Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

5^th Meeting (AM)

CONTOURS OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY, CONSTRUCTED BY INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

OUT OF COLD WAR DEBRIS, REMAIN UNDEFINED, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE WARNED

Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone; Terrorist Acquisition

Of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Nuclear Waste Transport Accidents, Among Topics

It was disturbing that the contours of the collective security, which the international community sought to construct out of the debris of the cold war, remained undefined, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it wrapped up the first of two weeks of its general debate on all disarmament and international security matters.

Ghana’s representative said that, despite the reality of daunting challenges confronting the international security environment, meaningful and substantial progress continued to elude the disarmament realm.  The blame for that paralysis lay with all Member States.  While a few recalcitrant States were more culpable, the majority of countries could not be completely absolved.

There was universal recognition that nuclear weapons were the greatest threat to global security and human survival, but 16 years after the end of the cold war as precursor for ridding the world of mass destruction weapons, the general concern over those weapons of terror had not diminished but had accentuated, he said.  The growing disquiet over nuclear weapons that had gripped the world should reinforce the urgent need for institutionalizing concrete measures, with comprehensive and total disarmament as the primary objective.

He said that a nuclear test-ban agreement, non-proliferation measures, a missile technology control regime, the various conventions on prohibitions and verification measures were only transitory arrangements leading to complete disarmament.  The nuclear-weapon States should exhibit leadership by translating their declarations into constructive action.  Qualitative improvements and replacements of nuclear weapons, and rationalization of those weapons in security doctrines, obliterated the significance of the decreases in nuclear arsenals.

Several other speakers stressed the need to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  Syria’s representative said that the Middle East was the only region which had not witnessed any serious effort in that regard, and some members of the international community had failed to follow the decisions of previous non-proliferation conferences, in particular, the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which had produced the resolution on the Middle East calling for establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, he pointed out.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said that the single obstacle to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region was Israel’s refusal to become party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place its nuclear programme under the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  International pressure was necessary in order to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free area, he added, warning that a policy of double standards, which persisted in the region, sent a signal to Israel that it was acceptable for it to continue to flout the decision to make the region a nuclear-weapon-free area.

Echoing the call for a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons, Libya’s speaker said it was specifically the responsibility of the nuclear-weapon States to ensure that Israel joined all relevant treaties on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and placed its nuclear installations under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards system.  He agreed that ending a policy of double standards and selectivity, while providing security guarantees to countries that did not possess those loathsome weapons, would spread calm and dispel the anxiety in the region.

Equally determined to rid the region of nuclear weapons was Qatar’s representative, who also appealed to Israel to take practical steps to consolidate plans and build confidence, by accepting the responsibility to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA control and by adhering to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  He further stressed the need to keep non-State actors from acquiring nuclear weapons, with the “end goal” being those weapons’ complete elimination.

Speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which had the participation of all its members in the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean) -- the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a densely populated area –- Suriname’s delegate warned of the “grave threat” posed by an accident or terrorist attack involving the transhipment of nuclear waste on the Caribbean Sea.  He, thus, repeated his “strenuous and forceful” rejection of the continued use of the Caribbean Sea for the shipment and transhipment of nuclear material and toxic waste. 

Additional statements in the general debate were made by the representatives of the Philippines, El Salvador, Venezuela, Mongolia, Senegal, Yemen, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 15 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 before the General Assembly.  (For background of the Committee’s session and a summary of reports before it, see Press Releases GA/DIS/3339 and GA/DIS/3340, respectively.)

Statements

LESLIE KOJO CHRISTIAN ( Ghana) said that it was disturbing that the contours of the collective security, which the international community was seeking to construct out of the debris of the cold war, still remained undefined despite the reality of daunting challenges that continued to confront the international security environment.  Meaningful and substantial progress continued to elude the disarmament realm.  All Member States should be collectively responsible for that paralysis.  While a few recalcitrant States were more culpable than others, the majority could not be completely absolved.

