UNITED STATES COMMITTED TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, BUT ONLY ONCE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT PERMITS; PRUDENT NOW TO MAINTAIN NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, FIRST COMMITTEE HEARS

Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

4^th Meeting (AM)

UNITED STATES COMMITTED TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, BUT ONLY ONCE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

PERMITS; PRUDENT NOW TO MAINTAIN NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, FIRST COMMITTEE HEARS

Security Risks Stem from Attempts by Violent Extremists, States of Concern

To Obtain Mass-Destruction Weapons; Others Upgrading, Expanding Nuclear Forces

The United States remained committed to the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament, but pending a more propitious security environment, the country would continue to reduce its nuclear stockpile only “as much as our security and that of our allies permits”, its representative told the Disarmament Committee today.

“Nuclear forces continue to represent a critical deterrent capability, and extended deterrence is key to US alliances, both in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and in Asia,” she asserted in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as it continued its general debate.

The world’s primary security challenge now was rooted in attempts by violent extremists and States of concern to obtain weapons of mass destruction, she said.  Adding to that uncertain security scenario, some Governments had shown a willingness to transfer advanced weapons or sensitive weapon technologies to other States or to support terrorist groups, while others were conducting activities that gave rise to grave concerns about their compliance with their obligations not to research, develop, produce, stockpile or use chemical or biological weapons.  Still others were modernizing and expanding their nuclear forces.

“Against this backdrop, it is prudent for the United States to maintain its nuclear capabilities, while, at the same time, working closely with the international community to combat proliferation by strengthening the security of WMD-associated materials and technologies,” she said. 

While maintaining security commitments, the United States was still able to make significant reductions in its nuclear arsenal, she said.  In 2001, the United States finished implementing all reductions in strategic offensive arms required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  The United States and the Russian Federation continued discussions on a legally binding post-START arrangement.  The United States had also agreed to reductions under the 2002 Moscow Treaty and, by the deadline of 2012, the total stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads would drop to its lowest levels since the 1950s and 80 per cent lower than its 1990 level.

The nuclear landscape was best served by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), but non-compliance remained a tremendous challenge, she said, drawing attention to steps her country had taken to bring others “back into compliance”.  Those had included identifying and dismantling the A.Q. Khan network, an especially dangerous organization because of its “black market” leaning.  In the case of Iran, the three Security Council sanctions resolutions “have made clear to the Iranians that they must abandon their ambitions for technologies that could lead to nuclear weapons and accept the generous offer of the international community to assist them in developing a strictly peaceful civilian nuclear programme”.  Regarding the Six-Party Talks, “We believe we have found a way for North Korea to end its nuclear programme completely and verifiably.” 

The representative of the Republic of Korea agreed that non-compliance challenged the integrity of, and confidence in, the nuclear non-proliferation regime, adding that the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament was deepening the rift between nuclear “haves and have-nots”.  A nuclear-armed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could not be tolerated.  The peaceful resolution of the “DPRK nuclear issue” was vital in securing lasting peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula and beyond, as well as sustaining the integrity of the non-proliferation regime.

While progress in disarmament would bolster non-proliferation efforts, eliminating nuclear weapons completely depended on a “watertight” non-proliferation regime, Norway’s representative said.  Sadly, the ongoing paralysis of the multilateral machinery hinted at dim prospects of marginalization and irrelevance in the future.  “If the CD continues not to deliver, we should ask ourselves whether this institution in its existing format serves our interests,” he said, adding, “We should ask the same question about the United Nations Disarmament Commission.”

He said that a growing consensus recognized that the existence of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons did not enhance the security horizon; those weapons should be removed and destroyed.  Steps towards that goal would include a legally binding Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), along with deeper weapons reductions through existing treaties, such as START, and the exploration of ways to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in security policies through regional nuclear-weapons-free zones.

Another approach that would revitalize disarmament work, would be to consider the issue alongside that of development, several representatives told the Committee, reviving the theme of the relationship between disarmament and development.  The representative of El Salvador suggested that that relationship should be a priority for the First Committee.  The representative of Tunisia said that, in the face of rising global poverty, the international community should divert military resources to development budgets.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of New Zealand, Myanmar, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Norway, Qatar, Fiji and Egypt.

