Consequences of Small Arms Claim Attention in First Committee, as African Nations Underscore Dangers of Terrorist Use
Small arms and light weapons resulted in devastating consequences for civilians, particularly women and children, and their lucrative trafficking and unregulated proliferation made them easily obtainable, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today during its general debate.
More and more of those weapons were falling into the hands of terrorist networks, Tunisia’s representative said. Africa, because of its size, was one of the first areas affected by those weapons and the conflicts they fuelled. Regional and subregional efforts were needed to address supply and demand, and to impede cross-border movement of illegal weapons, in line with international law.
Indeed, said Uganda’s representative, the brutal terrorist attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS), Al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Lord’s Resistance Army and Allied Democratic Forces had reminded the world of the need to strengthen its resolve to address the illicit arms trade. South Africa’s representative touted the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons as the central, universally agreed set of tasks to eradicate it.
Several speakers said that the effects of those weapons were not confined to national or regional boundaries, including the representative of Botswana, who observed that in a world where borders were porous and nations were ever more interdependent, threats to security in any region had consequences for all. The only difference was the degree of impact.
The representative of Namibia called attention to the insistence by non-nuclear-armed States that they be provided with universal, unconditional, non-discriminatory and legally binding assurances by all nuclear Powers that those weapons would never be used against them. The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, he added, provided Africa with a “shield” by preventing the stationing of nuclear explosive devices on the continent and prohibiting their testing there.
Adequate progress on those issues was not possible in the absence of political will, said the representative of Qatar, highlighting the inability of States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to reach consensus at the Review Conference in May. They had failed to promote a Middle East zone free from nuclear and other mass destruction weapons, which he deemed to be among the most important factors for the region’s instability.
Allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria also informed the day’s discussions, with the representative of the United Kingdom saying that since the adoption of Security Council resolution 2209 (2015), there had been more than 90 charges of chemical weapons use in Syria, the overwhelming majority of which were against the Assad regime.
More broadly, the Canadian representative said that the world could not and should not tolerate the constant threat to regional and global security that came from States that did not respect their obligations.
Striking a more positive note, Sweden’s representative said that 70 years since the establishment of the United Nations, States had built a “web of mutually reinforcing instruments and international organizations” in order to avoid a repeat of the past. He cited the recent deal on Iran’s nuclear programme and the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty as examples, but he also drew attention to the use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq, as well as the use of small arms and light weapons which killed more than 200,000 people yearly.
Also participating in the debate were the representatives of Ukraine, Norway, New Zealand, France, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Italy, Mongolia, Austria, Zambia, Uruguay and Iraq.
Exercising their right of reply were the representatives of Libya, Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States.
The First Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 October, to continue its general debate.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to continue its general debate. For more information see Press Release GA/DIS/3522.
Statements
CHARLES T. NTWAAGAE (Botswana), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the continued loss of innocent lives and escalating humanitarian crises had reached catastrophic levels, making it imperative for the international community to take urgent and decisive action. The existence of nuclear weapons, terrorism and illicit trade in and circulation of small arms and light weapons were among the ongoing challenges to peace and security, stability and development. The fact that nuclear weapons still existed called into question the commitment by nuclear-weapon States to achieve complete disarmament.
Deeply troubling was the increasing involvement of non-State actors and radical extremists in most conflict situations around the world, he said. Their activities introduced additional layers of difficulty for conflict management and further complicated the complexity of responses in areas of unrest. In a world where borders were porous and nations were ever more interdependent, threats to security in any region had consequences for all. The only difference was the degree of impact.
IRYNA SHUM (Ukraine), associating with the European Union, said her country had demonstrated a proactive approach to disarmament by abandoning its nuclear-weapon capability and acceding to the NPT in November 1994. Twenty years later, however, it faced aggression by the Russian Federation, the occupation and annexation of Crimea and the incitement of anti-Ukrainian movements in East Ukraine. Considering Crimea’s strategic location, the possibility of the Russian Federation’s deployment of nuclear forces there could not be excluded. Evidence had been received that the Russian Federation had deployed the means of delivery of nuclear weapons and had been renovating relevant infrastructure on the “Ukrainian soil in Crimea”. Special attention should also be drawn to actions of the Russian Federation on the renewal of two base complexes, in Balaklava and Feodosia, for the maintenance of nuclear weapons.