Despite the unanimous recognition among Member States that nuclear weapons constituted the greatest threat to global security and human survival, he said it was not only worrisome, but disappointing that, 16 years after welcoming the end of the cold war as precursor for ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, the general concern over those weapons of terror had not diminished, but had accentuated.  The growing disquiet over those weapons that had gripped the world should reinforce the urgent need for institutionalizing concrete measures, with comprehensive and total disarmament as the primary objective.  A nuclear-test-ban agreement, non-proliferation measures, a missile technology control regime, the various conventions on prohibitions, the verification measures, among others, should be regarded as only transitory arrangements towards complete disarmament.  The nuclear-weapon States should exhibit leadership by translating their declarations into constructive action.  Qualitative improvements and replacements of nuclear weapons, as well as rationalization of those weapons in security doctrines, obliterated the significance of the decreases in nuclear arsenals.

He noted that the primary, but not exclusive, challenge to the Non-Proliferation Treaty remained the recognition that its efficacy rested on the non-selectivity in the implementation of its three equally inseparable and mutually reinforcing core elements of disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses.  Consideration of those fundamental principles should not divert attention to other salient issues, notably, the pursuit of its universalization, negative security assurances, withdrawal from the Treaty, and cooperation in nuclear technology among States parties and non-signatories to the Treaty.  Non-nuclear-weapon States continued to make compromises and take steps aimed at achieving the goal of that Treaty, foremost among them, the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.  The nuclear-weapon States should exhibit clear commitment by respecting and adhering to the provisions of those agreements that were a vital component of the non-proliferation regime.

Although laudable progress had been made in addressing the indiscriminate use of landmines and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it was too early for complacency and exultation, he warned.  An important element in the fight against illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons was the tightening of legal controls on manufacturing, brokering, trade and possession of those arms.   Ghana supported a strong and effective arms trade treaty as an essential measure for prohibiting arms transfers to destinations where they would be misused to fuel violence.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. ( Philippines) said that the proliferation and uncontrolled spread of small arms and light weapons posed a serious threat, not only to peace and security, but also to economic development and sustained growth.  Developing countries were more vulnerable to the illicit trafficking in those weapons, which fuelled and prolonged conflicts in various parts of the world, maiming and killing millions.  His country emphasised the importance of early and full implementation of the 2001 United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.  His country also recognised the role of civil society in addressing the issue of trafficking those weapons, through the various mechanisms designed to establish and promote a culture of peace.  Faith-based communities and inter-faith cooperation played an important role in implementing the Action Programme.  The Philippines continued to actively encourage those faith-based communities to call on their followers to help stem the illicit flow of small arms and light weapons.

He said that the world faced an even greater threat with the further development and improvement of certain types of weapons of mass destruction.  Nuclear weapons must be eliminated for the survival of mankind, and that could best be done through multilaterally agreed solutions, in keeping with the United Nations Charter.  Their removal from the arsenals of nuclear-weapon States would deter those countries that wished to acquire them and would also eliminate the chance that they would fall into the hands of non-State actors with the will to unleash such weapons upon civilians.  The paralysis that currently plagued the field of disarmament and non-proliferation should be seriously addressed; Member States must make every effort to move the process forward.  It was essential that the preparatory process for the 2010 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which had already begun, lead to a substantive and fruitful outcome.  The few remaining countries that had not yet ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) should do so, without delay.

Biological and chemical weapons were just as lethal as nuclear weapons and posed an equally grave danger to mankind, he declared.  The Philippines, therefore, welcomed the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference of States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological [Biological] and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction).

EDUARDO ANTONIO SVENBLAD UMANA ( El Salvador) said international efforts to promote the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had led to a greater awareness of the dangers of such weapons, reflected in a massive adherence to various international instruments on the matter.  However, it was paradoxical that non-nuclear-weapon States had been the most enthusiastic actors in contributing to the verification regime, whereas, logically, it should be nuclear-weapon States that were most dedicated to non-proliferation.  In El Salvador’s view, the best way to strengthen security was not through an arms race, but through confidence-building measures, increased multilateralism and transparency.  Towards that goal, it was necessary to universalize international instruments, for which the support of civil society, and international cooperation, was needed.

