Sixty-first General Assembly

First Committee

5^th Meeting (AM)

UNITED STATES TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE 2006 ‘WATERSHED’, AS SECURITY COUNCIL,

AFTER LONG DELAY, TAKES UP THREATS POSED BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA

 

Middle East Nuclear Danger, Non-Proliferation Double Standards,

Security Guarantees for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States among Other Issues

As the First Committee continued its general debate this morning, the representative of the United States told delegates that 2006 might well prove to be a “watershed year” in disarmament and non-proliferation, since, after far too many years of inaction, the Security Council had finally begun to address the threats posed by the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

She said that the Security Council had adopted resolution 1696, which demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment activity, and the deadline for compliance was 31 August.  Iran’s failure to comply with the Security Council resolution provided a clear mandate for adopting a chapter VII sanctions resolution.  The positive and constructive choice was for the Iranian regime to alter its present course.  On the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said that her Government was seriously concerned about that announcement of a nuclear test, adding that such a test would only bring it further isolation, would not be in the interests of its people and would “pose a threat to peace and security in Asia and the world”.

Israel’s representative said that since the entry into force of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), four significant cases of non-compliance had been formally acknowledged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Three had taken place in the Middle East region in States that had not recognized Israel, one of which -– Iran -– openly called for Israel’s elimination.  Iran continued to develop its nuclear programme regardless of Security Council resolutions and was also a source of proliferation for sensitive components of conventional and weapons of mass destruction programmes.  It openly armed and supported terrorist organizations, such as Hizbollah, assisted by Syria.  She added that such urgent threats, such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, must be dealt with first before striving to achieve long-term objectives like nuclear disarmament and identifying the root causes of terrorism. 

Pakistan’s representative told the Committee that it was essential to address the motives that drove States to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  Multilateralism was not a simple aggregation of national interests; it was the sum of “enlightened self-interest” and as such required monitoring, verification and compliance.  The confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme could be resolved peacefully.  The resort to coercion or, worse, the use of force could have grave consequences. 

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community, expressed concern about the “total lack of progress on the part of nuclear-weapon States in arriving at the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals” and called for a universal, legally binding instrument security in which those States would provide assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.  He also called for a ban on the trans-shipment of hazardous materials through the Caribbean Sea, noting that the risk of an accident or a terrorist attack on one of those shipments posed a grave threat to the region.

The representative of the Holy See said that much better dialogue was needed in the disarmament fora of the United Nations.  At present, the debate seemed to remain sterile, and too often debates over small arms and nuclear weapons were carried on in abstract terms from preconceived positions, with little sign of a willingness to learn.

The representative of Lesotho drew attention to the problem of landmines.  Noting that Africa was the most heavily mined continent, he said that one of the most difficult factors impeding economic recovery was the infestation of millions of acres of land by mines, which prevented the development of such land.  He urged countries that had not yet done so to become parties to the treaty on anti-personnel landmines.

Speaking in exercise of its right of reply, the representative of Iran called the Israel’s allegations “unsubstantiated” and said the Israeli regime had continuously violated international laws and norms, not to mention United Nations resolutions, specifically on nuclear issues, with the help of the United States.  Its baseless allegations indicated that those who put Iran under unreasonable pressure were trying to serve the interests of the illegal Israeli regime.

Statements in the debate were also made by representatives of Morocco, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, Myanmar, Lebanon, Sudan, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Jamaica, and Fiji.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply was the representative of Syria.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 6 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its general debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items.

Statements

MIRIAM ZIV ( Israel) said the international community had taken two major approaches to promoting peace and security through multilateralism.  The first was of a more ideological character and had the long term objective of creating a safer world.  The second approach was of a more defensive and realistic character, aimed at discerning the most urgent threats and finding the most appropriate remedy for them.  The question of nuclear disarmament and of identifying the root causes of terrorism belonged to the first track, while the strict and responsible export control over sensitive technologies and a ban on transfer of weapons to terrorists belonged to the second.  It was clear that striving to achieve long-term goals without first identifying the real and present threats would not be effective.

