, air and sea exercise in 2006 in the east Mediterranean, under Turkey’s auspices and lead.

The President of the Conference extended his cordial welcome to Ambassador Alberto Dumont of Argentina and Ambassador Nyunt Maung Shein of Myanmar, who had recently assumed their responsibilities as representatives of their Governments to the Conference.  In response, Ambassador Shein said he fully appreciated the warm words of welcome and assured the President of Myanmar’s fullest support.  He said he looked forward to working closely with other distinguished colleagues in the Conference.  Mr. Marcelo Vallefonrouge of Argentina, speaking on behalf of Ambassador Dumont, congratulated Ambassador Ayalogu on assuming the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament.  He expressed his thanks to the warm welcome extended by the President on behalf of the Conference to the new Ambassador.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 9 June 2005.

Statements

JOSEPH AYALOGU (Nigeria), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in his opening statement, he had committed himself to continue and build on the momentum set by his predecessors since the beginning of the year.  He had indicated that if there were no positive responses to the “food for thought” non-paper in two weeks, he would focus the search light for the programme of work based on the A5 programme.  He had consulted with 22 delegations and wished to share his observations with the Conference.  Most of the delegations were enthusiastic and eager for the Conference to address the four core issues.  However, they expressed fears that it might be practically difficult or impossible to take up the four core issues simultaneously.  There were, therefore, suggestions that consideration be given to scheduling, which should be part of an agreement on a work programme.  The A5 still enjoyed the support of most of the delegations consulted, although many expressed concern that it might not achieve consensus because of a tiny number of delegations which were not in a position to join consensus.  Since the A5 was unable to achieve consensus, these countries remained flexible and would be able to work with the “food for thought” non-paper.  A few delegations had indicated that they were not in a position to join consensus on either the A5 or the “food for thought” non-paper. 

This was the outcome of his consultations before he left Geneva to attend the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York.  The Review Conference appeared to have further widened the gap between the positions held by the delegations.  The Review Conference itself was a complete failure.  In statements by several delegations to the Review Conference, the Conference on Disarmament had been urged to overcome its impasse and address the security challenges before it by agreeing on a work programme and establishing subsidiary bodies on the core issues.  The question now was what the Conference on Disarmament should do in order to continue to perform its functions and remain relevant.  He urged the Member States of the Conference on Disarmament not to be frustrated or deterred by the failure of the Review Conference but to seize this opportunity to be more committed and yet flexible enough to enable them to break the jinx and reach a consensus on a work programme.  He intended to continue his consultations with a view to identifying any window of opportunity.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) drew the attention of the Conference to the adoption, on April 13, by the General Assembly of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.  He said that scientific and technological progress, use of its achievements by terrorism, emergence of the so-called high-tech terrorism, and the man threat -- risk of mastering by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction, genetic engineering, biotechnogenic and information technologies -- made international terrorism as dangerous as never before.  The global character of the terrorist threat confirmed that security in the modern world was indivisible, and, hence, the fight against security threats must be collective. 

Ambassador Skotnikov said the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was worked out on the basis of the draft introduced by Russia in 1997.  This was the first universal treaty aimed at preventing terrorist acts of mass destruction and it would be implemented in close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The new convention would facilitate uniting States in their fight against the challenges to civilization coming from terrorists.  Russia called on all States to sign and ratify the new Convention. 

The Russian Federation was convinced that the Conference on Disarmament could contribute to fighting international terrorism by adopting, at the earliest possible moment, a balanced programme of work, which would enable it, inter alia, to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).  Cutting-off and prohibiting production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices would not only strengthen the non-proliferation regime but would also be an effective measure to suppress attempts of international terrorism to get access to such materials.  The stalemate in the Conference was caused by the positions of the States.  The adoption of the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism proved that if States had a political will, it was absolutely feasible to reach collective consensus decisions on the most topical issues of international security.  

JAYANT PRASAD (India) informed the Conference about the passage in both houses of the Indian Parliament, on 13 May, of the Bill on Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery System (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities).  It was now awaiting Presidential assent, and it would then be notified as an Act.  This legislation continued, codified and widened policies and regulations which had been the hallmarks of India’s ongoing vocation to ensure safety, security and the strictest possible controls on a variety of goods and technologies related to weapons of mass destruction.  India’s system of export controls remained under continuous review and it would continue to update these controls whenever necessary to do so.

