Winning ‘Battle of Ideas’ First Step in Long, Hard Fight to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, First Committee Told during Wide-Ranging Debate
To win the battle to eliminate nuclear weapons, the international community first needed to fight long and hard at the conceptual level and win the “battle of ideas”, the Disarmament Committee heard today as it continued its general debate.
In a wide-ranging discussion that touched on the growing complexity and ambiguity of contemporary threats, the representative of Chile warned that delegitimizing nuclear arms would involve exposing the “persistent fallacy” that possessing them was a guarantee of peace.
He called that narrative false, saying it had provided sustenance to the doctrines of the cold war, which had supported “erroneous perceptions” regarding the security benefits associated with nuclear weapons.
Similarly, Norway’s representative said efforts to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies must continue, and the process of reducing them — she said 17,000 still remained — must be accelerated, with the ultimate aim of securing all nuclear material. Everyone, she declared, was concerned about the catastrophic effects of a nuclear detonation.
The representative of Canada urged the international community to approach the challenges with unwavering commitment and not stand idle in the face of non-compliance with relevant bodies and norms. Differences needed to be overcome to advance shared interests, she said, of the view that the coming year would present crucial tests for the global non-proliferation and disarmament system.
The representative of Iraq stressed collective responsibility towards disarmament-related conventions, agreements and international arrangements. Turkey’s delegate cautioned, however, that core mechanisms in that area were not functioning as effectively as they should. With that, he said words must be complemented by “concrete steps towards action”.
Time was of the essence in furthering the process, agreed the representative of Ireland, underscoring a collective “duty of care” to rid the world of nuclear weapons while warning that “later might simply be too late”. He noted significant progress in relation to chemical and biological weapons, but said the horrific images of children gasping for breath near Damascus, in August 2013, after ingesting sarin gas had propelled the international community into action.
Astonished at “astronomical” global defence budgets, Nigeria’s speaker said nuclear arsenals were being maintained and upgraded by nuclear-weapon States. Against a global backdrop fraught with instability, those ultimate weapons of mass destruction posed an existential threat to the world. Moreover, they offered no credible defence against enemies with similar weapons, he said, calling for their elimination to be the eventual objective of all disarmament processes.
Also speaking were the representatives of Lesotho, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela, Georgia, South Africa, Ecuador, Ethiopia and Qatar.
Exercising their right of reply were representatives of Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation and Georgia.
The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on 11 October, to continue its general debate.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its general debate. For background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3498.
Statements
KELEBONE MAOPE (Lesotho) said that the international community’s commitment to achieve a world free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction had “not translated into concrete action” and cast a “shadow of doubt” on attaining that goal in the immediate future. Nuclear weapons created a false sense of security, breeding mistrust and heightening tensions between States. As they existed, he warned, the risk of their use remained. As a result, efforts must be redoubled during this session to rid the world of those horrendous weapons. At the same time, he reiterated that all States were entitled to enjoy their right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, if exercised safely and securely. In that regard, cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was “absolutely essential”.
On the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), he said that there was no doubt that its entry into force would halve the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their modernization. He called for its ratification by the remaining “Annex 2” States, adding that pronouncements of ratification were not meaningful unless they were accompanied by tangible action. The impasse in the United Nations disarmament machinery, particularly the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission was worrying, he said, urging the Conference to agree to and implement a balanced work programme, while reviewing the membership in order to make it more representative. Member States must “rise above their individual interest” to reach a consensual outcome in 2015, when the new cycle begins.
Turning to conventional weapons, he said it was gratifying that the international community had demonstrated a collective resolve to achieve the required number of ratifications to bring the Arms Trade Treaty into force later this year. Nonetheless, a fair and balanced implementation of the Treaty would be critical in order to transform the global trade in arms and achieve the instrument’s goals. Progress would also be needed on the 2001 United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons, which claimed scores of lives in Africa and elsewhere. A lack of predictable funding was a stumbling block for the Programme’s effective implementation and, as such, there was a need for greater international cooperation.
MOHAMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed the collective responsibility to implement the disarmament-related conventions, agreements and international arrangements. Iraq had deposited the instrument of accession to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, to be the 150th State party. Iraq was also a member of the major arms control agreements and had been one of the first countries to have adhered to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1969. His country was also a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the two conventions on biological and chemical weapons, the additional protocol of the IAEA safeguards system, as well as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Mine Ban Convention, among others.
The proliferation of small and light weapons was no less a threat than nuclear weapons, he said, calling on the international community to firmly seek implementation of all relevant resolutions to combat proliferation. Weapons of all kinds impeded development and could easily find their way into the hands of terrorist groups when countries had weak export regulations. In that regard, Iraq welcomed the Arms Trade Treaty and called for the intensification of diplomatic efforts to provide support to affected countries. His country was itself one of those most affected by mines and small munitions. Establishing a zone in the Middle East free from nuclear and other mass destruction weapons was an important step, and he called for the immediate commencement of negotiations in that regard.
LEVENT ELER (Turkey) echoed calls for a world without nuclear weapons, but said they must be complemented by concrete steps towards action. Unfortunately, the core mechanism, the NPT, was not functioning as effectively as it should. Nevertheless, the disarmament community must remain optimistic while seeking practical outcomes, he said, adding that the extent to which the nuclear-weapon States were willing to fulfil their disarmament commitments impacted the success and credibility of the NPT. At the same time, the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy must be carefully upheld along with the relevant international obligations.
He said that, as the current NPT Review cycle came to a close, Turkey shared the frustration of many Member States on the non-implementation of the consensus Action Plan of the 2010 review. Commitments had been overlooked and promises had not been upheld, he noted, highlighting the commitment to begin negotiations in 2012 on a Middle East zone free from weapons of mass destruction. Turkey supported globally recognized and verifiable zones and welcomed the signing of the Protocol of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, by the five nuclear-weapon States. He urged full ratification of the treaties and protocols of all five regional zones.
Underlining the special responsibility of the Conference on Disarmament in the modern disarmament agenda, he urged that body to resume its substantive work without delay. Towards this end, he viewed the re-establishment of the Informal Working Group as a sign of willingness to urgently reach a consensual programme. He went on to highlight the importance of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention, and confirmed that Turkey did not possess such weapons. The country supported implementation of those treaties as well as efforts to promote their universalization. Turkey would continue to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to dismantle the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons inventory. Turkey condemned the use of those weapons on civilian populations in Syria, which was an “abhorrent violation” of the United Nations Charter and international law.
ELISSA GOLBERG (Canada) said that the proliferation of mass destruction weapons, be they nuclear, chemical or biological, remained among the most pressing challenges to global peace and security. The coming year would feature a series of crucial tests for the global non-proliferation and disarmament system, which the international community must approach with an unwavering commitment to concrete outcomes. In a tense global context, that would necessitate overcoming differences in order to advance shared interests. She called for the urgent commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, which would have significant value for global security.
She said strengthening non-proliferation bodies and norms remained a priority, and the international community must not stand idle in the face of non-compliance, which could undermine those instruments and the security and stability they sought to guarantee. In that regard, Canada remained “deeply sceptical” of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only have devastating consequences for regional stability and security, but also undercut the integrity of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Despite diplomatic progress, the regime’s failure to engage in any meaningful way with the international community to address long-standing concerns regarding its nuclear programme raised serious doubts about the country’s true motives. Further, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile program, and Syria must ensure complete compliance with its obligations under Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
On conventional weapons, she said that ending the era of anti-personnel mines was within reach, and she urged all States parties to join the Mine Ban Convention. Canada remained firmly committed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and was in the process of ratifying it. Her country had never used those weapons and had destroyed all stockpiles of those weapons.
