Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

6^th Meeting (PM)

REVIVAL OF COMMITMENT TO COLLECTIVE SECURITY, BASED ON EQUITY, BALANCE, RESTRAINT,

COOPERATION AMONG STATES, CALLED FOR IN FIRST COMMITTEE AS DEBATE CONTINUES

Inattention to Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles Leaves States

Harbouring Fears As To ‘When, Not If’, Nuclear Fallout Will Occur

The international community needed a new disarmament architecture and a new consensus on international security, requiring a revival of commitment to collective security based on equity, balance restraint and cooperation among States, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it continued its general debate.

Pakistan’s representative said the consensus should be based on several pillars, including an international commitment by all States, and a commitment by the nuclear Powers to complete disarmament within a specified time frame.  The consensus also required, among other features, security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States, promotion of measures to prevent acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and non-State actors, and agreement to address the emerging threats posed by missile systems and the militarisation of outer space.

Turning to regional matters, he said Pakistan’s strategic defence posture was based on maintaining a minimum credible deterrence.  It had proposed a composite dialogue with India, but its effort could be jeopardised by recent developments, including the progressive nuclear weapons development by one side and the United States-India agreement.   Pakistan was deeply concerned that that agreement would enable India to expand its nuclear programme.  It was equally concerned by the assertion of India‘s right to conduct nuclear tests.  The negotiation of the United States-India agreement had led to a discriminatory and one-sided arrangement, which would fuel nuclear proliferation in the area.

Concern about weapons of mass destruction, asserted Jamaica’s representative, had not been met with a corresponding desire to address the elimination of the growing stockpile of nuclear weapons.  That challenging situation left the majority of States harbouring well-founded fears as to when, not if, the world would have to face the calamity of a nuclear fallout.   Jamaica questioned the will of nuclear-weapon States to move decisively and expeditiously to eliminate the nuclear threat and the accompanying possibility of proliferation beyond speculation, once and for all. 

The representative of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the key issue for ensuring world peace and security was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  His country was committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and had taken a number of steps in this direction, including the recent halting of operations at the Nyongbyon nuclear facility. 

He said that implementation of the 19 September 2005 agreement, however, depended on the other five parties fulfilling their obligations.  The United States must remove the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from its list of “terror-sponsoring States” and lift sanctions on the country.  The United States and Japan must end their “hostile actions” against his country, he urged.

Several delegates stressed the need to ensure that weapons of mass destruction did not fall into the hands of terrorists, pressing for full implementation of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).  The representative of Morocco said that terrorism and the existence of black market and multi-use substances underscored the danger of nuclear weapons, as well as the need for heightened international cooperation.  It was necessary to protect nuclear facilities to prevent terrorists from gaining access to nuclear materials.  Individual and collective efforts would only succeed, however, if they went beyond simple security and considered the underlying causes of regional conflict.

Israel’s representative warned that the transfer of arms to terrorists was a “scourge” to modern civilization, enabling groups and individuals to target civilians, thereby contributing to destabilizing States and regions.  States wilfully transferred arms to terrorists, or turned a blind eye to such transfers. 

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of Serbia, Belarus, Thailand, Burkina Faso, Montenegro, Georgia, Gabon, Nicaragua, Armenia, Eritrea, Mali and Albania. 

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon 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.)

MASOOD KHAN ( Pakistan) said that the United Nations Charter and the first meeting of the United Nations had offered equal security to all nations.  General trends, however, had seen an erosion of the arms control and non-proliferation regime, including the demise of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, prolonged non-entry into force of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the continuing plans by some States to develop useable nuclear weapons.  International peace and security was under great threat.  The situation called attention to the need to construct a new consensus, which required a revival of the international security architecture.  The Secretary-General should consider convening a meeting on such a new international security architecture.  Any such new consensus should be based on a number of pillars, including an international commitment by all States, in particular the major Powers; security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States; commitment by nuclear-weapon States to complete disarmament within a specified time frame; international agreement for the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy under international safeguards; promotion of measures to prevent acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and non-State actors; agreement to address the emerging threats posed by missile systems and militarization of outer space; and specific security arrangements for sensitive regions, in order to maintain balanced security environments.