Implementing those plans challenged Article 1 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) because Ukraine had “never ever given permission” to the Russian Federation to deploy their nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Also, the use of regular military forces by the Russian Federation against Ukraine had damaged the existing system of arms control and the strategic deterrence architecture. She said it was unacceptable that the Russian Federation had “suspended” its membership in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). In effect, Ukraine was facing a new challenge in a “hybrid war” as it had become the “object of external aggression by the neighbouring nuclear State”, despite the Russian Federation’s refusal to “officially admit its direct military invasion”. It was time for the international community to “stop neglecting hybrid wars” and start elaborating ways to prevent and tackle them.
ROSEMARY MCCARNEY (Canada) said that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was among the greatest global challenges today, requiring the international community to redouble efforts to ensure that all countries respected their non-proliferation and disarmament commitment. The world could not and should not tolerate the constant threat to regional and global security that came from States who did not respect their obligations, such as Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria. The atmosphere was tense, and it was important for States to overcome their differences.
Canada continued to urge the immediate commencement of negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty, she said. Although important differences in perspective remained among the Group of Governmental Experts, the group had developed a deeper appreciation of the various options for a future ban, and a realization that the positions were not as divergent as originally thought. Canada remained deeply sceptical of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and believed that a nuclear-armed Iran would have a devastating effect on regional stability and security; it would also damage the integrity of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Canada would judge Iran by its actions, not its words.
MAY-ELIN STENER (Norway) said that achieving the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons was not possible without a credible and robust non-proliferation regime. The lack of an outcome document at the recent NPT Review Conference was disappointing, but that treaty remained the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime. She urged the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.
She said that the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons had inaugurated a facts-based approach to disarmament and demonstrated that collaboration between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States was both possible and necessary. The Chemical Weapons Convention had created a strong disarmament norm, as more than 90 per cent of declared weapons had been destroyed, but she remained concerned about reports of their recent use in Iraq and Syria, and welcomed the findings of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission. She noted that more than 160 parties were now bound by the Mine- Ban Convention and congratulated Mozambique on becoming mine-free last month.
ABDUL SAMAD MINTY (South Africa) said the general lack of progress on nuclear disarmament was a source of growing frustration among the vast majority of United Nations Member States. Achievements in the area of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation remained particularly uneven. The regime established by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was constantly reaffirmed by the majority of the international community, and yet, nuclear obligations continued to be subjected to reinterpretation and further conditionalities. South Africa was deeply concerned by the failure of the ninth NPT Review Conference to have reached consensus on an outcome document, which was “a missed opportunity”.
On conventional weapons, he said that as a State party to the Mine-Ban Convention, South Africa would play its part on the journey towards a world free of both anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, and he encouraged those States that had not joined those instruments to do so without delay. The United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons represented the central, universally agreed set of undertakings to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade, and its full implementation was as relevant today as in 2001.
ELKHANSA HARBAOUI (Tunisia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and the African Group, commended the convening of the conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, and in particular, endorsed the Vienna Conference pledge. Nuclear disarmament was the best way to ensure that those weapons did not fall into the hands of terrorists or non-State actors. Yet, Member States were more and more divided over how to reach the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons, as evidenced during the recent NPT Review Conference. She called on the international community to take urgent measures to create a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including the convening of a conference on the subject.
Turning to small arms and light weapons, she said those were easy to obtain because of their lucrative trafficking and unregulated proliferation. That had resulted in devastating consequences for civilians, particularly women and children. More and more weapons were falling into the hands of terrorist networks. Africa, because of its size, was one of the first areas affected by the presence of light weapons and was perhaps most affected by the conflicts those fuelled. Regional and subregional efforts were needed to address supply and demand, and to impede cross-border movement of illegal weapons in line with international law.
DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand), also speaking as the Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, said some might be inclined to say that the aspirations for progress on nuclear disarmament as shared by countries such as those of the New Agenda Coalition — Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa — were unrealistic. However, even NPT States Parties that were more content with the status quo must surely be dismayed at the lack of ambition reflected in the outcome language submitted for adoption at the 2015 NPT Review Conference. For many, that language represented a step backwards from that agreed in 2010. Her delegation was also deeply disappointed at the limited progress made towards creating a zone in the Middle East free from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Recalling New Zealand’s strong support for the recent accord on Iran’s nuclear programme, she said there was in fact more to celebrate in the field of conventional arms, including the first Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty, as well as the first Review Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
OLOF SKOOG (Sweden), associating with the European Union and the Nordic countries, said that the vast majority of the 16,000 nuclear weapons in existence was far more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seventy years since the establishment of the United Nations, States had built a “web of mutually reinforcing instruments and international organizations” in order to avoid a repeat of the past. He noted the Iran nuclear deal and the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty as positive examples, but, citing barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq, as well as the use of small arms and light weapons which killed more than 200,000 people annually, said more needed to be done. The work accomplished in the open-ended working group two years earlier should be taken forward by re-establishing the group. It was the responsibility of nuclear-armed States to participate constructively in this work.
