CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES
DEBATE ON AGENDA AND WORK PROGRAMME
UN Press Release DC/2575 - 7 February 1997
GENEVA, 6 February (UN Information Service) -- Members of the Conference on Disarmament continued a debate this morning over exactly what issues the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations should consider during this 1997 session.
Opening the exchange of views, the representative of Spain argued in favour of beginning negotiations to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and anti-personnel land-mines. He was followed by the representative of Syria, who said advances made so far in the field of disarmament would not lead to progress unless they were put in the framework of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
The representative of Canada, meanwhile, defended the "Ottawa process" for achieving a ban on anti-personnel land-mines. If it was the will of the Conference to pursue the issue of anti-personnel land-mines, Canada would not oppose it, he said, but added that his country would strongly object to any initiative "which does not reinforce or complement the ongoing work of the Ottawa process or which delays unduly the establishment of the urgently needed norm against anti-personnel mines".
The remarks by the members came as the Conference continued to look for consensus on its agenda and work programme. The President of the Conference, Joun Yung Sun (Republic of Korea) proposed holding three open-ended informal meetings, each devoted to one of the following subjects, without excluding other matters: a ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; nuclear disarmament; and a ban on anti-personnel land-mines.
Responding to the President's proposal, the representatives of Pakistan, Egypt and India indicated that the Conference should find consensus on fundamental issues before starting discussions on the questions proposed by the President. The individual groups should have time for the examinations of those proposals. The proposals put forward by the Group of 21 non-aligned countries should be taken into account, in particular with respect to nuclear disarmament, the Group's overall priority. Pakistan underlined that nuclear disarmament, security assurances for non-nuclear powers and regional conventional arms reduction were its priorities. Egypt expressed reservations against the separation of the fissile material issue from that of nuclear disarmament. The ban on fissile material for military purposes should become a sub-item of the nuclear disarmament issue, like the questions of security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, Egypt's representative said.
The representative of Mexico said there was no consensus regarding taking up work on a land-mine ban, a matter that had never been on the Conference's agenda before.
China's representative urged that the discussion not be limited to the three subjects listed by the President. Discussion on those points was not sufficient to achieve consensus on the agenda, he said, adding that the Government of China was examining the question of how to deal with anti- personnel land-mines.
For France, agreement on the agenda should be reached before exchanging views on particular subjects. However, the country's representative said, the President's initiative could help the Conference out of the present deadlock. The three items proposed by the President had emerged as major subjects from the statements of many delegations. The delegates of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom also supported the President's proposals and encouraged him to pursue the consultations at informal meetings where no decisions were to be made. The representative of the United States said that his delegation, although opposed to the Conference's dealing with "nuclear disarmament", did not object to the issue being discussed at informal consultations.
Prior to the adjournment of this morning's meeting, the United Republic of Tanzania was admitted as observer to the Conference.
Statements
AMADOR MARTÍNEZ MORCILLO (Spain) said that given the realities and urgent needs in the international political scene, the Conference should devote itself to both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Regarding the latter, the Spanish delegation considered the elimination of nuclear weapons would not be achieved through maximalist proposals or the setting of rigid time-limits, but rather through concrete steps that build up to important qualitative changes in the progressive elimination of nuclear weapons. The Conference had just finished negotiations on a nuclear-test ban, which by its own dynamic called for the logical next step, the negotiation of a convention to prohibit the production of fissile material, otherwise known as "fissban" or "cut-off".
That was the logical next step, he continued. The preference Spain, a new member of the Conference, gave to it stemmed from the fact that the Conference had already agreed on a mandate on the matter; the only thing
missing now was the establishment of an ad hoc committee on "cut-off". As for conventional weapons, Spain also had a clear priority: anti-personnel land- mines. The question had been asked whether the Conference should deal with negotiations to ban land-mines. Spain found that the very arguments against having the Conference negotiate a ban were reasons for choosing that forum. That was the case taking into account the three indispensable prerequisites for truly effective international action in the field: verifiability, gradualism and universality.
He concluded by saying that the fact that Spain had waited so long to become a member of the Conference made the country especially sensitive to the interest of those other countries that have requested membership.
IYAD ORFI (Syria) said the nuclear threat at the international and regional levels would not disappear until it was approached comprehensibly and equitably. The advances made would not lead to progress unless they were put in the framework of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Syria associated itself with the programme for nuclear disarmament proposed by the Group of 21 countries, which was based on measures aimed at providing assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The threat of use of such weapons would be in violation of international norms, as the International Court of Justice had declared. The General Assembly, for its part, had called for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on the phased elimination of nuclear weapons. Such a programme should also include measures of cooperation for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as the constraints currently placed on developing countries impeding their economic development.
Concerning anti-personnel land-mines, the representative said, Syria, though recognizing the tragedies caused by those weapons, wished to underline that their use could constitute a legitimate mean for certain States to defend themselves against even more devastating weapons. Should the Conference deal with anti-personnel land-mines or with weapons of mass destruction that could destroy all of humanity? he asked.
The Middle East region was perhaps one of the most tense in the world, he continued. The hopes raised by Madrid were waning -- Israel was still occupying the Arab territories and reneging on the commitments entered into by the previous Government. Further, Israel was continuing its nuclear weapons programme while refusing to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). That attitude represented a threat to peace and international security, particularly in the Middle East. Syria had spared no effort to support United Nations resolutions in the fields of disarmament and the strengthening of peace and security in the world. It supported the efforts aimed at freeing the Middle East from all weapons of mass destructions, be they nuclear, chemical or biological.
MARK MOHER (Canada) said the use of anti-personnel land-mines was the problem which must be urgently addressed. Canada emphasized the need to establish a norm against anti-personnel land-mines in 1997 as its straightforward objective. While it acknowledged the strength and capability of the Conference, Canada rejected any suggestion that it was the only acceptable mechanism in which to work. The forum's work on anti-personnel land-mines must be complementary to the "Ottawa process". He recalled that the General Assembly had not specified the forum that should deal with the issue, nor had it required that an agreement be universal.
There was a widespread recognition that complete verifiability in the case of land-mines was neither achievable nor necessary, he went on. A lengthy step-by-step approach, beginning with a ban on transfers, would not respond to the humanitarian urgency which had impelled 156 countries to vote for a resolution, at the General Assembly, calling for a total ban.
If it was the will of the Conference to pursue the issue, Canada would not oppose it, he concluded. However, Canada would strongly object to any initiative "which does not reinforce or complement the ongoing work of the Ottawa process or which delays unduly the establishment of the urgently needed norm against anti-personnel mines".
* *** *
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