He said that Pakistan had persevered in its endeavour to maintain peace and security in its region.  Its policy was based on maintaining a credible deterrence level.  In that regard, it had proposed a composite dialogue with India, but its effort could be jeopardized by recent developments, including the progressive nuclear-weapon development by one side and the United States-India agreement.   Pakistan was deeply concerned that that agreement would enable India to expand its nuclear programme.  It was equally concerned by the assertion of India’s right to conduct nuclear tests.

Pakistan had the legitimate right to meet its growing need for energy using nuclear technology, he went on.  It would establish its new nuclear facility under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and would promote legitimate and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  The country was now working on a separate new law to implement the Biological Weapons Convention. It was convinced that negotiation of the United States-India agreement had led to a discriminatory and one-sided arrangement, and would fuel nuclear proliferation in the area.

MIRIAM ZIV ( Israel) said her country continued to attach great importance to the export control regimes and their contribution to efforts aimed at curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Israel had embarked on a legal and institutional reform process designed to ensure that its existing export control system was aligned with international standards set by the Nuclear Supplies Group, Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement.  Israel shared concerns about the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, thus, special attention should be given to the proliferation of know-how and technologies.  It was vital for the international community to keep such weapons out of the hands of “reckless and irresponsible actors”, such as rogue States and terrorist groups.  There, she urged the international community not to value unanimity at the expense of a strong programme on clandestine weapons of mass destruction.

On Iran’s nuclear programme, she said concerns about the programme had not been alleviated over the past year and, in fact, Iran’s endeavours in the nuclear sphere were a threat on the regional and global levels.  “ Iran should be regarded as a threat well beyond the geographical limits of the Middle East,” she said, adding that Iran’s activities in the field of mass destruction weapons undermined the global non-proliferation regime and emphasized the threat posed by countries in non-compliance.  Last month, during his address to the General Assembly, the Iranian President had “flaunted” his country’s non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.  Iran’s “intransigence” was evident in its “perpetual violation” of Security Council resolutions and defiance of the international community.

At the same time, she said, the need to seek a non-polluting energy source, like nuclear power, was “understandable and justifiable”, but the international community must consider ways to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the dissemination of nuclear technologies, and avenues must be found to address energy needs, while preventing possible abuse for military purposes.  In the Middle East, in particular, “the fact that several cases of gross non-compliance with international obligations undertaken in the nuclear field have been revealed demonstrates the need for awareness and caution in the future spread of such technologies, both globally and regionally”.  She called on the international community to create clear standards to secure responsible States with the benefits of nuclear power, while minimizing proliferation risks.

Turning to terrorism, she said that the transfer of arms to terrorists was a “scourge” to modern civilization, enabling groups and individuals to target civilians and contributing to the destabilization of States and regions.  States wilfully transferred arms to terrorists, or turned a blind eye to such transfers.  In the Middle East, she said, last year’s conflict had demonstrated the scope and severity of that problem: long-, medium- and short-range missiles were held by Hizbullah.  Those weapons had been transferred to Hizbullah by Iran and Syria, and the transfers continued to take place, despite Security Council resolution 1701 (2006).  Likewise, on Israel’s southern border, the transfers of arms from the Sinai desert to the Gaza Strip had increased, and she called for “clearer, more decisive action” by Egypt.

The Middle East was not the only region facing that problem, and she called for a comprehensive approach to curing the “disease”.  Towards that goal, Israel had submitted a working paper on the issue to the Conference on Disarmament, and it would continue working on the topic during the coming year.

She praised the Canadian initiative to promote discussion on small arms and light weapons, and expressed support for the draft resolution advanced by Australia on the regulation and control of transfers of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS).

SLAVKO KRULJEVIĆ ( Serbia) said he attached great importance to international activities aimed at strengthening joint efforts and preventing the proliferation of all types of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those endeavours related to strengthening the universality of prevention measures and activities.  Serbia’s practical contributions had been manifold, and included sending nuclear fuels for long-term storage to the Russian Federation, strengthening the system of physical protection of nuclear and other radioactive materials, in order to more effectively combat illegal trade in those materials, and the ratification of relevant United Nations conventions.  The country had also fulfilled its obligations under Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) by submitting the required reports. It continued to implement the resolution and preparations were under way to work out an implementation action plan.  The country had also adopted a law on the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, while work was being completed on the adoption of a law on the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention.

