‘IT IS A HARSH REALITY THAT OVER HALF OF HUMANITY LIVES IN COUNTRIES THAT POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPONS,’ HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISARMAMENT TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE

Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

2^nd Meeting (AM)

 ‘IT IS A HARSH REALITY THAT OVER HALF OF HUMANITY LIVES IN COUNTRIES THAT POSSESS

NUCLEAR WEAPONS,’ HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISARMAMENT TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE

Today, As In Past, World’s Deepest Insecurities Arise from Nuclear,

Biological, Chemical Weapons Threats, Members Told as General Debate Opens

“It is a harsh reality that today over half of humanity lives in countries that possess nuclear weapons, and it is a harsher reality that humanity as a whole continues to live in insecurity as a result,” the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, told the Disarmament Committee this morning.

Speaking as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) launched its general debate, the High Representative said that today, as in the past, many of the world’s deepest sources of insecurities arose from the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction because the very existence of nuclear, biological, and chemical arms entailed threats or risk of use.

Some 26,000 nuclear weapons reportedly continued to exist, although, because of limits on transparency, we did not know the precise number.  Whether this estimate is too low or too high, the result suggests the great distance that remains to be travelled on the road to nuclear disarmament,” Mr. Duarte said.

Both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were vital to international peace and security, he stressed.  They were mutually reinforcing and even helped reduce the risks of nuclear terrorism, for example, by strengthening controls over weapon-usable fissile materials.

There had been progress in recent years in building global norms against the proliferation and terrorist use of all such weapons. The world had also achieved much in establishing fully global norms against biological and chemical arms.  However, progress had been slow and subjected to setbacks in nuclear disarmament, he said.

Recently elected Committee Chairman, Paul Badji of Senegal, agreed that the current disarmament and non-proliferation regime was confronting many obstacles to progress, largely due to the complexity of the issues.  Despite the rise in military expenditures, insecurity dominated and spread in many parts of the world.

However, there had been some significant advances, which were grounds for hope that only multilateral cooperation could enable the international community to achieve its objectives.  For example, nuclear non-proliferation remained very high on the agenda, global norms on biological weapons had been strengthened, and countries were intensifying efforts to exert State control over weapons of mass destruction and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Still, several speakers in today’s debate expressed disappointment that the promises made by the nuclear-weapon States towards disarmament had fallen short of expectations.  Brazil’s representative noted that the modest achievements in reducing nuclear arsenals were precarious, as they had not been the result of multilaterally negotiated, irreversible and verifiable agreements, and thus could easily be “rolled back”.  Besides, there seemed to be no sense of urgency regarding the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which an overwhelming majority of countries deemed an essential step towards nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, an informal grouping of countries composed of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and Mexico, urged States to refrain from developing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities and not adopt doctrines or systems that blurred the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, or lowered the nuclear threshold. 

As long as nuclear weapons existed, he stressed that it was imperative for the nuclear-weapon States to reaffirm and fully respect their commitments, pending the conclusion of multilaterally negotiated, legally binding security assurances for all non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  The cessation of all nuclear weapon test explosions and all nuclear explosions constituted an effective measure for nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects.

Focusing on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, China’s speaker said that that served the common interests of all countries.  His country was committed to “preserving and enhancing universality and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime, as well as abandoning double standards”.

China was also dedicated to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintaining the peace and stability of the peninsula and of Northeast Asia, and welcomed the recent step forward.  China would continue to coordinate and cooperate with other parties, in order to constantly advance the six-party talks. 

Warning that a stand-off should be avoided between those who gave priority to disarmament and those who gave priority to non-proliferation, however, Portugal’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, echoed the call for further progress in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, in accordance with relevant international instruments.  He also favoured the negotiation of new instruments, such as a fissile material cut-off treaty.

