Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

10^th Meeting (PM)

CIRCUMSTANCES Do NOT CURRENTLY EXIST FOR UNITED KINGDOM TO UNILATERALLY RENOUNCE

NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD, AS DEBATE ON those WEAPONS CONCLUDES

But Emergence of New Nuclear-Armed States Would ‘Set Nuclear Disarmament Back

A Generation’, Delegate Warns, as Nine Related Draft Resolutions Are Introduced

Until current tensions in the international security arena were settled, the possession of nuclear weapons was a necessary evil, at least for now, the Disarmament Committee heard today, as it concluded its thematic debate on nuclear weapons and began hearing introductions of related draft resolutions.

The United Kingdom was the only nuclear-weapon State recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that had reduced its deterrent capability to a single nuclear-weapon system, its speaker told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).  It had also made deep cuts in the size of its nuclear arsenal, with warheads slashed to fewer than 160.

However, he said: “We do not believe that the circumstances currently exist for the UK safely to choose now to unilaterally renounce our nuclear weapons.”  His country, therefore, had taken the steps necessary “to maintain a minimum deterrent beyond the life of the current submarines.  This does not mean that we have taken an irreversible decision that commits us irrevocably to possessing nuclear weapons in 50 to 60 years time.”

At the same time, he warned that the emergence of a new nuclear-armed State or States would bring back the spectre of a nuclear arms race, destabilize the region concerned and set nuclear disarmament back a generation.  In signing the NPT, all States assumed the responsibility to create the kind of security environment in which the world could become nuclear-weapon free.

“Let’s be very clear,” he stressed:  “Non-proliferation and disarmament are not in competition.  The road to a world free from nuclear weapons does not lie through new nuclear-armed States.  It does not lie through the flouting United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring compliance with nuclear non-proliferation norms.  And it does not lie through anything other than the highest standards of nuclear safety and security and the scrupulous implementation of the appropriate safeguards.”

“When we adhere to a treaty,” said the United States’ speaker, introducing a draft resolution on compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments, “we want to know whether the other parties also are complying, we want to discover non-compliance early enough to be able to deny violators any benefit from such non-compliance, and we want to know that the international community will work diligently to encourage and induce violators to reverse their non-compliance and come back into compliance.”

She said it was critical to international peace and security and to exhort Governments to seek common cause in pursuit of diplomatic means to bring violators back into compliance.  The challenges in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation required the world’s “strongest and broadest” endorsement of compliance.

However, the representative of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said “the allegation that certain countries are entitled to possess nuclear weapons while others should be subject to nuclear threat is no longer acceptable”.  The threat of use of nuclear weapons had escalated against non-nuclear-weapon States, with phrases such as “pre-emptive nuclear strike” and “surgical nuclear strike” typifying ever-growing concerns.  That atmosphere was maintaining mutual distrust to the point where even non-nuclear-weapon States with security concerns would naturally consider self-defensive measures.

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of eight additional draft texts, on accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments; nuclear disarmament; the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons; reducing nuclear danger; measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; and decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems.

At the conclusion of the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, the Chairman of the First Committee, Marco Antonio Suazo, noted that there were nine States missing to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in order for the Treaty to come into force: China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the United States.

Statements in the thematic debate were also made by the representatives of South Africa, Mongolia, China, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Turkey, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Republic of Korea, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Qatar, India and Switzerland.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m., on Friday, 17 October, to begin its thematic debate on other weapons of mass destruction.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its thematic discussion on nuclear weapons and hear the introduction of related draft texts.

Statements

LESLIE GUMBI ( South Africa) introduced the New Agenda Coalition’s resolution pertaining to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”.  He said the only absolute guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons was their complete elimination and assurance that they would never be produced again.  The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was vital to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

He said that the Coalition resolution this year would specifically focus on the NPT.  It explicitly recognized and sought to underline the importance of the Treaty and its universality to achieve nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  It also recalled the three decisions on “Strengthening the Review Process for the Treaty”, “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament” and “Extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, as well as the resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

The text sought to convey the importance and need to implement commitments already made on nuclear disarmament, in particular, those stemming from the outcomes of the NPT Review Conferences in 1995 and 2000.  It would also build on previous Coalition resolutions and present an approach that emphasized compliance with nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation commitments.