He said his country also considered arms control an essential segment of the security of every United Nations Member State.  Along with other parties to the Agreement on Subregional Arms Control concluded under article IV of annex 1-B of the Dayton Peace Accords, it had made important contributions to greatly increased security and stability in the region by reducing the overall number of armaments.  In addition, Serbia had submitted a timely report to the Secretary-General on its assessment of the feasibility, scope and parameters of a future arms trade treaty as a binding international instrument.  In it, his country had emphasized the importance and feasibility of the initiative.  It had also continued to follow attentively its development.   Serbia was ready to take an active part in all phases of the preparation of that important document.

An unfortunate accident -- the explosion in an arms and ammunition deport in the Serbian town of Paracin in 2006 -- had exposed the major problem of stockpiling arms and ammunition properly in open-air depots in Serbia, he said.  That problem had been compounded by the destruction of 70 per cent of the country’s stockpiling capacities during North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) raids in 1999.  In cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Ministry of Defence had been working on clearing the explosion site, but, similar to cases of destruction of surplus ammunition, demining and victim assistance, those efforts had been hampered by lack of resources.   Serbia called for continued international donors’ assistance and support.

VALERY KOLESNIK ( Belarus) said his country had been one of the few countries that had voluntarily renounced an opportunity to possess nuclear weapons.  Implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was of prime importance, and he called for an “equally responsible attitude” towards the Treaty’s three pillars, with specific steps to be taken on nuclear disarmament, along with the provision of legally binding negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.

Energy security and scientific progress were the “key factors of sustainable development”, he said, adding that the right to peaceful nuclear activity was inalienable.  It was unacceptable to use the Non-Proliferation Treaty mechanisms as “an excuse to resist the carrying out of peaceful nuclear programmes”.

The implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention remained important, as did preventing the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and related technologies, especially given the threat of international terrorism, he stressed.  Belarus had a responsible export control policy and took necessary measures for the full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004).  On outer space, it was important to further develop a set of legally binding norms aimed at preventing the deployment of an outer space arms race.  Further, Belarus supported discussion on small arms and light weapons proliferation, and called for universal mechanisms of assistance to States in that area.  Regional organizations had a unique experience in countering the illicit circulation of such weapons.  In his region, important work was carried out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.  It was important to develop United Nations cooperation with regional organisations on that issue.

Belarus also called for universalization of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Mine Ban Convention).  His country had the seventh largest arsenal of anti-personnel mines in the world, and he called for assistance in the expensive work of destroying it.  On arms control, he said Belarus regularly submitted data for the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms, and participated in the United Nations Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures.  The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was one of the key international agreements in arms control, and he called for its implementation.  He aligned himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries.

CHIRACHAI PUNKRASIN (Thailand), aligning himself with the statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), welcomed positive developments in the Korean peninsula and the work plan between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran.  However, serious concerns remained over armed conflicts and the spread of terrorism, especially their growing relevance to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.  There was also an “insidious linkage” between violent conflicts and lack of development.  Hopefully, the Conference on Disarmament would resume its work on stemming the production of fissile material, as well as on negative security assurances and preventing the weaponization of outer space.  He also called for the convening of an open-ended working group to push for substantive sessions of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, and for a strengthened Non-Proliferation Treaty through non-selective implementation and full compliance with all its pillars.

He said that biological and chemical weapons posed a major threat to international security, and, thus, Thailand welcomed the Biological Weapons Convention’s intersessional work programme, particularly the focus on national implementation.  The Chemical Weapons Convention’s tenth anniversary was a reminder of that Convention’s relevance and near universality.  He called for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, adding that Thailand was in the process of ratifying it.  Indeed, a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing was an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.

Noting that more than 10 years had passed since ASEAN had established the South-East Asia Nuclear–Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty), he welcomed China’s readiness to sign it and encouraged the other nuclear-weapon States to do the same.

Energy security was a growing global concern, given the dependence of countries around the world on non-renewable fossil fuels, he said.  Thailand viewed the peaceful uses of nuclear energy from the perspective of national economic development, deeming it an inalienable right guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Thailand was drafting a national nuclear and radiological energy plan.

He said that small arms and light weapons, particularly when possessed by criminal and terrorist groups or transferred for unauthorized use, remained a major threat.  Thailand supported 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.  Landmines were another concern, and he was encouraged to see a “burgeoning norm” against their use.  He called on States to work together to find alternative defence systems, as well as for continued efforts in victim assistance.

