Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

8^th Meeting (PM)

WITHDRAWAL FROM NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY COULD BE DISCOURAGED BY SUSPENDING

NUCLEAR COOPERATION, FRANCE TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE AS THEMATIC DEBATE OPENS

International Proliferation Challenges Must Be Confronted with Conviction;

Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards System ‘Irreplaceable Basis’ for Verification

Withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did not bode well for international peace and security, and should be discouraged through the adoption of measures by the 2010 NPT Review Conference that included the suspension of nuclear cooperation, France’s representative told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, as the Disarmament Committee embarked on a series of thematic debates, starting with a cluster on nuclear weapons, the French representative called on the international community to face the recent serious proliferation challenges with conviction and to resolutely tackle new ones.  The development of civil nuclear energy programmes, by those countries wishing to go down that road, should conform strictly to the most exacting safety, security and non-proliferation standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) system of international safeguards was the irreplaceable basis for verifying the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said, urging all States that had not yet done so to sign and bring into force their respective safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols with the Agency, and for all States not yet party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to join it as non-nuclear-weapon States.

Canada’s representative said that, while his country continued to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons, it was under no illusions of what it would take to reach that goal.  The NPT was at the heart of that effort and, despite claims that the Treaty had become ineffective, it remained the most widely adhered to non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament instrument in history, successfully containing the spread of nuclear weapons.

He acknowledged that maintaining optimism about the strength of the Treaty was still not easy, as forward movement had stalled in many areas.   Iran remained non-compliant with its international obligations and was not cooperating fully with the IAEA.  Much multilateral diplomacy had been at a standstill for years and transparency measures by nuclear-weapon countries also remained insufficient.  Noting North Korea’s decision to readmit inspectors and recommence disablement work, his delegation urged that country to complete that work.  Much remained to be done, such as facilitating the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and commencing talks to ban production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.  Along that road, there would be no short cuts.

Still, South Africa’s speaker was optimistic about the strength of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it the most important international legal instrument on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.   He urged that the work of the IAEA, in verifying and assuring safeguards agreements, not be undermined in any way, and expressed concern that, by the end of 2007, 30 non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT had not yet brought safeguards agreements with the Agency into force.  The illicit network in nuclear material and technology, also seriously challenged the nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regime, and actors in such illicit networks should be prosecuted.

The mere existence of nuclear weapons constituted a grave danger to international peace and security, said Brazil’s delegate, on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR).  The indefinite extension of the NPT did not entail the indefinite possession by the nuclear-weapon States of their nuclear arsenals.  Any attempt to redefine the delicate balance of obligations contained in the NPT would undermine it.

Indonesia’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the movement was deeply concerned at the strategic defence doctrines of nuclear-weapon States, including the “NATO Alliance Strategic Concept”.  Existing nuclear weapons were being improved, and new types of those weapons were being envisaged in the United States’ Nuclear Posture Review, which contravened security assurances by nuclear-weapon States. He called for an international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear dangers, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of arriving at an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame.

The representatives of Lebanon (on behalf of the Arab Group), and Kyrgyzstan, also participated in the thematic debate.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, at the end of that debate, were the representatives of Syria and France.

The delegations of Georgia and Bahrain spoke in the concluding segment of the general debate.

The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations also participated in the general debate, as did a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Exercising their right of reply at the conclusion of the general debate were the delegations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Georgia.

The First Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on 15 October, to continue its thematic debate on nuclear weapons.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to conclude 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 Release GA/DIS/3361).

The Committee was also set to begin its thematic debate on nuclear weapons.  It would first convene a brief, informal discussion, following which, members would begin their formal thematic debate.