The European Union, he stressed, was guided by its strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which committed it to act with resolve using all instruments and policies at its disposal, to prevent, deter, halt, and where possible, eliminate proliferation programmes of concern worldwide.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of the Dominican Republic (on behalf of the Rio Group), Mexico (national statement), Indonesia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Egypt, Malaysia, Japan and Norway.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to begin its general debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items before the General Assembly.  Discussions focused on several reports of the Secretary-General:

The Report of the Conference on Disarmament (not yet officially issued) focuses on its three-part session, which had the participation of  both Member States and non-Member States, held from 22 January to 30 March; 14 May to 29 June; and 30 July to 14 September.  The Conference requires consensus and needs to agree on a programme of work in order to start substantive negotiations.  The report notes that, although substantive progress had been achieved by conducting important thematic debates on all agenda items and advancing considerably in its efforts, the Conference could not yet reach consensus on a programme of work.  Building on the increased level and focus of its activities throughout 2007, and with a view to early commencement of substantive work during the 2008 session, the Conference requested the current President and the incoming President to conduct consultations during the intersessional period and, if possible, to make recommendations, taking into account all relevant proposals.  The dates for the 2008 session will be: 21 January to 28 March; 12 May t0 27 June; and 28 July to 12 September.

The Report of the Disarmament Commission for 2007 (document A/62/42) notes that the Commission held its substantive session from 9-27 April, during which time six plenary sessions were held.  At its 276^th plenary meeting, the Commission adopted its provisional agenda, including items on “recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons” and “practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons”.  The two agenda items were allocated to its Working Groups I and II, respectively.  On 27 April, the Commission adopted, by consensus, the reports of its subsidiary bodies and the conclusions and recommendations contained therein regarding the two agenda items.  It also agreed to transmit to the General Assembly the reports of the two Working Groups.

The Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (document A/62/309) reported that it held its sole meeting in 2007 from 16-18 July in New York.  The Board, in its recommendations, encouraged the Secretary-General, as a way to advance the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, to continue his efforts to raise awareness of those issues among Governments, the media, civil society, academia and the general public.  Recognizing the importance of efforts at the regional level to advance the disarmament agenda, members suggested that the United Nations strengthen its cooperation with regional organizations.

During its session, the Board also began a discussion on the challenges to international security raised by emerging weapons technologies, especially those related to outer-space issues, and recommended that the Secretary-General should make consolidated efforts within the United Nations system to address the growing risks/threats to the peaceful uses of outer space.  It suggested that a high-level panel be created to take up the issue of outer space in all its aspects.  In connection with scientific advancement in the areas of biotechnology, it suggested that meetings of experts, scientists, industry representatives, Government officials and representatives of civil society be convened at all levels to discuss the impact of advances in that area on arms control and disarmament.  In addition, the report contains a review of the work of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) over which the Board has oversight.

In his report (document A/62/165) on Nuclear Disarmament, “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, and “Reducing nuclear danger”, the Secretary-General noted that General Assembly resolution 61/78 contained a list of specific steps needed to achieve nuclear disarmament.  In recent years, the world had witnessed progress in some areas.  According to some assessments, the total number of nuclear weapons existing today –- estimated at around 27,000 -– was at the lowest level in four decades.  Many weapons were reportedly being moved from operational reserve status, and talks were under way on reductions to follow the expiration in 2009 of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty), between the Russian Federation and the United States.  The nuclear-weapons States were maintaining their voluntary moratoria on nuclear tests.  There had only been one such test -– by a non-nuclear-weapon State -– since 1998.

Yet, according to the report, many challenges remained, especially with respect to transparency, irreversibility and verification of stocks of nuclear weapons and their reductions.  The precise number of nuclear weapons or quantities of fissile material in weapons programmes remained undisclosed and fell short of deeper reductions.  Past reductions had only been declared, but not independently verified.  Proliferation threats persisted.  Three States had announced their acquisition of nuclear weapons since May 1998.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty still fell short of universal membership and several States parties had not yet concluded the IAEA safeguards agreements, required under the Treaty, nor adopted the Additional Protocol.  There was also growing concern about the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons by non-State actors.  The report contains replies from Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Mexico informing the Secretary-General of efforts and measures they had taken with regard to the implementation of General Assembly resolution 61/83.

The report on Measures taken to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (document A/62/156)details steps taken by Member States and international organizations on issues relating to the linkage between the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Included in the report are replies from Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Greece, Jamaica, Lebanon, Mexico, and Panama.  Also in the report are the replies from 11 international organizations, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the IAEA.

According to information received from the IAEA, the responsibility for nuclear security rests entirely with each individual State.  International legal instruments provide a strategic framework and a common platform for States to work together to enhance their collective nuclear security.  A new international security framework is emerging based on obligations contained in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and its amendment, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the relevant Security Council resolutions and the non-binding Code of Conduct for the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and its supplementary Guidance on the Import and Export of Radioactive Sources.  The obligations in the Agency’s safeguards agreements are part of this framework.  However, the Agency acknowledges that it is facing “a considerable challenge in helping form the national and international response to these instruments and in supporting States’ implementation efforts”. 