AMJAD ALKUMAIM (Yemen) said that against the backdrop of global instability, the failure to achieve the goals of the NPT and the weak implementation of other treaties had led to a worsening of humanitarian and economic situations. That was particularly true in the Middle East. Given the role of disarmament in the maintenance of international peace and security, it should be a top priority at the United Nations.
He said his country deplored the fact that the international community had not yet been able to hold a conference on ridding the Middle East of mass destruction weapons, as recommended in the Outcome Document of the 2010 Review Conference. Despite the willingness shown by Arab countries on that front, the major Powers must redouble their efforts to ensure that such a conference is convened. There could be no peace until that threat was removed from the region. In that regard, Yemen called on Israel to ratify the NPT. It also supported the draft resolution by the Non-Aligned Movement calling for a global treaty on nuclear weapons, and a conference on that issue be held by 2018.
On the CTBT, Yemen called on all States that had not yet joined it to do so without delay, he said, welcoming efforts by the Preparatory Committee to speed up the process. Moving onto chemical weapons, some of the most deadly in the world, Yemen thanked the OPCW for its work and assistance to member States. He highlighted the need to achieve disarmament in order to promote social and sustainable development. Although the Arms Trade Treaty was an important milestone, Yemen was concerned at how it was being interpreted, stressing that countries could still obtain conventional weapons, but in the right manner. Yemen had signed that Treaty. He also stressed the importance of allowing the Conference on Disarmament to do its work, stressing that it was the only international forum that considered all disarmament issues on the international agenda.
BREIFNE O’REILLY (Ireland), associating with the New Agenda Coalition and the European Union, said that by this time next year, the Arms Trade Treaty would have entered into force. His country was committed to ensuring that irresponsible arms flows, which destabilized States and contributed to violence, conflict and gross human rights violations, were stopped. The international community must not be complacent, however, as the Treaty’s entry into force was just the beginning. Its effective implementation and universalization would make a real difference and ultimately save lives.
Significant progress had been made in relation to chemical and biological weapons, he said, noting that the overwhelming majority of States now agreed that the possession and use of such weapons under any circumstance was simply unacceptable. It was precisely because of the success of the Chemical Weapons Convention that reports of the use of chlorine as a weapon in Syria earlier this year was met with absolute revulsion and utter condemnation. The horrific images of children near Damascus gasping for breath after ingesting sarin gas in August 2013 had propelled the international community into action.
He touched on the NPT as well as the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and expressed frustration that the CTBT had not yet entered into force. With that, he urged the “Annex 2” States to ratify it as soon as possible. In 1946, he noted, the international community recognized the necessity to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but nearly 70 years later, their role had not diminished. If anything, with increased knowledge of the risks, there was a pressing “duty of care” for all Governments. Later might simply be too late.
ABDALLAH Y. AL-MOUALLIMI (Saudi Arabia), associating with the Arab Group and Non-Aligned Movement, was concerned that the Middle East region had not yet established a nuclear-weapon-free zone and pointed to Israel as the cause for that delay. Despite the adoption of several General Assembly resolutions, there had been no concrete action in that regard. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia expressed deep regret at the postponement of a conference on that issue that was to have been held in Helsinki, Finland in 2012. As that was a key pillar of the NPT, such a conference must be held as soon as possible. That was the responsibility of the entire international community and any delay would cast severe doubts on the process of multilateral consensus, he said.
He also stressed the importance of continuing negotiation with the “P5+1” over Iran’s nuclear programme, as well as the continuation of negotiations between the IAEA and Iran. He urged a clear timeframe for those talks, stressing that Iran must reassure the world that its nuclear programme was peaceful. At the same time, Saudi Arabia reaffirmed the inherent right of all States to obtain nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. His country also reaffirmed the importance of the Chemical Weapons Convention, while voicing concern at the incomplete destruction of those stockpiles. He commended efforts by the OPCW and the United Nations joint mission in Syria, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances in the transfer and destruction of that country’s chemical weapons. However, that did not dispel his country’s “grave concern” about the “vagueness and inaccuracy” of the data included in the Syrian declaration. Saudi Arabia urged firm adherence to the mandate on Syria until the perpetrators responsible for the “barbaric, immoral, and inhumane” attacks were brought to justice.
