 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM MYANMAR, NEW ZEALAND, MALAYSIA, SWEDEN, CHINA, THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
Press Release
15 February 2001
The Conference on Disarmament today heard addresses from the Representatives of Myanmar, New Zealand (on behalf of South Africa), Malaysia, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union and States associated with it), China, the United States and Germany on a number of issues, including how to resolve the stalemate on reaching consensus on its programme of work.
The Representative of Myanmar proposed that in order to revitalize the
Conference and start a dialogue, and in the absence of an agreement on the
programme of work, the Conference should convene plenaries devoted to
substantive items on the agenda which was adopted at the start of the 2001
session.
The representative of Malaysia said that his country had completed on 23
January 2001 its stockpile destruction of antipersonnel landmines and had
accordingly fulfilled its obligations under article 4 of the Convention.
Some speakers said they supported the Amorim proposal contained in CD
document 1624. Others stressed the importance of implementing the
recommendations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
held last year. The issues of nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms
race in outer space remained the two main major issues causing the impasse.
The importance of preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty was also
underlined.
Ambassador Christopher Westdal of Canada, the outgoing President of the
Conference, said the linkages in the long-pending Amorim proposal threatened
to preclude any unprogrammed treatment whatever of any of its subjects,
leaving the Conference in the awkward position of wanting to treat substance
credibly, without touching fissile material, nuclear disarmament or the
prevention of an arms race in outer space.
The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on
Thursday, 22 February under the Presidency of Ambassador Juan Enrique Vega
of Chile.
Statements
MYA THAN (Myanmar) said the focus of the present consultations was to
revitalize the Conference and to consider what kind of useful work the
Member States could do in the absence of a programme of work. The Conference
was a unique institution, the single multilateral negotiating forum dealing
with arms control and disarmament. All the existing multilateral agreements
on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction were the product of the
Conference, and it would be able to produce more agreements when the Members
had the political will. The present impasse was due to the lack of political
will of the Member States.
Ambassador Than said Myanmar believed there was still room for improvement
in the methods of work of the Conference. He would focus on how to
revitalize and start a dialogue that would facilitate the endeavours to
reach agreement on a programme of work and to start substantive work.
Myanmar admired the intensive consultations and efforts of the President.
Notwithstanding these endeavours, these consultations had so far yielded no
positive results. This was simply because of the current political situation
and the underlying political issues.
The question now was what should the Conference do pending agreement on a
programme of work. The Conference should not remain idle while the programme
of work remained pending.
Myanmar proposed that while the President should continue his consultations,
Member States should also be encouraged to make optimum use of the plenaries.
At the same time, the President should also convene plenaries devoted to
substantive items on the agenda which the Conference adopted at the start of
the 2001 session. Discussion of these substantive items, devoting each
plenary to an item, should not be a problem. The President should encourage
Member States to make general comments, submit working papers and put
forward concrete proposals which should be compiled and added to the report.
The President should also conduct informal consultations on how the
Conference could move forward.
The Representative of Myanmar said this proposal could be modified in order
to achieve a consensus. Its purpose was not to replace the current efforts,
but to facilitate a process which was supportive of reaching consensus on a
programme of work. He put forward the proposal with the best of intentions
in order to revitalize the Conference and commence on substantive work.
Myanmar believed that the proposed plenaries would provide the Member States
with the opportunity to better understand each others positions and to
explore ways and means to move forward.
CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand), also speaking on behalf of South Africa in the
context of the memorandum of cooperation on disarmament issues between the
two countries, said that last year, while nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation efforts had seemed to be faltering, the parties to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had agreed on a package of new
undertakings. The intention was to promote a set of undertakings whereby the
process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation could be constructively
reinvigorated and redirected.
