Sixty-first General Assembly

First Committee

7^th & 8^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran defend nuclear programmes

in United Nations disarmament committee

 

DPRK Says Deterrent Needed for Self-Defence against Pre-emptive Threat;

Iran Rejects Unsubstantiated Claims by United States about Peaceful Programme

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran defended their nuclear programmes today in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as the general debate concluded in the wake of the DPRK’s announcement that it had conducted its first nuclear weapon test less than 24 hours earlier.

The DPRK told delegates that, while his country’s ultimate goal was the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it had been compelled to possess a nuclear deterrent as a self-defence measure, after the United States had threatened his country with nuclear weapons and designated it as a target for pre-emptive attack.  Past history and present reality showed that a country could defend its national dignity, sovereignty and independence only through powerful force.  It was also the reality today that, whether missile launch or nuclear test, if the United States approved, it was tolerated and would not be brought to the United Nations.

The logic seemed to be that the threat by the United States of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against his country was for peace and security, while counter-measures by his country were a threat to peace and security, he continued.  It was gangster-like logic that only big countries could possess nuclear weapons and attack and threaten small countries with them.  Such a double-standard reduced the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other disarmament conventions to dead documents without any binding force.  His country would continue to pursue denuclearization of the Peninsula through dialogue and negotiation, as was undertaken in the Joint Statement.  No sooner had that statement been made public, however, than the United States applied economic sanctions against his country.

Iran’s representative said that, like all other members of the NPT, he considered development of nuclear technology an inalienable right. At the same time, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction had no place in his country’s defence doctrine and he categorically rejected the “misleading and unsubstantiated allegations by the United States” about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme.  All reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since November 2003 had been indicative of the programme’s peaceful nature and the Agency repeatedly reaffirmed that it had not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  In addition, his country had demonstrated its readiness for restarting talks without preconditions and had tried to lay the groundwork for resolving the issue through constructive negotiations.

Further, the world must guard against the impression that, in practice, membership in the NPT and IAEA safeguards regime in fact constituted impediments for peaceful use, while non-membership was rewarded by acquiescence, as in the case of the development of the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.  If anything, failure to accept NPT and safeguard obligations should have made the only outsider to the NPT in the region the subject of severe restrictions, not provided it with impunity.  Israel, a non-member of the NPT, continued to operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, with help and technological assistance from the United Sates. Ironically, and indeed, ridiculously, Israel, whose nuclear arsenal was coupled with expansionist and state-terror policies, cried wolf about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme and had led a campaign of threats, lies, deception and blackmail against his country.

The Committee Chairperson, speaking in her personal capacity, deplored the DPRK’s test explosion, calling it “irresponsible” and “unacceptable” and a threat to global peace and security.  She called on the country to return to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State.  Later, in her capacity as Chair, she said the debate had reflected the fact that “we live in a time characterized by a deficit of mutual trust and confidence”.  Common ground did seem to exist, however, which she hoped would be further developed during the thematic discussions and consultations on resolutions and decisions.

Several African nations, meanwhile, highlighted the connection between disarmament and non-proliferation and freeing up resources to fight poverty.

The representative of Benin said it was astonishing how easy it was for countries in the South to obtain weapons, which the North traded freely while failing to meet official development assistance commitments.  He hailed the European Union’s “everything but arms” concept, which allowed free trade in anything but arms with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States as a concept that should prevail in North-South relations.  It was no illusion to think that substantial savings through reductions in military expenditures would allow for a more effective struggle against poverty, the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and the possibility of a decent existence to the least developed countries.

Togo’s representative noted that astronomical sums were being spent on the arms race, while the world might fall short of the goal of halving poverty by 2015.  For that reason, the deadlock must be broken and disarmament once again made an international priority.  He added that regional efforts to address the small arms issue deserved international support and that regional disarmament centres had a crucial role to play in that regard.  The Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa faced chronic financial difficulties, including a lack of human resources, which kept it from carrying out programmes.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Albania, Gabon, Ethiopia, Yemen, Bahrain, Georgia, Ukraine, Congo, Uzbekistan, Jordan and Andorra.   A member of the International Committee for the Red Cross also spoke.

Representatives of Armenia, Japan, Finland, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Russian Federation spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

In the afternoon, the Committee began its thematic debate on nuclear weapons, during which delegates heard from Tibor Toth, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission; Nobuaki Tanaka, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs; Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament; and Rogelio Pfirter, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 10 October, to continue its thematic discussion on nuclear weapons and its consideration of draft resolutions.

Background

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

Before opening the floor to debate, the Committee Chairperson, Mona Juul ( Norway) said she wished to make a personal statement.

She said it appeared that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had conducted a nuclear test explosion.  “Let there be no doubt about your Chairperson’s view on this”, she said.  “The test explosion is deplorable.  It is irresponsible and it is unacceptable.  It threatens regional and global peace and security.”

She said she trusted the Security Council would take appropriate action and called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon State.

Statements

LUBLIN DILJA ( Albania) said that it aligned itself with the statement made by Finland on behalf of the European Union.  The First Committee’s negotiations taking place reflected the significance of the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, as well as the need for broad consensus.  Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the direct means of their delivery were all dangerous threats to international peace.  Maintaining that peace was a multidimensional task.

On terrorism, Albania welcomed the United Nations Global Strategy, but further concerted efforts were vital on that issue.  His Government condemned any forms of terrorism and would fulfil all its obligations under the Convention.  Albania had supported all Security Council resolutions and submitted regular reports on the issue.  On weapons of mass destruction, their falling into hands of non-State actors or terrorists was of serious concern.  Real progress was only possible if all fulfilled their obligations on nuclear disarmament.  Resolution 1540 was an appropriate measure to counter such a threat. 