He expressed disappointment with the slow progress of the review conference on the 2001 Programme of Action on the illicit small arms trade, given that menace posed a grave threat worldwide.  Landmines remained a serious issue as well, and it was necessary to strengthen action in that regard.  Parallel to that, it was also vital to strengthen international cooperation to reintegrate the victims of anti-personnel mines.  Hopefully, the next session of the Mine Ban Convention would be successful.  He joined the appeal of many countries for increased political will, and a worldwide desire for peace.

AURA MAHUAMPI RODRIGUEZ DE ORTIZ ( Venezuela), aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries and with the statement made on behalf of the Rio Group, said that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction was an inescapable priority.  Nuclear-weapon States must, not only reduce, but completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals, since, she said, “vertical nuclear proliferation encourages horizontal nuclear proliferation”.  The possession and modernization of nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon States had a direct consequence on non-nuclear-weapon States because it threatened their security.  Given that the use of nuclear arms posed a constant risk, Venezuela called for negative security guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States, as well as an international instrument through which nuclear-weapon states would commit not to use nuclear weapons against States which do not possess them.

At the same time, she said that Venezuela defended the inalienable right of developing States to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  That right must be preserved in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner.

Further, she said, the negotiation of a convention to prohibit the use of fissionable material was vital, and must encompass all fissionable material, including that in storage.  Venezuela was participating in the Test-Ban Treaty.  The country possessed two seismic stations, functioning in accordance with the Treaty, both of which had been in full operation since 2003.   Venezuela also had an important chemical park, but did not produce chemical weapons.  There was a national authority charged with enacting a law on the subject, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had inspected the chemical park on three separate occasions, each time concluding that Venezuela was in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons).

She said that outer space should be the “common heritage of mankind”, and Venezuela objected to plans for military systems in space, which would endanger the collective security of mankind.  States should renounce the emplacement of any military stations in outer space, whether defensive or offensive.  She, therefore, called for an international instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  There was a need to strengthen international cooperation on the issue and equal respect between all countries, as well as equal access to information.

Venezuela had joined multilateral efforts against the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, she noted.  Rather than focusing solely on the purchase of those weapons, States in which those weapons were manufactured must implement laws to facilitate their tracking, by marking them before they left the country.  The marking of munitions was likewise important.  On cluster weapons, Venezuela sought a legally binding instrument.  The humanitarian problem had been placed in the context of their “incorrect or indiscriminate use”, but, in fact, such an approach favoured military considerations to the detriment of humanitarian concerns.  In Venezuela’s view, there was no such thing as the right or wrong use of such weapons, as their use would always be indiscriminate.

She said she rejected the idea that the legitimate use of conventional weapons by States should be tracked because States had a right to guarantee internal order.   Venezuela also rejected coercive unilateral methods and she emphasized that international efforts to control conventional weapons should not detract from States’ needs to defend themselves.  It was important to remember that the true disarmament priorities were to address those that posed the greatest threat to mankind, and Venezuela was committed to promoting a safer world, through the promotion and strengthening of multilateralism.

BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said that a state of pessimism hovered over the international scene in the area of disarmament and international security as a result of the attempt by some States to impose approaches that violated the principles of the United Nations Charter.  International concern had grown because of selective application of the non-proliferation regime.  Some nuclear-weapon States did not take nuclear disarmament seriously, but sought to shirk their international obligations.  Moreover, some of them had provided Israel with a nuclear reactor, heavy water and other materials that had enabled Israel to produce the nuclear weapons, with which it threatened peace and security in the Middle East.  Such policies eroded those countries’ credibility in the area of non-proliferation.  Their actions were relative and selective, and ran contrary to the promotion of international peace and security.  Some members of the international community had also failed to follow the decisions of former non-proliferation conferences, in particular, the 1995 resolution on the Middles East, which called for establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.  As a result, the Middle East was the only region which had not witnessed any serious effort to rid it of nuclear weapons.