The Agency recognizes that nuclear security is a cross-cutting activity.  Synergies flow from cooperation and coordination with safety and safeguards-related work.  Joint safety and security missions are undertaken to evaluate national laws and regulations for the control of sources; engineering safety design reduces the vulnerability of vital areas to sabotage; systems for accounting and control of nuclear material deter and/or allow early discovery of theft; physical protection measures and measures to detect illicit trafficking contribute to non-proliferation objectives; and a comprehensive approach is used to the legislative assistance programme that recognizes the importance of the interference between security, safety and safeguards.

In his report on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/62/95), the Secretary-General noted that, at the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, held in Vienna from 30 April to 11 May, parties reiterated their support for such a zone.  They also reaffirmed the importance of the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East, adopted by the 1995 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review and Extension Conference, and recognized that that resolution remained valid until its goals and objectives were achieved.  The Secretary-General had continued to consult with concerned parties within and outside the region and expressed concern that developments in the region could have had a further impact on efforts towards the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free zone there.  He hoped that conditions would be met to further the Middle East peace process under the terms of the Road Map, and called on all parties to resume dialogue.  The report contains information from Canada, Chile, Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, Russian Federation, Syria, and the United Kingdom.

The report of the Secretary General on problems arising from the accumulation of conventional stockpiles in surplus (document A/61/166), follows up on resolution 61/72 of December 2006, which asked States to determine the size of their surplus stockpiles and to evaluate their risk, and implement measures to address illicit trafficking related to the accumulation of such stockpiles.  The report contains replies from Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Portugal, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Turkey, and Germany (on behalf of the European Union).

The report on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/62/112) is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 61/64, which, among other things, asked the Secretary-General to continue to promote the implementation of the action programme adopted at the 1987 International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, and to report to it at its sixty-second session.  The report summarizes activities carried out by partner departments and partner agencies of the high-level Steering Group on Disarmament and Development.  It includes information from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations; the United Nations Interagency Working Group on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration; the United Nations Development Programme; the Armed Violence Prevention Programme; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, as well as the Government of Cuba.

Also before the Committee is a report on Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/62/11), which contains replies received from the following Governments on proposals on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures in the interest of promoting international peace and security and preventing an outer space arms race:  Bolivia; China; Cuba; Libya; Mexico; Russian Federation, and Ukraine.  An addendum to the report contains replies from Austria, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Portugal (on behalf of the European Union).

The Committee will also consider reports on:  The Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean (document A/62/29); Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/62/98); Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (A/62/20); Further measures in the field of disarmament for the prevention of an arms race on the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof (A/62/99); Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/62/133); and Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/62/134).

Others are reports on:  Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/62/114); the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (document A/62/170); Confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context (document A/62/115); Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/62/93); the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/62/130); the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa A/62/140); the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/62/153); and Regional confidence-building measures:  activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/62/129).

The Committee will also have before it reports on:  Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/62/103); and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/62/113) as well as notes on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/62/135); and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (document A/62/152).

PAUL BADJI ( Senegal), Committee Chairman, thanked the members of the Committee for electing him Chairman and said that the election was an honour to him and to his country, Senegal.  The current regime in disarmament and non-proliferation was confronting many obstacles that had impeded progress.  Those obstacles were due to the complexity of the issues involved, which had hindered movement.  At a time when the international community was trying to mobilise resources to meet the Millennium Development Goals, there was a growing increase in military expenditures.  Despite that rise in military expenditures, however, insecurity continued to dominate and spread in many parts of the world.

However, he said, there had been some significant advances, and those provided grounds for hope that only multilateral cooperation could enable the international community to achieve its objectives.  For example, there had been progress in keeping nuclear non-proliferation very high on the agenda.  On biological weapons, global norms had been strengthened.  Countries were also intensifying efforts to exert State control over weapons of mass destruction and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.  In the light of the progress, there was the need to ensure that the Committee fulfilled its role and he promised to spare no effort to facilitate the outcome to the satisfaction of Member States.