General Debate Statements

SHALVA TSISKARASHVILI ( Georgia) said that, while he welcomed the 2010 review cycle of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), there were a range of security challenges, including the illicit manufacture, accumulation and transfer of small arms and light weapons, for which an arms trade treaty could be an effective instrument in the field of non-proliferation.  Terrorism was another challenge, and last year, Georgia joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.  A network was in place of international disarmament machinery and security mechanisms established to create and sustain a secure universal environment.  Nevertheless, for more than a decade, Georgia had witnessed the violation of United Nations Charter principles by its neighbouring country.

He said that Russia’s military base in the breakaway region of Abkhazia had not been withdrawn, despite numerous requests by Georgia to ensure the closure of the base.  The recent Russian military aggression was also a grave concern.  Considering that very limited resources were at the disposal of separatists, the source of military expertise, weapons and ammunitions was clear.  A permanent Member State of the Security Council had “invaded our country” -- thousands of villages had been attacked, many people had been killed and, still more, had been displaced.  Georgia’s civilian population and infrastructure had become the target, as Russia blurred the line between civilian and military targets.

Concerning cluster munitions and other weapons, such as rocket-launch munitions, he said that Russia had used cluster munitions when bombing the Georgian village of Ruisi, killing 11 civilians and injuring dozens more.  The Russian Federation had yet to respond to those findings.

The global security and disarmament architecture faced serious threats of being destroyed by the actions of the Russian Federation, he said.  “Ironically, we have heard about the need to establish a new collective security system from the representatives of that country, which is still occupying Georgia and challenging current universal security arrangements.”  The international community must stand up for the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and not allow those tenets “to be crushed under the threats of invading tanks and under the boots of ethnic cleansers”.

AHMED AL-MUHARRAQI (Bahrain), associating himself with the statement made by the Non-Aligned Movement, said the world had witnessed a growing attempt by Member States to acquire nuclear technology in recent years.  There was a need to realize the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, without restrictions or exemptions.  He recognized the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to end the use of nuclear energy for non-peaceful purposes, while endorsing the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a viable option for Member States seeking to address their growing energy needs.   Bahrain had acceded to the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), out of a commitment to work with Member States and the IAEA to enhance peace and international security.

He said work should intensify to combat the illicit small arms and light weapons trade.  The world was witnessing more and more armed conflict, as a result of those weapons.  He urged implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, as well as the recommendations of the Third Biennial Meeting of States to combat the scourge of those weapons.  He called on the United Nations to exert pressure on Israel to adhere to the NPT and to allow the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.   Israel should submit its nuclear programme to IAEA inspection.

AMMAR HIJAZI, Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, said that any serious disarmament effort should be directly related to relevant international law instruments, especially international humanitarian law.  Member States had the duty to stop the transfer of arms to States that seriously violated international humanitarian law.  Combating and preventing the illicit small arms and light weapons trade was another important goal that the international community needed to address.  Member States should pay due attention to State arming and forming of militias that resided unlawfully on occupied land, committing aggressions, feeding conflicts and perpetuating human rights violations.  Due attention should also be paid to conventional weapons, including cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines and ammunition containing depleted uranium, all of which had devastating effects on civilian populations.

He said that the proliferation of nuclear and non-conventional weapons represented the most serious threat to humanity.  A nuclear-weapon-free zone had not been established in the Middle East, and Israel remained the only State in the region not party to the NPT.  He warned against selectivity in efforts to rid the Middle East of nuclear arms.  “Nothing can be more dangerous than turning a blind eye to States that have spent decades stockpiling and developing non-conventional and nuclear weapons, while refusing to submit to international inspection,” he said, adding “It is illogical and counterproductive to exert such extraordinary efforts and pursue a Member State on the basis of suspicion, as well as prevent non-nuclear-weapon States from pursuing their inalienable right to peaceful nuclear activity, while at the same time allowing another Member State, which openly admits to possessing and producing these non-conventional weapons, to remain belligerent in refusing so much as inspection or oversight.”