(The New Agenda Coalition countries are New Zealand, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, South Africa and Sweden.)

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said the total elimination of nuclear weapons required balanced implementation of all three pillars of the NPT and all parties living up to their respective commitments.  The United Kingdom supported the disarmament obligations set out in the Treaty’s article VI and had, since the end of the cold war, made substantial progress towards implementing those obligations, including withdrawing and dismantling maritime nuclear capability and the WE177 “free-fall” nuclear bomb, and terminating the nuclear Lance missile and artillery roles undertaken with United States nuclear weapons held under dual-key arrangements.

He said his country was the only nuclear-weapon State recognized under the NPT that had reduced its deterrent capability to a single nuclear-weapon system.  It had also made deep cuts in the size of its nuclear arsenal, with warheads slashed to fewer than 160.  In addition, it had reduced the readiness of its remaining weapons -- there was normally only one Trident submarine on deterrent patrol at one time.  That submarine was at several days’ “notice to fire”.  Its missiles were not targeted at any country.  United Kingdom nuclear weapons were not on high alert, nor were they on “launch on warning” status.

However, he said, “We do not believe that the circumstances currently exist for the UK safely to choose now to unilaterally renounce our nuclear weapons.”  “We have, therefore, taken the steps necessary to maintain a minimum deterrent beyond the life of the current submarines.  This does not meat that we have taken an irreversible decision that commits us irrevocably to possessing nuclear weapons in 50 to 60 years time.”

The United Kingdom had continued to explore further opportunities to complement disarmament measures, including discussions with partners to host a  “P-5” conference and had adopted a transparent approach to disarmament whenever possible, producing historical records and ceasing the fissile material production for use in nuclear weapons.  The United Kingdom had not conducted a test nuclear explosion since 1991 and had ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1998.  He also welcomed bilateral agreements, as well as the United States and Russian Federation discussions concerning a legal successor to the “START” (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

In signing the NPT, all States assumed the responsibility to create the kind of security environment in which the world could become nuclear-weapon free, he said.  “Let’s be very clear”, he stressed:  “Non-proliferation and disarmament are not in competition.   The road to a world free from nuclear weapons does not lie through new nuclear-armed States.  It does not lie through the flouting United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring compliance with nuclear non-proliferation norms.  And it does not lie through anything other than the highest standards of nuclear safety and security and the scrupulous implementation of the appropriate safeguards.”

He warned that the emergence of a new nuclear-armed State or States would bring back the spectre of a nuclear arms race, destabilize the region concerned and set nuclear disarmament back a generation.

It was vital to strengthen the NPT, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should have tools and authority needed to detect clandestine nuclear activities and address non-compliance cases.  He called on all IAEA member States that had not yet done so to sign and implement the comprehensive safeguards agreements.  He firmly believed that the Additional Protocol was the minimum required standard for the IAEA to uphold confidence that the development of nuclear energy threatened no one’s security.

He said that collective efforts should also be made to prevent fissile material from slipping into the hands of terrorists and criminals, with the next logical disarmament step being to place a global cap on the production of such material for nuclear weapons and explosive devices.  That production ceiling could then be lowered eventually to zero.  He pressed for the commencement of negotiations, without preconditions, on a fissile material cut-off treaty at the Conference on Disarmament, calling on its members to agree swiftly on a programme of work.  He also urged States that had not done so to sign and ratify the CTBT.

Positive and negative assurances could best be achieved through guarantees sought by the non-nuclear-weapon States in protocols annexed to treaties creating nuclear-weapon-free zones, areas which would build stability and support wider non-proliferation efforts, he said.  The United Kingdom had already given assurances to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga) and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba), and it had granted treaty-based negative security assurances to nearly 100 countries.

J. ENKHSAIKHAN ( Mongolia) said that the IAEA was playing a very important role in the disarmament agenda, as the only internationally recognized competent authority responsible for verifying and assuring States’ compliance with the international safeguards regime established by the NPT and enriched by nuclear- weapon-free zone Treaties.  The Agency needed the full support of Member States to fulfil its obligations, and strengthen and ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards system.  The international community should strengthen the Agency’s legal authority by promoting the NPT’s universalization and the scrupulous and balanced implementation of its provisions.  It also needed to ensure that all States parties brought into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements and concludes Additional Protocols.