SERGIO DUARTE, High Representative, Office for Disarmament Affairs, said that, as in the past, many of the world’s deepest sources of insecurities arose from the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.  That was not surprising since the very existence of nuclear, biological, and chemical arms entailed threats or risk of use.  Progress had been seen in recent years in building global norms against the proliferation and terrorist use of such weapons, but the international community must work to strengthen existing instruments and promote the rule of law.

He said that progress had been slow and subjected to setbacks in nuclear disarmament:  “It is a harsh reality that today over half of humanity lives in countries that possess nuclear weapons.  And it is a harsher reality that humanity as a whole continues to live in insecurity as a result.  Some 26,000 nuclear weapons reportedly continue to exist, although, because of limits on transparency, we do not know the precise number.  Whether this estimate is too low or too high, the result suggests the great distance that remains to be travelled on the road to nuclear disarmament.”

Both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were vital to international peace and security, he stressed.  They were mutually reinforcing and even helped reduce the risks of nuclear terrorism, for example, by strengthening controls over weapon-usable fissile materials.

He said that the world had achieved much in establishing global norms against biological and chemical arms, as seen in States’ rejection of such weapons as vital to their security interests.  There had been the successful sixth Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference last December, the first meeting this year of the treaty’s new review cycle and the establishment of the Support Unit, operating out of the Geneva Branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs.  Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention marked the treaty’s tenth anniversary in many arenas around the world.  Meanwhile, its membership had grown to 182 States parties.  The great tasks ahead included the achievement of universal membership and compliance with the destruction deadlines.

On conventional arms, he noted that, last year, the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89, which requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameter for the establishment of a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common standards for the international trade in conventional arms.  The Office for Disarmament Affairs had received an unprecedented 97 submissions in response.  That high number of submissions clearly showed the depth of interest among Member States in pursuing such a treaty, as did the large number of States that had expressed interest in being included in the group of governmental experts to be established by the Secretary-General to assist him in drafting the report on the subject, requested by the General assembly.

Within the United Nations disarmament machinery, the Conference on Disarmament remained the world’s single multilateral negotiating forum in that field, he went on.  While it had once again been unable to agree on a substantive programme of work, many participants and outside observers noticed that it had conducted its deliberations in a generally positive atmosphere, demonstrating strong support for the commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

LUIS LITHGOW ( Dominican Republic), on behalf of the Rio Group, said the Group had maintained a long tradition of commitment to disarmament, an “essential component of efforts to maintain international peace and security”.  In recent years, there had been little progress.  However, the Group had given its support to the Disarmament Commission and to the open-ended working group of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

He reminded the Committee that Latin America and the Caribbean was the first densely populated nuclear-weapon-free zone, and he urged nations to withdraw interpretative statements made at the time of their accession to that treaty.  The Rio Group supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones around the world, and was strongly committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which he urged all States to accede fully.  It was necessary to advance disarmament and implement all 13 steps of the 2000 Review Conference, and it was especially important for nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their commitment on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The Rio Group was pleased with the preparatory work done on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference, to be held in 2010, he said.  Total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only guarantee against their use or threat, and non-nuclear-weapon States needed guarantees that elimination would take place.  Towards that goal, the world needed the conclusion of a universal, unconditional, binding agreement on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States, as soon as possible. 

He said that the Group also encouraged negotiations on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and welcomed the announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that it would dismantle its nuclear facilities.  That was an example of what could be achieved through peaceful negotiations.  The use of nuclear energy was the right of all developing countries, and the Group favoured the “broadest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technical information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.  The Group also took note of the proposal of civil nuclear cooperation from a Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons State party with a non-State party.  That proposal had raised issues, and it was imperative to ensure that any decision taken strengthened the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  It also supported negotiations to prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear and other weapons.  It also supported the timely entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which would limit the development of those weapons.

The total elimination of chemical and biological weapons was another priority, and he noted that none of the Rio Group’s members had any such weapons.  It was important to universalize the Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions.  The Group was also concerned by signs of an arms race in outer space, and the Conference on Disarmament should address that.  The illicit trafficking in small arms and weapons also required special attention, and the Group supported the United Nations action programme, as well as a legally binding agreement on the issue.  The subject of ammunition was intrinsically linked to that problem. 

