Amid Warnings of New Cold War, Speaker in First Committee Denounces Inventories of Nuclear Weapons in States Pursuing Non-Proliferation with ‘Messianic Zeal’
The contemporary global security architecture was “fraying”, and hopes for a peace dividend generated by the end of the cold war were “increasingly giving way to the advent of a new cold war”, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it continued its general debate.
Calling the recent nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States) “perhaps the only bright spot” in an otherwise turbulent international security environment, the representative of Pakistan said however that she regretted that some nuclear-weapon States were unwilling to give up their large inventories of nuclear weapons and modernization programmes, even as they pursued non-proliferation with “messianic zeal”.
Progress towards nuclear disarmament was being delayed, she said, by diverting the Conference on Disarmament’s focus to partial non-proliferation measures like a fissile material cut-off treaty. Establishing a group of governmental experts for that matter was an “ill-conceived experiment”, and Pakistan could not accept any conclusion or recommendation by that group, including its assertion that its report could form the basis for further consideration of the fissile material ban by the Conference. A consensus-based mandate was needed to commence negotiations in Geneva on such a treaty.
In a similar vein, the representative of Eritrea said that security and issues of disarmament were best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, transparent, comprehensive and non-discriminatory instruments. Peace and security was a shared global responsibility and no country acting alone could secure its borders from all forms of threats. The world’s future should compel the international community to demonstrate the necessary political will to substantively advance disarmament.
Sadly, however, a handful of States, insensitive to the security of the majority, continued to possess or seek to possess those wrong weapons to guarantee their own security, said the representative of Bangladesh. They spent $105 billion each year on research and testing of new nuclear weapons, while $50 billion per year would be sufficient to halve poverty for nearly 6 billion people.
Agreeing, Nicaragua’s representative said it was unjustifiable and unacceptable in light of the new development agenda that people continued to live in a world where more money was spent to modernize weapons than was spent to improve the lives of human beings. World military expenditures were increasing at a frightening rate. If the international community wanted to achieve the goals of sustainable development, it would need to end those militaristic efforts and focus on bettering the lives of human beings.
The President of the General Assembly addressed the First Committee today.
Also speaking were the representatives of San Marino, Cameroon, Niger, Côte d’Ivoire, Afghanistan, Brazil, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Venezuela, Kuwait, Honduras, Myanmar and Serbia.
The First Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. tomorrow, 16 October, to begin its thematic debate segment.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to continue its general debate. For more information see Press Release GA/DIS/3524.
Statements
MOGENS LYKKETOFT (Denmark), General Assembly President, said that since the very beginning of the United Nations, great emphasis had been put on arms control as a key element of maintaining international peace and security. During the last 70 years, the international community had made many strides in that area, had agreed on treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, and seen progress in the area of banning nuclear testing and prohibiting nuclear weapons on bilateral and regional levels. The world had also made great progress in the area of conventional weapons, banning certain types of weapons with indiscriminate effects, and setting global rules for governing the trade in conventional weapons through the recent Arms Trade Treaty. All those efforts and achievements demonstrated that the work of the First Committee was not only necessary, but could and would deliver results. Deliberations did result in new treaties and the strengthening of existing ones, contributing to greater peace in the world.
However, he said, a quick look around the world today demonstrated clearly that there were far too many weapons in circulation. Modernization was taking place, and more lethal weapons were being created and put into operation. There was also an increased threat from non-State actors, and their ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It was necessary to keep track of the developments related to artificial intelligence, new discoveries in life sciences, and lethal autonomous weapons. The international community should address those evolving threats. He was very concerned by the lack of substantial progress in the Conference on Disarmament and the United Nations Disarmament Commission in recent years. The world must never forget the devastating results of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, whether by intent or accident. It was particularly urgent to further nuclear disarmament. Concerted diplomatic efforts would overcome major differences, and he appealed to States to work together and consider ways to make platforms that had proved effective in the past, even during the cold war, effective again today. Only compromise would yield progress.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said that the contemporary global security architecture was “fraying”, and hopes for a “peace dividend” generated by the end of the cold war were “increasingly giving way to the advent of a new cold war”. South Asia was being prevented from peace and development by a policy of “hegemony and intransigence” encouraged by powerful States outside the region. The recent nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States) was “perhaps the only bright spot” in an otherwise turbulent international security environment. But some nuclear-weapon States were unwilling to give up their large inventories of nuclear weapons and modernization programmes, even as they pursued non-proliferation with “messianic zeal”.