The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 9 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

KIM BONG-HYUN ( Republic of Korea) said a sense of complacency might have caused the lack of progress in the international disarmament community in the last 10 years.  He urged the Committee not to take for granted or accept a status quo of no progress.  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means remained the gravest challenge facing humankind.  The integrity of and confidence in the nuclear non-proliferation regime was being challenged by several cases of non-compliance, and the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament was deepening the rift between nuclear “haves and have-nots”.

He urged States to ensure the success of the upcoming 2010 NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, as that was a very important milestone for the future of the NPT regime.  The Treaty’s monitoring and verification mechanism should be strengthened through the universalization of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol.  If an increase in the civil use of nuclear energy was an irreversible trend, efforts should be made to minimize the risks associated with it.  He called for the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.  Voluntary moratoriums on nuclear tests and fissile material production could not substitute for the treaties.

A nuclear-armed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could not be tolerated, he said, stressing that the peaceful resolution of the “DPRK nuclear issue” was vital in securing lasting peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula and beyond, as well as sustaining the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. 

“The Six-Party process stands at a critical juncture.”  The outstanding measures in the second phase of denuclearization agreed at the talks, in particular the adoption of a verification protocol, must be completed, and negotiations on the next phase must begin, in which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in accordance with the 19 September Joint Statement adopted by the Six-Party Talks.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s move to restore disabled nuclear facilities was regrettable. He urged the country to immediately resume disablement measures so that the momentum generated by the Six-Party Talks could be maintained.  The international community should support that call.  Efforts should also be made to strengthen 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).

He noted satisfaction that the ThirdBiennial Meeting of States to consider the implementation of the 2010 United Nations Programme of Action on the illicit small arms and light weapons trade had succeeded in producing a substantial set of recommendations to address the key issues -– international cooperation and assistance, illicit brokering, stockpile management and surplus destruction, and  international tracing.  To those he added that, international efforts were also needed to reduce the humanitarian problems caused by cluster munitions.

DON MACKAY ( New Zealand) said the standout achievement for disarmament in 2008 was the will of the international community to deal with the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions.  New Zealand was proud to be a member of the core group driving the Oslo process and would sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December.  The Biennial Meeting of States to consider the small arms Action Programme was able to achieve substantive progress in that area.  New Zealand remained a strong supporter of a new, legally binding international instrument governing the trade in small and light weapons as the outcome of that work.

He said that, the use of procedural objections to prevent the commencement of negotiations in the Conference of Disarmament was unfortunate and unnecessary.  He supported recent suggestions that the Conference should review its procedural mechanisms in 2009 and urged delegations to exercise maximum flexibility to enable the Conference to recommence substantive negotiations.

The NPT required a sense of renewed ownership and energy from all States parties for its full implementation, he said.  The CTBT should enter into force without delay, and he welcomed Colombia’s recent ratification.  The work of the IAEA was commendable, and the Additional Protocol was a key tool in ensuring that nuclear technologies were being used for peaceful purposes.  He called on Iran to comply with the IAEA, as well as with Security Council resolutions.  He welcomed efforts to denuclearize the DPRK, and urged that country to fully comply with its international obligations and to institute IAEA safeguards, in compliance with the NPT.  New Zealand supported the G-8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, as well as the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

CHRISTINA ROCCA ( United States) said that the United States remained committed to the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament, but that could only happen when the security environment permitted it.  Until that day came, her country would continue to reduce its nuclear stockpile “as much as our security and that of our allies permits”.

Highlighting some key accomplishments the United States had made in the past few years, she said her country had taken and continued to take unprecedented steps to reduce its nuclear stockpile.  The scale of disarmament by the United States and the former Soviet Union since the end of the cold war was “unparalleled”.  The United States continued to work diligently in the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, in the belief that a ban on production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons would enhance global non-proliferation of those weapons.  It had introduced a draft treaty text in 2006 and called upon all nations to join the United States in observing a moratorium on the production of fissile material for those purposes.

While reducing its nuclear stockpile, the United States had introduced concrete changes to its national nuclear posture, reducing reliance on nuclear weapons through a new framework –- “The US Nuclear Posture Review”, she said.  That policy framework put less emphasis on the role of nuclear forces as a means of deterrence and greater emphasis on conventional capabilities and a robust industrial base.  That important change provided United States Presidents with more information, more options, both offensive and defensive, and more time to make critical decisions.