RICHARD NDUHUURA (Uganda) said that unless efforts were made by nuclear- weapon States to eliminate their stockpiles under international agreements, other countries were also likely to acquire nuclear weapons, hence creating an arms race and providing an avenue for openly testing those weapons and declaring nuclear capability. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the threat to humanity would remain. That fact, coupled with the perceived political value and prestige of those weapons, were further factors that encouraged proliferation and non-compliance with international obligations.
Nuclear weapons also raised important legal issues, he said. They were unique because of their destructive capacity and because of their uncontrolled effects in space and time. All rules of international humanitarian law applied fully to nuclear weapons, and those rules notably included the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as the prohibition to cause injury or unnecessary suffering, and severe and long-term damage to the environment. The incalculable human suffering resulting from any nuclear weapons use was insurmountable.
Illegal possession of small arms and light weapons continued to destabilize communities, destroy lives and hamper development, he said. The human, social and economic costs demanded that the international community strengthen its commitment to curb the illicit trade in those weapons. The brutal terrorist attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS), Al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Lord’s Resistance Army and Allied Democratic Forces reminded the world of the need to strengthen its resolve to address the scourge of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
AHMED MOHAMED AL-THANI (Qatar), welcoming the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said that many parts of the world were experiencing instability. He reiterated his country’s inalienable position on disarmament, which proceeded from the responsibility for preserving international peace and security. While emphasizing the important role undertaken by the First Committee, he said it could not achieve adequate progress given the absence of political will by some States. That had been reflected clearly in the NPT Review Conference in May, which had failed to promote a zone free of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons in the Middle East, despite considerable efforts. Among the most important reasons for the instability in the region was the refusal by some States to consider such a zone or to accede to the NPT.
Peaceful nuclear energy programmes, he said, must be developed responsibly and in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear proliferation constituted a considerable source of tension, and building a stable world should be the shared goal of the international community. Member States should fulfil their disarmament obligations, especially with regard to nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction.
ALICE GUITTON (France) said that the overriding objective of the First Committee must be to contribute to building a safer world. However, the security environment had become more unpredictable, complex and interdependent, both in regard to the origin of crises and conflicts, as well as their consequences. It also extended to the responses that the international community had the responsibility to provide. The very foundation of Europe’s security architecture had been undermined by the annexation of Crimea, the crisis in Ukraine and the violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. The advancement of Da’esh in Iraq and Syria challenged the very principles and values of democratic societies, right up to Europe.
When facing such developments, she said, the world could neither lower its guard nor fail to fulfil its obligations. It was necessary to safeguard respect for international law, defend the values of democracy and human rights, and aspire to achieve greater international solidarity and a more effective and representative multilateralism. The continuation of the Minsk process should remain the key avenue for achieving a political solution to the Ukrainian crisis. France’s support for the actions conducted by the coalition against Da’esh had received strong backing and was reinforced today by surveillance activities in Syria. On nuclear weapons, she said that the increasing polarization year-to-year in the debates was counterproductive. Additionally, the lack of a final agreement during the NPT Review Conference should not lead any to forget the invaluable contribution that the Treaty’s three pillars made to international security.
AN MYONG HUN (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said priority must be given to nuclear disarmament and to the provision of negative security assurances to the non-nuclear weapon States. His country upheld the right of sovereign States to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the legitimate right to exploration of outer space. The approach taken by some Powers of denying nuclear disarmament while insisting only on non-proliferation ran counter to the desire of the international community to completely eliminate nuclear weapons. There were about 20,000 nuclear weapons on the planet, and those were abused as a tool to threaten or blackmail sovereign States. Such threats gave rise to deep concerns and mistrust among nations. Arbitrariness and the double standards of “certain big countries” constituted a major factor in the paralysis of multilateral disarmament bodies.
VINICIO MATI (Italy), associating with the European Union, placed high value on the universalization and implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty, which provided a robust international framework for the trade in conventional arms, and would foster respect for human rights. Through its provisions on the prevention of gender-based violence, the Treaty had, for the first time, included a gender perspective and the concept of human security in the broader context of global security. Further reductions in nuclear arsenals and their eventual elimination would require cooperation in addressing the security and humanitarian dimensions of nuclear weapons. The hard, practical work necessary to bring the international community closer to a world free of nuclear weapons should focus not only on humanitarian considerations, but on security concerns as well. Disarmament and non-proliferation should be advanced simultaneously as a mutually reinforcing process.