He decried the lack of political commitment of some States to prevent the proliferation of conventional weapons, including those arms with “excessively cruel and indiscriminate effects”, while saluting the initiative of some countries to begin negotiations on the issue.  Landmines were another pressing issue, and he called for the universal ratification of the Ottawa Convention, as well as for increased international efforts in mine clearance and victim assistance.  He also stressed the importance of confidence-building measures in preventing conflicts and promoting cooperation.  In order to advance disarmament, the political will of all States was needed; it was their responsibility to provide their citizens with peace and security.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA ( Mexico) stressed the importance of an “unambiguous commitment” to promoting the disarmament agenda.  The representative of the Rio Group had addressed most of Mexico’s concerns already, but, in addition, there was a need to revitalize the First Committee, by, for example, broadening the time frame to submit resolutions, so that more attention could be given to each initiative. 

Turning to the work of other forums, he commended the meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to be held in 2010, in Vienna.  In spite of difficulties, the agenda had been adopted.  Hopefully, progress would be made to strengthen and universalize that Treaty.  It was a shame that, 40 years after the Treaty’s entry into force, many challenges remained.  The Secretary-General must remain vigilant and monitor developments ahead of the Review Conference.  The Disarmament Commission had held its second round of deliberations on the same topics in April, and there had been a lack of substantive progress.  It was necessary to reconsider the direction being taken and to develop a more “concrete and pragmatic” approach.  The recent work of the open-ended working group to consider the objectives and agenda for a fourth special session on disarmament also required more time for thought, as progress in that regard was not yet significant.

Mexico had two major concerns in disarmament, he noted.  The first was implementation of a treaty to prevent the illicit trafficking of small arms and small weapons.  The second was the creation of a group of governmental experts on the establishment of common international norms for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.  Mexico also strongly supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones and, in that light, supported Indonesia’s proposals.

JOSE JULIO PEREIRA GOMES ( Portugal), on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union was committed to upholding, implementing and further strengthening multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements.  It was concerned about a possible further weakening of disarmament and arms control treaties and agreements, insofar as Europe was concerned.  Progress was needed in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, in accordance with relevant international instruments, and by negotiating new ones, such as a fissile material cut-off treaty.  A stand-off should be avoided between those who gave priority to disarmament and those who gave priority to non-proliferation.

He said that the Union was guided by its strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which committed it to act with resolve, using all instruments and policies at its disposal, to prevent, deter, halt, and, where possible, to eliminate proliferation programmes of concern worldwide.  Meeting the challenge of proliferation risks was a key element in the Union’s relations with other organizations and countries outside the Union.  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery was potentially the greatest threat to global security, and the spread of missile technology added a further element of concern.

Terrorism remained a serious threat to international peace and security, he went on.  The adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy by the General Assembly last year had sent a strong signal about the unity of United Nations Member States in condemnation of terrorism in all its forms.  The speedy adoption of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism would contribute to the counter-terrorism effort.  The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons remained the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, in accordance with its article VI, and an important element to further the development of nuclear energy applications for peaceful purposes.  That Treaty was as vital as ever, and the Union continued to defend that consensus by supporting the package of decisions and resolutions adopted at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the final document of the 2000 Review Conference, and bearing in mind the current situation.  It was also fully committed to the current review cycle of the Treaty and stood by its Common Position, agreed on 25 April 2005, ahead of that year’s Review Conference.

R.M. MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia), on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries, said the Movement welcomed the restructuring of the Department for Disarmament Affairs into the Office for Disarmament Affairs.  Members of the Movement would continue to promote multilateralism as the only sustainable means of achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  Ultimately, the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only “absolute guarantee against the use or threat of nuclear weapons”.  Unfortunately, the field of disarmament and security was at an impasse, and it was important for all States to intensify their efforts in that regard.

He stressed the significance of achieving universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, including by all nuclear-weapon States.  He commended the agreement on a final document in the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference last year, and noted that it was the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as the tenth anniversary of the Ottawa Convention, formally, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.  He said that the Non-Aligned Movement States parties to that Convention looked forward to their eighth meeting in Amman, Jordan in November.  The movement remained concerned about the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, a key disarmament issue, and hoped for the early and full implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action.  Noting the convening of the open-ended working group on a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, he regretted that certain delegations had blocked the working group’s mandate.