She said that the primary security challenge facing the world stemmed from attempts by violent extremists and States of concern to obtain weapons of mass destruction.  Some Governments had demonstrated a willingness to transfer advanced weapons or sensitive weapon technologies to other States or to support terrorist groups.  Some were conducting activities that gave rise to grave concerns about their compliance with their obligations not to research, develop, produce, stockpile or use chemical or biological weapons.  Still others were modernizing and expanding their nuclear forces. 

“Against this backdrop, it is prudent for the United States to maintain its nuclear capabilities while, at the same time, working closely with the international community to combat proliferation by strengthening the security of WMD-associated materials and technologies,” she said.

Continuing, she explained:  “Nuclear forces continue to represent a critical deterrent capability, and extended deterrence is key to US alliances, both in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and in Asia.”  Nevertheless, the United States recognized that it could maintain those security commitments while making significant reductions in its nuclear arsenal.  In 2001, the United States finished implementing all reductions in strategic offensive arms required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  The United States and the Russian Federation continued discussions on a legally binding post-START arrangement.

Under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States agreed to reduce its operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,700 by 2012, and the country would, in addition to the Moscow Treaty, trim between 2004 and 2012 its overall nuclear weapons stockpile by 50 per cent, she said.  In total, by 2012, the total stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads would drop to its lowest levels since the 1950s and 80 per cent lower than its 1990 level.

A keen eye must also be cast over developments involving terrorists using chemical and biological weapons for malevolent purposes, she said, urging States parties to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions to work to meet that challenge.  Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements was another challenge, and one that reflected a broad consensus that those agreements were critical to international peace and stability.  In that light, the United States had worked with interested United Nations Members States to draft a resolution on compliance, which would be introduced in the Committee.

Turning to outer space, she reiterated her country’s opposition to space arms control proposals, stating that the existing regime was sufficient.  However, the United States was willing to consider initiatives based on voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures and had thus begun a trans-Atlantic dialogue with the European Union.  Her country had been disappointed that agreement had not been reached this year with Russia and China on the draft General Assembly resolution to examine the feasibility of new voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures, a resolution “that removes what the United States believes is a false and unacceptable linkage between expert assessments of pragmatic transparency and confidence-building measures and efforts to begin pointless negotiations on unverifiable space arms control agreements,” she said.

The nuclear landscape was best served by the NPT, which she called a foundation for non-proliferation.  However, the Treaty faced tremendous challenges, the greatest one being non-compliance.  To address that problem, the United States had worked to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, encourage States not in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations to “come back into compliance”, and strengthen international non-proliferation.  For example, the A.Q. Khan network, an especially dangerous organization because of its “black market” leaning, had been identified and dismantled, and the information gained had been used to help her country and others make better decisions about safeguarding nuclear weapons and infrastructure in the future.  The United States had also launched the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Other forward steps had included Libya’s strategic decision to give up mass- destruction weapons, to renounce terrorism and to resume its position in the international community, she said.  Regarding the Six-Party Talks, “We believe we have found a way for North Korea to end its nuclear programme completely and verifiably,” she said, citing it as an example of how multilateral approaches could be applied to the most complex international problems.  In the case of Iran, “We have put together an international coalition of States to address a problem with implications for all United Nations Members States.”  “Three Security Council sanctions resolutions have made clear to the Iranians that they must abandon their ambitions for technologies that can lead to nuclear weapons and accept the generous offer of the international community to assist them in developing a strictly peaceful civilian nuclear programme.”

She said that Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) was another excellent example of international cooperation to create effective tools to combat proliferation, and the resolution’s full implementation would enhance international security and build capacities linked to national priorities, including boosting trade and export controls and mitigating threats to public health and security.  The United States would continue to lead and defend international non-proliferation regimes, and to take actions to make the international community safer from the risk of nuclear war.

U WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that weapons of mass destruction constituted a grave threat to humankind and nuclear disarmament, and should be accorded the highest priority on the international arms control and disarmament agenda.  He had been deeply frustrated at the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference to achieve substantive results.  There was a gap between the “nuclear haves and have-nots”, and he urged the nuclear-weapon States to honour their obligations under the NPT and subsequent reviews.  He welcomed last year’s final declaration of the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT last year and called on those States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty, without delay.