She said that two main issues must be considered the highest priorities for international peace and stability.  Those were terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.  The risks to regional and global stability due to those two evils had reached unprecedented levels in the current year.  Hizbollah, a terrorist organization armed with advanced and sophisticated weaponry, targeted towns and villages in a neighbouring State, with the deliberate goal of killing as many civilians as possible.  It had proven to be an immediate strategic threat not only to Israel, but also to others.  Its intention, and the intention of those countries supporting it, had been to destabilize the region.  Through their actions, they had been responsible for thousands of innocent casualties and had brought the region to the brink of full-scale war.

She said that other terrorist organizations would almost certainly follow suit and acquire man-portable air defence systems, rockets and sophisticated missiles from States supporting terrorism.  “The international community, including civil society, needs to find answers to these threats, rather than merely limiting the victim’s rights to defend itself”, she said.  Special efforts were needed to prevent the transfer of any type of weapons and military equipment to terrorist groups.  A cautious approach should be taken towards arms transactions with States supporting terrorism.  Those States should be accountable for the assistance they gave to Hizbollah.  The full implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions should be a prerequisite for future arms sales to those countries.  Failing to properly address the issue of support to terrorism could create a dangerous precedent.

She said that since the entry into force of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), four significant cases of non-compliance had been formally acknowledged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Three of them took place in the region, in states that did not recognize Israel, one of which openly called for Israel’s elimination.  That country, Iran, continued to develop its nuclear programme regardless of Security Council resolutions and was a source of proliferation for sensitive components of conventional and weapons of mass destruction programmes.  It openly armed and supported terrorist organizations, first and foremost Hizbollah, assisted in that sponsorship by Syria.  Attempts to disregard reality and to delay the implementation of necessary measures had proven to be the wrong approach.

She said that many attempts had been made to deal with the main threats to international peace and security through Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and programs.  Had those tools been fully implemented, they could have prevented the latest conflict in the region and could prevent future ones as well.  To advance the goals of safety and stability, the international community not only needed to draft solutions, but also, as difficult as it might be, guarantee their implementation.

LOTFI BOUCHAARA (Morocco), aligning with the statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that, while 2006 had not seen an end to the series of failures in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, there was no point in making an exhaustive list of such failures.  More significant was the scepticism in civil society regarding genuine political will to take up those great challenges.  Although it had been customary to refer to the obsolete nature of the Committee’s working methods, that merely overlooked the “essence of things” -- the wearing down of civil society’s confidence in the process.  Results would have to become part of the Committee’s objectives and essential questions would need to be raised: what collective goals could be achieved?  What was the meaning of collective action? Moreover, what was the common perspective of the world in which the international community wished to live?

He said that there were obvious truths to be confronted, including the fact that disarmament and non-proliferation could not be disassociated.  Further, there was a need to rehabilitate the main international instruments of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Most significant of those was the NPT, which despite its inadequacies, had been able to place controls on proliferation and laid down parameters for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  In order to make progress, achievements needed to be consolidated including the NPT, and the Review Conferences of 1995 and 2000.

Multilateralism was the best way to achieve general and complete disarmament, he said.  Regional dimensions were likewise fundamental for international security.  Each State needed to defend itself, as stated in the United Nations charter, but it was disturbing that military expenditures in 2006 exceeded $1.12 trillion.

Morocco was deeply devoted to dialogue and the peaceful settlement of disputes, he said.  To ensure security in the Mediterranean area, on the southern flank, the creation of a united Maghreb where sovereignty was respected, was necessary. In the Middle East, a Palestinian State was needed.  Israel must also adhere to NPT and IAEA safeguards.  Furthermore, Morocco was a Member of the governing council of IAEA.  It was also party to The Hague Code of Conduct on non-proliferation of anti-ballistic missiles and would work toward the universalization of that Code.  The issue of illicit trade of small arms was also crucial and had to be addressed urgently.  It had a disastrous effect on the African continent, as well as on the economic development of the countries concerned, he noted.

MARIA-ALICIA TERRAZAS ONTIVEROS (Bolivia) aligned with the statement made by the Non-Aligned Movement and said that though 60 years had passed since resolution 41/1 had been adopted, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction continued to be a source of uneasiness.  The number of countries in possession of them had increased and thousands of nuclear weapons had spread to unstable regions.  Non-state actors could also acquire them.  In the past six decades, the gap between rich and poor had grown deeper, while the threat of weapons of mass destruction had grown.  “Why had the magnitude of threats not convinced everyone to move forward urgently and decisively?” she asked.