The Movement also continued to support the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and demanded that Israel accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons “without delay”.  He also reaffirmed the “inalienable right” of developing countries to “engage in the research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”.  It was the responsibility of developed countries to support the legitimate requirement of developing countries for nuclear energy.  He called on the international community to show greater political will to achieve common objectives, and vowed that the Movement would actively and constructively participate in the Committee’s deliberations and negotiations.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico), on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and Mexico), reaffirmed the belief that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, despite the challenges it faced, remained the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  Its three pillars -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy -- constituted an important foundation in maintaining international peace and security.  The Coalition was hopeful that, three years from now, there would be a productive and successful Review Conference consisting of the adoption of specific measures aimed at strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty in all its aspects, and, ultimately meeting the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  All States parties should make every effort, not only to guarantee that the agreements resulting from past Review Conferences constituted a further step towards complete nuclear disarmament, but to transform them into effective and irreversible actions.

For the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and its preparatory process to be successful, he said it must build on past successful Review Conferences, particularly those held in 1995 and 2000.  The Coalition stressed the importance of respecting fully, and implementing all, the commitments made at those reviews.  The 1995 Review and Extension Conference, in particular, had adopted the decision on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and a resolution on the Middle East, which needed to be realized.  In the final document of the 2000 Review Conference, the States parties had committed themselves to 13 practical steps to ensure the successful completion of the Treaty’s objectives, including an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon-States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.  Unfortunately, that objective had not been realized and, even more worrying, there had been attempts to disregard the unequivocal commitment.  The Coalition strongly urged the nuclear-weapon-States to accelerate the implementation of the 1995 and 2000 outcomes, which provided for the total elimination of nuclear weapons through systematic and progressive efforts.

All States parties should be held equally accountable with respect to strict compliance with their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, he continued.  States must refrain from developing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities, and must not adopt doctrines or systems that blurred the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, or lowered the nuclear threshold.  Such action would directly contradict the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s disarmament and non-proliferation provisions.  As long as nuclear weapons existed, it was imperative that the nuclear-weapon States fully reaffirm and respect their existing commitments, pending the conclusion of multilaterally negotiated, legally binding security assurances for all non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The cessation of all nuclear-weapon test explosions and all nuclear explosions constituted an effective nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation measure.

CHENG JINGYE ( China) said the international situation was undergoing profound changes and, while all peoples aspired to live in peace and to promote development, many disharmonious factors remained.  The “ghost of the cold war mentality” haunted the world, and countries had divergent views on the priorities of the disarmament agenda.  However, globalization meant that countries shared common interests and that “no country can achieve security on its own”, so a new security concept was needed, as was multilateralism, a strengthened legal system and cooperation.

He said his country had always actively participated in international arms control and non-proliferation efforts.  Military transparency was important, and the Chinese Government had decided to report its military expenditures annually to the Secretary-General.  China had never evaded its responsibilities in nuclear disarmament, and was dedicated to promoting international nuclear disarmament.  China had been promoting review by the National People’s Congress of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, with a view to ratifying it at an early date.  Further, China supported the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.  China likewise attached importance to the review process of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  This year was the fortieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploitation and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Outer Celestial Bodies, and it was the duty of the international community to ensure the peaceful use of space.  China was committed to that aim. 

The non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction served the common interests of all countries, and China was committed to “preserving and enhancing universality and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime, as well as abandoning double standards”, he said, stressing the value of negotiations in resolving disputes.  China had been dedicated to realizing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintaining the peace and stability of the peninsula and of Northeast Asia.  Adoption of the Second-Phase Actions for the Implementation of the (September 2005) Joint Statement had marked a new step forward, and China would continue to coordinate and cooperate with other parties, in order to constantly advance the six-party talks.  Further, China stood for the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and was active in diplomatic efforts.  China welcomed the Understandings on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, reached by Iran and the IAEA.

Noting that this year was the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, he called on all parties to implement the Convention.  He was also concerned about humanitarian issues connected to landmines, cluster munitions, small arms and light weapons, and China supported effective measures on those arms.  In closing, he said that peace, development and cooperation had become the trend of the current times, and China, as the biggest developing country, was more and more closely connected with other countries.  He hoped that the country’s development would further promote international peace and security.

MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI ( Brazil) said that her country supported the Secretary-General’s initiative to revitalize the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda through a more consistent and focused effort.  His personal commitment in that regard, and the actions of the newly created Office for Disarmament Affairs could indeed provide the much needed leadership in support of the international community’s efforts to overcome the current deadlocks.  There had been a gradual, yet steadfast, deterioration of the multilateral disarmament machinery.  Successive setbacks and stalemates demonstrated the lack of common ground and an increasing tendency towards the non-fulfilment of commitments and obligations undertaken under the relevant international legally binding instruments.  The lack of substantive progress in the arms control field, however, should not lead into hopelessness or apathy, but rather should serve as a call to renewed action.  The task at hand was to conceive new initiatives that might coalesce into practical, achievable recommendations and set the ground for the emergence of a more favourable international scenario.

She said that the Non-Proliferation Treaty remained a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the essential instrument for the implementation of nuclear disarmament, and guarantee of States’ rights to the development of nuclear energy applications for peaceful purposes.  Brazil could not hide the disappointment, or avoid the perception, that the promise made by the nuclear-weapon-States towards nuclear disarmament had fallen short of expectations.  The modest achievements in reducing nuclear arsenals had a precarious basis, as they had not been the result of multilaterally negotiated, irreversible and verifiable agreements, and thus could easily be “rolled back”.  Moreover, there seemed to be no sense of urgency regarding the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.  Brazil, along with the overwhelming majority of Non-Proliferation Treaty States parties, deemed the entry into force of the Test-Ban Treaty as an essential step toward nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  The longer the Treaty remained ineffective, the more detrimental that situation became to non-proliferation efforts.

Nuclear-weapon-free zones had a major significance in promoting nuclear disarmament and preventing nuclear weapon proliferation, she went on.  On the understanding that such zones enhanced peace and security at the regional and global levels, Brazil, together with New Zealand, would this year submit a draft resolution on the issue of a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.

MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) said the international community continued to experience a difficult historical era in the field of disarmament.  There had been “a retreat with regard to both objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation” last year, with only one nuclear-weapon State taking significant steps on disarmament, while other States developed, or increased, their nuclear arsenals.  On disarmament, there had been an emphasis on preventing non-nuclear-weapon States from pursuing their “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear activity.  At the same time, there had been “dangerous” efforts to avoid pressuring non-member States to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

He said that Egypt, together with the Non-Aligned Movement, continued to work towards the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament.  He lamented the failure of the Millennium Summit in 2005, saying the greatest danger threatening the purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was the threat of amending the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow members to cooperate with “non-NPT” States.  Nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East was particularly important, and towards that goal, Egypt annually presented a resolution on “establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East”, and, together with the Arab League, a resolution on “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.  

It was vital to push for the implementation of the outcome of the 1995 Review Conference on the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, together with the 13 practical Steps towards nuclear disarmament adopted in 2000.  Egypt planned to present a new draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of disarmament commitments”. Egypt also supported the efforts of the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty.  Combating and preventing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons was another important goal, which all States needed to address.  Egypt was also actively monitoring developments relating to an arms trade treaty.  The Secretary-General had attached particular importance to activating the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, and towards that end it had been vital to restructure the Department for Disarmament Affairs.  On the whole, the work of the First Committee must be guided by a “new constructive spirit”, which would reflect the responsibility of Governments towards the security and stability of their peoples.

ABDUL RAZAK ( Malaysia), associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and with the statement to be made on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said that progress made on non-proliferation had not been matched by parallel commitments on disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament.  In fact, certain States were adding to their arsenals, and attention had been focused mainly on non-proliferation.  Both issues needed to be addressed, in parallel; otherwise, the confidence of non-nuclear-weapon States would be undermined, as they moved towards the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  Nuclear-weapon States should demonstrate political will on disarmament.  At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, States had promised to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, under article VI of the Treaty.

Emphasizing the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said that Malaysia had signed the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone on 15 December 1995, and he called on all nuclear-weapon States to join.  Unfortunately, a nuclear-weapon-free zone had yet to be established in the Middle East, and he called on Israel, the only non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the Middle East, to accede to the Treaty.  Upon Israel’s accession to the Treaty, Malaysia would call on nuclear-weapon States to halt the transfer of nuclear weapons, materials and technology to Israel.  Only developing non-nuclear-weapon States that had foresworn nuclear weapons deserved to be accorded preferential treatment when it came to access to nuclear equipment.  Further, Malaysia urged the three non-signatory States to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to accede to the Treaty.  The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only guarantee against their use or threat of use.