WU HAITAO (China) said that the tragedies of the two world wars and the shadow of the cold war had made people around the world value peace and security more than ever. Now, peace and development had become the mainstream of current times, and countries were growing more and more interdependent. Arms control and disarmament were closely linked with international security, and the world should make joint efforts to promote those aims. Nuclear disarmament should be approached in a step by step manner, and the risks of nuclear proliferation must be eliminated. Countries with the largest nuclear arsenals should continue to make drastic reductions, while development of missile defence systems by certain countries should be abandoned.
He urged timely measures to develop international norms through which all could benefit, as well as the building, through transparent cooperation, of peaceful and secure cyberspace activities. China had consistently stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and adhered to the policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons while also honouring the commitment not to use or threaten to use them against non-nuclear-weapon States. China stood for the peaceful uses of outer space as well, opposing its weaponization and an arms race in space. Together with the Russian Federation, China had submitted to the Conference on Disarmament an updated draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and of the threat of use of force against outer space objects. China would continue to actively and fully participate in international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, and would make due contribution to safeguarding world peace and security.
SAMUEL MONCADA (Venezuela), associating with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that nuclear disarmament, especially the elimination of all nuclear weapons, was a priority objective for Latin American and Caribbean States. That region had been declared a “region of peace” under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, or Treaty of Tlatelolco. He firmly believed that setting up such a zone strengthened non-proliferation and international security. In that regard, an international conference on the Middle East was extremely important, and he urged its convening as soon as possible, as that would be a decisive step for the peace process in that region.
He rejected the use of chemical weapons in any circumstance and by anyone, and appealed to any State party to the Chemical Weapons Convention that still possessed those weapons to destroy them. He reaffirmed the importance of the Programme of Action to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, which negatively impacted several regions of the world. The time had come to prevent the use of cyberspace as a weapon of war, for spying, sabotage and attacks against the infrastructure of other countries. Standards should be adopted relating to the Internet to guarantee the protection of communications, particularly in connection with State sovereignty and citizens’ privacy.
KAHA IMNADZE (Georgia) said that European security was once again “deliberately challenged” by the Russian Federation’s ongoing military aggression against Ukraine. Efforts to alter international borders presented a serious threat to peace and stability and undermined the fundamental principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity. Georgia condemned those actions and called on the Russian Federation to withdraw all its military forces and hardware from Ukraine, including from the Crimea region. As a victim of the 2008 invasion, Georgia had experienced Russian military aggression. As such, he called on the Russian Federation to abide by its international obligations and end its illegal occupation of sovereign Georgian territory.
He said that the risk of nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had become a major challenge to common security. In that regard, full compliance with the relevant instruments must remain priorities of the international community. Despite a broad understanding of the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity, the NPT lacked significant elements to provide a comprehensive response. As a vital instrument for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the CTBT must enter into force without delay. Georgia, for its part, continued to actively cooperate with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Provisional Technical Secretariat to strengthen its monitoring and verification system.
Georgia shared the international community’s resolve regarding the illicit trade in conventional arms, he said, adding that the uncontrolled dissemination and accumulation of those weapons and ammunition represented a serious threat to international peace and security. Efficient export control mechanisms were needed, and to that end, Georgia had passed a new version of the Law on Export and Import Control of Armaments, Military Equipment and Dual-use items, which entered into force on 1 October.
GORDON BRISTOL (Nigeria) said that global defence budgets were “astronomical”. Nuclear arsenals were being maintained and upgraded by nuclear-weapon States and unauthorized non-State actors had unfettered access to an array of conventional weapons. From Africa to the Middle East, the unprecedented carnage and bloodshed unleashed by terrorists had left cities and communities destroyed or deserted, and led to the loss of precious lives, destruction of property and livelihoods. Those mindless forms of aggression were largely enabled and effectively supported by illicitly purchased arms sold to non-State actors. Access to a wide range of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons and their ammunition, was often denied to sovereign States, while at the same time, they were illicitly procured and indiscriminately used by terrorists and other bandits to unleash mayhem and unprecedented massacre of innocent civilians, including women and children.