The first step in disarmament would be the universal participation of the NPT, and the commitment by all parties to strictly comply with it, she said.  Global action was not the only way to succeed in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, but inclusion and participation were crucial.

There had been some hopeful signs, she noted, including the 2005 Secretary-General’s annual report showing that, since August 2005, progress had been made in verifying the regime of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Bolivia had joined the CTBT and ratified it in 1999.  Establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones were also important to nuclear disarmament.  Since 1967, Latin America and the Caribbean had joined in their vision of a world without nuclear weapons and, as such, her Government was pleased to see the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia last September. In line with its pacifist tradition, Bolivia would continue to support nuclear-weapon-free zones.  On the multifaceted problem of small arms, she noted that its humanitarian consequences meant Bolivia needed to step up its efforts in regulating them.  Transnational organized crime was also problematic and certain initiatives to address it had already been taken in cooperation with other countries in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR).

CHRISTINA ROCCA ( United States) said she hoped the Committee’s Bureau would lead Member States in securing the General Assembly’s endorsement of the agenda clusters adopted by consensus in the Committee in 2004.  She also wished to recall for delegations the difficulties created by the recent Secretariat practice of presenting Programme Budget Implication Statements orally, rather than in written form, and respectfully called on the Secretariat to ensure that such statements, even when they reported no additional spending, were circulated sufficiently in advance to permit delegations to assess them properly.

She said that Governments in the future might well view 2006 as a watershed year.  After far too many years of inaction, the Security Council finally began to address the threats posed by the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Also, the Conference on Disarmament, which had spent most of the past decade on fruitless procedural wrangling, had devoted itself to serious substantive discussions.  From that development, it could be concluded that the Conference on Disarmament did not need to establish subsidiary bodies in order to examine in depth all issues of interest to its Member States and that a fissile material cut-off treaty was the only item before the Conference that was ripe for negotiation.

The early negotiation by the Conference on Disarmament of a fissile material cut-off treaty was particularly important because the world community today faced no greater security challenge than the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery.  In the hands of rouge States or terrorists, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons could inflict massive harm.  To that end, the United States had taken the lead in offering a treaty that should lead to negotiations.

She said the United States was devoting significant resources to such programmes as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programme, and challenged other nations to match that commitment.  The United States contributed more than $1 billion a year towards threat reduction and non-proliferation programmes.  It worked closely with the Russian Federation to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and eliminate excess weapons-grade material, and in July had launched, with that country’s President, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. 

She said that the nuclear non-proliferation regime continued to face significant challenges from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran.  In both instances, her Government was pursuing multilateral diplomacy to address the challenges.  Her country was seriously concerned about Tuesday’s announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that it intended to undertake a nuclear test.  She called on all five members of the six-party talks and the Security Council to exert every effort to persuade the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that testing a nuclear weapon would only bring it further isolation and would not be in the interest of its people.  “A North Korean test of a nuclear weapon would severely undermine our confidence in North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization and to the six-party talks and would pose a threat to peace and security in Asia and the world.”

In the case of Iran, on 31 July the Security Council adopted resolution 1626, which demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment activity and called upon it to take steps the IAEA Board deemed necessary.  The deadline for compliance was 31 August.  Iran’s failure to comply with Security Council resolution 1696 gave a clear mandate to adopt a chapter VII sanctions resolution.  The positive and constructive choice was for the Iranian regime to alter its present course and comply with resolution 1696.  She expressed deep disappointment that the Asian Group had designated Iran as a vice-chair of the Disarmament Commission last April and that the Middle East and South Asia Group in Vienna had designated Iran as a vice-chair of the General Committee at the IAEA General Conference last month.  Treating Tehran as a member in good standing of the community of nations sent that regime and the international community precisely the wrong message about Iran’s continued disregard for its NPT and IAEA obligations.

MICHEL KAFANDO ( Burkina Faso) said that his Government aligned itself with statements made on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group.  Global military spending in 2006 amounted to $1.12 trillion, while more than 10 million children under the age of 5 were dying from hunger every year.  More than 25 million had died from AIDS in the last 25 years.  Those were statistics that should serve to challenge the international community’s collective consciousness.