Progress towards nuclear disarmament was being delayed, she said, by diverting the Conference on Disarmament’s focus to partial non-proliferation measures like a fissile material cut-off treaty. The establishment of a group of governmental experts on such a treaty was an “ill-conceived experiment”, which had failed to produce any consensus recommendation of substance, and the discussion mandate assigned to that group could have been fulfilled in the Conference on Disarmament. Informal and substantive discussions at the Conference on a ban on the production of fissile material, according to its schedule of activities for 2014-2015, were held in a representative body with the participation of all stakeholders and thus had greater relevance and legitimacy.
Therefore, she said, Pakistan could not accept any conclusion or recommendation by that group of governmental experts, including its assertion that its report could form the basis for further consideration of the fissile material ban by the Conference. A consensus-based mandate was needed to commence negotiations in Geneva on such a treaty that contributed to stability and security and purposes not served by the Shannon Mandate. Pakistan had presented a working paper at the Conference that reflected the required balance between the disarmament and non-proliferation goals of such a treaty. Pakistan, she added, met the criteria for gaining full access to civil nuclear technology to meet its growing energy needs and for economic growth.
DANIELE BODINI (San Marino) said that his country, with a centuries-old history of peace, never forgot the tragedy that had destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After 70 years, complete nuclear disarmament still remained the main goal. He commended the United States for reducing its nuclear arsenal from 30,000 warheads in 1967 to about 4,000 in 2014, and the Russian Federation for slashing its nuclear deterrent force from 4,000 in 2010 to about 1,600 today. Rejecting the idea of nuclear deterrence, he argued that countries with nuclear capability had far greater chances of being struck first by a nuclear attack. The first attack could be launched, not only by a rogue State, but also by non-State actors. Regrettably, Member States had failed to adopt a consensus final outcome document at the NPT Review Conference. For a small country like his, the United Nations, with the strength of its international law, remained the main line of defense.
MAMOUDOU MANA (Cameroon), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that nuclear weapons were an existential threat for humankind and the system set up to control them was insufficient. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) had not yet entered into force, and negotiations on a fissile material ban had not even started. Conventional weapons continued to kill, mutilate, and fuel armed violence. While such challenges gave rise to serious concerns, recent successes had demonstrated the possibility for advancing the disarmament agenda when there was a constructive spirit and programmatic approach. The search for a safer world should be examined in a holistic way, and all should look back to the very dawn of the nuclear weapon when humankind had become aware of its common fate. Cameroon was currently facing the threat of Boko Haram, and was forced to save its territory from becoming a battleground or a “fall-back territory” for those terrorists. Capacity and awareness-raising campaigns must be strengthened. Cameroon knew it could count on the international community to support the fight it was waging against the forces of evil.
ISSA OUMAR (Niger), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that new sources of financing were needed to address the country’s development agenda. He called for the reduction of military expenses by 10 per cent in order to release resources to combat poverty. He appreciated the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons and the recent adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty. However, the lack of consensus at the Conference on Disarmament and the ninth NPT Review Conference was a missed opportunity. Niger was the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium, a principal material in the production of nuclear arms and an important export for that country, but it still supported the message of nuclear disarmament because no humanitarian effort was infallible, and nothing could protect against accidental detonation. The best guarantee was the total absence of nuclear weapons.
