RELIANCE ON ILLUSION OF UNIPOLAR WORLD, CONNIVANCE AT DOUBLE STANDARDS IN GLOBAL SECURITY AGGRAVATE DISARMAMENT CRISIS, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD

Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

3^rd Meeting (AM)

RELIANCE ON ILLUSION OF UNIPOLAR WORLD, CONNIVANCE AT DOUBLE STANDARDS

IN GLOBAL SECURITY AGGRAVATE DISARMAMENT CRISIS, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD

World Witnessing Eroding Arms Control Measures, Treaty Violations, Reversal

Of Non-Proliferation Policies by Key Powers, Weakening Disarmament Machinery

Reliance on the illusion of a unipolar world and connivance at double standards in the sphere of international security would only further aggravate problems in multilateral disarmament, the Russian Federation’s Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today.

“We can hardly expect any serious progress in this field unless we change the overall political climate, depart from confrontation and reject the bloc mentality,” the Russian representative said.  The Caucasus crisis, the reckless enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), attempts to maintain the cold war version of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, the establishment of new military bases and the elaboration of a prompt global strike concept all sought to alter the parity of strategic forces in the world, to secure military and political domination, and to fix the principles of a unipolar world.

He further warned that realization of unilateral plans to deploy a global missile defence, without considering security interests of other States, would ripen conditions for launching a nuclear-missile strike, and the deployment of United States global missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland would only have a negative effect on the disarmament process.

Russia did not want confrontation, he said, adding that it was opposed to self-isolation and remained committed to making disarmament progressive.  Since 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal had shrunk five-fold, and the total of non-strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles had been reduced by three-quarters, with the country fulfilling its START (Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms) mission.  Russia and the United States had already embarked on a dialogue about a new legally binding agreement to succeed START.

To ease tensions, he proposed an alternative to global bases:  a collective response to missile challenges and threats based on a joint analysis of potential threats up to the year 2020 and the creation of an objective system to monitor changes in the strategic situation.  He also urged States to join a moratorium on being the first to place weapons of any kind in outer space.

A new consensus on a range of issues above and beyond missiles was indeed essential, said the representative of Pakistan, especially given today’s global scenario, one marred by an erosion of arms control and disarmament measures, reversal of non-proliferation policies by key Powers, violation of treaty obligations and the weakening of United Nations disarmament institutions.

Advocacy by a few powerful States of doctrines, such as pre-emption, development of new war-fighting nuclear weapons and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems fuelled friction at regional and global levels, he said.  Stalemates in resolving long-standing regional disputes, the emergence of new forms of conflicts, as well as economic and social disparities and injustices, obstructed the objective of equal security for all.

However, consensus on key issues would change the landscape, and once nuclear-weapon States agreed on the principles and elements to revive the consensus on international disarmament and non-proliferation, it would not be difficult to break the current impasse in the United Nations disarmament machinery and to move forward.

Still, Indonesia’s speaker asserted, the disarmament machinery had long remained mired in a deadlock.  The lack of consensus on fundamental and previously agreed points on the global disarmament agenda added to an already bleak canvas featuring, among other impasses, the Conference on Disarmament’s inability to agree on a programme of work and the failure of the open-ended working group on a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament to reach agreement on the session’s objectives and agenda.  The world now awaited bold leadership from the major Powers to implement their obligations and commitments under existing disarmament and non-proliferation regimes, he said.

Japan’s speaker agreed that it was high time for political leaders to express their political commitment to disarmament.  The Prime Ministers of Japan and Australia established the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, with the first meeting coming up this month.  That initiative intended to pave the way for such political commitments by leaders towards a more stable security scenario.  Nearly two decades after the end of the cold war, uncertainties had flourished.  He pointed to the current nuclear issues of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran as examples, adding that a lack of transparency in nuclear forces was a cause of anxiety in certain regions.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of Myanmar, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates and Canada. 

The Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations also spoke.

The Representatives of Iran, Georgia and Russia also spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 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 on the Committee’s session and a summary of reports before it, see Press Release GA/DIS/3361).