GANKHUURAI BATTUNGALAG (Mongolia) said that nearly 20 years had passed since the CTBT had opened for signature, and its universalization was an imperative step towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons. It was a matter of priority for each and every State to promote the Test-Ban Treaty’s prompt ratification by the Annex II States. She was concerned over the lack of universality of the IAEA safeguards agreements and Additional Protocol, as well as the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. As a strong advocate of such zones, Mongolia was hopeful that international efforts would yield progress on that front. Her country had always been a firm advocate of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and was making efforts to contribute to international peace and security by promoting its nuclear weapon-free status. Mongolia had pursued a peaceful, open, multi-pillar foreign policy that was neutral in substance. With that, she declared her country’s permanent neutrality.
THOMAS HAJNOCZI (Austria) said the international community had reached a threshold over how to address the threat of global nuclear weapons. On the one hand, recent geopolitical events and disconcerting nuclear rhetoric had underscored the urgency of nuclear disarmament, which had fallen far behind expectations and lacked credibility. States that continued to stress the importance of nuclear weapons for their own security, while insisting on the unacceptability of those weapons for other States, risked damaging the credibility of the entire nuclear regime. On the other hand, there had been growing global attention to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The evidence presented in the course of elaborating humanitarian initiatives profoundly challenged the notion that nuclear weapons were a tool to provide security.
He highlighted another concern: the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Civilian casualties from explosive weapons had amounted to more than 40,000 deaths and injuries in 2014 alone, dramatically outweighing military casualties. Explosive weapons posed a humanitarian problem of extreme gravity and a severe challenge for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Austria and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs recently convened an international meeting on the issue, raising the importance of data dissemination as well as the sharing of good practices in the use of explosive weapons.
MWABA KASESE-BOTA (Zambia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Africa Group, said that hopes of achieving universality of the NPT remained far-fetched as political leaders in nuclear-weapon States still referred to such weapons as necessary for national security and opted for a step-by-step dismantling. Considering the devastation caused by any detonation of nuclear weapons, and noting that there was no competent international capacity to address the resulting catastrophic human consequences, Zambia welcomed the recent global initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, which had brought much needed energy and impetus to discussions on disarmament.
Her delegation, she said, was also concerned with the continued manufacturing, illicit trade in, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, from which Zambia had not been spared. Zambia remained committed to ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty, which established a legal norm in the international conventional weapons trade. It pledged to work with all States parties in preventing and eradicating the illicit trade, as well as putting an end to their diversion.
WILFRIED I. EMVULA (Namibia) renewed his country’s strong call on the nuclear-weapon States to fully comply with their legal obligations and unequivocal undertakings to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons without further delay, in a transparent, irreversible and internationally verifiable manner. It was essential that all non-nuclear-weapon States be provided with universal, unconditional, non-discriminatory and legally binding assurances by all nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Namibia remained a committed signatory of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, which provided a “shield” for Africa by preventing the stationing of nuclear explosive devices on the continent and prohibiting testing of those destructive weapons there. He joined the calls for such a zone in the Middle East. In addition, he welcomed the growing emphasis on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, whose use would be a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and a crime against humanity.
MS. GARCIA MOYANO (Uruguay), associating with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), expressed her country’s commitment to the fight against small arms and light weapons. Conventional weapons were the real weapons of mass destruction in her region and threatened the civilian populations, especially women and children. Regulation of that trade would have major impact on armed conflicts and would promote peace and security, while also curbing transfers to conflict zones. The international community must not forget the core objective of the Arms Trade Treaty, which was to save lives. To do that, the international community must join forces and endeavour to avoid attacks on civilian populations.
She said that the failure to include munitions in the United Nations Programme of Action made for an incomplete and inconclusive analysis, and her country would continue working to remedy that, along with language on border controls. She highlighted the importance of the adoption of Security Council resolution 2220 (2015) on the illicit small arms and light weapons trade. As a non-nuclear-weapon State, her country was committed to strengthening the nuclear and non-proliferation regime, and she urged the international community to strike a balance between the NPT’s three pillars. The conferences on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons showed how limited the world was to deal with their possible use, and, thus, her country was pushing for compliance under the NPT.