He said that nuclear-weapon-free zones played an important role in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  The entire southern hemisphere was nuclear-weapon free.  Those zones, however, faced considerable challenges.  The majority of the world’s population still lived in countries that possessed nuclear weapons.  Two out of five regional zones were yet to enter into force, and a considerable number of member countries in zones still needed to bring the required safeguards agreement into force.  Nuclear-weapon States needed to provide effective guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States that they would not use or threaten to use their nuclear weapons against them.

Mongolia’s commitment to the cause of nuclear-weapon-free zones was underlined by the fact that it was working to establish a “single-State” zone, bearing in mind its exceptional location, he said.  Last year, Mongolia presented a draft trilateral treaty to its neighbours, which was intended to define and institutionalize that status.  His delegation would be tabling a draft resolution of a procedural nature and hoped that it would be adopted, as in the past, by consensus.

GAROLD N. LARSON ( United States) said his country was committed to the NPT’s article VI and to assisting other States in the voluntary reduction of the amount of weapons-usable nuclear material they held.  Both of those efforts advanced the common interest of reducing the risk of proliferation and the possibility that such material could end up in the hands of non-State actors.

Reviewing recent key developments in the field involving his country, he recalled that United States President George W. Bush and then Russian President Vladimir Putin had signed the Moscow Treaty (Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions) in 2002 -- which would reduce the combined total of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads of both countries to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.  President Bush also directed in 2004 that, by 2012, the size of the overall nuclear weapons stockpile would be reduced by nearly 50 per cent from the time he entered office.  That goal was met five years early, so the President had further directed that the stockpile be reduced almost 15 per cent more by 2012.  Currently, the stockpile was currently the smallest it had been since the end of the 1950s, and some weapon types, such as the W79 and W56, had been completely retired.  The last nuclear weapon in the stockpile was produced in 1991.

He noted that when nuclear weapons were removed from the stockpile, the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration scheduled the weapons for dismantlement.  The United States nuclear weapons stockpile dismantlements had increased by 20 per cent over last fiscal year’s level.  That was the second year in a row that the Nuclear Security Administration had surpassed its targets in terms of the number of weapons dismantled.  The United States continued to dismantle nuclear weapons in a safe and effective manner, ensuring that they could no longer be used.  Plutonium cores removed from weapons were initially placed in storage, but the excess material would eventually be turned into fuel.

Nuclear weapons material was also being removed from nuclear weapons sites in the United States, he continued.  This year, 12 metric tonnes of plutonium and highly enriched uranium were placed on the path to quick and safe disposition.  The United States had eliminated well over 100 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium.  It also continued to cooperate with Russia to secure nuclear material and downblend highly enriched uranium.  Together, they had downblended 322 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from Soviet-era dismantled nuclear weapons and 10 metric tons of Russian weapons-usable material.  The downblended product was sold to United States’ utilities for power production.

He said his country continued to work with more than 100 countries to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.  The United States-based fuel removal programme, now part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative had returned 45 shipments of United States-origin fuel from 27 countries, for a total of over 1,190 kilograms of highly enriched uranium -– enough for more than 45 nuclear weapons, and more than 8,500 fuel assemblies.  The programme had removed all eligible United States-origin highly-enriched uranium fuel from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Thailand.

PAULA A. DESUTTER, Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, Department of State of the United States, submitted a resolution entitled “Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments”. Like its preceding resolution in 2005, this one sought to bring the issue of compliance to the attention of the international community; that it was critical to international peace and security and to exhort Governments to seek common cause in pursuit of diplomatic means to bring violators back into compliance.  The text went beyond the 2005 version to also encourage countries to provide assistance, as appropriate, to build national, regional and international capacity for the implementation of verification and compliance obligations.

She said that the United States sought to move towards a consensus that compliance by States with their non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament treaties, agreements and commitments was critical to international peace, stability and security and was at the very foundation of the international system.  Very significant challenges to international security and stability remained, most notably, but not exclusively, in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation.  For that reason, there was no more important time than now -- when the international community was facing significant non-compliance challenges -- for it to use all available tools, including this resolution, to express its “strongest and broadest” endorsement of compliance and to urge States that were not currently in compliance with their obligations to come back into compliance.

“When we adhere to a treaty, we want to know whether the other parties also are complying, we want to discover non-compliance early enough to be able to deny violators any benefit from such non-compliance, and we want to know that the international community will work diligently to encourage and induce violators to reverse their non-compliance and come back into compliance”, she stressed.