Ambassador Pearson said two of the NPT undertakings bore particular
significance to the programme of work of the Conference and could be used to
build on the progress made in 2000. These undertakings called for the
establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with
nuclear disarmament where the Conference was urged to agree on a programme
of work which included the immediate establishment of such a body; and the
necessity of negotiations on a fissile material treaty where the Conference
was urged to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate
commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with the view to their
conclusion within five years. South Africa and New Zealand attached very
great importance to the full implementation of the commitments entered into
at the NPT Review Conference.
The Representative of New Zealand said that the proposals in CD 1624 or the
Amorim text were far from perfect, especially the mandate on nuclear
disarmament. Nevertheless, it was prepared to work with it. At a time when
there were disturbing signs of preference for unilateral solutions or
options, it was essential for the continuation of multilateralism that the
Conference re-engage its work. New Zealand and South Africa fully supported
unilateral arms reductions, but not unilateral action which might impact
negatively on disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation. While each
State had the right to determine its own security and defence needs, history
and commonsense demonstrated that unilateralism would not guarantee
international security. At this crucial moment, disarmament was a
security-building process and not an optional extra. The disarmament pledges
made at the NPT Review Conference were far reaching, but seven months had
passed and the opportunity to build on the NPT success had not yet been
grasped. It was time for Nuclear Weapon States to settle their differences
and to jointly start implementing their commitments with purpose and
determination.
RAJA REJA (Malaysia) said landmines were still a real and constant threat to
millions of people, continuing to take innocent lives at an alarming rate.
Malaysia had signed the Ottawa Convention on 3 December 1997 and had
deposited its instrument of ratification on 22 April, 1999. The destruction
of 94,263 anti-personnel landmines began on 15 January 2001. On 23 January
2001, Malaysia had completed its stockpile destruction of anti-personnel
landmines and had accordingly fulfilled its obligations under Article 4 of
the Convention. Malaysia was now the first mine-free country in Asia.
Malaysia's decision not to retain any anti-personnel landmines for training
and development purposes was another commitment that the country was proud
of.
The Representative of Malaysia said his country was a strong supporter of
the Mine Ban Convention. Malaysia was firm in its conviction that
humanitarian suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines far outweighed
their military utility. In this context, Malaysia would like to see the
political push for universal acceptance of this treaty continued and
accelerated. Malaysia also strongly believed that it was pertinent for the
agenda of landmines to be placed high on the list of regional fora to
complement efforts to universalize the Convention.
HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union and
countries associated with it, said the year 2000 had proved to be another
year of standstill and stalemate for the Conference, which was unable to
effectively launch its work. So far, the beginning of 2001 had not been
promising either. The European Union deeply regretted this situation.
However, 2000 had not been a uniformly dismal year for multilateral efforts
in disarmament and non-proliferation. The NPT Review Conference had been an
important success. In the context of the Conference on Disarmament, the
final document of the Review Conference referred especially to two important
practical steps which were unanimously agreed upon by the States parties of
the NPT - i.e. the negotiations on a fissile material treaty and the
establishment of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with
nuclear disarmament.
Ambassador Salander said the persisting stalemate within the Conference was
preventing the body from working on what it had decided and started to do in
1998 -- the immediate and effective launch of the negotiation on a
non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively
verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The necessity of the immediate
start of such negotiations was clearly reaffirmed in the final document of
the NPT Review Conference and in resolutions of the General Assembly. The
European Union was still hopeful that the Conference would be able to
overcome the obstacles to the effective launch of its work soon. The success
of this endeavour required that the security concerns of all States be taken
into account.
The Representative of Sweden said the European Union countries believed that
CD 1624 or the Amorim proposal contained the elements for a rapid agreement
within the Conference. The EU was also convinced that other delegations and
groups of countries shared this assessment of the situation. The EU would
not detail its views which were included in the Amorim proposal. It would,
however, like to recall that it was particularly attached to the prospective
CD membership of Member States of the EU and associated countries which had
applied for admission to the Conference. The EU supported the continued
enlargement process of the Conference. The EU strongly urged the Conference
to explore all avenues to start substantive work.