The only road towards the universalization of a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty in the Middle East was by pressuring Israel to accede to the NPT without delay, he said.  He was alarmed at statements made by certain Powers, that ignored the reality in the region but encouraged the belligerence of one Member State.  Equally troubling was the statement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Secretary-General on 6 October that “excused Israel from abandoning its nuclear arsenal and destructive potential”.  It was vitally important to push for the implementation of the “package deal” agreed during the indefinite extension of the NPT at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

He said that the devastating and long-term effects of foreign occupation, underdevelopment and poverty were directly linked to disarmament efforts around the world and provided fertile grounds for the illicit arms trade.  “We must confront the undeniable fact that deadly conflicts and illicit arms trade will continue unless we treat the root causes of conflicts.”  Equally important, was the commitment to suppress the efforts of some States to fuel conflicts in exchange for economic profit from illicit or illegal arms funding.  “We have an obligation to treat the causes, rather than the symptoms, as doing otherwise will only fan the flames of violence and illicit arms trade,” he said.  At a time when the world was banding together to lift economies out of potential disaster, the world should show equal determination to save millions of defenceless civilians who had suffered from war, violence and grinding poverty for far too long.

ROBERT YOUNG, International Committee of the Red Cross, said that cluster munitions had claimed hundreds of civilian lives in recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq and Lebanon.  More than 100 States had responded decisively to the issue five months ago, when they adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions at a diplomatic conference in Dublin.  The Convention would improve the prospects of living into adulthood for many children in future conflict zones.  The international committee urged all States to sign the new instrument of international humanitarian law when it opened for signature in Oslo on 3 December.

He said that the International Committee of the Red Cross had also contributed to discussions on cluster munitions within the framework of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons).  He urged States that wished to develop additional norms applicable to cluster munitions to ensure that such norms complemented the Cluster Munition Convention.  If the humanitarian problems brought about by cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war were to be tackled, then it was extremely important to ensure increased adherence to and implementation of Protocol V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on explosive remnants of war.  The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Mine Ban Convention) remained a model for preventive and remedial action in dealing with weapons that did much harm to civilians.

Civilians also continued to suffer the consequences of the unregulated availability of small arms and light weapons.  The United Nations Programme of Action on the issue had provided an important forum for promoting national action to address the problem.  He supported the report submitted by the Group of Governmental Experts on an arms trade treaty, and urged States to support the resolution being considered by the experts to establish international standards for the trade in conventional weapons.

Rights of Reply

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, exercising his right of reply, responded to a statement made yesterday by the representative of the Republic of Korea.  He doubted the sincerity of that representative’s intention and said that peace on the Korean peninsula could not be achieved by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, alone.  That representative had stated that the Republic of Korea’s military bases were not targeting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  But, “if we are not the target, who else?”  On the one side, efforts were made to denuclearize the peninsula, and on the other side there was a build up of nuclear missile carriers.  The nuclear deterrent in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was just that, a deterrent.

Also exercising his right of reply, the Russian Federation’s speaker said the subject of the statement by the Georgian representative was for another body of the United Nations.  Regarding questions relating to the work of the First Committee, Russia had signed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Treaty and intended to implement it.  If Georgia wanted to return to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, Georgia would have to return to being a part of the Soviet Union.  The question that had been raised was absurd.

Regarding references to cluster bombs, he noted that munitions ended up in Georgia and were used by Georgia.  The President of the Russian Federation had said that if the Georgian side continued to arm itself at its current rate -- its military budget had grown by “a factor of 50” -- peace would never be achieved in that region.  The Russian Federation’s speaker said that if his Georgian colleague wished to resolve those issues, there were ways to do that, including the conference in Geneva tomorrow.

Georgia’s representative, also exercising his right of reply, pointed out that Georgia had never exceeded limits of arms control.  As for issues related to the First Committee, he reiterated that on 6 March, the Russian Foreign Minister had announced that country’s withdrawal from settling the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia.  That had been another attempt to undermine Georgia.  On cluster munitions, he said that no international independent organization had suggested that cluster munitions had been used by the Georgian side against civilians.  The United Nations was exactly the appropriate forum to discuss those issues.