Ambassador Prasad said the bill was illustrative of India’s abiding commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.  It also fulfilled the requirement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540.  It sought, among other things, to prohibit individuals from dealing with weapons of mass destruction in any form, including manufacturing, transporting, possessing, exporting and brokering.  While introducing the Bill in the Indian Parliament, Foreign Minister K. Natwar Singh reiterated India’s commitment to safeguard its security as a nuclear weaponState.  He said this, in no way, diminished India’s commitment to the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world. 

India had taken steps to underline that its nuclear policy was one of restraint, responsibility, predictability, transparency and defensive orientation, and it had an unblemished non-proliferation record.  The strict regulation of external transfers and tight controls to prevent internal leakages should give confidence to the international community about India’s commitment and ability to fully secure the technology, equipment or material available to it. 

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said the task of the President of the Conference was very difficult, given the present international context and the dismal result of the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The Conference on Disarmament, which was seeking to achieve positive results, was taking place in a very difficult atmosphere.  The outcome of the seventh NPT Review Conference, which concluded on 27 May, was frustrating for the international community as a whole.  Instead of providing an opportunity to strengthen earlier gains in nuclear disarmament, the Review Conference did not make any positive steps forward in this area.  The question of nuclear disarmament and the freeing of mankind from this lethal weapon was the foremost priority that the world must strive to achieve so as to strengthen its security.  The arms race, in particular the nuclear arms race, was a source of great concern.  As the international community had unanimously declared in the final document of the Special Session of the General Assembly in 1978, this race was preventing the attainment of the objectives of the UN Charter and ran counter to its principles.  In fact, this document remained the practical and serious framework for nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Khelif said it was hoped that nuclear weapons States would consider means of implementing the commitments that they entered into so as to put an end to the existence of nuclear weapons, thus also implementing the commitments they entered into under the sixth article of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.  The lesson learned from the seventh Review Conference was that the unilateral framework for dangerous issues affecting international security and peace, based on national interests, would never lead to a solution which satisfied all sides.  Algeria’s conviction had been strengthened that the multilateral framework was the sole framework to address the issue of nuclear disarmament in an exhaustive and definitive manner.  Though its specific mandate, the Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate framework for such negotiations. 

Algeria hoped that the President of the Conference would continue with his consultations to reach an agreement on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work based on the A5 proposal and the ideas that had been raised after it on the four main issues, which were nuclear weapons disarmament, negative security assurances, prohibition of fissile materials in keeping with the mandate of the Special Coordinator or the Shannon mandate, and the limitation of an arms race in outer space.  Algeria hoped that delegations would show the necessary flexibility and political will.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said he wished to take the floor on the occasion of the second anniversary of the launching of the Proliferation Security Initiative, also known as the Krakow Initiative.  The aim of the initiative, present by the President of the United States in Krakow on 31 May 2003, was to advance international cooperation in relation to the interdiction of shipments of weapons of mass destruction and materials required to develop such weapons to State and non-State actors of proliferation concern.  The core of the initiative consisted of voluntary activities of countries.  The initiative had grown to a global dimension and today, more than 60 countries from all over the world had expressed their readiness to support it.  Poland had been active in the initiative’s development since its very outset.  To date, Poland had organized an information exchange meeting for all Central and East European countries, a ground exercise in Wroclaw, and a meeting in Krakow for more than 60 countries to mark the first anniversary.  These days, in Ostrava, Poland and the Czech Republic were conducting the “Bohemian Guard” exercise.  In 2006, Poland planned to conduct an international sea exercise in the Baltic.

Ambassador Rapacki said Poland regretted that the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not able to address the most important issues relevant to today’s international security.  Poland firmly supported the NPT regime and wished to see it further strengthened.  Poland would also spare no efforts to find progress in the Conference on Disarmament.  The world could not allow the multilateral disarmament bodies to stand still, and had to look for ways to overcome the stalemate.  There was no time to waste and every effort should be made to strengthen the disarmament and non-proliferation regime and make the Conference work again.

TÜRKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said that since the inception of the Proliferation Security Initiative, there had been significant developments related to it.  The number of countries that had announced their support for the initiative had exceeded 60.  In addition, the “statement of interdiction rules” which constituted the basic text of the initiative and outlined the measures to be taken, had been adopted.  Since Turkey had announced its support for the initiative, it had followed very closely and supported all activities conducted within its framework, including prevention exercises.  Turkey aimed to increase its contribution to the initiative in coming years and in this context, it had been decided to hold a joint land, air and sea exercise in 2006 in the east Mediterranean, under Turkey’s auspices and lead.

* *** *