He cautioned against the silence of the international community towards Israel, which had moved from “nuclear ambiguity” to openly declaring that it possessed nuclear weapons.  That silence of the international community made the people of the region lose their faith regarding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could trigger an arms race in the region.   Syria had submitted a draft resolution to the Security Council to rid the region of nuclear weapons, but that text had been rejected because of the opposition of one State.  Since Israel was the source of conventional and nuclear terrorism in the Middle East region, Syria called on the international community to call on Israel to subject all its facilities to the security guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to rid itself of its stockpiles of nuclear weapons.  In addition, the Agency should be the main forum for discussions, aimed at turning the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone.  The right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses was an inalienable right of States, and Syria opposed any attempt to reinterpret or negate that right.  It also supported the resolution on the follow-up to the views of the International Court of Justice on the legitimacy of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

MUNASSER SALEM NASSER LASLOOM ( Saudi Arabia) said that international efforts must concentrate on disarmament, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.  Military forces should ensure that they were acting in accordance with the United Nations Charter.  Some success had been achieved in the area of disarmament and international security, but some treaties in the international disarmament arena had not yet achieved their desired effect because of the presence of double standards.  The 2005 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had not had the desired result.   Saudi Arabia hoped that the present General Assembly would be able to move that process forward.  The Millennium Summit had also been unable to reach an agreement in the area of disarmament, and there was still no agreement holding a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.  However, the international community should not despair.  Rather, it should commit to greater efforts to overcome those challenges.

He said that Saudi Arabia had always reasserted the letter and spirit of the principles of disarmament by becoming party to various conventions.  His country would cooperate with the committee monitoring Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) by providing all requested reports.  Regarding illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, Saudi Arabia had taken all necessary measures.  On a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the single obstacle to its creation was Israel’s refusal to become party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place its nuclear programme under the IAEA safeguards regime.  International pressure was necessary, in order to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone.  A policy of double standards persisted in the region and that was sending the signal to Israel that it was acceptable for it to continue to flout the decision to rid the region of nuclear weapons.  With regard to the non-military use of nuclear technologies, Saudi Arabia invited all parties to negotiate peacefully with regard to Iran’s nuclear programme.   Iran had stated that its programme was for peaceful purposes.

NASSIR ADBULAZIZ AL-NASSER (Qatar), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, called for the full implementation of the Test-Ban Treaty, together with safeguard systems and protocols.  There was a need for a convention on fissionable material, but, unfortunately, no agreement had been reached.  Thus far, United Nations mechanisms on disarmament had not been commensurate with their capabilities, owing to a failure of political will.  Nuclear weapons were the most important issue facing the United Nations.  While the weapons were in the hands of a small number of States, they could kill thousands, and destroy entire villages.  There was a lack of confidence on the issue, with nuclear-weapon States “unready” to abandon their weapons.

He said that the new global regime had a number of negative effects.  Military interventions had taken place, which did not take into account the principle of security for all.  In that context, there was a need to hold a fourth special assembly on disarmament.  The selective use of non-proliferation rules had led to proliferation and to an arms race, for the sake of deterrence.

The peaceful use of energy, however, was a right guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he said.  Qatar noted with concern the obstacles raised by nuclear-weapon States against other States’ research into peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  Meanwhile, no practical measures had been taken on disarmament by nuclear-weapon States.  Conflicts had increased globally, for which solutions through dialogue must be found.  Qatar would submit a resolution on finding a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue.

On nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said that such zones were valuable tools for disarmament and non-proliferation, at the regional and international levels.  The nuclear-weapon-free zone in South-East Asia was welcome, and he called on all nuclear-weapon States to sign on.  He also supported the establishment of such a zone in the Middle East, and appealed to Israel to take practical steps to consolidate plans and build confidence, and to accept the responsibility to place its nuclear facilities under the control of IAEA, as well as to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He also stressed the need to keep non-State actors from acquiring nuclear weapons, with the “end goal” being those weapons’ complete elimination.  Among other disarmament challenges were the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, on which the outcome of the 2006 Review Conference had been disappointing.  Also important was the non-proliferation of landmines, and he referred in particular to those left by Israel in southern Lebanon.  Moreover, Israel had yet to give out charts of the locations of those landmines.  Also of concern was the danger of conventional weapons and their development.  There had been an increase in military spending worldwide, which had reached $1 trillion per year.  That sum could instead be used for development.