He said that an arms race in outer space had potentially serious implications for the peace and security of the world at large.  There was thus a pressing need to negotiate, as soon as possible, a legally binding instrument to prevent the weaponization of outer space.  The efforts of China and Russia to establish such a treaty in the Conference on Disarmament were welcome and had his country’s support.  Transparency and confidence-building on that issue should be promoted.  Member States should work towards an agreement on a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament.  He noted the importance of the 2001 small arms Action Programme, pledging to work with other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members to implement it.

WILLIAM HABIB, Director of Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, said that armed conflict remained problematic, especially in the Middle East and that needed to be addressed, in order to address the broader development issues.  Arms trade should be regulated, especially to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.  The ultimate aim was to bring about general and complete disarmament, a goal that was possible only through multilateral actions under the United Nations Charter.

He said that the Conference on Disarmament had ended in a stalemate, but that should not prevent the emergence of heightened efforts or bolder political will, nor should the standstill hamper the preparations for the next preparatory session for the 2010 NPT review.  He underlined the importance of monitoring weapons, their use and stockpiling, as well as ensuring that confidence-building measures were undertaken.  Implementation of United Nations disarmament programmes should be studied in connection with their financial implications.

Above all, tracking arms that fuelled armed conflict was imperative, he said, calling for a multilateral mechanism, which would take into consideration the roots of armed conflict, particularly armed occupation.  He also called for the international regulation of arms and arms trafficking, as weapons such as anti-personnel mines had long-lasting effects.  The latest aggression by Israel in 2006 had involved some 2.4 million mines in southern Lebanon.  That remained a daily problem for people in the region, mostly because Israel had refused to provide maps identifying the location of cluster bombs and mines.  In that connection, he reiterated Lebanon’s full support of the Oslo process.

Also crucial, was preventing the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical and biological weapons, and Lebanon would become a party to the test-ban Treaty.  He underscored the importance for all parties to join the NPT and for all States to ensure the success of the 2010 review process.   Lebanon supported a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons in the Middle East, and noted that Israel had not become party to the NPT.

ENRIQUILLO A. DEL ROSARIO CEBALLOS (Dominican Republic), associating himself with statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Rio Group, said that, disarmament should remain a priority within the United Nations, and Member States should show the political will to eliminate existing and potential threats to international security.  The current state of the disarmament machinery reflected a need for greater parity in efforts to achieve progress.  More resources should be set aside for development over armaments.

He raised concern over the effects of the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons on the internal security of Member States.  Stronger measures should be adopted to deal with that issue.  The Dominican Republic had instituted domestic programmes for that purpose, and he urged the international community to support the conclusion of a legally binding instrument on illicit brokering and marking, and tracing, in addition to examining the issue of ammunition.  He also supported the conclusion of a legally binding instrument on the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.  International cooperation would ensure the full implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action.

The Dominican Republic also reaffirmed its support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its universality, he said.  It defended the right of every country to develop research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.  It supported the work of the IAEA.  It also encouraged the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and called for the conclusion of a legally binding instrument that would prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.  It hoped for the early entry into force of the test-ban Treaty, and for the elimination of all other weapons of mass destruction.  The Dominican Republic was party to the Biological Weapons Convention and might deposit its instrument of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention before the end of the year.  His country celebrated the result of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference, namely, the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

ERLING SKJONSBERG ( Norway) said that recent disarmament developments, including the landmark adoption of the Cluster Munitions Convention, were cause for cautious optimism.  The new Convention clearly demonstrated that multilateralism could work.  Similar inspiring lessons were needed when addressing the serious human impact of the illicit trade in small arms, and he reiterated Norway’s support for early negotiations on an arms trade treaty.

He said that Norway had identified, through a white paper submitted to its parliament, three main objectives in the disarmament and security sphere:  to work towards a world free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; to ensure security and stability; and to eliminate conventional weapons that caused horrific human suffering.  While the paper reaffirmed Norway’s objective of achieving a “WMD-free” world, the country also continued to seek to strengthen the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions.