Multiple recent failures to reach consensus in the field of disarmament had shown that the world was not at peace with itself, despite increased hopes at the end of the cold war.  A healthy jolt was imperative and urgent.  That jolt should be based on multilateralism, universal law and mutual confidence on the bilateral and global levels.  The NPT stood at the heart of non-proliferation regime.  On the nuclear crisis in Iran and the Korean Peninsula, it was necessary that solutions be negotiated that respected both the parties’ interests and international law.

On conventional weapons, he noted that commitment and determination were needed to overcome their scourge in the Sudan.  They fuelled conflict, transnational organized crime and all types of illicit trafficking.  The Sudan had been a beneficiary of the services of the United Nations Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Togo.  Though that centre was going through a period of turbulence, his Government wished to see it revitalized.

Burkina Faso had, in recent years, strengthened its legal bodies and instruments in the disarmament sphere, he said.  A National Commission to prevent the trade of light weapons had been established, as well as a national authority that banned nuclear testing.  On the international level, it was imperative that there be a global convention which offered countries without nuclear weapons a climate of confidence.  The First Committee faced a choice of continuing the state of deadlock or opening up the doors to a safe world.  “Let’s make the right choice”, he concluded.

CESAR E. MARTINEZ FLORES ( El Salvador) expressed concern over stagnation in the field of disarmament and the lack of agreement during the current year, specifically at the Small Arms Conference.  He was confident that the international community would re-channel its efforts to keep that topic alive.  Multilateralism was the way to find viable solutions in disarmament and non-proliferation.  If concerns existed at all levels on those issues, it was particularly complex for small States to find solutions.

As a member of the Peacebuilding Commission, he was sure that body would offer solid support to the work of disarming and demobilizing ex-combatants.  He applauded the efforts of the European Union to structure measures to that end.  In Central America, the issue of eradicating landmines had not gone away.  All affected countries were committed to that goal.  Definitive eradication meant strengthening action against mines and contributing to the efforts that had already been made.  It was also important to pay attention to the survivors of anti-personnel landmine accidents. 

He said El Salvador awaited the preparatory work of the Review Conference on the NPT planned for first semester of 2007.  That Treaty was also closely linked to nuclear disarmament and would hopefully achieve progress in both areas.  He also expressed concern over the 3 October declaration by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that it would carry out nuclear tests.

MASOOD KHAN ( Pakistan) said that the Charter recognized “security” as the right of every State.  A cooperative approach to collective security and a rule-based international order was its best guarantee.  National means or restrictive groups, however powerful, could not assure international security.  It was essential to address the motives that drove States to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  Those motives included disputes and conflicts with powerful States, perceived threats from superior conventional and non-conventional forces, and discrimination in the application of international laws.  Pakistan had proposed convening a special conference to evolve a new consensus on disarmament and non-proliferation, one that responded to the current and emerging realities.  Such a conference should eliminate double standards, revive the commitment to complete nuclear disarmament, establish non-discriminatory standards for peaceful nuclear cooperation and normalize the relationship between the NPT regime and the three nuclear-weapon States that were not part of it.

He said that efforts should be stepped up to defuse regional tensions and resolve conflicts in the Middle East as well as create a nuclear-weapon-free zone there.  The confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme could be resolved peacefully.  The resort to coercion or, worse, the use of force could lead to grave consequences.  The announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of its intention to conduct a nuclear weapons test was a matter of deep concern.  He urged the country to desist from introducing nuclear weapons into the Korean peninsula.

He said that the sole purpose of Pakistan’s nuclear capability was to deter external aggression and its strategic posture to maintain a credible minimum nuclear deterrence reflected restraint and responsibility.  Pakistan would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States.  It was against a nuclear or conventional arms race in South Asia and had taken a series of measures to ensure responsible stewardship of its nuclear programme.  Since early 2004, it had pursued an engagement with India to build confidence and promote strategic stability.  In addition, Pakistan also had a legitimate requirement for nuclear power generation to meet the energy needs of its expanding economy.  It would continue to develop nuclear technology for power generation under strict IAEA safeguards and would not accept discrimination.

He said that the focus on weapons of mass destruction should not divert attention from the need to regulate and reduce conventional arms and armed forces.  In South Asia, a stable balance of conventional forces was needed to ensure strategic stability between Pakistan and India.  There must be restraint in both the supply and the demand of conventional weapons.  Massive induction of sophisticated weaponry would accentuate conventional asymmetries and compel greater reliance on nuclear and missile deterrence.