ENKHTSETSEG OCHIR ( Mongolia) said that Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) was a meaningful step towards curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Her country viewed that resolution as critical to achieving the objective of eliminating the risk that non-State actors might acquire, develop, traffic in or use weapons of mass destruction.  It also provided a solid basis for improving national control facilities, with the assistance provided for, under the text.

She said her country continued to attach priority importance on the early entry into force and universality of the Test-Ban Treaty, the start of negotiations on a legally binding instrument on negative security assurances, and a fissile material cut-off treaty.  Outer space, being the common heritage of mankind, should be explored and used solely for peaceful purposes.  Mongolia, therefore, supported initiatives aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space and the threat of use of force against space objects through the adoption of a legally binding instrument.  Mongolia also believed that diplomacy was the only way to resolve the ongoing crisis over the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.   Iran should afford its fullest cooperation to IAEA and implement relevant Security Council resolutions.

Mongolia also attached particular significance to the strengthening of peace and security in the North-East Asia subregion, she continued.  It had consistently supported multilateral efforts aimed at resolving the issue of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and had followed closely the six-party talks.  Welcoming the progress made so far, she said that it was imperative to maintain that positive momentum.

This year marked the fifteenth anniversary of Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status, she added.  In coming up with that initiative, the country had been guided by its long-standing principled position in favour of attaining the goal of complete and general disarmament, affording highest priority to nuclear disarmament, and support for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all regions of the world.  The country had worked strenuously to institutionalise its nuclear-weapon-free status, with a view to achieving, not only internationally recognised, but also a legally binding, nuclear-weapon-free zone.  The Government was now resuming its consultations with its two immediate neighbours, China and the Russian Federation, on the conclusion of a relevant trilateral treaty.

COLY SECK (Senegal), aligning himself with statements made by Indonesia and Nigeria, said that the standstill in disarmament bodies called for a multilateral effort, given that security efforts could no longer be contained within national borders.  The nuclear threat, and the risk of those weapons falling into terrorist hands, was a key concern in Senegal.  Nuclear-weapon States had so far taken encouraging steps, but there was nevertheless a trend towards States possessing fewer, but ever-more dangerous weapons.  The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was the cornerstone of disarmament and non-proliferation.  The Test-Ban Treaty must enter into force and work must commence on a treaty banning fissionable materials.  Also vital was for effective security assurances to be given to non-nuclear-weapon States.

He said that, last year, General Assembly resolution 61/89, “Towards an arms trade treaty”, had been met with great enthusiasm, proving that the international community was concerned about regulating the conventional arms trade.  He praised the work done so far on improving the Register of Conventional Arms and on the regulation of light weapons, but said that that remained a major issue, on which Member States must work further.  He welcomed action taken on the “ Geneva process” and said implementation of the Ottawa Convention must continue to be a priority.  Progress so far had been “not insignificant”, but there must be universal adherence to the total ban which it establishes.  Senegal called on all States to do so.  Only constant dialogue, without exclusion, would lead to a safer world.

HENRY LEONARD MAC-DONALD (Suriname), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that humanity as a whole continued to live in insecurity.  Only a strong commitment to multilateralism would provide an avenue to removing insecurities and achieving sustainable economic and social development.  That was particularly true for developing countries, for whom CARICOM was concerned with ensuring the efficacy of international mechanisms on disarmament and non-proliferation.  Disarmament and non-proliferation needed to be addressed “hand in hand”, in order to ensure balanced progress and confidence.  The solution to the nuclear risk was the elimination of all nuclear weapons and existing arsenals.  Assurance against the threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States was important.

He said that the Caribbean Community’s commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was embodied in the participation of all its members in the Treaty of Talatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean), the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a densely populated area.  On the Treaty’s fortieth anniversary, the Community repeated its commitment to contributing to international peace and security.