Statements

U WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said he was concerned about the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use, or threat of use.  He reaffirmed his support for the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that there was a need to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, in all its aspects, under strict and effective international control.  ASEAN countries continued to support, and intended to co-sponsor, the draft resolution tabled every year by Malaysia.  The yearly draft resolution initiated by Myanmar and co-sponsored by the ASEAN countries urged nuclear-weapon States to cease the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.

He called for the full and effective implementation of the 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament set out in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  The 2005 review had not achieved substantive results, and it was imperative that the preparatory process for the 2010 NPT review lead to a substantive outcome.  He urged nuclear-weapon States to work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  He also invited all Member States to sign and ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention).

ASEAN called on all States to support the 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, he said.  It noted the ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Mine-Ban Convention) had been ratified or acceded to by 156 countries.  It also noted several initiatives taken by ASEAN to contribute to peace and security, among them, the establishment of the South-East Asia nuclear-weapon free zone.

DESRA PERCAYA ( Indonesia) expressed concern over the uncertain global security situation exacerbated by a financial crisis, at a time when growing military spending had undercut the accelerated development.  A staggering 1.4 billion people continued to struggle in poverty worldwide.  Yet despite earnest efforts by Member States, the disarmament machinery remained mired in a deadlock and a lack of consensus on some of the fundamental and previously agreed points on the global disarmament agenda, creating a bleak canvas, painted with the Commission on Disarmament’s lack of consensus, the Conference on Disarmament’s inability to agree on a programme of work, the failure of the open-ended working group on a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament to reach agreement on its objectives and agenda, as well as the failure of the last NPT Review Conference, which, for the most part, had engaged in procedural, rather than substantive, work.

He said that hope existed, however, as momentum was emerging towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as a result of the creative work by a group of States and eminent individuals; the outcome of the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, organized by Norway in Oslo last February, was promising, as was the adoption in February of a Convention on Cluster Munitions.  Nuclear disarmament was imperative for international peace and welfare, especially to deter those weapons from falling into terrorist hands.  Non-proliferation was vital, and NPT was the primary instrument for controlling and eliminating weapons.  But the Treaty faced the risk of falling apart, with further proliferation risks.  Instead of eliminating nuclear weapons, some nuclear Powers had plans to modernize or develop new types of nuclear weapons to create new rationales for their use.

While attempts to bring those outside the nuclear non-proliferation regime had been commendable, those attempts should be conducted in a way that reinforced, rather than undermined, global non-proliferation norms, he stressed.  In that context, he deeply regretted the decision made by the 45-nation Nuclear Supplier Group to grant an unconditional specific waiver on nuclear export guidelines to States outside the NPT.  With that decision, what incentive would remain for other States to join the NPT?  That decision would likely bring more harm than good and lead to a dismissal of warnings for others to abandon their nuclear ambitions.  It would also create more problems than solutions in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation at the global and regional levels.

Turning to the test-ban Treaty, he said deeply disturbing signals showed that Member States were lagging in advancing towards its full ratification.  Instead of working towards the entry into force of CTBT, the two nuclear-weapon States, which had been among the first to sign the Treaty, had not yet ratified it.  There was also no positive indication on the part of three NPT non-State parties for signing the Treaty.  Indonesia was seriously undertaking preparation for ratifying the Treaty.  He recommended that talks on a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty should be jumpstarted.  Meanwhile, systematic and progressive efforts should be made towards nuclear disarmament, including renewed negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should monitor and verify nuclear arsenals in both countries, as the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, or Moscow Treaty, deadline approached for reducing arsenals by the end of 2012.

He warned that conventional weapons also needed attention, as they continuously threatened peace and security worldwide.  The milestone Cluster Munitions Convention was a hearty success, but he emphasized that the resolution of the group of governmental experts to adopt common international standards for the export, import and transfer of conventional arms towards an arms trade treaty remained inconclusive.  The world now awaited bold leadership from the major Powers to implement their obligations and commitments under existing disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.