HU XIAODI (China) said the old security concept, based on military alliances
and build-up of armaments and aimed at seeking absolute security for a
single country at the expense of other countries' interests, should be
discarded. The twenty-first century needed a new security concept, based on
mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, cooperation and resolving disputes
through dialogue. The Chinese Government had all along pursued an
independent foreign policy of peace. It attached importance to and actively
participated in the ongoing efforts of the international community to
promote just and rational arms control and disarmament. In the new century,
China would stick to its set of principles, positions and proposals, such as
preserving strategic security and stability, promoting nuclear disarmament
and preventing the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. China
believed that progress in nuclear disarmament hinged on preserving global
strategic balance and stability, as well as on ensuring the undiminished
security of all countries. As a nuclear weapon State, China had never evaded
its responsibilities and obligations regarding nuclear disarmament. In fact,
China had made unique contributions to the international nuclear disarmament
cause through its rational nuclear-weapon policies.
Ambassador Hu said that preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and
checking the trend of weaponization of outer space were the most urgent and
imperative tasks of the day. They were indispensable for the follow-up steps
as specified in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference to
proceed. And within the Conference, China supported the early negotiation
and conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty, on the premise that the
global strategic stability was maintained and the nuclear disarmament
process was further pursued.
Ambassador Hu said the ABM Treaty was the cornerstone of preserving global
strategic stability, therefore it should be strictly observed. Any attempt
to undermine its integrity and effectiveness, by whatever excuses, would
bring far-reaching negative consequences to international peace and
security. At the same time, the missile defence systems currently under
development posed a serious danger of outer space weaponization, which might
trigger off a new arms race. It had become a top priority task for the
international community to take effective measures to prevent the
weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. The Conference should
immediately re-establish an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate and conclude an
international legal instrument or instruments preventing the weaponization
of and an arms race in outer space. China was deeply worried that the very
country conducting space war exercises and weaponizing outer space had
single-handedly obstructed the negotiations on prevention of an arms race in
outer space in the Conference by denying the risk of the weaponization of
and an arms race in outer space. Three months ago, someone had alleged that
the impasse in the Conference should be attributed to China because it set
up linkages between the agenda items. This was a distortion of facts. Today,
it was evident that the threat to strategic stability and the introduction
of weapons and an arms race in outer space constituted the root cause for
the stalemate in the Conference.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Hu said, international arms control and disarmament efforts
were currently at a crossroad. The most outstanding menace came from the
attempts to overthrow the ABM Treaty and weaponize outer space. Under such
circumstances, to formulate a comprehensive and balance programme of work
and start negotiations on such issues as prevention of an arms race in outer
space, nuclear disarmament, a fissile material cut-off treaty and negative
security assurances was not only the obligation of the CD, but also the only
possible way to break the current stalemate and achieve progress. China
supported the Amorim proposal as a basis for further consultations.
ROBERT GREY (the United States) said Ambassador Amorim's proposal remained a
sound basis for reaching consensus in the Conference. A few weeks after
Ambassador Amorim had tabled his proposal, Abdelkader Bensmail, the former
Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference, had delivered farewell remarks
to the Conference, noting that 'Preparing the ground for future negotiations
through discussions and technical work is a prerequisite for the start of
genuine negotiations. All major negotiations have been preceded by a
pre-negotiations stage, in which some shared understanding is reached that a
security problem exists and that it must be addressed multilaterally. This
process may be arduous and time-consuming...' Mr. Bensmail had by
implication been commenting on efforts of the Conference for handling the
three topics that had been at the centre of ongoing controversy:
negotiations to conclude a fissile material cut-off treaty, and
deliberations of the Conference on issues related to nuclear disarmament and
outer space. The pre-negotiating stage for the fissile material cut-off
treaty had been concluded long ago.