The NPT continued to be cornerstone, but the regime needed strengthening. As a non-nuclear-weapon State, Albania fully reiterated its political will to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.  Both the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Security Council needed strengthening as well.  He expressed deep concern over recent developments in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, condemning the test conducted.  As the Chairperson had stated, it was deplorable.  As for Iran, their meeting of the demands of the IAEA and their compliance to resolution 1696 was the most constructive approach to resolving the issue.  Albania supported all diplomatic efforts on that matter.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) were all important instruments and he reaffirmed Albania’s support for them.  On the issue of chemical weapon stockpiles, Albania was set for destroying all such stockpiles before its deadline of 2007.  On small arms and light weapons, more concrete action was needed on all levels -– global, national and regional.  They may be small, but they caused massive destruction.  South-Eastern Europe had already reaped the benefits of regional cooperation.  Small arms initiatives were concrete and rewarding, including in Kosovo.  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the European Union had all assisted in that task.  After seeing too many small arms in the wars of the 1990’s, Albania favoured an international legally-binging treaty on the trade of all conventional weapons.

ALFRED MOUNGARA-MOUSSOTSI ( Gabon) said that when the General Assembly adopted its first resolution in 1946, on atomic problems, it showed its commitment to eliminating such weapons.  Fifty years later, nuclear weapons continued to be serious threats to international peace and security.  New, more effective weapons were being produced, and the increase in expenditure paralleled the period after the Second World War.  At the same time, official development assistance (ODA) continued to decrease.  The amount sunk into arms far exceeded that allocated to social services. 

He said that, in recent years, there had been a regression in efforts to rid the world of nuclear danger.  The failure of the NPT in 2005 was a true setback in the disarmament process.  The July 2006 failure of the Small Arms Conference was a regrettable setback, after the adoption of the instrument on marking and tracing the year before had raised hopes of a more coordinated, expanded struggle against the illicit trades.

He said that collective security, which depended on complete disarmament, could not stay with the status quo.  Disarmament negotiations must progress through a multilateral framework, namely the Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.  Gabon had signed or ratified most of the disarmament instruments, and had on its territory a facility for seismological monitoring as part of the CTBT surveillance system. 

He invited Member States which had not done so to, become parties to, or return to, those instruments on non-proliferation, in the name of peace and security.  Accession to all those instruments and scrupulous implementation of them would greatly advance the disarmament and non-proliferation process.  The challenge of terrorist threats did not allow letting down one’s guard or procrastination.  It was important to start consultations towards adopting a fissile missile cut-off treaty.  Strengthening nuclear controls would reduce the chance of small terror groups from making “dirty” or radiological bombs.  Stricter control of dual use chemical material was also needed.

He said that the failure of the Plan of Action on small arms and light weapons should not be a pretext for disregarding it.  It was essential to help poor states to implement the plan.  A true commitment to disarmament by all was needed, one that took into account the energy needs and security requirements of all Member States. 

DESLAEGN ALEMU (Ethiopia) said his country’s continuous promotion of peace and stability, both at home and within the subregion, coupled with the devotion of every resource toward economic and social endeavours in the country, had placed Ethiopia firmly on the right path towards overall growth and development, while making it a pillar of peace and partnership within the Horn of Africa and beyond.  Ethiopia had made substantial progress over the past 15 years, since the demise of the military regime that ruled the country.  Its most paramount challenge continued to be the struggle against its sole principal enemy:  poverty and its related vices.  That was why Ethiopia attached paramount importance to disarmament and non-proliferation and remained fully committed to that task.

He said that Ethiopia had been fully implementing the United Nations small arms plan of action, as well as the Nairobi Protocol.  Legislation on such weapons had been revised to make them more robust, and preparations were underway to destroy various types of small arms collected from all over the country.  A national plan of action was being developed, including by the establishment of a central registration unit for such weapons and the training of personnel.  Those were critical national tasks for which the assistance of developed countries, as well as concerned organs of the United Nations, remained crucial.

He said Ethiopia was giving the utmost attention to implementing the convention on anti-personnel landmines.  As one of the 24 parties to the Ottawa Convention that were known to have a high number of mine victims and survivors, Ethiopia was taking concrete measures to help survivors rehabilitate through a national plan of action, for which more international assistance was critically sought.  He reemphasized that Ethiopia did not produce any kind of anti-personnel land mines, nor had it imported them since 1991.

He said Ethiopia was actively processing the ratification of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and was a State party to the CTBT, as well as the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions.  It was moving ahead to subscribe to The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.  The issues of disarmament and non-proliferation would be far from complete unless treated in conjunction with the manifest dangers of terrorism.  Ethiopia had forged strong alliances with various subregional, regional and international partners in the fight against terrorism, and would continue to do so.

ISMAIL MOHAMED YAHYA ALMAABRI ( Yemen) expressed his sincere hope that the Committee’s work would achieve its desired and lofty objectives.  That would be possible if countries used flexibility and political will to break the pessimism that had cast a shadow over deliberations. 

Yemen supported the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, while reiterating the right of all countries to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, under the safeguards and the supervision of the IAEA.  There was a clear link between the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the promotion of international peace and security on which the United Nations was founded.  More influential countries were called upon to exercise transparency.  There was a double standard and, therefore, a need for more coherent and balanced positions to be taken on the disarmament and non-proliferation issue. 

He called for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, recognizing the importance it would have for creating confidence and diminishing the possibility for a regional arms race.  Such a race would only cause further turbulence and that would have global ramifications because of the geographic sensitivity of the region.  On the Iran file, it was important to use the relevant disarmament machinery on that issue.  It was also incumbent upon Israel to become party to the NPT.  The international community’s support was vital on that issue and IAEA safeguards had to be looked after as well.

AISHA AL-KHALIFA ( Bahrain) said today’s world had seen accumulations of weapons, in spite of appeals for disarmament, due to the failure of negotiations in previous years.  She urged everyone to increase their efforts to reach consensus through multilateral negotiations.  The problem of weapons of mass destruction concerned the international community as a whole, especially in the Middle East region.  The countries of that region, including the Gulf Area, had been urged to create a nuclear-free zone.  Effective machinery was needed to obtain such a zone under strict international monitoring.

She asked the international community, and the major powers, to pressure Israel, so that it adhered to the NPT.  Security Council resolution 487 (1981) required Israel to put its installations under IAEA safeguards and refrain from creating nuclear stations.  That resolution and others taken by the Council and the General Assembly were designed to make the Middle East free from nuclear weapons, ensure full disarmament and strengthen security, both regionally and internationally.