JURG STREULI ( Switzerland) regretted that many of the multilateral disarmament forums remained blocked.  The Conference on Disarmament remained the most pertinent example of the current impasse.  Because of that blockage, progress towards a fissile material cut-off treaty was also affected.  That instrument should be negotiated without any preconditions as to its scope and verification.  Switzerland was convinced that a fissile material cut-off treaty would be as important as the test-ban Treaty and NPT in the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation process.  NPT should be universalized.

He said one priority for Switzerland was the decrease in the alert levels of nuclear weapons systems.  Maintaining nuclear weapons on high alert was a feature of the cold war.  The decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to no longer demand the application of full-scope safeguards, as a condition for nuclear cooperation with India, raised questions about the nuclear non-proliferation system.  The lack of cooperation by Iran with IAEA, as well as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent move to resume its enrichment activities, were also of serious concern.  Switzerland was convinced that those issues should be solved through dialogue and diplomacy.

Switzerland welcomed recent efforts by nuclear-weapon States to increase transparency regarding their nuclear arsenals, he said.  Strengthening the verification, transparency and confidence-building mechanisms for all types of weapons of mass destruction was an important task for the international community.  He commended the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  As incoming president of the Mine-Ban Treaty, Switzerland would focus on stockpile destruction and clearance of those weapons.

He had also been satisfied with the substantive document resulting from the Third Biennial Conference of States on the small arms and light weapons issue.  Switzerland was collaborating with several other States to achieve greater recognition of the adverse impact of armed violence on development.  Within the framework of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Switzerland had organized, with the help of the United Nations, a summit meeting in September.  The summit had received the support of 85 States.  His country remained strongly in favour of a comprehensive and legally-binding arms trade treaty

SUMIO TARUI ( Japan) said that nearly two decades after the end of the cold war, uncertainties had flourished.  He pointed to the current nuclear issues of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran as examples, saying that Security Council resolutions on both issues should be implemented without delay, and that a lack of transparency in nuclear forces was a cause of anxiety in certain regions.  As the only country that had suffered from atomic bombing, Japan strongly appealed to the world that the devastation caused by nuclear weapons should never be revisited.  It had spared no effort to maximize positive developments and minimize the risks of negative trends.

He said his country had taken a strong leadership role in disarmament and non-proliferation, particularly this year.  For example, in July, the Prime Ministers of Japan and Australia had agreed on the establishment of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, with the first meeting to be held on 19 through 21 October, in Sydney.  At the current session, Japan would again submit two important resolutions:  one on nuclear disarmament and another on small arms and light weapons.  He strongly hoped for delegations’ continuous support for the texts.

However, disarmament continued to stagnate.  The decade-old CTBT had still not entered into force, the Conference on Disarmament had not entered into negotiations on a disarmament treaty for essentially more than a decade and negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty had not yet begun, and despite the many challenges facing the NPT regime, and the failure of its 2005 review conference, the convergence of views among the States parties “remains distant”.

“Nevertheless, at the same time, we can see a light shining through this dark situation,” he said, citing the high-level attendance of the fourth CTBT ministerial meeting in New York and the Conference on Disarmament’s draft programme of work.  However, it was high time that political leaders of the international community expressed their political commitment to disarmament.  The Japan-Australia initiative to launch an international commission intended to pave the way for such political commitments by leaders.

Nuclear-weapon States should take further practical and effective measures towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and negotiations for a legally-binding successor framework to the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) should reach an outcome before it ceased to be in effect.  Non-nuclear-weapon States should commit themselves to non-proliferation obligations and to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  India should observe the commitments it made with the recent decision of the Nuclear Supplier Group.  Another bright spot had been the advance made at the Biennial Meeting of States regarding conventional weapons.  Similarly, adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions had been welcome.  At the same time, the momentum towards concluding an arms trade treaty should be accelerated and deliberations should include the widest possible participation of United Nations Member States.