Despite gains, he said the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world was but a distant vision.  New partnerships were needed to forge the way towards that aim, using an incremental approach bolstered by hearty political support at the highest level and the participation of all stakeholders.  A growing consensus recognized that the existence of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons did not enhance the security horizon; those weapons should be removed and destroyed.  A legally binding CTBT was a key step towards that goal.  He suggested deeper weapons reductions through existing treaties such as START, a negotiated legally binding ban on the production of fissile material and the exploration of ways to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in security policies through regional nuclear- weapons-free zones.  In addition, the operational status of nuclear weapons that were deployed needed to be reduced, he stressed.

While progress in disarmament would bolster non-proliferation efforts, eliminating nuclear weapons completely depended on a “watertight” non-proliferation regime, he said.  It was deeply disturbing, therefore, to see the ongoing paralysis of the multilateral machinery.  “If the CD continues not to deliver, we should ask ourselves whether this institution in its existing format serves our interests,” he said, adding, “We should ask the same question about the United Nations Disarmament Commission.”  The current standstill would lead to marginalization and irrelevance.  To maintain credibility, progress must triumph.  Norway’s objective in the Committee’s current session was to build the consensus needed for effective disarmament machinery and to foster a common understanding of how existing and new security threats should be addressed.

NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER (Qatar), associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that multilateralism was important to maintain the disarmament mechanism and preserve it from erosion.   Qatar had been hosting workshops and events that promoted training and exchange of expertise in the implementation of the international instruments on the prohibition of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.   Qatar was in the process of enacting the necessary legislation to fulfil its international and national obligations in the area of disarmament and international security.

He said his country had been keen on strengthening the NPT and was activating the pillars on which it was based through its international relations.  The outcome of the second preparatory session for the 2010 NPT review had not been successful, owing to a lack of will to commit to the implementation of the most important Treaty provisions -– a moratorium on the development and reduction of nuclear arsenals.  The 2005 Review Conference had not used as its basis the resolutions and decisions of the past two review conferences.  Indeed, significant achievements made in the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference had been reversed as a result of reneging on internationally agreed commitments.   Israel’s adherence to the NPT would strengthen the confidence necessary to find many solutions to the problems of the Middle East.

Noting the inalienable right of NPT States parties to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, he stressed the importance of resolving the differences on nuclear issues by peaceful means and refraining from the use, or threat of use, of force.  The proliferation of small arms and light weapons, along with cluster munitions, remained a challenge, and he thus looked forward to signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo in December.  He called for fairness in addressing the threat of conventional weapons and their development.

HABIB MANSOUR (Tunisia), associating himself with the statements made on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that there was a link between disarmament and development, although it remained a challenge.  He called on the international community to divert resources from military budgets to development, in the face of rising global poverty.

He noted the stalemate on discussions on the Programme of Action of the Conference of Disarmament and called for an end to it.  There was also a challenge with the lack of consensus as to how to strengthen the NPT, noting that there was a long way to go from the goal set in article VI, regarding nuclear disarmament.  The upcoming 2010 NPT Review Conference would hopefully allow the disarmament community to overcome long-standing stumbling blocks.  Nuclear-weapon States must fully honour their commitments made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and non-nuclear-weapon States needed to be assured against the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons.  He supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, particularly in the Middle East.  He called on those countries not party to the NPT to sign it.  His country had ratified it.  On small arms, he noted the progress made at the Third Biennial Meeting of States.

BERENADO VUNIBOBO ( Fiji) said security was a collective responsibility.  Its citizens, and those of other Pacific island countries, continued to suffer from the effects of nuclear explosions conducted in the Pacific up to 1996.  He supported the pledge by the Secretary-General to give increased priority to disarmament and international security issues.   Fiji also supported the important role of the United Nations in the field of verification.

He recalled the obligation to pursue, in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.   Fiji was committed to ensuring that further progress was made in preventing an accidental nuclear war.  He called for the early entry into force of the test-ban Treaty, without delay and without conditions.  Member States were also urged to support the universality of the NPT.   Fiji supported a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and welcomed additional steps to conclude nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties in other regions of the world.

Fiji also supported conventional arms control efforts at the regional and subregional levels and would work closely with the Conference on Disarmament to consider the creation of a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.  The illicit sale of small arms and light weapons was a serious global issue, and he urged the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the Member States’ capacity to deal with the problem.  He applauded the work done to address cluster munitions, and called on Member States to sign and ratify the Convention in Oslo on 3 December.  Like previous speakers, he noted the link between development and disarmament, and called on the international community to convert their swords into plough shares.