MICHEL KAFANDO ( Burkina Faso) said that, today, the world lived under a permanent threat, because it had failed to make visible progress in the field of disarmament.  The international community needed to redouble its efforts and negotiate multilaterally, in order to dismantle the obstacles on the road to disarmament and non-proliferation.  Burkina Faso was very concerned by the development of nuclear arms and by the danger that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.

He said his country had welcomed the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the feasibility of an arms trade treaty.  All delegations should provide impetus to the effort to come up with a binding treaty to control the trade in small arms and light weapons.  Such weapons were the cause of intra-State conflict in many regions of the world, particularly in Africa.  On anti-personnel mines, Burkina Faso appealed to all States to show humanism by speedily implementing the Mine Ban Convention.  He expressed support for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and invited the international community to show greater interest, particularly financially, to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, based in Lomé, Togo.  That Centre was an indispensable institution.

Burkina Faso cooperated with other States to contribute to building international peace and, in that regard, it had created a structure to support the fight against proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and drugs, regionally, he said.  It also participated in the work of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union.  Additionally, it was a participant in many United Nations peacekeeping operations.

NEBOJŠA KALUDJEROVIĆ ( Montenegro) said his country had made a commitment to comply with all United Nations and OSCE conventions dealing with the issue of demilitarization.  It had destroyed military tanks, and the money recovered from the destruction of those tanks had been applied to development projects.  UNDP had been a main implementing partner in that process, while OSCE had provided technical and specialist advice.  By end of the year, Montenegro planned to conclude the destruction of specified chemical substances.  In 2008, the relevant national agency would continue activities aimed at contributing to overall security in the region.  Montenegro had signed an arms control agreement with Serbia.  The country also supported the establishment of an arms trade treaty.  In that regard, it had submitted the relevant report to the Secretary-General.

PAK GIL YON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the world remained “gravely threatened” by the policy of the “so-called super-Power”, based on unilateralism, high-handedness and pre-emptive nuclear strikes.  The development of new types of nuclear weapons and the establishment of missile defence systems worldwide proved that the “super-Power has crossed a red line” in executing its strategy.  The key issue for ensuring world peace and security was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  “If we are forced to accept the logic that big countries alone are entitled to possess nuclear weapons and attack or threaten small countries, humankind will never realize its desire for a peaceful and prosperous world,” he said.

Some countries were pursuing non-proliferation while ignoring nuclear disarmament, he said.  However, there could be no non-proliferation without nuclear disarmament, since proliferation was inevitable as long as nuclear weapons and nuclear threats existed.  He called for a timetable for nuclear disarmament, and said he looked forward to the early convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Regionally, he said, the Asian region remained tense.  The United States missile defence system was openly deployed in Asia, and there was an “undisguised move” to form a new military alliance, targeting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its neighbours.  The root cause of instability in the Korean peninsula was the United States’ hostile policy towards his country, ongoing for more than half a century.  It was not easy for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea -- small in terms of territory and population, and facing severe shortages -- to safeguard its national sovereignty in the face of the “collective hostile power politics” of the United States and its “followers”.  He added: “The only way for the DPRK is to strengthen the defensive military capability of the country by its own effort, even though it requires the further tightening of a belt.”

He said that denuclearizing the Korean peninsula had been the “lifetime teaching” of former President Kim Il Sung, and the country sought a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue.  His country had made a number of efforts towards that goal, enabling the announcement of the joint statement of 19 September 2005, followed by the agreements on the initial and second-phase steps on 13 February and in late September, the developments emerging from the six-party talks.  His country had halted operation of the Nyongbyon nuclear facility, in a courageous political decision and a manifestation of its will to denuclearize the peninsula.  Now, the full implementation of the 19 September 2005 joint statement rested with the other five parties fulfilling their obligations, and depended on the United States and Japan taking practical measures to end their hostile policies towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

He asked the United States to remove his country from its list of “terror-sponsoring States”, and to lift the sanctions on the country.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue its sincere efforts towards peace and security in the Korean peninsula and the region.