She said that Bahrain had ratified and adhered to many agreements, including the CTBT.  It would continue its efforts to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  It supported the international community in its efforts to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis in Iran.  She urged Iran to consult with the IAEA and concerned parties, while emphasizing the right of States to peaceful energy.

IRAKLI ALASANIA ( Georgia) said that the Russian Federation had recently launched large scale naval military exercises in the immediate vicinity of the territorial sea of Georgia.  That had caused serious damage to the trade/economic interests of Georgia, as well as endangering the marine environment.  Despite Georgia’s objections to those training exercises, the area of these manoeuvres had been relocated into the territorial waters of Georgia -– an act which contradicted the national legislation, international practice and universally recognized norms and principles of international law.  He called for the Russian Federation to leave the territorial waters of Georgia immediately.

On the issue of protracted conflicts, unprecedented aggressive processes of militarization were underway in the secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he continued.  It was clear who was providing expertise, weapons and ammunition to the separatists.  Just recently, in Abkhazia, a large scale military exercise had been held, most alarmingly in front of the peacekeeping forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which did nothing to prevent the action -- not for the first time.

As a result, he said substantial amounts of arms and ammunition had accumulated on those lawless territories.  That represented a major threat to the stability of the entire region.  Another point of concern was the illegitimate presence of the Russian military base in Guduata, in the breakaway region of Abkhazia.  Georgia fully shared the common concern that the problem of uncontrolled accumulation and spread of arms posed actual threats to human security and peace, and called upon all States to assist with those as they were problems the international community should handle.

TCHABODE ADJAGBA ( Togo) said that his Government aligned itself with statements made on behalf of the Africa Group and the Non-Aligned Movement.  He emphasized shared concerns over the low levels of interest in crucial disarmament issue and non-proliferation issues.  Those issues were a most serious challenge in today’s world while a lack of progress on the issues persisted.  Despite that, the international community was still hesitating on the control of proliferation and it was vital that weapons of mass destruction not become the language of international relations.

Togo had always supported the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and regretted that efforts on that issue had not led to concrete results, he continued.  In 2005, there had still been no agreement on strengthening the NPT.  Events in the Korean Peninsula were also a serious threat to peace and security.  The possibility of non-State actors obtaining weapons of mass destruction with catastrophic consequences needed to be eliminated.  Astronomical sums spent on the arms race, while the world might not be able to halve poverty by 2015, meant that the deadlock must be broken.  Disarmament would once again have to be an international priority.

The General Assembly must also give special attention to small arms.  Much damage had been caused by such weapons in Africa, and the inability to reach agreement in July 2006 at the Review Conference on Small Arms was deplorable.  Furthermore, regional efforts to address that issue deserved international support.  On the illicit trading of small arms, regional disarmament centres had a crucial role to play.  The Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa faced chronic financial difficulties, yet there was no adequate solution to date.  There was also a lack of human resources, thus keeping it from carrying out programmes which might benefit from voluntary contributions.  Togo thanked countries for their assistance so far, while urging for continued support.  A meeting on such regional centres in October would revitalize these centres throughout the world, he noted.

JEAN-FRANCIS REGIS ZINSOU ( Benin) said that the current situation of disarmament existed because the political will on the part of Member States to engage in dialogue was absent.  He urged all nuclear-weapon States to show greater sensitivities to mankind’s fear of annihilation, scrupulously apply disarmament agreements, strengthen international cooperation and eliminate arms stocks.  New disarmament agreements that were verifiable, non-discriminatory and irreversible must be negotiated to prevent man from being on the edge of a nuclear gulf.  Benin rejected the modernization of mass destruction weapons and new strategic doctrines that allowed the use of such weapons in battle.

He said that suspicion was growing between nuclear-weapon States and those who saw obtaining such weapons as a guarantee of security.  The fight against proliferation could not be effective without negative security assurances and fighting just as hard against vertical proliferation, as against horizontal proliferation.  An agreement on fissile materials was an urgent task for the United Nations and should be a focus for the disarmament machinery.  The working groups of the Disarmament Commission should be able to hold informal sessions between its formal ones.  Further, States must respect their NPT commitments.  The irreversible renunciation of nuclear arms should go hand in hand with cooperation in the utilization of nuclear energy for development goals.

On the elimination of conventional weapons, he hoped the First Committee would adopt a follow-up mechanism to monitor the implementation of the small arms Programme of Action.  The biennial period should be retained, as should the principle of holding a conference every five years and providing the necessary assistance.   Benin supported intergovernmental consultations to create an international instrument governing the import, export and transfer of classic weapons.  Such an instrument should proscribe transfers to non-State actors and those not authorized by Governments or States of which they were nationals.  Non-discriminatory standards for preserving each State’s right to self-defence also were needed.

He paid homage to the European Union’s “everything but arms” concept, which allowed free trade in anything but arms with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.  It was a concept that should prevail in North-South relations.  It was astonishing the ease with which countries in the South could obtain weapons, which the North traded freely while not meeting ODA commitments.  There was a link between development and disarmament.  If progress was made in disarmament, there would be sufficient resources to finance development.  It was no illusion to think that substantial savings through reductions in military expenditures would allow for a more effective struggle against poverty, the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and the possibility of a decent existence to the least developed countries, making them a bulwark for peace and stability.

YURIY POLUREZ (Ukraine), aligning itself with the statement made by Finland on behalf of the European Union, said that the strengthening of international instruments and their means of delivery, and arms control issues were of top priority on the disarmament agenda.  Not reaching agreement on those issues could seriously undermine efforts to reach collective security.

A broad and comprehensive concept was needed to deal with nuclear proliferation, he continued.  All States were urged to restate their commitment to multilateralism.  Member States needed to shore up and enhance the NPT, Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention, while ensuring that access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy remained secure.  In light of that, however, all commitments needed to be adhered to and IAEA safeguards followed.  The NPT remained the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime.  Expressing disappointment over the 2005 Review Conference, Ukraine was determined to contribute in achieving tangible results in all three areas of non-proliferation agreement.  The fissile material cut-off treaty was also a key instrument in combating nuclear proliferation.  On the CTBT, he called on all States, particularly Annex II states, to sign and ratify the treaty.