A.T.M. ROKEBUL HAQUE (Bangladesh) said nuclear disarmament had been on the Assembly’s agenda since 1959, supported by every United Nations Secretary-General. Today, mankind still faced an unprecedented threat of self-extinction arising from the massive and competitive accumulation of nuclear weapons. The time had come to conclude a comprehensive convention that would guarantee a world free from nuclear weapons. As a NPT party, his country welcomed the accession of Palestine to the Treaty as its 191st State. A handful of States, insensitive to the security of the majority, sadly continued to possess or seek to possess the wrong weapons to guarantee their own security. They spent $105 billion each year on research and tests of new nuclear arsenals. An average of $50 billion per year would be sufficient to halve poverty for nearly 6 billion people. It was disappointing that the nuclear test-ban Treaty, 19 years after its adoption, was yet to enter into force despite 183 signatories and 164 ratifications, he said, calling on the remaining eight Annex 2 States to ratify it.
CLAUDE BOUAH-KAMON (Côte d’Ivoire), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that the arms trade was a real threat to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The phenomenon of terrorism called for greater vigilance and cooperation, he said, highlighting the actions of Boko Haram, which had become an “Islamic State in Western Africa” and could, in the long-term, compromise the achievement of those Goals. Given that terrorist groups operated in Mali, Ivorian authorities had adopted security measures and would cooperate with the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee and Interpol. On small arms and light weapons, the use of new technology like polymer and 3-D technology required greater vigilance.
JASSER JIMENEZ (Nicaragua), associating with Non-Aligned Movement and CELAC, said the debate was happening on the seventieth anniversary of the “nuclear eclipse,” a dark moment in history when nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. He stressed the importance of moving towards complete and total disarmament, including of nuclear and other conventional weapons of mass destruction. It was unjustifiable and unacceptable in light of the new development agenda that people continued to live in a world where more money was spent to modernize weapons than to improve the lives of human beings. World military expenditures were increasing at a frightening rate. If the international community wanted to achieve the goals of sustainable development, it would need to end those militaristic efforts and focus on bettering the lives of human beings. He welcomed the increased focus on the humanitarian effects of deadly weapons, and reiterated the aspiration to achieve a legally binding instrument on guarantees to all non-nuclear-weapon States as a step towards ultimately eliminating those weapons. Their use was a crime against humanity and a violation of the Charter.
MAHMOUD SAIKAL (Afghanistan), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed disappointment at the failure to convene a conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. As political turmoil in that region threatened to “spill over” into neighbouring ones, immediate action was required to prevent “humanitarian and political catastrophe”. The mass illicit trafficking of arms along the Durand Line had enabled terrorists and extremists to cause tremendous suffering for the Afghan people. His country embraced the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons, but believed it should be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the complex realities and closer follow-up implementation and integration with the mandate of the Arms Trade Treaty.
He said that Afghanistan remained one of the most mined countries in the world, with nearly 1 million Afghans living within 500 metres of those weapons, which were used by “brutal terrorists who have no regard for the children they maim, the lives they destroy, or the country they devastate”. Cuts in funding for Afghanistan’s mine-action programme threatened achievement of the goals set by the Ottawa Treaty of fully ridding that country of mines by 2023.
ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil), associating with the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand and South Africa) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said the existence of weapons of mass destruction with their catastrophic and indiscriminate effects was “sitting ill” with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The key to the sustainability of the Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime lay in reducing motivations and incentives to proliferate. To focus solely on non-proliferation, as if that could be detached from progress in nuclear disarmament, however, was not only unbalanced, but ineffective. He supported efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to promote more effective safeguards, and looked forward to seeing how the Secretariat would coordinate with Member States to develop “State-level approaches”. Multilateral norms and principles applicable to the conduct of States in the area of information and telecommunications technologies should be strengthened, but not at the expense of the free flow of information and respect for human rights, including to privacy.
KHIANE PHANSOURIVONG (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), said that the existence of nuclear weapons remained a matter of serious concern for all people and countries. Only through their total elimination could the international community guarantee against the use or threat of use. He stressed the importance of the CTBT, and said that the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones had significantly contributed to strengthening the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. He reaffirmed the importance of the full operation of the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone and encouraged the nuclear-weapon States to accede to its Protocol.