ZAMIR AKRAM ( Pakistan) said that the end of the cold war had generated hope that peace and security would not be held hostage to antagonistic, heavily militarized blocs.  The ensuing prospect of disarmament had created an environment conducive to the achievement of the foremost United Nations principle of “equal security for all”.  However, today’s global scenario was marked by equally dangerous and complex realities.  The world was witnessing an erosion of arms control and disarmament measures, reversal of non-proliferation policies by key Powers, violation of treaty obligations and the weakening of United Nations disarmament institutions.

He said that lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament, and advocacy by a few powerful States of doctrines, such as pre-emption, development of new war-fighting nuclear weapons and deployment of destabilizing systems like anti-ballistic missile systems, were perpetuating tensions at the regional and global levels.  Further, lack of progress in the resolution of long-standing regional disputes, emergence of new forms of conflicts which emanated from power asymmetries, as well as economic and social disparities and injustices, obstructed the objective of equal security for all.

In addition to horizontal and vertical proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at the State level, the threat of acquisition and use of those weapons by non-State actors had become a growing concern, he said.  Discriminatory and short-sighted policies for access to nuclear technology, for narrow gains, had further undermined the international non-proliferation regime.  That was compounded by the clear possibility of such arrangements leading to diversion of nuclear material for military purposes.

He thus called for a new consensus on the entire range of disarmament, arms-control and non-proliferation issues based on the United Nations Charter.  Once nuclear-weapon States agreed on the principles and elements to revive the consensus on international disarmament and non-proliferation, it would not be difficult to break the current impasse in the United Nations disarmament machinery.  Nuclear-weapon States should not achieve security for themselves at the cost of insecurity of others.

Pakistan was ready to endorse any proposal for the Conference on Disarmament’s programme of work, which treated the four core issues on the Conference’s agenda in a balanced way, he said, adding that no one issue should be deemed as more important than another.  The incorporation of global and effective verification into a fissile material cut-off treaty mandate was vital to Pakistan, and stemmed directly from its national security interest.  Referring to the Shannon Mandate of 1995, he noted that a ban only on future production of fissile material would freeze the existing asymmetry at the global and regional levels; such a treaty would neither promote disarmament nor non-proliferation.

He said that the illicit small arms and light weapons trade remained a problem.  The United Nations needed to strengthen the mechanisms to fight it, including through its Register on Conventional Arms, which should be universalized.  As a responsible nuclear Power, Pakistan was committed to non-proliferation and had put in place several domestic and regional mechanisms to that effect.  Pakistan had also proposed the establishment of a strategic restraint regime in South Asia, which encompassed conflict resolution, nuclear and missile restraint and conventional balance.

Policies that created nuclear disparities in his region, and reinforced the discriminatory approach towards Pakistan, could only exacerbate strategic asymmetries, which would destabilize the entire region and indeed the world, he warned.  Such an arrangement, driven by profit motives, rather than any real non-proliferation gains, would encourage further proliferation.  It would have been more constructive to have promoted a level playing field for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under appropriate safeguards through an objective, non-discriminatory criteria-based approach.  Notwithstanding the grave implications of the discriminatory regime that was to be implemented in South Asia, Pakistan would continue to act responsibly in maintaining its “minimum credible deterrence and to avoid an arms race.  However, we will neither be oblivious to our security requirements nor to the needs of our economic development,” he concluded.

ANATOLY ANTONOV, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament of the Russian Federation, said that disarmament and non-proliferation issues could not be considered in isolation from the current state of international security in general.  The situation in that sphere aroused anxiety.  Contemporary security concerns could not be solved by direct forceful methods or unilaterally established schemes that “explode international law and assert the principle of permissiveness”.  He had repeatedly urged all States to establish a genuinely equitable system of international security, of which disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control constituted an integral part; the growing range of challenges and threats could only be confronted together.  Russia stood for reinforcing the central role of the United Nations in that regard.