On small arms, illicit trafficking was among the greatest impediments to conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding.  Effective implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action and the destruction of stockpiles were vital as well.  On trade in conventional arms, Ukraine supported the United Nations initiative on that issue.  Decommissioned conventional ammunition had humanitarian, psychological and economic consequences on the Ukraine.  The explosions in August 2006 were evidence of that.  They were also a direct threat to health, security and environment and to the lives of millions.

Ukraine was a full-fledged member of the Ottawa Convention, he noted.  On stockpile destruction, his Government took its new obligation with a high sense of responsibility and would meet all commitments by its deadline.  He also urged for reinforcement of the effectiveness of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons –- Ukraine was committed to comprehensive compliance of that instrument.  Ukraine was among the first to adhere to Protocol V on the explosive remnants of war.  Universalization of that Protocol would strengthen international humanitarian law as well as consolidate efforts to address the negative impacts of those remnants.

LUC JOSEPH OKIO ( Congo) expressed disappointment over the series of recent disappointments in the field of disarmament.  He was also surprised by the failure of the 2006 Review Conference and the lack of progress on the implementation of the Programme of Action on small arms.

Horizontal and vertical proliferation continued to be feared, he continued.  That did not send a clear and firm message to terrorists.  The treatment of the NPT needed to be clear and non-selective; it was after all the cornerstone and essential foundation of the non-proliferation regime.  It must, of course, maintain the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  On the CTBT, he urged all States to sign or ratify it. 

The failure on the implementation of the small arms Programme of Action was of particular importance to the Congo, he noted.  His continent had suffered all too much from the devastating effects of small arms.  He called upon all States to join in determination to combat that scourge.  They were the real weapons of mass destruction.

While reaffirming the Congo’s commitment to multilateralism, he said that it was the international community’s responsibility to strengthen the instruments responding to all threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.  Peacekeeping had successfully transformed into peacebuilding in countries like Burundi, Sierra Leone, Haiti and the Congo.  In contrast, Timor-Leste had resumed violence and that was a reminder of how fragile situations required prolonged support.

PAK GIL YON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the hope for a nuclear-free world that had arisen after the demise of the cold war was gone, and the danger of a nuclear war was increasing with each passing day.  The dependence of nuclear powers on nuclear weapons, far from decreasing, was on the rise.  The deadlock in international disarmament fora was mainly attributable to “the nuclear domination policy pursued by some countries based on their selfish interests for world hegemony”.

For the cause of world peace and security, he said nuclear disarmament should be put into practice above anything else.  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction came from the threat posed by existing nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, some countries differentiated the existence of nuclear weapons from their proliferation and persisted with assertions on the issue of non-proliferation only.  That fact showed that their real intention was to evade disarming nuclear weapons.  “International order will undergo a noticeable and substantial change if the gangster-like logic that only big countries can possess nukes, and attack and threaten small countries with them is allowed or tolerated.”  Such logic inevitably compelled non-nuclear States to possess a nuclear deterrent force.

He said that high-handed policies and double standards on nuclear policy reduced the NPT and other disarmament conventions to “good-for-nothing dead documents without any binding force”, thereby plunging the world into a nuclear arms race.  It could not be justified that certain countries took issues with those countries they detested over peaceful nuclear activities, while evading obligations to disarm their own nuclear weapons.  Peaceful use of such energy was not a “privilege” conceded to specified countries, but a legitimate right of sovereign states.  Many countries were opting to build strong self-defence capabilities because arms control treaties failed to protect the security of non-nuclear States.  All nuclear powers should give up their nuclear doctrine based on pre-emptive use of such weapons and commit themselves without conditions not to use nuclear weapons presumptively, as demanded by non-nuclear-weapon States.  They should come to the negotiation table to write an international convention on it.

He said the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula was the outcome of the United States hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which it had pursued for over half a century.  The United States threatened the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with its nuclear weapons and designated the latter as a target of pre-emptive attack, compelling it to possess the nuclear deterrent force as a self-defence measure.  “The past history and the present reality show us that only when a country has powerful force, it can defend the national dignity and sovereignty as well as its independence.”  The reality was that missile launches or nuclear tests, if approved by the United States, would be tolerated and not brought to the United Nations.

He said he wished to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that during the general debate, some countries turned away from the substance of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.  Those countries urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear programme, neglecting the root cause of the issue.  They only sought to flatter the Untied States by advocating its hostile policy toward his country.  The logic currently in vogue was that the United States threat of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was for peace and security, while counter-measures by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were a threat to peace and security.  “In today’s world where the law of the jungle prevails, one can champion justice only when he is strong.”

He said that denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, through dialogue and negotiation as undertaken in the 19 September Joint Statement, was his country’s ultimate goal.  No sooner had that joint statement been made, than the United States was applying economic sanctions and stepping up its pressure.  The United States also stood in the way of implementing the Statement by threats and blackmail, such as a large-scale military exercise targeted against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  His country would persevere in efforts to remove the threat posed by outside forces and to ensure lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.

ALISHER VOHIDOV ( Uzbekistan) said that during the current session of the General Assembly, Member States had reaffirmed collective efforts for international peace and security.  That understanding was essential, in light of the many threats in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  A lack of progress did not mean all opportunities had been missed, however.  The signing of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia was proof that States were able to ensure security, stability and peace in the region and, further, create the necessary conditions for prosperity.

Nine years ago, States in Central Asia had adopted a decision to create a new system of security -– that had been the first regional security mechanism in Central Asia.  He expressed gratitude to all States, non-governmental organizations and the United Nations Legal Affairs Department for their support throughout the entire process. Such cooperation had helped in achieving a breakthrough amid the deadlock.

His Government believed that certain factors should underline any consensus on non-proliferation.  First, any efforts must be multilateral.  Second, the point of departure for further multilateral negotiations must be compliant within the framework of international treaties.  Furthermore, there was a need for further strengthening of measures in place to combat a black market on nuclear materials. The global initiative by the United States and the Russian Federation to combat acts of terrorism needed support, as did Security Council resolution 1540.  Finally, the role of non-nuclear-weapon States needed to be further increased, as did their need for security guarantees.