CARMEN MARÍA GALLARDO HERNÁNDEZ ( El Salvador) reaffirmed her country’s commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation, noting that El Salvador was among the earliest signatories to international agreements and treaties on those issues.  That commitment was not only a defence policy, but a conviction that mutual trust was of utmost importance.  Her country had been affected by armed conflict for a dozen years, fuelled by cold war ideologies.  For that reason, it was particularly sympathetic to those facing constant threats of nuclear and other weapons.

She said that statements in the Committee had, so far, reflected the existing stalemate.  While things were indeed at a standstill, efforts should be reinvigorated to move beyond it.  It was vitally important to find solutions to threatening issues that affected humankind overall.  Quick, decisive action and responsibility was needed to address current global challenges, including climate change and the financial crisis, particularly the United States crisis, which had global repercussions.  Now more than ever, the relationship between disarmament and development must be a priority in the Committee.  Moreover, debates and opinions of States on disarmament should be linked to other issues and with how resources could be diverted and redeployed, especially in post-conflict peacebuilding processes.  Such an approach would revive the Committee’s agenda.

Regarding conventional weapons, she said El Salvador was committed to stemming the trafficking of illicit arms, acquired and used by organized crime to fuel violence at national, regional and international levels.  In response, an international legally binding agreement should be drawn up regarding the import, export and transfer of weapons, which would guarantee tracing.  All States should exercise a strong commitment to that effort.  The NPT review also needed strong commitments to strengthen the Treaty, and she encouraged countries who had stepped away from the Treaty to return to it.  She called for support for the CTBT and reiterated her country’s belief in halting all nuclear testing.  She also acknowledged Iraq and Colombia for signing the Treaty and encouraged others to join their lead.  Strict monitoring was needed to ensure thorough compliance.

MAGED A. ABEDELAZIZ ( Egypt) associated himself with the statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the New Agenda Coalition ( Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden).  He noted that a majority of the resolutions still awaited implementation, while the Conference on Disarmament had suffered operational paralysis for another year.  The United Nations Disarmament Commission had not reached consensus on the results of its work this year.  The confrontational approach to international relations had escalated.  The world needed an approach of dialogue and cooperation built on mutual confidence.

He said his country continued to promote the regional and international disarmament agenda through the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Arab Group, and with all States and groupings, aiming to achieve regional security and stability in the Middle East, along with international stability and the security of all peoples.  Forty years since its conclusion, the NPT was exposed to ever-increasing challenges, which went well beyond the lack of implementation by nuclear-weapon States of their disarmament commitments.  The challenges today were causing serious damage to the very chance of achieving universality.  The Treaty’s very feasibility was challenged, especially since the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group had fully altered its role of safeguarding compliance with the Treaty’s stipulations and pushing for its universality to ignoring those stipulations, without taking into account that such an approach would most seriously endanger the Treaty and create “a state of international nuclear chaos”. 

Work must be done to establish without delay a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, he said.  Otherwise the NPT’s indefinite extension would impose more commitments on the Arab States in return for exempting Israel from any commitments whatsoever.  If the Treaty did not bring about, for States of the region, the security and stability to which those States aspired, that situation would drive “the Arab street” to question the validity of the indefinite extension decision.  Egypt was also working to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  It welcomed the consideration of the implementation of the international marking and tracing instrument.  He noted, however, the lack of consensus, thus far, for an arms-trade treaty.

Rights of Reply

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, to the statement made by the representative of the Republic of Korea, said his country, in 2003, had committed itself to a nuclear declaration.  The agreement reached so far in the Six-Party Talks, or between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States, contained no article on the declaration.  Agreement had been reached on setting up monitoring.  As for verification, that was a commitment to be fulfilled, according to the 19 September Joint Statement.  The outcome depended on the United States.  It was better for the Republic of Korea to keep silent.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated and underlined the points he had made in his earlier statement, emphasizing that the Six-Party Talks remained the centrepiece of negotiations and that the process stood at a critical juncture.

Taking the floor, again in right of reply, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he hoped that the Republic of Korea was reasonable for the sake of a smooth and peaceful resolution, instead of pursuing a policy of confrontationtowards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record