Attempts to place reliance on the illusion of a unipolar world, to connive at double standards in the sphere of international security, could only lead to further aggravation of problems in multilateral disarmament, he said, adding, “We can hardly expect any serious progress in this field unless we change the overall political climate, depart from confrontation and reject the bloc mentality.”

Unfortunately, solving the most challenging security issues by adventurous, irresponsible and aggressive action still took place, an example of which was Georgia’s recent aggression against South Ossetia.  Georgian intervention had caused numerous civilian and peacekeeper casualties, clearly demonstrating the deficiencies of the European security architecture.  History’s current turns were a stark reminder of the Munich Agreement’s main conclusion:  that aggressors should not be indulged, which would sacrifice a collective security system to narrow nationalistic interests.

He said that the Caucasus crisis, the reckless enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), attempts to maintain the cold war version of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, the establishment of new military bases--including anti-missile bases closely approaching Russian borders--and the elaboration of a prompt global strike concept were nothing but aspirations to alter the parity of strategic forces in the world, to secure military and political domination, and to fix the principles of a unipolar world.  The time had come to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, to move towards disarmament and to improve existing arms control mechanisms.  This year, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had crafted a proposal to elaborate a Treaty on European Security that, under the principles of a multipolar world, would in practice allow for the creation of suitable foundations for interaction among all States; it would have a positive influence on peace and stability, and would not permit any State to underpin its security at the expense of another State’s security.

Russia did not want confrontation, he said, adding that it was opposed to self-isolation and remained committed to making disarmament progressive.  Since 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal had shrunk five-fold, and the total of non-strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles had been reduced by three-quarters, with the country fulfilling its START mission.  Russia and the United States had already embarked on a dialogue about a new legally binding agreement to succeed START.

But disarmament must address the interrelationship between offensive and defensive weapons, he said.  Realizing unilateral plans to deploy a global missile defence, without considering security interests of other States, would create conditions for launching a disarming nuclear-missile strike, thereby undermining strategic balance.  The deployment of United States global missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland would have a negative effect on the disarmament process.  He proposed an alternative:  a collective response to missile challenges and threats based on a joint analysis of potential threats up to the year 2020 and the creation of an objective system to monitor changes in the strategic situation.  He invited partners to take part in an equitable dialogue.

Among issues that would undermine global stability and security, he pointed to weapons in outer space, which was not only a waste of money better spent on development, but that would lead to a new arms race, on and off the planet.  He urged States to support Russia’s initiative and, along with other Collective Security Treaty Organization member States, to join a moratorium on being the first to place weapons of any kind in outer space.  International information security was another burning issue needing attention, and one he likened to weapons of mass destruction when used for hostile purposes.

In terms of solutions, he said NPT was the backbone of contemporary international security, reminding delegates that the 2010 NPT review was close by and stressing the need for a package of specific proposals for the upcoming preparatory committee meeting in New York next May.  He reiterated Russia’s support of CTBT and emphasized the importance of improving IAEA verification activities to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.  International cooperation over the peaceful use of nuclear energy rested in the promotion of multilateral approaches.  Likewise, battling the threat of nuclear terrorism needed a multi-pronged approach, such as the global initiative of the Presidents of the United States and Russia.  It now has 75 State participants.

Each year the problem of missile proliferation becomes more pressing, he warned, adding that the problem should be solved first and foremost by the United Nations.  In addition, control over conventional arms transfers had not seen the necessary results from United Nations efforts.  Evidence of the latter could be seen in the Caucasus crisis, which had revealed serious problems in existing mechanisms of arms transfers.  An arms trade treaty would do much to help.

PETIO PETEV ( Bulgaria), fully endorsing the statement made by France on behalf of the European Union, reiterated Bulgaria’s full support for an effective multilateral mechanism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, with the United Nations playing a central role.  Regrettably, the list of risks and challenges to the world’s common security was very long.  In that regard, he called for the full and universal implementation of the NPT regime and the early entry into force of CTBT.