MEHDI DANESH-YAZDI ( Iran) said his country was a victim of weapons of mass destruction.  It had the bitter experience of the most extensive chemical attacks ever on its military and civilian population, resulting in a large number of casualties.  Since the end of the war imposed on Iran by the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iran still witnessed the daily sufferings of thousands of chemical weapon victims across the country.  With such a sad experience, Iran had a high motivation to pursue the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, which it regarded as inhumane and dangerous tools detrimental to all human communities.

He welcomed the establishment of the first nuclear-weapon-free zone located entirely in the northern hemisphere in Central Asia.  Notwithstanding that significant event, no progress had been achieved on creating a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East, because of the intransigent policy of Israel.  That regime’s non-adherence to the NPT and its continued clandestine operation of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, with the help and technological assistance from the United States, was the only existing obstacle to creating such a zone.  That regime had also never been a party to the other international instruments on weapons of mass destruction, due to its biological and chemical weapons programmes.  Ironically and ridiculously, the Israeli regime, a non-member of the NPT which was repeatedly recognized as the single most serious threat to regional peace and security, cried wolf about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme and had led a campaign of threats, lies, deception and blackmail against Iran.

He said that the threat posed by the estimated 27,000 nuclear weapons in nuclear-weapon States remained a grave worldwide concern.  Lack of progress towards disarmament and the failure of certain nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their obligations on total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, as well as their new military doctrines based on the threat of use, continued to be a threat to the international community.

He said that it was important not to lose sight of the fact that the only country that had ever used nuclear weapons during a conflict, namely the United States, still maintained a sizeable arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads, of which many were operational.  The United States had deployed nuclear weapons at bases in several European North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in clear violation of NPT rules.  It continued vertical proliferation by pursuing development of new types of mini easy-to-use weapons and by building new facilities for production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.  The United States was also proliferating horizontally by transferring technology and materials to non-members of the NPT whose unsafeguarded nuclear facilities were aimed at producing nuclear weapons. 

He said that no legally binding assurances had been made to non-nuclear-weapon State parties to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them.  Those developments had put the whole future of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation at stake.   The international community should vigorously pursue the nuclear disarmament obligations agreed upon in the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences.  Nuclear disarmament obligations, in particular the 13 practical steps, should be integrated and implemented entirely.  A piecemeal approach, such as those proposed for the fissile material cut-off treaty, fell short of addressing the issue at hand.

He said that State parties to the NPT had the inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  The few countries that already had the access to all kind of nuclear technologies could not create a new categorization of “have” and “have not” by pursuing a “Nuclear Technology Apartheid.”  It was important to guard against the impression that membership in the NPT and IAEA safeguard regime constituted impediments for peaceful use, while non-membership was rewarded by acquiescence, as was the case in the development of one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.  Failure to accept such obligations should have made the only outsider to the NPT in the region the subject of most severe restrictions, rather than having provided it with impunity.

He said that Iran considered the pursuit and development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to be its inalienable right, and it had thus invested extensive human and material resources in the field.  As repeatedly stated, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction had no place in its defence doctrine.  He categorically rejected the “misleading and unsubstantiated allegations of the United States about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme”.  All reports by the IAEA since November 2003 had been indicative of the peaceful nature of that programme and the Agency repeatedly reaffirmed that it had not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive devices.

Concluding, he said Iran had already demonstrated its readiness for restarting talks without any preconditions by responding to the proposed package by the group of six countries, and had tried to lay the groundwork for resolving its nuclear case through constructive negotiations.

SAJA MAJALI ( Jordan), aligning itself with the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said it was unfortunate there had been recent missed opportunities and disappointments in disarmament.  Despite those and non-compliance with key disarmament treaties, however, it was imperative not to be blinded to the achievements to date, as well as those that possibly lay ahead.

The First Committee served as a vital forum on how to best address the challenges and threats posed by conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction.  In that context, participation of officials, as well as non-governmental organizations, added valuable inputs.  It was encouraging that this year had already seen focused and structured debate on the issue.   She highlighted the importance of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and a binding instrument which could provide security guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States.

The numerous threats by small arms had devastating consequences, she noted.  Though the 2006 Review Conference on the implementation of the Programme of Action had not succeeded, it still provided a necessary framework.  On the topic of anti-personnel mines, the international community still needed to mobilize resources and provide assistance to victims.  Obligations needed to be reaffirmed and the Ottawa Convention was, therefore, instrumental.  As a State party to the Ottawa Convention, Jordan would be able to meet its treaty requirements by 2009.  Her Government also believed in promoting the Ottawa Convention in the Middle East.  She further urged States to sign instruments, such as the Biological Weapons Convention and the Convention on Certain Conventional Arms.  The NPT Review Conference was to start next year and the international community must continue to strive for its goals. Universal adherence must still be pursued for both the NPT and CTBT.

On the inalienable right of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, she said that all disputes should be settled in peaceful and diplomatic manner.  Nuclear-weapon-free zones were vital, and she welcomed the establishment of such a zone in Central Asia.  The Middle East needed to establish the same.  In order to do that, however, Israel needed to accede to the NPT.  IAEA safeguards would also need to be met by Israel, thereby preventing the occurrence of potential nuclear accidents and the risk of radiological contamination.

JULIAN VILA-COMA ( Andorra) said his country was a small one that had lived in peace with its neighbours for more than 700 years.  It did not produce, export or purchase weapons.  The issue of disarmament and non-proliferation was of great concern to Andorra, however, as its security was only guaranteed by the collective desire of countries to live in peace.  The Andorran people believed in the peaceful settlements of disputes coupled with a firm respect for international law.

He urged all parties currently engaged in the Iran nuclear talks to do their utmost to resolve their differences within a diplomatic framework, so as not to escalate the current situation into one of far-reaching magnitude.  He also called on all States to abide by their international obligations and agreements.  The current impasse on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula was also of deep concern.  He urged all parties involved in the six-party talks to resume their dialogue to reach a solution acceptable to all parties.