KANG YONG ( China) said that multilateral nuclear disarmament not only faced challenges, but also opportunities.  The nuclear disarmament process was in a stalemate, the nuclear non-proliferation regime had yet to be perfected, and regional nuclear non-proliferation hotspot issues were still outstanding.  The road to a world free of nuclear weapons was “long and bumpy”, but the current NPT review cycle was a rare opportunity for the international community to advance nuclear disarmament.

He said that China, as a nuclear-weapon State, had firmly pursued the policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, at any time in any circumstance.  It had also unconditionally committed not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or in nuclear-weapon-free zones.   China supported the conclusion of international legal instruments on complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.   China faithfully carried out its obligations under the NPT.  It had never taken part and would never take part in any nuclear arms race, and it had never deployed nuclear weapons outside its own territory.  It also respected and supported efforts by relevant countries and regions to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones.

China promoted the early entry into force of the CTBT and would honour its commitment of a moratorium on nuclear tests, he said, voicing China’s support for agreement in the Conference on Disarmament of a comprehensive and balanced work programme and the commencement of negotiations on a multilateral non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty.

Reiterating that the authority, universality and effectiveness of the NPT should be continuously safeguarded, he put forth several suggestions for the promotion of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.  Among them, those countries should abandon policies of nuclear deterrence based on the first-use of nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons.  Those States should undertake to not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time under any circumstance and refrain from the unconditional use or threat of use of such weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States and in nuclear-weapon-free zones, and  they should complete international legally binding instruments to that effect.   China was ready to work towards such an agenda.

HANI MOHAMED BIN HUWAIDIN (United Arab Emirates), expressing support for the statements made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said that the development of existing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems by some nuclear-weapon States and the quest by some non-nuclear States to acquire those weapons was a flagrant violation of the NPT and the non-proliferation regime.  It also undermined confidence in the system of international relations and threatened the maintenance of regional and international peace and security.

He called for the full and balanced implementation of the all NPT provisions.  All parties in the international community, without exception, should ensure their full adherence to and compliance with the principles of the multilateral system, as well as the principles of all relevant treaties and international arrangements.  He reaffirmed the universality and inclusiveness of the NPT, which required that the international community exert pressure on outside that regime.  He also called for the development of a universal, unconditional instrument that provided the necessary security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  He urged States which had not yet ratified the test-ban Treaty to do it quickly so it could enter into force.  He reaffirmed the important role of the IAEA, as well as the right of States to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  He urged the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East and called on delegations to vote “yes” on “L.1” and “L.2”.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA ( Mexico) said he was convinced the joint Australia-Japan International Commission on Non-proliferation and Disarmament was an excellent step forward and would contribute to the NPT review process.  It was still vital for the international community to stay abreast of advancements in the field.  The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only way to guarantee collective security.  Transparency was imperative, as was adoption by the Conference on Disarmament of a programme of work.

He said that disarmament and non-proliferation were connected, and they were also politically, morally and legally interdependent.  However, it was not realistic to call for compliance from some parties and not from others.  Nor was it reasonable that States selected an “à la carte” approach to which commitments should be honoured, and which could be disregarded.  The NPT needed to be revitalized.  That would occur only if the Treaty became universal.  Some countries had insisted on non-proliferation, overlooking the relationship with disarmament.  That imbalance needed to be addressed.

The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones was another positive step, which had Mexico’s strong support, he said.  The Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) would hold a second meeting in New York next May concerning States parties to nuclear-weapon-free-zone Treaties.  The meeting, among other things, would seek to strengthen cooperation among the countries of those zones.

VEHBI ESGEL ETENSEL ( Turkey) said that Turkey, as a party to all major international non-proliferation instruments and export control regimes, called for the “universalization, effective and coordinated implementation and strengthening” of those instruments and regimes.  In that regard, the Non-Proliferation Treaty lay at the heart of those measures and should be fully implemented in its three mutually-enforcing pillars.  He called for the full ratification of the CTBT, especially those States listed in its Annex 2, whose ratification was required for the Treaty’s entry into force, as that instrument was key to restraining vertical proliferation.  He commended Iraq’s recent decision to sign the Treaty.