He stressed the importance of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) and its protocols.  That instrument formed a key part of international humanitarian law in Bulgaria, which had also taken an active part in efforts to establish a legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions.  The speedy entry into force of a legally-binding instrument banning such weapons was indisputable.  Bulgaria’s policy on that issue was oriented towards achieving that highly humane objective.

Bulgaria, along with Norway, had co-hosted a regional conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in which more than 80 States participated.

Another matter of concern to Bulgaria was the full implementation of the 2001 Action Programme on small arms, he said, adding that his country was also strongly committed to working towards the adoption of a legally-binding international arms trade treaty.  The demand for such an instrument was strong.

YURIY SERGEYEV ( Ukraine) supported the disarmament and international security agenda and reaffirmed his commitment to maintain and strengthen the current disarmament machinery.  The international community remained threatened by weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, requiring a broad and comprehensive concept to counter their proliferation.

He called for wider adherence and effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions.  Ukraine regarded NPT as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, and was fully committed to it.  He urged States not yet party to the Treaty to join it, while recognizing the inalienable right of NPT parties to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, without discrimination.  He welcomed the positive outcome of the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT review, while noting the vital importance of the universalization of the test-ban Treaty.  He commended all existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, and called for the establishment of similar zones in South Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Action should be strengthened to counter the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and their ammunition, in particular via transport aviation, he said.  Noting the importance of the Mine-Ban Treaty, he said that without deepened international cooperation, it would be very difficult to reach its paramount goal.  The Ukraine was committed to comply with the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its protocols.  It also supported the initiative to conclude an international arms trade treaty, which could become a comprehensive instrument for establishing common standards in this field, thereby preventing conventional arms diversion.

U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria), associating herself with the statements delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the need to implement disarmament and non-proliferation measures had become a major challenge to the maintenance of international peace and security.  The last decade had witnessed the indefinite extension of NPT, the successful negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and test-ban Treaty, as well as the entry into force of the Mine-Ban Convention.

She said, however, that the international community had made no appreciable progress on arms control and disarmament since the start of the decade.  The most notable failures had been the lack of any meaningful outcome document at the 2005 NPT Review Conference or the first review of the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons, as well as the failure of Member States to agree on a thematic cluster on disarmament and non-proliferation for the 2005 World Summit outcome document.  The decade had also witnessed a perennial impasse in the Conference on Disarmament, lingering ambivalence about the negotiation for a fissile material cut-off treaty, a continuing failure to garner enough ratifications for the test-ban Treaty to enter force and the inability of the Disarmament Commission to agree on guidelines for the pursuit of disarmament.

Meanwhile, the global military budget was expanding and world poverty was deepening, she said.  The need to reverse that negative trend should be seen as one of the international community’s greatest challenges.  Confidence-building measures would help to alleviate the fears of States threatened by other States’ possession of weapons of mass destruction.  Security guarantees in the form of legally-binding documents were the best assurance that States that did not possess those weapons and would not acquire them in presumption of self-defence.

Pending the entry into force of the test-ban Treaty, nuclear-weapon States should maintain the existing moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions, she said, adding that his country supported the inalienable rights of all States to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  It also supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones freely arrived at among States in the regions concerned.  She reaffirmed Nigeria’s commitment to the Action Programme on small arms, which, despite efforts, continued to devastate Africa, making a mockery of the political will of the action plan.  A legally-binding international instrument that would not only establish international standards for the global arms trade, but also control the indiscriminate supply of small arms and light weapons to non-State actors should be elaborated.

For its part, Nigeria had acceded to the United Nations Protocol against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, she noted.  She called for urgent action to criminalize oil bunkering, the sale of oil so acquired and the use of its proceeds to fuel new crisis situations in Africa, through the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea.

AHMED ABDULRAHMAN AL-JARMAN ( United Arab Emirates) said an atmosphere of suspicion and uncertainty pervaded international security, including the existence of growing weapons of mass destruction arsenals and delivery means, along with States without such weapons racing to acquire them.  The challenges facing international peace and security were compounded, not only by the race to acquire arms, but by a backdrop of smuggling arms and dangerous materials, making it possible for dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of extremists.