He said that multilateralism was not a simple aggregation of national interests.  No such aggregation was possible given the varied interests of States.  Multilateralism was the sum of “enlightened self-interest” and entailed cooperation and agreement for monitoring, verification and compliance.

U THAUNG TUN ( Myanmar) said that there was a glaring lack of tangible results in disarmament, which cast a shadow over the Committee’s work.  He expressed deep concern over the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and the Disarmament Commission’s inability to agree on a substantive agenda, but reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the threat of those weapons.  Myanmar had tabled a comprehensive draft resolution calling upon nuclear-weapon States to undertake a step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat.  Those measures should be irreversible, verifiable and transparent so that the international community could gain confidence.

He also said that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, it was necessary to pursue efforts towards the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally-binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.

In full support of nuclear-weapon-free zones, Myanmar was party to the South-East Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone established in 1995, and welcomed the recent signing of the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty in Central Asia.  Strengthening the global nuclear disarmament regime also meant the required entry into force of the CTBT, he noted.  Preventing the weaponization of outer space was, likewise, an important concern.  He was encouraged both by the resolution on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space sponsored by Egypt and Sri Lanka, and the resolution on Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities sponsored by the Russian Federation.  While focus on weapons of mass destruction was maintained, there was also an urgent need to address the issue of small arms.  He shared the Secretary-General’s view that there was too much to lose from the collapse of multilateral efforts in disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control.  Failure could not be an option.

PHILIP SEALY (Trinidad and Tobago), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that greater political will was needed, particularly on the part of nuclear-weapon States, to bridge the widening gap in non-proliferation and disarmament and to promote stricter respect for the legal obligations of the NPT.  Non-nuclear-weapon States continued to face threats from nuclear-weapon States.  For that reason, CARICOM supported the Non-Aligned Movement’s call for a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.  Such an instrument would build confidence and promote a more stable order globally, particularly in those parts of the world where tensions with a potential for escalation persisted.

He said that CARICOM Member States had not yet fully implemented Security Council resolution 1540, which required all States to enact and enforce effective domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, and material to non-state actors and others.  He called upon the international community to provide the necessary assistance to help CARICOM Member States to implement the resolution.

He said that he was concerned at the slow pace toward complete nuclear disarmament and the “total lack of progress on the part of nuclear weapon States in arriving at the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals”.  Deep and irreversible cuts in such stockpiles would substantially reduce the threats to the very existence of humanity posed by such weapons.  He also urged all State parties to the NPT who were exercising their rights to the peaceful use of nuclear technology to conclude the broadest possible safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

He said the trans-shipment of hazardous materials through the Caribbean Sea was an extremely critical issue that was never afforded the attention it deserved.  The risk of an accident or a terrorist attack on one of those shipments posed a grave threat, not only to the environment and to economic and social development but also to the very existence of States in the Caribbean.  He reiterated the call for a total cessation of such shipments in those waters.  Greater attention also needed to be paid to the issue of liability and compensatory mechanisms in the event of an accident and called for that gap in the IAEA regime to be addressed. 

On the matter of small arms, he was deeply disappointed at the inability of the Review Conference to agree on measures to move the process forward, given the negative impact which the illicit trafficking of small arms was having on internal security within his region.  Equally concerning was the unrestrained sale and transfer of conventional weapons.  There was an urgent need for strict transfer controls to contribute to political stability and peace and security in countries throughout the world.

REINA CHARBEL ( Lebanon) stressed the importance of disarmament in view of regional conflicts that employed conventional weapons of all sorts, international terrorism and the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and signs of a new arms race.  The importance of disarmament, unfortunately, did not correspond to good results achieved in international fora such as the review conferences on the small arms programme of action and the NPT.

She said that the present situation in the field of disarmament should be an incentive for the Committee to make its work more effective.  Her country was located in a region where regional conflicts multiplied and both conventional and non-conventional weapons caused many problems.  It was highly important to keep disarmament questions within the disarmament framework since proliferation affected all countries.  Nuclear proliferation should not be ignored.  Lebanon supported a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  Israel was the only country that possessed such weapons and had not acceded to any multilateral framework.