He said Nigeria bore living witness to the fact that small arms and light weapons in the hands of criminal gangs, terrorists and armed groups were responsible for more than 1,000 deaths each day. In the current environment fraught with accidents and terrorism, he reaffirmed that nuclear weapons remained the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, and their total elimination, therefore, should be the final objective of all disarmament processes. Those weapons offered no credible defence against other enemies possessing similar weapons, and they posed an existential threat to those who did not possess them at all.
MAY-ELIN STENER (Norway) said that broad participation at the Oslo and Nayarit conferences reflected the international community’s recognition that the catastrophic effects of a nuclear detonation was of concern to all. It had become clear that no State or international body would be able to address the immediate humanitarian emergency that would follow such an explosion. While the number of nuclear weapons had significantly reduced since the end of the cold war, some 17,000 still remained. The potential humanitarian impact had revived interest in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the risks and consequences of continued collective inaction. Norway encouraged all countries to participate in the 2015 NPT Review Conference and urged the full implementation of the review’s 2010 Plan of Action. At the same time, Norway remained a staunch supporter of bilateral disarmament measures, such as the New START.
She said that while there was little doubt about the overall objective to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, there was disagreement as to how to reach that goal. In that respect, the international community should continue efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security policies, while supporting new nuclear-weapon-free zones, notably in the Middle East. Great importance must be attached to holding a meeting that would pave the way for such a zone before the 2015 NPT Review Conference. At the same time, the process of reducing existing arsenals of nuclear weapons must be accelerated. A nuclear-weapon-free world would not be possible without a credible, non-proliferation regime, she declared.
Norway reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear security and looked forward to continuing that process in Washington in 2016, with the ultimate aim of securing all nuclear material. However, robust verification systems were needed to instil confidence in the integrity of the process. The United Kingdom and Norway had cooperated at the expert level to explore the technical and procedural challenges associated with a nuclear disarmament verification regime, she added.
CARLOS OLGUÍN CIGARROA (Chile), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that to win the battle to eliminate nuclear weapons, the international community first needed to fight long and hard at the conceptual level and win the “battle of ideas”. First, it was necessary to delegitimize nuclear arms through an exposure of the persistent fallacy that possessing nuclear weapons was a guarantee of peace. That narrative was false and had provided sustenance to the doctrines of the cold war, which, in turn, supported the erroneous perceptions regarding the security benefits associated with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons possessors must comply with their obligations under the NPT.
He said that the effective inclusion of women in the disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control process should be a priority of and a commitment for all Member States. Mechanisms should be implemented which allowed for real equality in decision-making and essential peace-promoting actions. Similarly, civil society and non-governmental organizations occupied space in the United Nations disarmament machinery, and he opposed resistance to the incorporation of their opinions. Chile, for its part, would be instrumental in ensuring that civil society was not only an observer in disarmament, but a participant.
JOHANN KELLERMAN (South Africa) said that while some advances had been made during the past year in strengthening the multilateral disarmament and international security environment, much remained to be done. The impasse in the disarmament machinery was of particular concern, he said, urging revitalization of the multilateral bodies so that they could again discharge their respective mandates. The general lack of progress on nuclear disarmament was frustrating to the vast majority of United Nations Member States, and achievements in that area remained particularly uneven. The NPT was constantly reaffirmed, and yet its pillar on nuclear disarmament remained neglected.
He said South Africa, on many occasions, had expressed concern about the humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions. Regarding landmines, he sought accelerated implementation of the Mine Ban Convention during the next five-year cycle. South Africa stood ready to contribute towards creating a better world — one that was free of anti-personnel mines. The implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons remained as relevant today as when it was adopted in 2001. He looked forward to the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty and its full implementation.
