CD/PV.1346
Conference on Disarmament English
Final record of the one thousand three hundred and forty-sixth plenary meeting Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, at 10.50 a.m. President: Mr. Vaanchig Purevdorj ...... (Mongolia)
GE.16-08393 (E) 310516 010616 CD/PV.1346
The President: I call to order the 1346th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. Allow me at this stage to suspend this meeting so I may get to the Salon Franҫais to welcome our first guest for this morning, Mr. Erlan Idrissov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan. The meeting was briefly suspended. The President: This meeting is resumed. I would like now to extend a warm welcome to our guest of today, Mr. Erlan Idrissov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan. Thank you for addressing the Conference on Disarmament. I have the pleasure and honour to invite Mr. Idrissov to take the floor. Mr. Idrissov (Kazakhstan): I understand that I am the first speaker, so I will try to make a very nice awakening for you this morning. This body is very important, and sometimes we need some impetus to wake us up, so I am trying to do this today. Mr. President, let me first of all congratulate you on taking this important position. We wish you every success. We know the challenges, therefore we are here, so I wish you every success, and I would like to commend the efforts of your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Mexico, who tried to really make a very serious attempt to deliver something on the work programme. So we hope that our deliberations will be successful. Let me remind you of the words of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary- General, in his message to the Conference. He clearly said that this forum was established in order to conduct negotiations, not discussions, and the only measure of success is to conclude agreements in the field of disarmament. We fully agree with these words. Our inability to start substantive and successful negotiations on the key matters on our agenda year after year is simply intolerable, and this calls for the most serious attention and action on the part of all of us. We should be absolutely sincere to ourselves in recognizing this. But we also know from history that if we want, and if we genuinely work together, we can achieve progress and success. This forum has great potential and can make a significant contribution to the process of disarmament. In this regard I would like to express my hope that member parties will demonstrate their political will to overcome divisions in order to start the practical work of the Conference. Today the world unfortunately is experiencing a major transformation. We are witnessing growing friction between major Powers over so-called zones of influence, markets, control over energy and resources and their transportation. This growing instability can lead to conflicts, and is already leading to conflicts, and fosters a dangerous trend where States use power rather than diplomacy in world politics. As a result this can lead to an arms race, as well as the use of military force and other forms of coercion when protecting national interests. The Republic of Kazakhstan considers the Conference on Disarmament as an indispensable multilateral negotiating forum in the area of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. As we have repeatedly stated before, changing the rules of procedure or trying to undermine the agreed rules and procedures just for the sake of adopting the work programme as early as possible is not acceptable. The basic principle of consensus which underlies the workings of the Conference must remain unaltered. This principle has for many years served the interests of States regardless of their size. Consensus is at the core of the Conference and is essential to ensure universal agreement.
2 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
At the same time we also welcome the increase in the membership of the Conference on Disarmament. Increasing the number of member States that can genuinely engage in the process of disarmament will add a new impetus to the whole Conference. When it comes to the participation of civil society in the deliberations of the Conference, we, as a matter of principle, support their participation and engagement. However, we believe that this issue requires a balanced approach, a measured approach. NGOs should be able to attend the meetings of the Conference as observers and find their own ways of delivering their expert opinions. However, we believe that NGOs should not directly interfere with the work of the Conference. It is States that are represented at the Conference, where they conduct negotiations on issues directly affecting their national interests. Unfortunately, I must note that the Conference on Disarmament has been unable to conduct any substantive negotiations on disarmament since the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We welcome the efforts to revive the activities of the Conference, including the establishment of an informal working group in the framework of the work programme. Key issues on the agenda for us, as we hope for many, if not all, are nuclear disarmament through the adoption of a legally binding, non-discriminatory and universal instrument, the development and signing of a fissile material cut-off treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances to States that do not possess any nuclear weapons. It is important to start negotiations on all four key issues which I just mentioned a moment ago. We believe that these negotiations and actions should be taken as soon as possible. Nuclear disarmament is one of the most important and pressing issues facing our planet today. The complexity of the issue requires that small but concrete steps should be taken to achieve the goal. My President proposed back in 2010 the adoption of a universal declaration of the United Nations on creating a world free from nuclear weapons. We believe, and hope, that this can be an important step towards adopting, towards our very ambitious dream of adopting, the convention on a complete and comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons which was proposed by Costa Rica and Malaysia. We support this, and we should take specific steps to achieve that very ambitious goal. It is time to stop talking and start acting by taking measures to remove nuclear stockpiles, including from those countries that are not party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Kazakhstan believes it is time to take early action on the fissile material cut-off treaty. The signing of this treaty will help minimize the possibility of development of illegitimate military nuclear programmes, significantly improve control over existing materials and reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. To facilitate this process we have supported the establishment of a group of governmental experts on preparing negotiations for the treaty. I am sure that their recommendations would serve as a benchmark for substantive negotiations on this treaty within the Conference. It is also vital to have further discussions on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space by involving other international bodies that engage in this matter. To facilitate the start of these negotiations, we support the draft treaty prepared by China and the Russian Federation on this matter. As you know, Kazakhstan voluntarily got rid of the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is also common knowledge that we are the home to Baikonur, the largest space launching site, which is making a major contribution to the peaceful use of outer space. We believe it is vital that a resolution calling for a ban on