Thematic Debate on Nuclear Weapons

ERIC DANON (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it could not be denied that international security remained compromised and threatened, both globally and regionally, by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means, and by the risk that non-State actors could gain access to such weapons.  The European Union was committed to maintaining, implementing and strengthening disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements.  Progress was needed in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, in accordance with the existing relevant international instruments and by negotiating new treaties, such as a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  It was the Committee’s duty to strengthen the authority of the NPT; the Union would promote all its objectives.

He welcomed the satisfactory conclusion of the second session of the Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT Review Conference.  The Union would also work for the success of the current review cycle.  Serious proliferation challenges had emerged in recent years, and he called on the international community to face them with conviction and resolutely tackle any new ones.  The development of civil nuclear energy programmes, by those countries wishing to go down that road, should conform strictly to the most exacting safety, security and non-proliferation standards.  The IAEA’s system of international safeguards was the irreplaceable basis for verifying the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.  The Additional Protocol was an integral part of that system and adherence to it was essential.  All States that had not yet done so must sign and bring into force their respective safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols.  The Union was working to ensure that the ratification of the Additional Protocol become a condition for the export of nuclear-related items and technologies.

Withdrawal from the NPT had negative implications for international peace and security, he said, calling for the adoption of measures by the 2010 NPT Review Conference to discourage withdrawal from the Treaty and deal with its consequences, including through the suspension of nuclear cooperation.  He further called on States not yet party to the Treaty to join as non-nuclear weapon States.  The Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee should share their experiences with controls on exports with non-member countries, in order to meet the new challenges connected with the increase in world trade in nuclear-related items.  Solutions should be proposed, which met the needs of States wishing to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, while favouring the greatest possible safety and security.

Iran’s nuclear programme was an important challenge to the non-proliferation regime, and the Union was committed to negotiating a solution, he said.  It continued to support the Six-Party Talks process and the aim of denuclearizing North Korea, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1718 (2006).  He noted, with concern, a statement made by the Director General of the IAEA on 25 April about allegations concerning an undeclared nuclear reactor in Syria.

The Union invited the international community to promote specific and realistic initiatives on disarmament, such as the universal ratification of the test-ban Treaty, its entry into force without delay and without pre-conditions, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and the introduction of an immediate moratorium on the production of such material.  It also supported the establishment of confidence-building measures and further progress in the current discussions between the United States and Russia on the development of a legally binding “post-START” (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) arrangement and an overall reduction in the global stockpile of nuclear weapons, in accordance with article VI of the NPT.  He urged States that had signed or ratified the CTBT to pay all their contributions to the CTBT Preparatory Commission, on time and without conditions.

REINA CHARBEL (Lebanon), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was of utmost importance, and that Israel’s non-adherence to the NPT was a deterrent to ridding the region of nuclear weapons.  In response to those realities, she said that no progress had been made to extend and review the NPT, following the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.  The Arab Group considered the NPT the cornerstone for non-proliferation, but the only pragmatic way to ensure non-proliferation in the Middle East region was not to deal with States individually, but to deal with the region as a whole.  The Arab League States recognized that Israel had not even suggested its intention to adhere to the NPT.  She could only conclude that Israel was hindering peace in the Middle East.

She said that the Security Council had adopted resolutions regarding those issues, but those resolutions were being violated, and there was no mechanism in place to ensure that those texts were implemented.  Israel must adhere to the NPT.  That would only raise confidence in the Treaty.  The current situation marked the erosion of the NPT’s credibility and was a growing threat to the Arab Group.  The Arab Group demanded nuclear disarmament and for all States to desist from future production of nuclear weapons.  All members of the Arab Group had adhered to the NPT.  The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was instrumental in bringing about peace in the region and was an important contribution to bringing about disarmament.  Pressure should be imposed on Israel to adhere to the NPT, and it should subject all its nuclear activities to the IAEA.  The integrity of the NPT should be regained, she concluded.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil), speaking on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), reiterated the need for compliance with the commitments achieved at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences.  He urged those States not yet party to the NPT to join the Treaty.  The mere existence of nuclear weapons constituted a grave danger to international peace and security.  The indefinite extension of the NPT did not entail the indefinite possession by the nuclear-weapon States of their nuclear arsenals.  Any attempt to redefine the delicate balance of obligations contained in the NPT would undermine it.