He expressed disappointment at the failure to reach positive agreements at the 2005 NPT Review Conference and at the Small Arms Conference in July.  The lack of disarmament language in the 2005 Summit Outcome and the current deadlock at the Conference in Disarmament made it imperative to revitalize the First Committee to reach agreement on concrete disarmament measures.

He said Andorra was pleased to play its part in the disarmament process.  In order to implement Security Council resolution 1540, Andorra was participating in a technical assistance programme for the monitoring of disarmament in Sub-Saharan Africa for the period 2007-2008.  It would also organize a United Nations training seminar on disarmament for the affected countries.  Andorra recently ratified the CTBT and urged the remaining countries needed for it to enter into force to ratify at the earliest possible opportunity.

CRISTINA PELLANDINI, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that her Organization’s primary work was that of preventing and alleviating the suffering inflicted by weapons and armed conflict.  In light of that, she highlighted that the best examples of progress were in the adoption of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines, the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms, and the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War.  Despite some progress, however, there still remained an urgent need to bring the availability of small arms and ammunition under stricter control.  A treaty would define common standards for regulating arms transfers based on States’ responsibilities under international law, including international humanitarian law.

She said that the ICRC took an active interest in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, as it would be the central treaty regulating conventional weapons on the basis of international law.  She urged all States to ratify the new Protocol on explosive remnants of war, while also furthering the conclusion of five years of work on anti-vehicle mines with the adoption of a new protocol.  She regretted that progress had not been made on the issue of cluster munitions –- their problems had been lethally demonstrated in conflicts in most regions of the world over the past 35 years.

On the Biological Weapons Convention, the international community now stood at the dawn of the age of biotechnology, and it was thus important to ensure that life sciences be used exclusively for the benefit of humanity.  The sixth Review Conference would indicate whether States had the will to protect themselves from the hostile use of biological agents, she added.  The Biological Weapons Convention was a bulwark in the struggle to survive in the face of germs and disease, and she urged States to spare no effort in ensuring its effectiveness.

Rights of Reply

The representative Armenia said he wished to respond to Friday’s intervention by the representative of Azerbaijan, in which he accused the Armenian representative of lying and providing distorted and misleading facts and figures.

The Armenian ambassador had said the world was witnessing the unprecedented growth of Azerbaijan’s military budget, which had doubled and tripled in recent years, he continued.  That enormous growth was described as an obvious manifestation of an arms race policy.  Despite the failure to find any information on Azerbaijan’s military spending in the Secretary-General’s relevant reports for the last five years, it was possible, through information on websites and statements, to conclude that Azerbaijan’s military expenditures for 2007 were $900 million.  That was an increase from $700 million in 2006 and just $121 million in 1999.  Thus, military expenditures would have increased nearly eight times over eight years.  The policy of a country whose military budget was growing at such a rapid pace, coupled with an aggressive rhetoric of military bravado, could be considered a policy of “arms race”.

If one looked into the annual exchange of military information by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Azerbaijan in 2005 imported 44 battle tanks and 83 large calibre artillery systems, and did not declare any reduction of arms, he continued.  Since the treaty-imposed ceilings of those categories were 220 and 280, it was possible to conclude that Azerbaijan exceeded those limits by 41 and 63 units, respectively.  As for accusations about fabrications of its armed forces, Armenia was a member of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe and strictly followed its requirements.  He invited the First Committee to examine arms control reports of the United Nations and the OSCE, where there was enough information on Armenia’s armed forces.

The representative of Japan said his country had been quoted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as having urged that country to abandon its nuclear programme.  Late last night, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had announced its test.  That act, plus the build-up in ballistic missiles that could deliver such a weapon, was a grave problem and of deep concern.  It posed a serious challenge to Japanese security.  Japan categorically denounced the act and was considering strict measures.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must be solely responsible.  The act posed a grave threat to the peace and security of Japan, East Asia and the entire international community.  It was also a serious challenge to the NPT regime and violated the Pyongyang Declaration, the Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and Security Council resolution 1695.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s test, plus its building of ballistic missiles, represented a significant change in the regional security environment.  “We have entered a new and more dangerous nuclear age”, he said.

Japan planned to address the matter in the Committee and in the Security Council.  As a United Nations Member State, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was obliged to faithfully implement Security Council resolution 1695.  He strongly urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to fully implement the Joint Statement, in which it had committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing programmes, and return at an early date to the NPT and the safeguards of the IAEA.

Lastly, he read a quote from a 79 year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing, in which she called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to “please come to Hiroshima and learn what happened.  If he intends to utilize nuclear testing for his national prestige or for international political intentions, it is a very dangerous idea, which may lead the whole of mankind to its complete destruction.”

Mr. KAHILUOTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that he was referring to the statement made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Presidency strongly condemned this test, he said.  It was unacceptable. The Union would work with the international community to respond to the provocative act.  The test had profoundly jeopardized regional stability and was a flagrant breach of the December 1991 North-South Denuclearization Declaration, while also conflicting with Security Council resolution 1695 adopted after the launch of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  That underlined the need for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to show restraint and refrain from any action that might aggravate tension.

The Presidency strongly urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to announce that it would refrain from any further tests, and to publicly renounce nuclear weapons and return to the six-party talks and, in particular, to abandon nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes.  He also urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to compliance with the NPT and obligations under the IAEA.  He further called for their signing and ratification of the CTBT.

The statement had been issued last night by the European Union Presidency in Finland, he noted.

DONG HEE ( Republic of Korea) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had said it wanted to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, but had now just tested a nuclear weapon.  He sternly condemned that test.  Despite repeated warnings from his country and from the international community, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had taken a path that posed a grave threat to peace and security throughout North-East Asia.  It trampled on hopes of resolving the Korean nuclear issue through dialogue.  It represented a failure to meet obligations under the 1994 agreement, the Joint Statement of 2005 and was an outright defiance of Security Council resolution 1695.  It was a provocative act that could not be excused.  He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately abandon its nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes, return to the NPT and responsible norms of the international community.

Referring to the statement made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr. MACKAY (New Zealand) said that the representative from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea suggested that some countries had turned away from the substance of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula in the general debate, and that those countries were not motivated by a genuine resolution of that issue.  “We did address this issue”, he said.  “He should have no doubt about New Zealand’s view on that issue.”