He said that Malaysia completed the destruction of its anti-personnel mines on 23 January 2001, and it supported international and humanitarian efforts to ban mines.  He called on countries in the region to join the Ottawa Convention.  Malaysia also supported efforts to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, and had itself established strict domestic laws on the production, import, transits and retransfers of such weapons.  He congratulated the Committee Chairman on his election, and stressed Malaysia’s willingness to work towards a “positive and successful outcome” on the present session, in the hope of contributing to the achievement of general and complete disarmament.

SUMIO TARUI ( Japan) said that after some disappointing years, the field of disarmament and non-proliferation had finally come “into bud”; the tide seemed to have changed in favour of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Last December, the sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention concluded successfully, with agreement on a number of substantial issues, including the intersessional activities and the establishment of the Implementation Support Unit.  The momentum developed in the Conference on Disarmament last year was further intensified this year, when the Conference came close to reaching consensus on its programme of work.  That body must quickly adopt its programme of work and start negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, once it reconvened in 2008, in order to regain its original mandate as a single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.

He welcomed agreement on the establishment next year of a group of governmental experts meeting on an arms trade treaty.  The uncontrolled spread of conventional arms was resulting in many victims.  An arms trade treaty would ensure the responsible transfer of conventional weapons, and prevent the fatalities caused by illicit conventional weapons.  While welcoming the recent progress achieved by the six-party talks, Japan strongly urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply promptly with the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 1718 (2006), and appealed to Member States to fully implement its provisions.  Japan continued to work actively towards a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue, within the framework of the six-party talks.  As for Iran’s nuclear issue, Japan hoped that that country would sincerely cooperate with the IAEA, in order to resolve outstanding issues.   Iran should also make further efforts to restore the confidence of the international community by responding sincerely to the requirements set forth by the IAEA Board of Governors and the relevant Security Council resolutions, without further delay.

The ever-increasing demand for nuclear energy, due to global warming and global energy security needs, required that both the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the prevention of proliferation be addressed, he continued.  One way to meet both requirements was to assure nuclear fuel supply.  A number of proposals, including one by Japan, had been presented, and the IAEA Director-General had submitted a report based on those proposals in June.   Japan would continue to take an active part in and looked forward to substantive discussions at the Agency.

KARE AAS, Director-General of the Department for Security Policy and the High North Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said Norway’s two overarching priorities were reducing nuclear dangers and reducing the suffering inflicted by illicit or inhumane conventional weapons.  It was important to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, reduce the number of nuclear arsenals, and ensure that the expansion of nuclear energy was not at the expense of the non-proliferation regime or international peace and security.  While Norway welcomed reductions in nuclear arsenals and hoped that the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, Strategic Arms Restriction Treaty (START) and the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) treaties would be strengthened following their respective expiration dates, it was important not to abandon the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.

He urged the nuclear-weapon States to consider legal bans on nuclear testing and the production of weapon-grade fissile material.  At the same time, non-nuclear-weapon States should play an active role in disarmament, and he pointed to Norway’s role in funding the dismantling of nuclear submarines and securing nuclear and radioactive materials.  He called on non-nuclear-weapon States to ratify the IAEA Additional Protocol, to address regional security concerns, and to work with nuclear-weapon States to promote transparency.  It was important to be vigilant against terrorists and to take preventive measures against nuclear terrorism.  He called for cooperative international arrangements for the supply of nuclear fuel, adding that “the right to peaceful use of nuclear technology can be realized without establishing facilities for fuel production”.  The challenge was to develop a secure, reliable and affordable system for the supply of nuclear fuel, and he supported the efforts of the IAEA in that regard.

He stressed the need to prevent innocent civilians from illicit and inhumane conventional weapons, an issue of particular relevance to Africa.  He hoped for the prohibition of cluster munitions, and repeated Norway’s support for a legally binding arms trade treaty.  Further, he welcomed the prospect of a denuclearized Korean peninsula, which showed what “diplomacy at its best” could achieve.  Meanwhile, “key outstanding questions” about Iran’s nuclear activities had to be answered, and he pointed to the role the United Nations could play in finding diplomatic solutions to those problems.  He spoke about the importance of the seven-nation initiative (Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Norway, Romania, South Africa, United Kingdom), which had established consensus on a number of disarmament and non-proliferation issues, stressing that “persistent and well-informed partnership” was essential to meet the challenges of disarmament.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record