She said small arms must also be dealt with.  The multilateral mechanism was not dealing with the roots of conflicts and foreign occupations nor was it dealing with the use of prohibited weapons from which Lebanon had suffered so greatly during Israel’s latest aggression.  The problem of landmines remained a daily concern for Lebanon, a result of the previous and new occupations by Israel, which refused to provide mine maps.  Lebanon had placed a priority on development and had decreased its military expenditures.

ABDUL HAHMOUD ( Sudan) said that the Sudan had been able to end one of the longest conflicts in its history with the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on 5 May.  Disarmament, demobilization and the reintegration of society were now all priorities.  His Government’s efforts were devoted to development and reconstruction.

Regarding disarmament, the world was seeing many changes both regionally and internationally, he continued.  Multilateral work needed to be strengthened to deal with nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid an imbalance of force and the discrimination between States -– those with nuclear weapons and those without.  Despite the non-proliferation efforts of some, other countries continued to grow their arsenals.  Despite all the protocols in place, there was a majority in the United Nations that saw an inequity regarding the treatment of disarmament, thereby reinforcing doubt in the effectiveness of the non-proliferation regime.  Moreover, effectiveness was not a product of the number of signatures, but of confidence.

While budgets for Millennium Development Goals such as the alleviation of poverty and sustainable development had decreased, there had been an increase in military expenditures, he said.  That great imbalance could only be addressed if the nuclear powers took swift and energetic measures to reduce their arsenals.  Sudan supported international instruments which offered guarantees to all those who did not have nuclear capacities, while maintaining the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  Sudan also reaffirmed the need to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones.  Enflamed areas, and the Middle East in particular, needed to be declared nuclear-weapon-free zones, he added, but that could not be achieved if Israel refused IAEA safeguards.  That rejection was a real threat to all.

Sudan was a real partner in the international efforts of disarmament, he said.  It was among the first to join several international instruments, including the NPT.  Khartoum had been the first to host a meeting of African bodies to apply the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).  On small arms, his Government had also contributed by participating in all regional workshops.  The small arms trade was an issue of absolute priority, he noted, as the Sudan suffered greatly from it.  It possessed tribal, economic and cultural dimensions as well.  Small arms were often part of the ritual among certain groups and that made control difficult.  He called for countries that manufactured those weapons to refrain from supplying them, while asking for technical support for countries that were moving from states of conflict to states of peace.

DANIELE BODINI ( San Marino) said that he was disappointed at the failure to produce positive results at the NPT Review Conference and at the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference.  San Marino, similar to many small and medium-size countries, had to rely mainly on international agreements for its protection.  In fact, the United Nations and the First Committee were its first line of defence.

He said the world was facing deadly challenges, such as the increasing risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists, the illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology and the lack of compliance of some countries.  It was imperative to re-energize the First Committee and to find practical measures to achieve global security. 

He urged the few remaining countries that had not ratified the CTBT to do so.  The current Committee session’s legacy should be the achievement of fair and positive solutions to disarmament and to all the other troublesome issues that threatened the very survival of the human race.

EHAB M. AL-NAJJAR ( Saudi Arabia) said that the silence of the international community and double standards were impeding international mechanisms and paralyzing disarmament bodies.  The failure of the NPT Review Conference should not discourage efforts at constructive participation.  His country was committed to strengthening disarmament efforts and had joined treaties such as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention), the Chemical Weapons Convention and the NPT.  It also continued to work with the 1540 Committee.

He said that Saudi Arabia had adopted all possible measures to fight illicit small arms trafficking.  The small arms Programme of Action was the main point of reference for fighting against small arms and it was regrettable that the recent conference had failed to adopt a final document.

He said that the lack of progress in making the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone was due primarily to Israel’s refusal to join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA system safeguards.  It was the only country in the region not to take that step despite efforts to create a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East including in the Persian Gulf.  That double standard was of concern to the countries in the region. 

He stressed the right of States to pursue nuclear expertise for peaceful energy uses and called for a negotiated settlement to the Iranian nuclear issue.  Iran had always said its programme was for peaceful purposes.

VILMA MCNISH ( Jamaica) said that there was a huge gap between the rhetoric and the practical efforts to achieve genuine progress in the strengthening of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  She reaffirmed that the cornerstone and bedrock of the non-proliferation regime was the NPT.  Though recent developments had undermined the Treaty, urgent and firm steps were needed to restore the integrity of and confidence in the Treaty.  Those steps included achieving further irreversible cuts in nuclear arsenals, ensuring more effective compliance measures, and reducing the threat of proliferation not only to States, but to non-state actors. 