On related regional matters, he said that the transhipment of nuclear waste through the region was of “critical importance”, since there was a “grave threat” of an accident or a terrorist attack on one of those shipments.  The Caribbean Community member States and the Association of Caribbean States had called for a total cessation of those shipments.  He repeated his “strenuous and forceful” rejection of the continued use of the Caribbean Sea for the shipment and transhipment of nuclear material and toxic waste.  He also called on countries producing nuclear and toxic waste to urgently implement relevant measures to establish reprocessing facilities, which would put an end to the need for transhipment of such waste.

Another major issue was the threat posed by the acquisition by non-State actors of weapons of mass destruction, and CARICOM called for the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).

The proliferation of conventional weapons also remained a threat to international peace and security, as well as a cause of organized crime, particularly “narco-trafficking”.  Further, small arms and light weapons, which were the “contemporary causes of mass destruction”, remained a high priority for the region, where the increasing spread of such weapons had already caused a great deal of suffering, largely among civilians.  He repeated CARICOM’s call for an arms trade treaty to ensure that those buying such weapons complied with international law and international humanitarian law, thereby contributing to political stability and security in countries throughout the world.

ABDURRAHMAN A.H. ELGANNAS ( Libya) said that the nuclear Powers must take positive and tangible steps towards nuclear disarmament, not only giving priority to non-proliferation efforts, but also by working to provide binding guarantees against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  The international community must work to swiftly conclude an unconditional legally binding international instrument on security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States.  Achieving positive progress with regard to nuclear disarmament would consolidate international security vis-a-vis non-proliferation.  It was also essential that the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons be implemented on a non-selective basis and that nuclear weapons programmes and the right to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as authorised under international law, not be confused, especially under article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

He said Libya continued to implement its commitments under treaties relating to weapons of mass destruction.  Its initiative, announced in 2003, to voluntarily abandon all programmes which might lead to the production of such weapons, placed responsibilities on nuclear-weapon States to provide the necessary guarantees for Libya’s national security.  The nuclear-weapon States also had the responsibility to work in the Middle East, subjected to effective international guarantees, towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and other nuclear materials.  They needed to ensure that Israel joined all treaties on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and placed its nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards system of IAEA, in order to render the region one of peace and cooperation.  Ending a policy of double standards and selective approaches, while providing security guarantees to countries that did not possess weapons of mass destruction, would spread calm and dispel the anxiety of all the countries of the region.  It would also discourage the idea of manufacturing or retaining such weapons.

The danger inherent in the spread of conventional weapons was another major concern, especially in conflict situations, since spread of those arms resulted in a staggering number of civilian deaths, he continued.  Confidence-building measures, implemented voluntarily, would contribute to strengthening peace and security at the international and regional levels.  There was the need to support the United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America, in order for them to carry out the tasks of helping to achieve peace and disarmament.

ISMAIL MOHAMED YAHYA ALMAABRI ( Yemen) said he endorsed the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and affirmed Yemen’s conviction of the need to totally eliminate weapons of mass destruction.  Yemen had signed a number of international treaties on disarmament, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Test-Ban Treaty, and the Mine Ban Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction).

He said that the illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons was of particular importance, and Yemen was working hard on that issue.  Domestically, in Yemen’s main cities and provincial capitals, efforts were being made to regulate small arms possession, and to verify all permits.  The illegal trafficking in small arms exerted a strong negative influence on many countries and was an obstacle to peace, especially since it meant that non-State actors, including terrorists, transnational criminals and outlaws, had access to those weapons.  The practice of illegal trafficking also encouraged poverty, unemployment and epidemics, and created a fertile ground for terrorist organizations.  Thus, the States manufacturing those weapons, whatever arms, size or type, had a moral obligation to help States that were “overflowing” with weapons, especially amid high levels of poverty.

Touching on other matters of importance to Yemen, he affirmed the inalienable right of all States to maintain nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  He also called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  Israel should adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards system.  Yemen supported all international efforts aimed at adopting preventive measures to keep weapons out of the hands of non-State actors.  His country worked in cooperation with its neighbours in that regard.

MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI ( Iraq) said that Security Council resolution dealing with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission recognised and acknowledged that weapons of mass destruction did not exist in Iraq.  It was the determination of the Government to respect all the international treaties governing the stockpiling and use of such weapons.   Iraq had acceded to the Mines Ban Convention, which would enter force in Iraq on 1 February 2008.   Iraq also intended to adhere to the Test-Ban Treaty and Chemical Weapons Convention, both of which had been submitted to the Parliament for ratification.  After the bitter lessons following the policies of the former regime, and taking into consideration the country’s national security, the new regime planned to adhere to all international treaties dealing with weapons of mass destruction.  The Constitution stipulated that the Government must respect and apply all international commitments undertaken by Iraq in the area of non-proliferation, non-manufacturing and non-use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The Constitution also prohibited all actions that promoted those weapons’ development, manufacture and use.

He said that Iraq had been the victim of destruction, in wake of the foreign policy adopted by the old regime and its non-respect of international resolutions covering disarmament and weapons of mass destruction.  Its goal of general and global disarmament, especially in the area of weapons of mass destruction, was to ensure that there was strict, effective and non-discriminatory international monitoring.  An overview of what had been achieved showed that international accomplishments had been below the expectations of humankind, especially since the world today was more threatened by the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  Several dangers threatened international peace and security.  The arms race continued at accelerated pace, both globally and regionally, in the absence of strict global monitoring.  That had become evident through the discovery of secret weapons programmes carried out by certain States in violation of relevant treaties and international conventions.  The international community needed to attain the noble goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

The failure of the review of the United Nations Programme of Action on the illicit small arms trade to come up with an agreement in 2006 could negatively affect the security situation in Iraq, he warned.  Small arms and light weapons played a destructive role as they were used by terrorist organizations in targeting the Iraqi people.  His country believed in the need to rid the Middle East of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.  It would endeavour to work in that direction, within the United Nations, IAEA and the League of Arab States.   Israel should accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under its international monitoring system.  The States outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty should accede to it without delay.

ABDULAZIZ NASSER R. AL-SHAMSI (United Arab Emirates), aligning himself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said he shared the disappointment expressed by the United Nations Secretariat and other delegations on the “successive failures” of the international community on disarmament issues.  He emphasized the importance of showing goodwill and flexibility to overcome the present stalemate, which was characterized by the continuation of nuclear-weapon States to develop their nuclear arsenals and the declared or undeclared attempts of some States to acquire similar weapons.  It was important to reach a consensus on agenda items, breaking the current stalemate.

He said his country had participated in all conferences and meetings on disarmament, including in efforts to strengthen the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the United Arab Emirates was a party.  He expressed concern about “unjustifiable” concepts, which called for the promotion and development of nuclear deterrence and weapons of mass destruction.  Likewise, he was concerned with the “growing resort to unilateralism in addressing the consequences of such policies”.  He called for a return to multilateralism and international treaties, in order to achieve the objective of vertical and horizontal non-proliferation. 

In that context, he praised the positive manner in which the “North Korean file” had been handled, and looked forward to a peaceful and permanent settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue, which would ensure stability in the Gulf region.  He also looked forward to intensifying internal efforts to compel Israel to dismantle and submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards, and for all concerned parties to stop providing technical and scientific assistance for the development of Israeli nuclear armaments, in line with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

It was urgent for nuclear-weapon States to initiate serious and effective negotiations to ensure their commitments to stop developing nuclear arsenals and their delivery systems, reduce and eliminate those weapons.  Also vital was to create an international instrument to provide security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States.  Countries that had not yet acceded to disarmament treaties must do so as soon as possible, in order to enhance the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Test-Ban Treaty.  International efforts aimed at preventing illegitimate trade in weapons must also be strengthened. 

He reaffirmed the “inalienable right” of States to develop research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, without discrimination and within the limits specified by IAEA.  He urged nuclear-weapon States to support the scientific and technological needs of developing countries, without prejudice to international cooperation arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy or fuel-cycle policies.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record