XAVIER LASSO MENDOZA (Ecuador), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that his country had recognized the “right of nature” in its Constitution for the first time. Ecuador had also declared its national territory as a zone of peace. He condemned the very existence of weapons of mass destruction, and considered their use or threat of use to be a crime against nature and humankind. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation must be pursued in parallel as interrelated processes. As a non-nuclear-weapon State, Ecuador had and would comply with its commitments under nuclear non-proliferation, and hoped that nuclear-armed States would live up to their nuclear disarmament commitments. It could not be said that that commitment had been honoured, and it was now high time for the international community to recognize the priority given to nuclear disarmament and begin negotiating a universal and legally binding treaty to prohibit the development, possession, use and threat of use of those weapons.
He said his country shared the concern over the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament, which was due to a lack of political will. He hoped the Conference would continue to offer the international community important legal instruments, as it had done with the Chemical Weapons Convention. In that vein, the Disarmament Commission had not been able to adopt any recommendations, and he deemed it necessary to have an overall analysis of the disarmament architecture of the United Nations. Ecuador was a party to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, or Tlatelolco Treaty, which was the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a heavily populated area. He urged all States to make efforts to establish and strengthen other such zones, and called for the rapid convening of the conference for a Middle East zone.
He expressed concern over new war technologies, particularly unmanned drones and autonomous killing machines, adding that the implications for international humanitarian law with regard to those weapons should be explored with the aim of banning them. Security and international relations should be based on trust and respect, and a mass indiscriminate system of spying on world citizens, and attacks against State sovereignty introduced a serious element of instability in inter-State relations.
NEGASH KEBRET BOTORA (Ethiopia) said that multilateralism remained the most reliable setting in which to comprehensively address critical global issues of international peace and security, including disarmament in all its aspects. The unchecked proliferation of weapons of mass destruction posed great danger to all of humanity. As those threats were deadly and complex in nature, they required a fundamental and effective global response. Of paramount importance was curbing an escalating arms race and reducing stockpiles of all weapons of mass destruction through implementation of existing treaties and conventions.
The African continent, he said, had shown its unwavering commitment to regional peace and security through the signing of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, or Pelindaba Treaty, and the CTBT. Ethiopia supported the early entry into force of the Test-Ban Treaty, and called on States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify it. His country joined others in reaffirming the relevance and importance of the Conference on Disarmament, and was convinced that overcoming the impasse was an urgent priority. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Ethiopia supported various resolutions on the total elimination of nuclear weapons based on a specified timeframe.
Regarding the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, he welcomed the successful conclusion of the Fifth Biennial Meeting of States to consider the small arms and light weapons Program of Action. However, their illicit trade and use continued to destabilize and create havoc in many parts of the world, including in the Horn of Africa. For that reason, implementation of international and regional commitments and treaty-based obligations was critical.
AHMED BIN MOHAMMAD AL-THANI (Qatar), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed the importance of a multilateral framework when dealing with disarmament and non-proliferation. Despite the importance attached to disarmament, the stalemate in the Disarmament Commission since 1996 indicated a lack of political will to reach the desired objective. He urged that a “ceiling” be set on objectives, with a view to reaching concrete results and recommendations. Sadly, a conference on a zone free of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons in the Middle East had not been held due to the resistance of one country in the region. However, creating that zone was an extremely important step and should be undertaken without delay.
The spread of small arms and light weapons required all manufacturers and exporters to establish effective controls on their operations, he said, stressing also the importance of full implementation of the Programme of Action. Qatar was keen to promote the NPT, which was an extremely important treaty that should be observed by all parties. Non-proliferation was the basis for international peace and security, and cooperation was the only means through which to achieve that.