New Zealand absolutely rejected nuclear weapons and the testing of those weapons, he said.  The decision of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a travesty of the nuclear disarmament and global moratorium in place pending the ratification of the CTBT.  As New Zealand had stated in the general debate last week, committed dialogue was the best possible course of action in reaching a peaceful resolution.  He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea return to the six-party talks without preconditions, to act in accordance with Security Council resolution 1695 and to refrain from further provocative actions as those announced last night.

Conclusion of Debate

Chairperson MONA JUUL ( Norway) said that there had been close to 100 statements during the debate, considerably more than in previous years, and the quality of the debate had been impressively high.  She noted that delegations had expressed profound regret over the lack of progress in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament, but had pledged their willingness to ensure a positive outcome to the Committee’s current session.

She said she was encouraged by the high expectations for the upcoming review of the NPT, as well as by expressions of hope that the Biological Weapons Review Conference in December would move that agenda forward.  Delegations were, not surprisingly, deeply concerned about nuclear proliferation threats, and the call for disarmament was not surprising. 

She said the debate had not only focused on nuclear weapons.  Small arms and light weapons were causing unprecedented human suffering, and the call for control with illicit trade in such weapons was consensual.  The multilateral arms control machinery was in deep need of improvement.  “We can do better, and should do better since this also seems to be a consensual sentiment.”

“We live in a time characterized by a deficit of mutual trust and confidence.”  That had been reflected in the general debate.  Common ground did seem to exist, however.  She hoped that could be further developed during the thematic discussions and consultations on resolutions and decisions.

Afternoon Thematic

TIBOR TOTH, Executive Secretary of the CTBT Organization Preparatory Commission, said that on the tenth anniversary of the CTBT, there had been significant progress in terms of universality and verifiability.  At the same time, he also expressed deep concern at today’s announcement made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had reminded the international community of the serious challenges remaining.  Such an action was against the spirit of treaty -– which he continued to hope the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would sign and ratify.  The fact that the Treaty had already been signed by 176, and ratified by 135, highlighted the international community’s commitment.

Since last year, there had been significant progress in the treaty’s universality notwithstanding the challenges. Ten more States had ratified, and of the 44 annex II States, 34 had already ratified.  Since 1997, the Commission had worked hard to ensure that the verifiable regime was credible and cost-effective.  It was now in a crucial phase of build up, he noted.

In the coming years, it would be necessary to maintain that the verification regime be more dominant and robust.  Data from established stations had been flowing to the Centre in Vienna -– the nerve centre.  Thirty-three such stations currently existed.  Another key element was all-site inspection.  It was necessary to clarify whether nuclear explosion had been carried out and that would serve as a final verification tool.  Its unique feature was that it empowered each signatory to make a statement about an ambiguous event.  The scientific applications further provided potential contribution in the field of tsunami warnings.

The Commission could be proud of continued progress, he concluded, but the last days served as a reminder of today’s political reality.  The CTBT would show its worth once it went into force.  The remaining States needed to ratify it and he sincerely hoped that the current situation would highlight the treaty’s importance.

NOBUAKI TANAKA, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said he was quite concerned about the news of a nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The Secretary-General had also expressed his concern about such a violation of the international moratorium on testing.

He said that the system in which all were involved was established by the world of nations to serve the security interest of all.  Weapons of mass destruction issues were the subject of the IAEA, the CTBT Organization, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  There were other bodies to control the trade in sensitive technologies.

When the goal was to achieve a solution to a problem that was global, he said, something global and multilateral with legitimate legal authority was needed.  That had led to focused intergovernmental organizations.  No single State could solve all problems by acting alone. 

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the CTBT Organization differed in many ways, but had much in common.  They respected the rule of law regarding nuclear and chemical weapons.  Yet global disarmament efforts required more than an “archipelago of intergovernmental organizations”.  It was in that area that the United Nations made the best contribution. 

Most important was the promotion of synergy to help States solve challenges as effectively as possible by minimizing the duplication of efforts and reinforcing basic legitimacy.  Historically, the United Nations had provided a solid foundation of diplomacy.  In the Secretariat, the Department of Disarmament Affairs continued to serve as a partner for intergovernmental organizations in the field.  It was helping States to deal with small arms problems.  United Nations Regional Centres also played a role.  Much of the work had a cross-cutting impact and fostered synergy in development, human assistance and the special concerns of women and children.  It coordinated all action on small arms and light weapons.

He said those efforts had produced concrete results.  The Department of Disarmament Affairs maintained the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms and the United Nations standard instrument for reporting expenditures.  The Geneva branch also served the key needs of parties to the ban on landmines.  In the nuclear field, it worked with the IAEA to promote workshops, seminars and non-proliferation objectives.  It also promoted nuclear-weapon-free zones.  Its role was promoted by 1999 United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines and by State guidelines.  Those States should enter into agreements with nuclear States for assurances, and the Department was prepared to assist in any way.

He said that today’s world was encountering challenges not envisioned by the founders of the United Nations, such as increasing nuclear non-compliance and aberrations from the NPT regime.  He said he foresaw an even closer relationship between the Security Council and the IAEA in information sharing, because the Security Council was the only mechanism that could determine threats to peace or acts of aggression.  That should be the case on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.  Mechanisms to do such consultations had not existed in the past.  Even between the Conference on Disarmament and the First Committee, there had only been a superficial relationship.  It was true that not every security problem required a United Nations solution.  For example, landmines could be done through other agreements outside of the United Nations, and nuclear arms control had proceeded for years on such a basis.

When such problems were global in scope, however, the case for global responsibility became all the more compelling.  No organization was so well positioned to address such problems because of its universal membership and common and binding charter.  When its Member States united, it became the largest and most effective “coalition of the willing”.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said there had not been enough imagination in the Conference to solve issues which remain deadlocked.  Could the Conference on Disarmament survive another year without a solution? he asked.  He had doubts about that himself, and had asked the question in hopes that others might be provoked to disprove it.

On the Five Ambassadors Proposal and the fissile material cut-off agreement, it would not be surprising if negotiations happened outside the Conference on Disarmament, he noted.  Perhaps some other problems on the Conference agenda warranted being solved by other organs as well.  Nothing would happen without consensus, of course.  Given that rule, why was there such reluctance to commence negotiations?