He said that the test-ban Treaty was an essential part of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, and all States that had not yet adopted it were urged to do so to enable it to enter force.  The Southern Common Market supported nuclear-weapon-free zones, and it called upon all States that had not signed or ratified the relevant protocols to modify or remove their reservations or unilateral interpretations, which affected the status and denuclearization of those zones.

It was disquieting that the Conference on Disarmament had yet to begin the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, he said, adding his hope that such an instrument would be both irreversible and non-discriminatory.  It was also disturbing that the Conference had yet to establish an appropriate subsidiary body with the mandate to address nuclear disarmament, owing to the absence of an agreement regarding its programme of work.

DESRA PERCAYA ( Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, reiterated his determination to promote multilateralism as the core principle of negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Nuclear disarmament, and the related issue of non-proliferation, remained the Movement’s highest priority.  He lamented the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament and the resistance of nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.  The Movement was also deeply concerned at the strategic defence doctrines of nuclear-weapon States, including the “NATO Alliance Strategic Concept”.  Existing nuclear weapons were being improved and new types of those weapons were being envisaged in the United States’ Nuclear Posture Review, which contravened security assurances by the nuclear-weapon State. That also violated the commitments undertaken by the nuclear-weapon States at the time the CTBT was concluded.

He called for an international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear dangers, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of arriving at an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame.  Universal adherence to the test-ban Treaty was also vital.  He noted the entry into force of the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty) between the Russian Federation and the United States, but reductions in deployments and in operational status could not substitute for irreversible cuts in and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  He called on both of those countries to apply the principles of transparency, irreversibility and verifiability to further reduce their nuclear arsenals.  He was also concerned about the negative implications of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile defence systems.

The Movement reaffirmed its support for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nuclear-weapon-free zones and Mongolia’s continued efforts to institutionalize its nuclear-weapon-free status, he said.  It also demanded that Israel accede to the NPT without delay.

NURBEK JEENBAEV (Kyrgyzstan), speaking on behalf of Central Asia, said a sinister race had emerged for States to possess weapons of mass destruction, and a lack of consensus on the issue was sadly apparent.  He was convinced that effective nuclear control could be achieved with treaties and political initiatives, but he warned that legal barriers needed to be erected to stop the flow of mass destruction weapons.  He, thus, supported international efforts to combat the spread, delivery of and technical advances of those weapons.

Turning to nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said such treaties would support global disarmament efforts.  An important aspect in the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone was that nuclear-weapon States were providing assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.  The signing of the Treaty in Kyrgyzstan had been symbolic -- proof of the fact that, based on international experience and efforts, States could create an environment that would enhance safety and security.  A series of General Assembly resolutions regarding Central Asia’s nuclear-weapon-free zone had cemented support for it.  The zone continued to be timely and relevant, and promoted a breakthrough in the stalemate in disarmament discussions.  He reiterated the Central Asian countries’ belief that the NPT was the non-proliferation cornerstone.  For the region’s part, parliaments of several Governments had moved forward towards supporting the zone, and the States of the central region intended to table a draft resolution on that important issue.

TYLER CUMMINGS ( Canada) said that, while his country continued to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons, it was under no illusions of what it would take to reach that goal.  It would require building consensus even when differences appeared irreconcilable; discouraging States from seeking nuclear weapons; consistently urging nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their disarmament obligations; and building institutions and regimes that provided security assurances for all.  Above all, courage and political will was needed.