Underlining IAEA’s essential role, he said he supported the decisions and resolutions adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and the Final Document of its 2000 Review Conference.  He also welcomed the outcome of the second session of the Preparatory Committee 2010 Review Conference, adding that Turkey would work towards a substantive outcome.  In addition, he encouraged the establishment of nuclear-free zones and, in principle, the establishment of an effectively verifiable zone, free of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East.  Lastly, he backed efforts aimed at helping the Conference on Disarmament resume its negotiating role as “the world’s single multilateral disarmament forum”.

He attached great importance to the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue, through diplomacy.  The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula also remained a regional and global priority.  Accordingly, Turkey welcomed the recent United States-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agreement on denuclearization verification measures.  He hoped that conditions could be created for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the earliest possible date and for the resumption by the IAEA of comprehensive safeguards there.

ISHRAT J. AHMED (Bangladesh), associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their threat.  Unfortunately, the lack of political will to move ahead had created an impasse in United Nations disarmament forums.  However, past achievements could still be built upon, particularly the 13 practical steps adopted by the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  He highlighted the unequivocal commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to the non-use of nuclear weapons and to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

He urged the Conference on Disarmament to resume its substantive work, in line with the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice towards the fulfilment of nuclear disarmament “in good faith”.  He also appealed for the ratifications needed to allow the CTBT to enter into force, and urged all others to observe a moratorium on testing in the meantime.  In addition, he called on nuclear States to adhere to the principles of transparency, irreversibility and verifiability while reducing their nuclear arsenals.  Everything must be done to prevent the acquisition of nuclear materials by non-State actors.

Bangladesh, he said, had consciously and unconditionally opted to remain non-nuclear.  It was the first “Annex-2” nation in South Asia to have signed and ratified the CTBT, and it was a party to the NPT, and it had concluded safeguard agreements with the IAEA.  He reiterated his call for the establishment of more nuclear-weapon-free zones, including in South Asia and the Middle East.

U WUNNA MAUNG LWIN ( Myanmar) tabled a draft resolution entitled “Nuclear Disarmament” (document A/C.1/63/L.14).  The continuing existence of nuclear weapons was one of the greatest threats to the future of humanity.  A nation’s security could be assured without nuclear weapons, and the billions of dollars spent on nuclear forces could be used to help the world’s poor and hungry.  The only defence against a nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The International Court of Justice reaffirmed that countries had an obligation to pursue talks in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, in all its aspects, under strict and effective international control.

He said that the draft resolution was co-sponsored by all members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and many countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, among others.  It addressed the issue of nuclear disarmament in a comprehensive manner.  The text called for the full and effective implementation of the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament contained in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea), calling the Non-Proliferation Treaty a “cornerstone” of global peace, said its three pillars of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy should be promoted in a balanced manner.  Most States at the “2008 NPT PrepCom” meeting viewed the success of the 2010 Review Conference as vital to the NPT regime’s credibility.  The first task for nuclear disarmament rested with nuclear-weapon States, however, and the best way to restore trust between those States and non-nuclear-weapon States was for them to implement their article VI obligation.

He acknowledged efforts by the United States and the Russian Federation  to reduce the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons by 2012, and welcomed unilateral nuclear reduction measures by the United Kingdom and France, reminding delegates that any qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons ran contrary to the obligation to work for nuclear disarmament.  He called on States that had not ratified the CTBT to do so immediately.  Negotiation of a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was the next logical step.  Meanwhile, all States should declare -– and observe -– a moratorium on fissile material production and use until such a treaty was in force.

Peaceful resolution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea nuclear issue was vital to securing lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, he said, welcoming that the six-party talks were “back on track” through recent agreements on verification and removal by the United States of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the list of State sponsors of terrorism.  He hoped such measures would help move the six-party process forward, and he asked for “unswerving” support towards that goal.  He hoped the third NPT Preparatory Committee meeting next year would serve as a stepping stone for finding practical ways to revitalize the NPT.

LARBI EL HADJ ALI ( Algeria) lamented setbacks at the conclusion of the last NPT Review Conference, the inability of the Conference of Disarmament to adopt a programme of work and the lack of progress of the entry into force of the CTBT.  In that dismal context, there was a great risk of seriously jeopardizing the foundations of collective security.  Moreover, doctrines of nuclear deterrence would, among other things, step up the arms race.  That and other obstacles to disarmament must be overcome, with real political will from the States involved, for which a strategic approach and adherence to commitments was needed.