While underscoring the right of all States to peaceful uses of nuclear technology, she insisted that those rights be accompanied by the commitment and obligation to comply with the verification and safeguards of the IAEA.  She reiterated the importance of the universality of the NPT, while calling on the three States currently outside the NPT framework, to accede to it and place their facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

Referring to the nuclear-weapon-free zone in Latin America, she noted that it had served the region well, and should be replicated in other regions.  She welcomed the new nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and called for the establishment of one in the Middle East.  On the CTBT, she was pleased by the recent ratification of Viet Nam, but urged ratification by the Annex II countries so that it enter into force. 

On the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she urged it to refrain from conducting any nuclear testing and to respect the current moratorium on testing. Her Government had also positively noted the recent proposals by nuclear States to prevent the weaponization of outer space and commence work on a legal instrument for halting the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes. 

On small arms and light weapons, she expressed disappointment over recent failures in that arena, and noted that Jamaica was a country with high levels of gun violence. In light of that, controlling small arms was an issue crucial to its development.  Along with other CARICOM countries, Jamaica was already participating in bilateral, regional and international initiatives to address the problem.  A legally binding instrument on marking and tracing for small arms and light weapons was required.  That way, proper checks and balances, including customs controls, would ensure the legitimacy of legal trade.  She concluded by acknowledging the initiatives by the United Nations Development Programme and the Regional Centre for Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean in coordinating action on small arms.

LEBOHANG FINE MAEMA (Lesotho), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), said small arms proliferation was one of the greatest challenges facing his group and damaged the stability of States in the region.  After the 2001 Small Arms Conference, SADC had adopted a protocol to create national and regional controls over the trafficking and possession of such weapons.  Several efforts had been taken to jumpstart the protocol such as by establishing focal points and by destroying surplus arms.  SADC had envisioned an outcome from the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference that would show the way for implementing the 2001 Programme of Action and was disheartened by the failure to agree on an outcome document. 

He said that Africa was the most heavily mined continent.  One of the most difficult factors impeding economic recovery was the infestation of millions of acres of land by mines, which prevented the development of such land.  The devastation caused by landmines was well documented.  SADC was behind all efforts to implement the mine ban treaty to which all of its members were parties.  Their goal was a Southern Africa and a world free of landmines.  Several SADC members had destroyed their landmine stockpiles while others were grappling with de-mining diverting their meagre resources to that noble goal.  He urged countries that were not yet party to the Treaty to embrace the ban on anti-personnel landmines and become party to the Treaty. 

He said the 1995 Review Conference of the NPT should form the blueprint for disarmament and he commended Brazil for its call for convening a preparatory conference.  He also called on all States to ratify the CTBT.  There was a strong connection between disarmament and development.  No socioeconomic development could be achieved without peace, security and political stability.

SAINIVALATI NAVOTI ( Fiji) said that security was a collective responsibility and much remained to be achieved in the machinery of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Given its size, geographical location and ability to influence global affairs, Fiji believed that multilateralism was the most effective way to keep the peace.  His Government wanted to tell the world that what was of concern to the mighty and powerful, also had bearing and effect, and was likewise of real concern, to the weak and isolated. 

On weapons of mass destruction, he expressed concern over the expansion of vertical proliferation to include countries other then the five traditional nuclear-weapon States. The persistent danger of horizontal proliferation was made worse by the real threat of having those weapons fall into the hands of non-state actors, he added.  Fiji was part of the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone and encouraged the establishment of more such zones.  On the CTBT, his Government was pleased that Viet Nam had ratified the Treaty, and encouraged others to follow suit.  Without the CTBT, no real certainty could be realized in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

On small arms, Fiji was gravely concerned about their accumulation and uncontrolled spread.  Noting Fiji’s own regrettable story with the costs of their misuse, he welcomed all regional and subregional efforts in curbing their illegal trade.  Fiji supported efforts aimed at promoting wider understanding between States on the need for global guidelines for transfer controls of small arms. 