SHALVA TSISKARASHVILI ( Georgia) said an arms trade treaty would be an effective instrument in the non-proliferation of conventional weapons.  The stability and security of many countries in his region had been seriously hampered by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.  The lawless territories, controlled by a separatist regime, remained a serious threat to Georgia’s political and economic stability.  The lack of control over the secessionist regions of Georgia limited the central Government’s efforts to fulfil its commitments to restrain the proliferation of small arms and light weapons across the entire territory.  Both breakaway regions were undergoing an increasingly aggressive process of militarization.  As an example, in August, Abkhaz separatists had held a large scale military training and the Tshinvali regime had conducted annual military parades.

He said his country attached high importance to the fight against terrorism in all its forms, including acts involving nuclear and radioactive materials.  It had recently joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.  It also backed the consolidation of international efforts to combat the acquisition, usage or transportation of nuclear materials and radioactive substances by terrorists.  As an example of the regional and global security threat posed by uncontrolled separatist regimes, Georgian law enforcement units had seized highly enriched uranium in South Ossetia/Tskhinvali region.

Referring to developments in Georgia, he announced that, on 11 March, the villages of upper Abhkazia had been subjected to heavy shelling by military helicopters, which had entered Georgian airspace from the northern direction. Fortunately, no casualties had been reported.  A joint fact-finding group charged with the investigation had approached the Russian Federation, through the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), and requested assistance on a number of aspects of the investigation, but the Russian Federation had failed to provide important information necessary for the investigation to continue.  That incident had not been the only air attack on Georgian territory.  Moreover, it appeared that assistance to the separatist movements in all aspects from the neighbouring country was becoming “a tendency”.  Such actions constituted a threat to international peace and security, since they undermined fundamental democratic values and endangered the primacy of international law.

ANGELLA BROWN ( Jamaica) said there was no denying that concerns about the threat of weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation had increased tremendously.  Those concerns, however, had not been met with a corresponding desire to eliminate the growing stockpile of nuclear weapons.  That had led to mistrust, insecurity and intimidation.  As it stood, the situation was challenging and left the majority of States harbouring well-founded fears as to when, not if, the world would have to face the calamity of a nuclear fallout.   Jamaica continued to query the will of nuclear-weapon States to move decisively and expeditiously to eliminate the nuclear threat and the accompanying possibility of proliferation -- beyond speculation, once and for all.

She said her country was deeply concerned that recent events continued to undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- an instrument that stood at the centre of global efforts aimed specifically at disarmament and non-proliferation.  Efforts must be redoubled to address the myriad of challenges that confronted and threatened the integrity of and confidence in the Treaty.  The total elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction was the only assurance that the use of those weapons would never come to pass.   Jamaica fully supported the right of States to the peaceful use of nuclear technology, as stipulated in article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  However, that right must be accompanied by an attendant commitment to IAEA’s monitoring and safeguards.

While the international community grappled with nuclear weapons, an equally sinister phenomenon was upon it, namely the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and their deleterious effects on humankind, she said.  Those weapons wreaked havoc and untold harm daily in many parts of the world.  Easy access to illegal weapons and ammunition, and its connection to the narco-trade, needlessly burdened many Governments, including Jamaica’s, forcing diversion of scarce resources from national budgets to tackling the crippling effects of such weapons, as such retarding levels of growth and development.  That was the nexus between disarmament and development.  In that regard, Jamaica fully supported the General Assembly resolutions on the illicit small arms trade and on an arms trade treaty.

ALFRED MOUNGARA MOUSSOTSI (Gabon), aligning himself with the statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda faced major challenges and uncertainties.  While the international community denounced vertical proliferation, horizontal proliferation persisted undiminished and arsenals continued to be replenished.  That proved that a doctrine of strategic defence was difficult to justify.

He welcomed positive strides on disarmament, especially in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but said that, in the disarmament process, nuclear-weapon States needed to take specific, concrete steps and respect the three pillars of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the Test-Ban Treaty, he urged the “annex 2” States to ratify the Treaty, so that it could enter into force.  Nuclear-weapon States must provide effective security guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States.  The non-proliferation regime would benefit from nuclear-weapon-free zones, which contributed to strengthening the disarmament agenda around the world.  He called on States in regions where there were no such zones to work to create them.

On small arms and light weapons, he said Gabon had been very optimistic after the 2001 agreement, but there had been a lack of progress.  Small arms and light weapons were true weapons of mass destruction in many parts of the world, particularly in Africa.  Gabon, therefore, had joined others in calling for the marking of small arms, and he awaited the adoption of an international instrument on that issue.  Meanwhile, the increase in military spending was an “ethical problem”, at a time when aid to Africa and Latin America was decreasing.