He urged implementation of article VI of the NPT, as well as the 13 practical steps agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  However, the only real solution to the nuclear weapons issue was their complete elimination.  Until then, assurances from nuclear-weapon States must be given to non-nuclear-weapon States.  The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones strengthened the non-proliferation regime and supported disarmament efforts overall.  Algeria belonged to a subregion that straddled an African nuclear-weapon-free zone, still struggling to be put into force, and a “utopian” Middle East zone.  Preventing proliferation should not be used as a pretext for preventing States parties to the NPT from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, particularly development.

BYRGANYM AITIMOVA ( Kazakhstan) said the landmark field exercise in Semipalatinsk had been an important event, as it demonstrated her country’s commitment to disarmament and the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime.  Kazakhstan’s renunciation of its nuclear arsenal was the only natural choice for a country that had suffered from nuclear testing, with a total of 459 nuclear explosions over 45 years, exposing about half a million people.  The site was now used for a project of the CTBT Organization (CTBTO) and had become a “neutral strip” for resolving sensitive issues.

She called for a prohibition of all nuclear tests, including so-called “peaceful” ones.  Such explosions could create a loophole for the spread of nuclear weapons.  There were no established verification procedures in that area, and banning such explosions would not affect the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.  During the existence of the Soviet Union, a total of 23 “peaceful” nuclear explosions occurred in Kazakhstan, to the detriment of the environment and human health.  She was pleased that practical implementation of initiatives to create a global nuclear energy infrastructure had begun within the CTBTO framework.

Kazakhstan had become party to the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment created in Russia’s Angarsk, she noted.  That was a practical contribution to the development of nuclear energy, under which programmes of reliable supply of nuclear fuel on the basis of international cooperation would become an alternative to the spread of sensitive nuclear technology.  For its part, Kazakhstan complied with its NPT obligations, she said, reiterating strong support for a complete ban on all nuclear tests, and calling upon all involved parties to make maximum efforts to ensure that the CTBT entered into force.

HOSSAM ALY (Egypt) introduced two draft resolutions, entitled “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East” (document A/C.1/63/L.1) and “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” (document A/C.1/63/L.2).  The first text was the same as resolution 61/18, adopted last year by the Committee and the General Assembly by consensus, under the same agenda item.  It had only been technically updated.  It represented both a regional and an international vision for the future of the Middle East and a requirement for confidence-building and mutual trust between States of the region.  The second draft resolution, “L.2”, represented the unchanged text of resolution 62/56.  The resolutions were sponsored by other member countries of the League of Arab States.

MOHAMMED ALSUBAEY ( Qatar) said that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was an absolute priority, as those weapons could very well send humanity “back to the stone age”.  Qatar strongly believed the NPT could lead to ridding the world of those weapons.  Assurances of non-use could be accomplished with the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, a notion Qatar heartily supported.  Israel’s adherence to the NPT would strengthen peace and security in the Middle East, but certain parties were preventing the Treaty’s universality, and those challenges to the NPT regime needed to be addressed.  He reaffirmed the right of States to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  He also reaffirmed the settling of nuclear-related disputes under United Nations auspices.

VISHVJIT SINGH ( India) introduced three draft resolutions aimed at advancing the goal of global nuclear disarmament.  Introducing the draft on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, he said the resolution reflected the belief that a multilateral, universal and legally binding instrument prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would contribute to the mitigation of the nuclear threat and create a climate for negotiating an agreement on prohibiting those weapons.  It would serve as an interim measure towards a step-by-step process for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and would call on the Disarmament Conference to commence negotiations on the convention.

Introducing a draft on reducing nuclear danger, he said the resolution highlighted the hair-trigger posture created by the risk of the unintentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons.  It called for a review of nuclear doctrines and for taking immediate, specific steps to reduce the threat, including through the de-alerting and de-targeting of nuclear weapons.  Another draft, on measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, would call for specific measures towards that end and underline the need for the global response to the threat to be carried out at the national, multilateral and global levels.