He called for the launch of a serious process of international security cooperation, based on respect for the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter.  As the 2010 NPT Review Conference approached, he reinforced his country’s goals for an international process based on the rule of law and multilateralism.  To accomplish the goals, there must be a systematic and multilateral elimination of the military arsenal within the framework contained in existing disarmament and non-proliferation conventions and protocols.  In addition, countries that did not possess those weapons, but wished to do so, should reconsider their position.  At the same time, safeguards for those States not possessing weapons of mass destruction should be guaranteed and their access to modern technology should be strengthened.  Additionally, efforts should be bolstered to facilitate the entry into force of the test-ban Treaty.

Concerning Iran’s nuclear file, he urged all parties, especially Iran, to make all efforts to be flexible, so that the file could be settled in a peaceful way.  He called on the international community to put pressure on Israel to dismantle its non-peaceful activities, to accede to the NPT and to subject its installations to the full-scope IAEA safeguards, in accordance with internationally-binding resolutions.  The peaceful use of nuclear energy should operate in accordance with IAEA rules, and financial and technical materials and information should be supplied to those States wishing to pursue that path.

MARIUS GRINIUS ( Canada) noted that in less than two months, States would meet in Oslo to sign the new Convention on Cluster Munitions.  He welcomed that achievement, hoping that it would also lead to a strong new protocol within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  Much progress had been made towards a mine-free world through the Mine-Ban Convention, to which four-fifths of States were now party.  Several countries, however, had been unable to fulfil their article 4 and 5 obligations.  State parties should consider mine clearance requests in upcoming meetings.

He said that the 2010 NPT Review Conference was a key opportunity to achieve progress.  Canada aimed to be a “bridge-builder” between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States.  The situations in the Middle East and South Asia were critical factors to the success of the NPT Review Conference.  Canada would engage both regional stakeholders and major Powers alike.  Some multilateral disarmament machinery, such as the Organization Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were working well, and through the Canadian-led Global Partnership Programme, great strides had been made to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

The approval of an outcome document by a vote in July at the Biennial Meeting of States to consider implementation of the 2001 Action Programme had been exceptional, he said, adding that the United Nations might wish to invoke that precedent of voting on an outcome text when consensus was elusive, in order to advance near-universally agreed objectives.  Canada was optimistic about the proposed arms trade treaty.

He said his country remained deeply concerned about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s announcement in August to halt the dismantlement of its Yongbyon nuclear reprocessing facility, and its recent request for IAEA to remove seals and surveillance at the facility.   Canada supported a peaceful solution to the issue.  It was also concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme and its continued failure to comply with its international obligations, as required by several Security Council resolutions.  It was disappointed with the impasse over a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament.  Negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty appeared to be blocked indefinitely by a small handful of countries that wished to retain the capacity to produce fissile material in the future.  On the Committee’s working methods, it should look at creative ways of dealing with the nearly 60 resolutions before it and resist conducting business as usual, year after year.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, called upon all States to promote disarmament and non-proliferation as key elements of an international order in which the fundamental rights of every person were fully realized.  Peace and security were threatened by terrorism, and even more by widespread violence, neglect of human rights and underdevelopment.  There was an emerging conflict between security and military policies.  That explained, in large part, the scarce interest in full compliance with NPT and in reaching the necessary quorum for the entry into force of CTBT.

Despite that situation, he commended the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which would open for signature on 3 December in Oslo.  The Holy See was particularly pleased with that achievement.  Along with filling a serious gap in humanitarian law, the Convention provided a strong and realistic solution to an ongoing problem that was devastating the lives of many civilians.  The Oslo process represented an important political and legal step, but it was also a warning signal since it was negotiated and adopted outside the Conference on Disarmament.  The Holy See supported the plan for a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, which could foster multilateralism within international organizations, and in particular, in the Conference on Disarmament.