Right of Reply
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Syria reiterated the strong condemnation of the horrific use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens and soldiers and said his country was committed to the full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention in the framework of the OPCW. It was amusing, then, that the Turkish and Saudi rulers had been making baseless allegations against Syria. Those countries did not realize that hardly anyone in the Hall believed them. Everyone present recognized the repulsive actions which those regimes had committed against humanity as a whole, as evidenced in their support for barbaric acts of terror and terrorist ideology. The actions of those countries represented a “dark and bloody reality”, and even their friends did not believe them. Allies of Turkey and Saudi Arabia had themselves said that those nations poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into the fighting in Syria, including chemical weapons provided by Turkish and Saudi rulers.
Wishing to sound a warning, he said that all present should beware of the rulers of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as they wished only harm on all. The international community should be wary of their hidden intentions and be watchful, for they were willing to unleash a monster against countries and societies. Turkey wanted to enter the European Union, but the world must realize that Turkey had an Ottoman agenda. Many Europeans would remember the Ottomans, and would compare the Ottoman acts to the acts of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS). “Beware, friends, and do not let them into your society,” he said. As for the Saudi rulers, he asked delegations to look at how they treated their citizens. Saudi Arabia funded terrorists around the world who only sought to spread killing, extremism and murder. That had been seen from Bali to New York. Saudi Arabia was the headquarters for international terrorism, and had made it their business to terrorize based on a perverted and perverse interpretation of Islam, which only Saudi Arabia represented.
Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the Russian Federation cautioned the Georgian partners not to become involved in the “loud rhetoric” in connection with the Geneva discussions on security and stability of the trans-caucuses region. He would urge Georgia to do its utmost to settle the problem in the Ossetia and the trans-caucuses, on the basis of mutual respect for the benefit of the peoples of Georgia and those sovereign States.
The representative of Saudi Arabia said his delegation was surprised by Syria’s rhetorical way of hiding the truth. The world had become a village indeed, and no one could hide the facts. With regard to the statement made about the use of chemical weapons by helicopter gunships, that information was not a figment of the imagination but came from a report prepared by a fact-finding mission of the Human Rights Council. Helicopter crafts, in the Syrian regime’s possession, were used to drop chlorine gas on Syrians. That was mentioned in the report and was not made up. Furthermore, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had been among the first countries at the United Nations to fight terrorism; it had contributed effectively to the establishment of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre and had taken part in many conferences held in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere with the sole objective of fighting terrorism. His country had also contributed to the Centre for Rapprochement among religions, which also had been established as a means to fight extremism and terrorism. Saudi Arabia had always made the best efforts to fight those who claimed to be affiliated with ISIS.
The representative of Georgia said that the Russian Federation made several important arguments. One was related to the Geneva discussions. The First Committee must know that Georgia had participated in the Geneva discussions in good faith, and had a constructive approach to solving all outstanding issues with the Russian Federation. However, the Geneva discussions were a result of the ceasefire agreement signed in August 2008, with the mediation of the European Union, and most of its provisions had not been met by the Russian Federation. In fact, the Russian Federation was in breach of almost the entire agreement. The Russian Federation also had used a second argument, telling Georgia to talk with the occupation regimes that Russia had established on Georgian soil. Russia was an occupying Power, because it stationed its troops on Georgian soil without the consent of the Georgian Government. Everyone knew that was a violation of international law. The host country’s consent to allow foreign troops on its soil was absolutely essential. Georgia tried its best to talk to communities on both sides of the line created by the Russian Federation and provided medical and educational services. However, it was the Russian troops and the Government that hindered the peoples of Georgia, including in the occupied territories.
Speaking a second time, the Russian Federation representative said he wished to remind Georgia and all delegations present that in the Geneva discussions it was not only Georgia and the Russian Federation, but also Abkhazia and South Ossetia participating as sovereign countries.
Also speaking a second time, the delegate from Georgia said the Russian Federation had given an ultimate distortion of the facts on the ground. The representatives from the occupied regions were at the Geneva process only in their capacity as individuals, and did not represent any entity except themselves.