He said that the NPT was at the heart of that effort.  Despite claims that the Treaty had become ineffective, it remained the most widely adhered to non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament instrument in history, successfully containing the spread of nuclear weapons.  Although consensus on a final document at the 2005 review had not been reached, that did not necessarily constitute a crisis in the Treaty’s regime.  Indeed, important successes had been attained.  Among them, the United Kingdom had announced plans to reduce its strategic arsenal and had launched, with Norway, an innovative project to determine how an eventual nuclear-weapon convention could be verified.  The United States had announced that its dismantling efforts were ahead of schedule.   France had invited international experts to see the ongoing dismantling of its military fissile material production facilities, announced further reductions in its nuclear arsenal and set out constructive proposals for a Nuclear Disarmament Action Plan.  Further, the NPT Preparatory Committee had engaged in fruitful debate, and Canada had welcomed Iraq as a new signatory into the CTBT, in addition to five new ratifiers:  the Bahamas; Barbados; Malaysia; Burundi; and Colombia, which, as an “Annex 2” State, was one of the 44 required for the Treaty’s entry into force.

He acknowledged that maintaining optimism was still not easy, as forward movement had stalled in many areas.  Iran remained non-compliant with its international obligations and was not cooperating fully with the IAEA.  Much multilateral diplomacy had been at a standstill for years and transparency measures by nuclear-weapon countries remained insufficient.  Noting North Korea’s decision to readmit inspectors and recommence disablement work, his delegation urged that country to complete that work, in keeping with its commitments under the Six-Party Talks.  Still, much remained to be done -- particularly in facilitating the CTBT’s entry into force and in overcoming the dishearteningly dim prospects of a fissile material cut-off treaty coming into effect.  On that road, however, there would be no short cuts.

LESLIE M. GUMBI ( South Africa) said the continued possession or retention of the nuclear weapons option by some States created the real danger that those weapons might be used or the possibility that they could fall into the wrong hands.  The complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and the assurance that they would never be produced again, remained the only assurance against their use.

He said that the NPT remained the most important international legal instrument on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and South Africa would continue to promote it.  The issue of security assurances was important to South Africa.  Genuine security could not be achieved with only non-nuclear-weapon States abandoning the nuclear weapons option.  Security assurances were a key element of the NPT, and South Africa would continue to pursue negative security assurances within the framework of the Treaty.  South Africa also encouraged the early entry into force of the CTBT.  It was disappointed that the Conference of Disarmament had once again not managed to begin negotiations on banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  Also, the work of the IAEA, in verifying and assuring safeguards agreements, should not be undermined in any way, and his country shared the concern of the Agency’s Director General that, at the end of 2007, 30 non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT had not yet brought safeguards agreements with the Agency into force.

The illicit network in nuclear material and technology continued to present a serious challenge to the nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said, adding that actors in such illicit networks should be prosecuted.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Syria, exercising his right of reply, said that France’s representative had referenced a 6 October statement to the Committee on behalf of the European Union, which had called on Syria to cooperate with the IAEA, regarding claims of an undeclared nuclear reactor.  Syria had been one of the first States to have adhered to the IAEA and to the NPT, and had not violated its commitments.  The IAEA had conducted annual visits, with the last routine visit occurring in August.  The Syrian Government had supplied facilities to the IAEA, as agreed, and access had been given to the site and surrounding area.  The French representative did not mention a September 2008 correspondence with the IAEA, which reported that Syria was in compliance.  Syria’s speaker hoped that France would have condemned the attack on Syria, a party to the IAEA and the NPT, by Israel, which was not party to either the NPT or the IAEA.  Syria was keen to bring about disarmament in the region, and on that topic, he noted the “hated silence” coming from France’s representative.

Exercising a right to reply, France’s speaker thanked Syria’s representative for his explanation.  He emphasized that the European Union hoped to see Syria continue its cooperation with the IAEA.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record