He said that an international conference had been held in New Delhi in June to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Rajiv Ghandi Action Plan towards global disarmament.  Sergio Duarte, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, had delivered the keynote address to 200 participating experts, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had invited States to a dialogue on the proposals in the action plan.  While various proposals needed to be discussed, shifting currents of informed opinion were moving ever stronger in favour of nuclear disarmament.  That created the opportunity for a new global momentum in that direction.  There was a heavy burden on the Conference on Disarmament to make progress on nuclear disarmament.  The first priority was binding commitments, accompanied by negotiation of specific steps to reduce and finally eliminate the nuclear threat globally, in a verifiable and irreversible manner.

JURG STREULI ( Switzerland) said there had been laudable efforts by some nuclear-weapon States to improve transparency of their nuclear arsenals.  France, for instance, had communicated the total number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  It had also invited international experts to witness the dismantling of its former production sites for fissile material.  A number of nuclear-weapon States had put forth information within the Conference of Disarmament and the NPT regime about their steps towards nuclear disarmament.  The publication by some States of their stocks of fissile material was another positive aspect.  He called on those nuclear-weapon States that had not taken steps to increase transparency to do so.

He said there was still a long way to go in implementing article VI of the NPT and to achieving the agreed outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.  The second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference had been constructive.  He called on the nuclear-weapon States to refrain from modernizing and further developing their nuclear arsenals.  “We find it difficult to understand that nuclear-weapon States speak about disarmament whilst continuing to build new types of nuclear weapons.  Such steps run, in the view of my country, counter to the spirit of article VI of the NPT”, he said.

The continued blockage of the adoption of a programme of work at the Conference on Disarmament meant that no progress had been made towards negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty, he said, urging States to overcome the deadlock and enter negotiations without preconditions.  He also called on States to ratify the CTBT and allow it to enter into force.  The still unresolved issues about Iran’s nuclear programme were unsatisfactory.  The adoption by the Nuclear Suppliers Group of an exception to its rules, thereby allowing nuclear supplies to India, despite the absence of IAEA full-scope safeguards for that country, could be seen as a constructive element.  It raised questions, however, about the future of the non-proliferation regime.

He formally introduced the draft resolution “Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems”, co-sponsored by Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria and Sweden.  The text acknowledged and welcomed all steps that had already been taken top decrease operational readiness of those weapons and called on States with nuclear weapons to take further steps to do so.

KANG MYONG CHOI (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that “as long as nuclear weapons remain on the globe, humankind will never be free from the danger of a nuclear war”.  The adoption of the NPT 40 years ago was possible because, at that time, non-nuclear-weapon States had high expectations about article VI.  But the current problem was the failure on the part of nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their commitment in good faith, evidenced by the vast arsenal of nuclear weapons numerous enough to “blow up this planet a number of times”.

He said that, behind the scenes on the disarmament stage, nuclear weapons were being modernized and nuclear doctrines were being revised, envisaging the “tactical utility” of nuclear weapons.  Also, threats of use had escalated against non-nuclear-weapon States, with phrases such as “pre-emptive nuclear strike” and “surgical nuclear strike”, typifying ever-growing concerns.  Non-nuclear-weapon States with security concerns would naturally consider self-defensive measures.

“The allegation that certain countries are entitled to possess nuclear weapons while others should be subject to nuclear threat is no longer acceptable”, he said.  “The above facts indicate who is to blame for the current deadlock of nuclear disarmament.”  For significant progress to occur in disarmament and non-proliferation, nuclear-weapon States should demonstrate and translate into action their political will for disarmament.

He was disappointed at the lack of knowledge of France’s representative about the six-party talks, and emphasized that the final goal was to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as a whole, and not the unilateral nuclear disarming of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Contrary to what Japan’s speaker had said yesterday, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear deterrent was a reliable guarantee for peace and stability on the peninsula and beyond, he said.  Japan was the only country that refused to comply with its obligations under the joint agreements adopted at the six-party talks, and Japan’s presence at the talks was “not necessary at all”, he said.  “I urge Japan to behave with the knowledge of where it stands as of now.”

The United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 (2006) and 1718 (2006) were the product of the Council’s “irresponsibility and unfairness”.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had strongly rejected those resolutions.  “If the United Nations Security Council is to become an organ fulfilling its mandates for international peace and security, it should have called into question the country which caused the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula, not the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s righteous step for safeguarding its right for self-defence.”  Complaining about the implementation of those resolutions only showed “an ulterior intention to create a fuss in the way to resolving the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula”.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record