The Blix Commission recommended that the Conference adopt its work by a two-third majority, he said.  Maybe that was something to think about.  Certain things were clear.  For one, there was very little appetite for yet another plenary debate.  Meanwhile, the Five Ambassadors proposal, though widely supported, would not attract consensus.  What to do with that?  He was in favour of the new proposal, which deemphasized linkages among the four core issues, though it had yet to gain traction.

There was growing acceptance that core issues could be de-linked through the understanding that the fissile material cut-off treaty would be negotiated with some form of lesser treatment than the three other core issues.  It was imperative to take the dramatic news of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea today into account, he noted.

He recommended various options for taking an active role in overcoming the Conference on Disarmament’s impasse.  Among those was exploring the idea mentioned by Member States that the Conference establish a group of scientific experts who would prepare the grounds for negotiation.  Also possible was encouraging the incoming President of South Africa to put forward a bold approach -- introducing a preponderance of sessions devoted to the fissile material cut-off treaty.  On the issue of resources, it was imperative to get down to substantive work as soon as possible.

ROGELIO PFIRTER, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said that the Organization’s gains were reflected by progress made in the following spheres: ensuring a verifiable regime to both verify the destruction of chemical weapons and prevent their re-emergence; consolidating efforts to prepare for exigencies that required assistance, coordination and protection if ever a Member State were to suffer an attack; promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry; and promoting universal adherence to the Convention.  Furthermore, the Organization’s work was underpinned by two fundamental principles –- the centrality of the multilateral character of the Convention and the equal application of its provisions to all State parties.

The Chemical Weapons Convention’s tenth anniversary of its entry into force would fall in April 2007, he noted.  His Organization remained steadfast in its goal to rid the planet of chemical weapons.  Membership had been increasing steadily and recently reached the impressive figure of 180 State parties.  There remained 15 countries not party, however -- some of whom were players in well-known sensitive regions of the world.  It was precisely in areas of conflict that complete chemical disarmament needed to be ensured.

On current developments in chemical disarmament, the destruction of over 14,700 metric tonnes of chemical warfare agent –- over 20 per cent of the total declared stockpile in the world -- had been verified.  The destruction of 2.6 million -– more than one quarter -– of declared munitions and containers had been verified as well.  Despite those successes, the majority of the world’s stockpile of chemical weapons had yet to be destroyed.  The majority of resources and time were devoted to the destruction campaigns in the two possessor States with the largest declared stockpiles –- the Russian Federation and the United States.  The Russian Federation’s chemical weapons destruction programme was gaining momentum -– a positive sign, as recently its slow pace had given cause for understandable concerns.  In the United States, nine destruction facilities were currently operational, but more than 36 per cent of the United States stockpile had been destroyed.

On successes, he noted that all 65 former chemical weapons production facilities, which had been declared by 12 State parties, had been permanently deactivated.  Likewise, the destruction of over 87 per cent of those facilities had been certified by Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspectors, and the remainder were expected to be destroyed by the end of 2007, or converted by the end of 2008.  A good example of such success was in Libya, where the conversion of its former chemical weapons production facility was to be devoted to producing low-cost vaccines and medicines for Africa.  Likewise, India had achieved the destruction of 45 per cent of its stockpile ahead of schedule, while Albania was moving forward with destroying all of its declared chemical weapons by the end of April 2007.

On the universality of the Convention, there had been 40 States not party to the convention in 2003.  Today, there were only 15.  His Organization’s membership stood at 180 countries.  Recently, Djibouti, Haiti, Liberia, the Comoros and the Central African Republic had joined.  Iraq was also taking steps to accede.  Yet, the Middle East represented a void on the Organization’s map.  Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria – not one had joined the Convention.  In Asia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar had not joined either.  He hoped that the few remaining states in Africa such as the Congo –- presiding over the African Union and a Member of the Security Council -- would join.  He urged the Bahamas, Barbados and the Dominican Republic to follow suit.

Finally, he hailed the announcement of the Security Council of its selection of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban-Ki Moon as next Secretary-General.  Not only was his “statesmanship of notice”, but he had made specific contributions to the language of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Rights of Reply

The representative of the Russian Federation said he wished to respond to Georgia’s intervention at the morning meeting.  Once again Georgia had used an international forum for its own propagandistic purposes in considering aspects of Georgian-Russian relations, including the matter of military bases.  Russia was fully complying with the bilateral agreement established in Istanbul.  The joint statement of the Russian Federation and Georgia was Annex XIV to the final act of the conferences participating in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.  On 31 March, Russia had signed an agreement with Georgia on a time frame for temporary provisional functioning and the withdrawal of military bases and other facilities in the trans-Caucasian region.  Under that agreement, Georgia undertook to ensure the security for the withdrawal of Russian bases and transport of various technologies.  Regretfully, instead of creating normalcy for the withdrawal of Russian military technology, Georgia had once again been whipping up a kind of hysteria, as could be seen by its recent seizing of four Russian officers.  Its propagandistic campaign was being carried out against a backdrop of seeking a military solution to conflicts in Abkhazia and Ossetia.  There had been a military build-up in the Kodori Valley, which was a violation of the Moscow Agreement on the ceasefire signed in 2004.  The recent report of the Secretary-General bore witness to that.

As regards the Russian military base in Gudauta, in mid-2001 the Organization on the Reduction of Forces in Europe had been notified that the base was being disbanded and the land being used for the peacekeeping forces of the CIS, which were carrying out peacekeeping activities in that area.  In 2002, the OSCE monitoring group visited the base and confirmed the base had been closed.  Russia intended to comply with its obligations on withdrawing military technology from Georgia, despite the campaign waged recently. 

He said that the statement by the Georgian representative also touched on uncontrolled delivery of weapons to that region.  He said he could confirm that, but the unfortunate proliferation of weapons was related to the military build-up by Georgia itself.  He said he hoped that other States, including non-regional states, would help to promote a normalization of the situation in the region and not allow delivery of destabilizing weapons into Georgia.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record