Archbishop CELESTINO MIGLIORE (Holy See) said that the summer of 2006 appeared to have been discouraging, with conflicts, destruction and loss of life, as well as the failure of the Small Arms Conference.  On the other hand, a stirring in human consciousness was taking place that would suggest that war did not work.  Military force did not bring the expected improvement for the common good, and recent wars had unleashed forces that still corroded civilizations and the consequent human suffering was inexcusable in an age that possessed the mechanisms for negotiation, peacemaking and peacekeeping. 

He said that, despite the present gloom, there were positive features in the broader field of security.  The number of interstate conflicts had been declining, and peacekeeping operations were preventing shooting wars in many places.  Dialogue was necessary to reap the benefits of an increasingly interdependent world, and much better dialogue was needed in the disarmament forums of the United Nations.  At present, the debate seemed to remain sterile, and too often debates over small arms and nuclear weapons were carried on in abstract terms from preconceived positions with little sign of a willingness to learn.

He said that, if the human dimension underlying the subject of small arms was emphasized, perhaps a much needed arms trade treaty could be achieved.  Instead of a comprehensive global agreement, there was a patchwork of national export laws, which unscrupulous arms dealers could circumvent.  He appealed to the international community to establish a legal framework to regulate the trade of conventional weapons of any type, as well as the technology for their production.  The draft resolution on establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms was a step towards a comprehensive, internationally binding instrument.  The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms needed stronger support, and dialogue must also be advanced in the area of nuclear weapons.

He asked that those Governments which openly or secretly possessed nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them, agree to change their course and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament.  Policies of nuclear deterrence, typical of the cold war, could and must be replaced by concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral obligations.

Right of Reply

REZA NAJAFI ( Iran) said that the Committee had today heard a number of unsubstantiated allegations from the Israeli regime, which was based on violence, occupation, state-sponsored terrorism and bloodshed.  That regime had continuously violated international laws and norms, not to mention United Nations resolutions, to which its response had been nothing but complete defiance.  Specifically, it had pursued a [mischievous] policy on nuclear issues, becoming a showcase of concealment of its arsenal through the past decades with the support of the United States.  Such an ill-intentioned policy had been a threat to peace and security in the volatile Middle East region for years.

He said the Israeli regime posed a real threat to the whole world; therefore, that threat must be urgently and decisively addressed by the international community.  As demanded earlier by the delegation that spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Israeli regime should accede to the NPT and place its facilities under international monitoring.  The only obstacle to a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was the Israeli regime’s non-adherence to the NPT and its continued operation of facilities with help and assistance from the United States.

He noted that the Israeli regime was also not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention.  Its baseless allegations in the Committee today indicated that those who put Iran under unreasonable pressure were trying to serve the interest of the illegal Israeli regime.  The international community was well aware of that ploy and would not give in to the safeguarding of illegal policies.

Regarding Iran’s election as vice-chair of the Disarmament Commission and the IAEA Conference, the 118 states of the Non-Aligned Movement had clearly indicated their preference.  Let that delegation which was disappointed in that election continue to be disappointed.

B. JAAFARI ( Syria) said that all Members knew that the First Committee had for several decades examined the dangers posed by Israel’s nuclear weapons.  There had been a draft resolution submitted to this Committee on every occasion on this subject.  Likewise, the question of nuclear weapons in Israel was a matter annually submitted to the IAEA.  His Government wanted to recall that there had been a Security Council resolution 487 (1981), calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons in Israel.

Israel, with the assistance of major countries, had been able to build eight nuclear reactors used for 100 per cent military purposes on a land surface area not more than 20,000 square kilometres.  Israel was, therefore, a threat to all countries in the region, as well as to itself.

The truth spoke for itself, he said. The international community was concerned in the face of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.  Those were facts, not literature.  Though the delegate of Israel had in her statement “tried to mix the cards” -- by broaching issues unrelated to international peace –- she had done so only to divert attention from the issue.

Israel, with the assistance of certain countries, was attempting to use outer space by using nuclear energy for military purposes.  Their efforts were no longer confined to earth.  For that reason, he invited Members to take the issues mentioned into consideration when listening to such accusations.  They were allegations without reality after all.

Israel’s failure to comply with the United Nations resolutions –- both those by the IAEA and the Security Council -- on nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction meant it had violated international law.  That, in turn, had put Israel on the fringe of international disarmament and security.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record