MARIO H. CASTELLON DUARTE ( Nicaragua) called upon those States that were not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to ratify it.  His country accepted the ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and that all States had the legal obligation to carry out the provisions of that ruling.  Nicaragua hoped that, someday soon, the international community would achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  In South America, important steps had been taken towards the consolidation of peace and international security.

For Nicaragua, he said, there was a close relationship between disarmament and development.  The Millennium Declaration had set important development targets.  It was important that the international community redirect resources from military expenditures to development.  If those resources were redirected, they could help to eradicate most of the terrible disease afflicting mankind, as well as address many of the development challenges facing many countries.  The Government of Nicaragua had destroyed more than 1,000 MANPADS.  It has also launched talks with the United States to destroy more of those weapons in exchange for development support; its plan was to conserve only a limited number for defensive purposes.  Nicaragua was concerned about the continued large-scale, illegal trade in small arms and light weapons in its region.  Those weapons’ characteristics made them weapons of choice in certain conflicts.  The main victims were innocent civilians.  All States should employ goodwill in negotiations on disarmament, in order to achieve the goal of world of peace.

HAMID CHABAR ( Morocco), endorsing the statements by the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said small arms and light weapons were at the head of the list of disarmament challenges.  Those were the true weapons of mass destruction, and their proliferation in “hot spots”, especially in Africa, had untold consequences and caused endless suffering.  Hopefully, the next conference on the issue, to be held in 2008, would not be a failure.  As long as the issue went unresolved, the danger of proliferation would jeopardize efforts to develop the afflicted areas.  Last week, a group of non-governmental organizations had issued a study showing that armed conflicts in Africa had cost some $300 billion, an amount equal to the international aid given to Africa during the same period.

Disarmament should be addressed on a regional, as well as a global, level, and to that end, he called for the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in Africa and the Middle East.  Morocco was engaged with Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament, especially the African centre in Lomé.  The recent increases in military spending by certain regional Powers were puzzling, as that spending was not commensurate with security concerns.

Morocco was a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and worked with IAEA to implement both the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Test-Ban Treaty, he said.  It was necessary to respect the three pillars of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and he reiterated the value of the Treaty’s Review Conferences of 1995 and 2000, especially the 13 practical measures for the systematic and progressive efforts to achieve complete disarmament.  Morocco would spare no effort to promote the objectives of The Hague Code of Conduct, particularly to universalize it.

He said terrorism and the existence of black market and multi-use substances, underscored the danger of nuclear weapons, as well as the need for international cooperation.  It was necessary to protect nuclear facilities to prevent terrorists from gaining access to nuclear materials.  Individual and collective efforts would only succeed if they went beyond simple security and considered the underlying causes of regional conflict.

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN ( Armenia) said his country’s geographical location made both the issue of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction pressing concerns.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty played a major role in maintaining the non-proliferation regime.  Armenia was concerned by developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme and its potential repercussions, and hoped that negotiations under the auspices of IAEA would lead to a “mutually acceptable solution”.  He also welcomed recent progress in the six-party talks on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, praising the decision to dismantle the nuclear reactor, before the end of this year.  The resolution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear issue would “bring a significant humanitarian relief to the country”.

He emphasized the importance of the Test-Ban Treaty, which could strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation system and “lead us closer to the righteous objective of the world safe from the scourge of nuclear weapons”.  Armenia was also committed to conventional disarmament, and actively contributed to United Nations efforts to stop the spread of small arms and light weapons.  Armenia had supported the adoption of the resolution on the arms trade treaty and, likewise, had supported efforts to eliminate anti-personnel mines.   Armenia was willing to accede to the Mine Ban Convention, but its accession was contingent on the readiness of other countries in the region to comply with that instrument.

Armenia was located in a region where several unresolved conflicts persisted, and that meant that international arms control arrangements were of crucial importance for regional security, he said.  The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe played a fundamental role for peace and stability in the South Caucasus; however, one of the three countries in the South Caucasus “overtly disregards” the provisions of the Treaty, and was in violation of the ceiling on conventional weapons.  That violation posed a “direct threat” to security in the region.