The Holy See was concerned about the erosion of multilateralism in the area of arms regulation, disarmament and non-proliferation, he continued.  The Conference on Disarmament had not had a programme of work for more than 10 years.  The lack of political will in the international community in that regard was disconcerting.  Furthermore, adoption of an arms trade treaty was uncertain.  Greater transparency would contribute to security and provide the premises for a future limitation of the arms trade.  The Holy See called upon the international community to show greater cooperation, sensitivity and to exert more effort in promoting the peaceful existence of the “global family”.

Rights of Reply

SEYED MOHAMMAD ALI ROBATJAZI (Iran), speaking in exercise of the right of reply to the statement made yesterday by the representative of France on behalf of the European Union, said the remarks had erroneously presumed that Security Council resolutions were equivalent to a message from the international community.  Instead, an example of a message of the majority of the international community was the self-explanatory statement that the 118 member States of the Non-Aligned Movement issued two months ago in support of Iran’s rights under NPT concerning its nuclear programme, including its policies and decisions about the nuclear fuel cycle.  The demand to suspend enrichment was illegal and in contravention of NPT provisions, and Iran’s response to that demand was:   Iran would never overlook its legal right to peaceful enrichment activity under NPT.

He said that Iran’s proactive cooperation with the work plan, agreed by Iran and IAEA, had been fully implemented, and all outstanding issues had been resolved.  The European Union’s representative had stated erroneously that Iran had failed to reply to IAEA questions about nuclear weapons, and he highlighted that the IAEA Director-General had acknowledged having no information on the design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear weapons.

“Misrepresentation and misquotation of the IAEA reports by the presidency of the EU is an irresponsible behaviour and disgraceful”, he said, adding, “Alarmist style and fear-mongering policy towards Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme will not work.”  The assertion that the European Union was committed to negotiations on those enrichment matters rang hollow.  Iran’s nuclear programme “had been, is and will remain totally peaceful”, he said.

SHALVA TSISKARASHVILI (Georgia), speaking in right of reply to the statement made by the representative of Russia, said his country was witnessing the results of Russian territorial expansion that flew in the face of international law and the United Nations Charter and resolutions, affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Georgian citizens.  Russia was moving forward and altering borders and Russian troops had invaded, with bombs killing thousands and leaving many more homeless.  Russian troops were annexing an independent country.

In August, Georgia had informed the United Nations it was acting in self-defence in South Ossetia, he said.  Yet further military actions followed the annexation of his country.  In reality, more than 150,000 Georgian citizens were displaced and, according to the non-governmental human rights organization Human Rights Watch, the remaining residents of affected Georgian villages were vulnerable.  The Moscow-backed plan of the self-proclaimed leader of the separatist enclave had declared that the de facto regime would not allow Georgian citizens to return to their homes.  Ethnic cleansing had occurred on the occupied territory of his country.

Referencing Human Rights Watch, he said that Russian forces had used cluster bombs in populated areas, killing dozens of civilians, including a Dutch journalist.  It was ironic to hear mention of the Munich Agreement from a force that had brutally invaded and was occupying his country.

Mr. ANTONOV (Russian Federation), speaking in right of reply, said that he had spoken about the Caucasus crisis in the context of international security, as that had demonstrated the current failure in the current security structure.  He had called on all countries to discuss those security issues.  “But we are tired of this vilification, fiction and lies about the terrible events that have occurred.”  The documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE) contained facts about the Caucasus crisis.  The major task in this Committee was to save lives.  How could he react to the statement about peacekeepers that were killed and woundedwhen the information was not from Russia, but had come from CNN?  Then something happened, and all of that information disappeared from the tapes.  He did not want to discuss those issues in the Committee.  He called for more discussions on security-related subjects.

Mr. TSISKARASHVILI ( Georgia) replied that the Russian representative had provided false information.  When the Russians had invaded Georgia, they had said that numbers of people were killed by ethnic cleansing, figures that Human Rights Watch had disputed as being widely inflated.  Regarding the issue of the initiation of peace, the Georgian Government was in favour of an impartial investigation.  So far, the Russian Government had not responded.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record