Ambassador Grey said that in recent statements, Russian and Chinese
officials seemed to be making linkages between fissile material cut-off
negotiations and on a new outer space treaty. The United States did not link
the start of FMCT negotiations to anything else. The United States was
prepared to agree to a CD work programme that called for the establishment
of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament and an Ad Hoc Committee on
outer space, in the context of active and ongoing negotiations on an FMCT.
The United States believed that outer space issues were not ripe for
negotiations in the Conference, and did not understand why those who did not
share its views were unwisely and unrealistically insisting on immediate
negotiations on a new outer space treaty, a diplomatic tactic which had the
net effect of blocking discussion of the very issues they said they cared
about. The United States was willing to participate in an organized
discussion aimed at examining those issues in the context of active and
ongoing negotiations on an FMCT
The United States and the Russian Federation had made significant reductions
in their nuclear arsenals and the United States remained committed to
further reductions in nuclear arms. It was exceedingly difficult to believe
that the physical security and ultimate fate of hundreds of millions of
human beings must forever be held hostage to the prospect of instant
annihilation. Although the new Administration in the United States would
review these issues over the coming weeks, it would not be premature to
point out that missile defence systems could enhance strategic stability and
further reduce the danger of nuclear weapons being used. In order to
facilitate the long-term process of nuclear disarmament, Member States of
the Conference could decide to launch negotiations on a fissile material
cut-off treaty. On its part, the United States could agree to the
establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in which Member States would discuss
issues related to nuclear disarmament. The United States had also agreed
with great reluctance to the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in which
Member States would discuss issues related to outer space. Having taken
these two important and difficult steps, the United Sates had gone as far as
it could.
GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany) said his country could have supported both the
original Amorim proposal and the President's proposal and it believed that
consultations must continue. It was now time to reflect on what the
Conference could do until the key issues could be resolved. Germany welcomed
the initiative of Myanmar and would carefully examine it. Germany was ready
to explore all possible avenues to continue work within the Conference.
CHRISTOPHER WESTDAL (Canada), the outgoing President of the Conference, said
his presidency of the Conference ended on Friday, 16 February with his
mandate unfulfilled. While not surprised, he was still disappointed that he
had not found it possible to end the impasse in the Conference and achieve a
work programme agreement. He had sought to prepare a recommendation for
immediate programmed work on the basis of CD 1624, but consensus on it was
not achievable because of lack of agreement on the mandate of the issue of
prevention of an arms race in outer space in the document. There had also
been widespread support for a stronger mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee in
charge of nuclear disarmament. The broader context in which change in the
nuclear disarmament mandate and/or other mandates in CD 1624 might be
effected consensually would naturally be a subject of intense inquiry for
his successors.
Ambassador Westdal said it was clear that not only would none of the formal
work begin until all of it began, but now, because negotiations and talks
were integral parts of CD 1624, and because some parties did not want talks
without any negotiations, the linkages in the long-pending proposal
threatened to preclude any unprogrammed treatment whatever of any of its
subjects, leaving the Conference in the awkward position of wanting to treat
substance credibly, without touching fissile material, nuclear disarmament
or the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Member States had also
learned over the past month that given current circumstances in major power
relations, dominated as they were by doctrinal upheaval and related security
declarations and gestures of great sweep, a CD work programme agreement was
currently not possible, nor would it be possible for some time to come. The
Member States might decide that the time had come to address the role and
work of the Conference in the absence of an agreed work programme, which
would mean to seek and define value the Conference might add to members'
shared interests while the search for agreement on a formal work programme
went on. There were a number of questions that the Conference would have to
credibly answer, including whether it had to be all or nothing.
In conclusion, Ambassador Westdal said that he urged that the Member States
use the Conference to build human solidarity, enough to avoid forever what
would be the last major no-holds-barred war . The Conference should be used
to seek common ground, to serve interests which all shared, and to respect
the natural duty to control, contain and eliminate nuclear arsenals.
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or
its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by
MIIS.