Further, he said, the arms race in the South Caucasus was already a reality.  In order to avoid further escalation, the international community, especially the member States of OSCE, should “take all necessary steps” to halt the unfolding arms race in the South Caucasus.

ELSA HAILE ( Eritrea) said nuclear weapons were still the most dangerous kinds of weapons of mass destruction.  The race for their possession, now joined even by terrorist groups, had continued unabated.  That situation raised serious concern that the international community was witnessing a difficult historical era in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Peace and security were threatened, not only by nuclear weapons, but also by chemical and biological weapons.  The emergence of new and advanced technologies readily facilitated the transport and proliferation of such weapons.  Multilateralism was the sole viable way to achieve the common disarmament and non-proliferation objectives.

She said that the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under IAEA guidance and regulations should be possible for all countries without discrimination.  That was the inalienable right of all States and was fully guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.   Eritrea was deeply committed to international efforts aimed at arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means.  For that reason, it was a State party to many of the arms control treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Mine Ban Convention.

The proliferation of small arms and light weapons in many regions of the developing world, particularly Africa, had made them a real threat to peace, security and stability, she said.  In that regard, the implementation and follow-up mechanism of the 2001 Action Programme, as well as regional, subregional and bilateral cooperation, were crucial.  Eritrea had consistently supported all initiatives and programmes in the Horn of Africa and had held consultations with like-minded States in the region.

Eritrea’s full conviction in the importance of respecting the United Nations Charter and international law had been demonstrated by its readiness to implement the final and binding decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, without precondition or equivocation, she said.  It had also shown its unwavering commitment to regional peace, security and stability by fully engaging in collective negotiation efforts to promote peace and stability in the Sudan and Somalia.

DRISSA MALLE (Mali), aligning himself with the statements of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said the continuation of armed conflicts around the world led to problems, including displaced persons and violations of human rights, and also hampered development, for which peace was a necessary ingredient.  Mali had always believed in encouraging peace, and was carrying out a number of programmes to facilitate tolerance and dialogue.  His country had also participated regularly in peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and it had carried out mediation.  The country welcomed the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission, and hoped it would be funded sufficiently.

He said international terrorism was a major threat to peace and security, and welcomed the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  Domestically, the country had recently adopted a law against terrorism.  However, he stressed, any definition of terrorism must distinguish between terrorists and the legitimate struggle of people for their independence.

Small arms and light weapons were another major concern, and he said that Mali would participate in the 2008 conference on the issue in New York.  At that conference, Mali, on behalf of ECOWAS and, eventually, the African Union, would introduce a resolution calling for assistance to States in preventing the illegal circulation of small arms and light weapons.  He called on other States to co-author and adopt the resolution.

LUBLIN DILJA (Albania), aligning himself with the statement of the European Union, said that terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and small arms and light weapons represented dangerous threats to international peace.  It was the “collective duty” of the international community to strengthen global security and put more emphasis on preventing threats and conflicts before they developed.  Albania respected and implemented its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Test-Ban Treaty.  Fighting terrorism was a priority, which required a “forceful response and collective action”.  The adoption by consensus of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy had sent a “clear positive signal” on the issue, and he called for the adoption of the comprehensive convention on international terrorism.  Albania had signed, ratified and was implementing the 12 United Nations conventions against terrorism.

He said that the fight against terrorism required a strategy to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists and non-State actors.  Towards that end, Albania had supported Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).  The Non-Proliferation Treaty was a “cornerstone” of global non-proliferation.  Parallel efforts should be made to strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.  Biological and chemical weapons remained a threat, and it was necessary to strengthen both those Conventions.  Albania had completed its destruction programme under the Chemical Weapons Convention -- the first to have completed destruction of its chemical weapons stockpiles under the terms of the Convention.  He thanked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Member States for their support of his country in that difficult and important project.

Conventional arms, in particular small arms and light weapons, posed an immediate threat to peace and security.  Small arms exacerbated conflicts, facilitated violent crime and caused massive destruction.  Albania supported the United Nations Programme of Action on the issue, as well as an arms trade treaty.  Albania had recently completed a NATO trust fund project aimed at destroying small arms and light weapons ammunition.  As a result, millions of tons of ammunition had been destroyed or demilitarized over the last five years.  A huge quantity of anti-personnel mines had also been destroyed.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record