MATTHEW ROWLAND (United Kingdom), associating with the European Union, noted that the first General Assembly meeting was held 70 years ago in London. The same framework of laws, norms and institutions constituting the international rules-based system had underpinned more than a decade of tough negotiations concluding on 14 July when the “E3+3” (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States and Germany) reached agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme. The NPT remained vitally important, and while lack of consensus at this year’s Review Conference was disappointing, that did not undermine the Treaty or change States’ obligations. Previously agreed outcomes remained in force, he said, adding that the 2010-2015 review cycle had seen an “unprecedented level of transparency” between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States. For its part, the United Kingdom had reduced its operationally available warheads to no more than 120.
On the Chemical Weapons Convention, he urged the three remaining States to join the treaty without delay. Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 2209 (2015), there had been more than 90 allegations of chemical weapon use in Syria, the overwhelming majority of which were against the Assad regime. The impartial Joint OPCW-UN investigative mechanism would help address that, he said, noting that the United Kingdom had contributed £150,000 to that effort. While he welcomed progress made on the destruction of Syria’s declared chemical weapons programme, he remained concerned about outstanding issues highlighted in the recent OPCW report. The Syrian Government should comply with its treaty obligations in order for the international community to “have confidence in the integrity of their statements” that they had fully declared their programme and all relevant materials had been destroyed. Given the increased global uncertainty, working together through the rules-based international system would ensure that the hard-won gains of the last 70 years are built upon, not squandered.
MUHAMMAD ALWAN (Iraq), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said his Government believed that the responsibility for implementing international disarmament arrangements and treaties rested with everyone. Iraq was waging a fierce war and facing the mightiest forces of international terrorism, including ISIS. That situation required a decisive stance by the international community to carry out their disarmament obligations, particularly those aimed at preventing the delivery of weapons to those terrorist factions. He stressed the importance of the NPT’s three pillars — nuclear disarmament, non-nuclear proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy — and reaffirmed the Treaty’s pivotal role as the cornerstone of the nuclear disarmament regime. Anti-personnel mines and remnants of war had a disastrous impact on economic development and the environment, and Iraq was among those that had suffered the most from those weapons. Terrorist groups, particularly Da’esh, compounded that complex problem by planting mines to prevent Iraqi forces from liberating certain areas. He called for the international community’s support to remedy the problem.
Right of Reply
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Libya said that the Costa Rican delegate had mentioned States using cluster munitions, and had said that Libya was among them. He assured the Committee that Libya never had such weapons.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that the representative of Ukraine had made comments about Russia that required a response. As a result of the anti-constitutional arms uprising in Ukraine, that country was claiming sovereignty for part of the Russian Federation’s territory. After the referendum in Crimea and its accession to Russia, the peninsula became an integral part of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, a bilateral agreement, to which the representative of the Ukraine had referred, no longer applied. That was a standard international practice. So, the claims of violation by the Russian Federation did not correspond to reality. Any attempt to reject the rights of a nuclear Power to put weapons in its own territory, including nuclear weapons, was absurd.
Regarding Russia’s alleged aggression in Donetsk and Lugansk, he said it could only confirm that evidence in support of the comment made by Ukraine would not be given, and never had been. On the transfer of conventional weapons to those regions, no specifics had been provided. There were accusations, but there was no proof. On the explosive remnants of war in Ukrainian territory, he said those were unexploded devices from the Ukrainian army. One could spend a long time going into individual elements of the Ukrainian statement, but he would refrain from doing so. The main objective was to fulfil the Minsk agreement, recently approved by the “Normandy 4”. Only then could the peace that corresponded to all interested parties be secured.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that if the United States had not threatened his country with nuclear weapons, the nuclear issue would not have been created on the Korean peninsula in the first place. Maintaining a peaceful environment with a powerful nuclear deterrent was what the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s strategic line was all about. His country was defending its supreme interests and ensuring its regional security and stability, and it would carry out its obligations as a nuclear-weapon State.
The United States’ representative said that his country had not threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed to stop its bombastic rhetoric and begin its denuclearization obligations. Until North Korea took those steps, the international community would continue to demand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea implement its obligations.
Speaking again, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the United States had been threatening his country with nuclear weapons since the first days of its founding. Every year on the Korean peninsula, joint military exercises were staged by the United States and Republic of Korea, which had gone far beyond the limits and risked war. He asked what the real intention could be for those exercises, which were carried out more offensively and provocatively every year.
The representative of the United States, responding to the charges made by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that the exercises conducted in the past with Republic of Korea were not a threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The United States and Republic of Korea had made sure the international community was aware of those exercises and their scope, and they were not a threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. On the contrary, it was the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s actions that were a threat to peace and stability in that region. The United States did not recognize the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a nuclear-weapon State.