ALFREDO TORO (Venezuela), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and CELAC, said that he was deeply concerned about the humanitarian impact of weapons of mass destruction. At the CELAC summit in Costa Rica this year, all Member States had subscribed to the Vienna humanitarian pledge. He endorsed the inalienable right of each State to conduct research and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. He welcomed the historic accord on Iran’s nuclear programme, which would lead to the lifting of sanctions and “unilateral coercive measures” against Iran, and urged all Member States to comply with the agreement’s broad measures. He strongly condemned the transfer of small arms and light weapons by certain Powers to non-State actors as a way to overthrow governments and destabilize regions. He also condemned the use of armed drones to carry out extra-judicial killings, and called for full transparency in the use of those “murderous weapons”.
ELSA HAILE (Eritrea), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said her country’s foreign and national security policy was anchored on ensuring economic growth and inclusive development, and establishing a peaceful and cooperative neighbourhood. International peace and security could only be guaranteed through stable and inclusive global economic and social development, and full respect of the United Nations Charter, international law and treaty obligations. Peace and security was a shared global responsibility and no country acting alone could secure its borders from all threats. Regional and international security and issues of disarmament were best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, transparent, comprehensive and non-discriminatory instruments. The world’s shared future should compel the international community to demonstrate the necessary political will to substantively further disarmament. The proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons plagued her region, the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, as well as many other parts of the world, and combatting it required an enhanced capacity of States to protect their territories.
ABDULAZIZ ALAJMIA (Kuwait), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said international peace and security was impossible in the presence of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the use of which could lead to the elimination of all traces of life on Earth. He emphasized the importance of treaties and conventions to curb the dangers of those weapons, particularly the NPT. It was necessary to deal with the three pillars of the Treaty in an equal manner, especially the right of States to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The stagnation plaguing the international disarmament machinery was due to the absence of political will by some States. The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone constituted pre-emptive endeavours to achieve the sublime message of the United Nations to rid the world entirely of those evil weapons. Israel was evading its responsibilities to participate in holding a conference to create such a zone in the Middle East, and it also rejected international will by not acceding to the NPT. He hoped that Iran would continue its full cooperation with its recent agreement.
ROSA LOBO (Honduras), associating with the Non Aligned Movement and CELAC, said that her country was a party to the CTBT, having signed and ratified it in October 2003. She regretted that after 19 years, that fundamental instrument had not yet entered into force, and urged all countries to sign and ratify it without delay. On small arms and light weapons, Honduras believed that general and complete disarmament was a vital issue, for which the Arms Trade Treaty was the primary legally binding instrument. Illicit trade in those weapons was a cross-cutting issue with other global problems, such as terrorism and organized crime, and her region had suffered those “devastating consequences”.
U MAUNG WAI (Myanmar) shed light on the Humanitarian Pledge initiative, which was quickly gaining prominence, in contrast to some disarmament and non-proliferation processes that were in a stalemate. His country had attended the three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna. Strong attendance at those meetings reflected a legitimate global concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The movement began with a joint statement in the First Committee at the initiative of Austria and several others, but then it, “spread like wildfire”, with another joint statement issued at the 2015 NPT Review conference. Now, 119 States were on board. His delegation was closely studying the Pledge with a view tf joining it. Myanmar had raised its profile in disarmament during the tenure of the present Government by first signing the IAEA Additional Protocol, in 2013, followed by the ratifications of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, respectively, in 2014 and 2015.
MILAN MILANOVIC (Serbia), associating with the European Union, said the new millennium had brought many changes in the international security arena which, in addition to traditional threats, was fraught with multiple and complex non-traditional security challenges. That situation seriously affected not only individual countries, but the international community as a whole. Productive multilateralism had an indispensable role in addressing those challenges in an effective and sustainable manner. Such a vigorous approach in the areas of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament was needed and also obtainable if a spirit of cooperation, compromise and flexibility was exercised by all; there was no alternative in a world of increasing interdependence and complexity in which common challenges required common solutions. His country supported all efforts aimed at strengthening global security and international stability, and had acceded to all major international agreements in the areas of non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control. In that connection, it was committed to a full and systematic implementation of its obligations.