GE.16-08393 3 CD/PV.1346
the placement of weapons in outer space should be adopted. This resolution is supported by as many as 126 States in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Having established a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, together with our neighbours, Kazakhstan also believes that it is necessary to start the development of an international legally binding instrument on the provision of security assurances to non- nuclear-weapon States by nuclear-armed countries. Only such a guarantee can discourage non-nuclear-weapon States from seeking nuclear weapons which they see as necessary for their own security. We have already achieved significant progress towards this ambition for our region. On 6 May last year, representatives of the five nuclear-weapon States — the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, China, the Russian Federation, the United States of America and France — signed a protocol to the Treaty of Semipalatinsk in New York. Kazakhstan, which occupied the Chair during this process, made every effort to encourage the signing of the protocol, which ensures that nuclear Powers are now committed not to use nuclear weapons against the five parties to the Treaty of Semipalatinsk. We would like to thank the Governments of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for ratifying the protocol, and we expect that the other three countries will do the same at the earliest. The Non-Proliferation Treaty still remains the cornerstone of international security, and this is recognized by everyone. The 2015 NPT Review Conference will mark the twentieth anniversary of the NPT’s indefinite extension agreed to in 1995. We call on all member States that have signed the Treaty to continue to pursue the challenging goals that lie ahead. Kazakhstan is concerned at the continued delays in progress towards establishing a Middle East zone free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as agreed upon during the 2010 NPT Review Conference. We strongly believe that the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is one of the most important conditions which must be met in order to achieve nuclear disarmament. The moratorium on nuclear testing announced by some nuclear-weapon States is a very positive step, but it is not an alternative to a legally binding document. A few days ago, Kazakhstan and Japan became co-chairs of the next conference to be held under article XIV of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It is a symbolic moment for us. This year the world will mark the seventieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings back in 1945. That was, of course, as we all know, one of the darkest pages in human history. Kazakhstan has also suffered terribly from the impact of nuclear weapons. As you know, during Soviet days the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site was the venue for more than 450 nuclear explosions. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution put forward by Kazakhstan back in 2009 to declare 29 August, the date of the official closing of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, as International Day Against Nuclear Tests. Owing to our shared history, Kazakhstan and Japan have a moral right to demand progress on a comprehensive nuclear test ban. We are determined to work together during our co-chairmanship to push for the ratification of this treaty. In support of our common efforts, Kazakhstan has initiated the ATOM project. ATOM stands for “Abolish Testing. Our Mission”. The objective of this initiative is to mobilize the international community to raise awareness of the nuclear threat and to press for action to end it. Already around 100,000 people from all over the world, from more than 100 countries, have signed the ATOM project’s online petition to global leaders demanding progress in the ratification of the Treaty.
4 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
We recognize the great importance of the process which began with the holding of conferences on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna. As a nation that has experienced the disastrous consequences of nuclear explosions, Kazakhstan fully supports this initiative and hopes that this effort will lead to a new and powerful impetus to our common efforts to complete the prohibition of nuclear tests and the eventual removal of these deadly weapons from our planet once and for all. Finding a compromise has never been an easy task, and requires political will. We are sure, nevertheless, that together we can make a significant contribution to our common goal of achieving and maintaining peace and prosperity for everyone on Earth. The President: I thank Minister Idrissov for his statement and also for his kind words addressed to the Chair. Allow me now to suspend the meeting in order to escort Minister Idrissov from the Council Chamber. The meeting was briefly suspended. The President: This plenary meeting is resumed. I would like now to welcome our guest Mr. Manuel González Sanz, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica. I thank you for addressing the Conference on Disarmament and have the pleasure and honour to invite you to take the floor. Mr. González Sanz (Costa Rica) (spoke in Spanish): Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me this opportunity to appear today before the Conference on Disarmament. Costa Rica is firmly committed to the international legal system and believes that international disarmament can be achieved through dialogue and the negotiation of legal instruments. It is therefore not only an honour but also an obligation for me to address the United Nations forum mandated to negotiate universal legally binding agreements. As you all know, Costa Rica is one of the observer States to this Conference and has been seeking admission as a full member since 1994. That is why I would like to begin my statement by thanking two delegations that, in good faith, have deployed tremendous efforts to make the expansion of the Conference a topic of discussion in this forum during the past few months. I am referring to Mexico, which attached particular importance to this issue during its presidency, and the Czech Republic, which, in recent years, has represented the 30 or so countries that have been lobbying to have a voice in this negotiating forum on a permanent basis. The rules of procedure of the Conference call for its membership to be reviewed periodically: this issue has now been pending before the Conference for more than 15 years. My country has sufficient credentials and, above all, the moral authority that comes with actually practising disarmament to become a member of this forum. Over 60 years ago Costa Rica took the decision to forswear arms and abolish its army, and to build its security and defence around dialogue and the international legal order. These decisions have not been without challenges, especially when some countries in our region have recently proceeded to acquire heavy military equipment unnecessarily. Costa Rica, therefore, has much to offer the Conference in the implementation of its agenda. As you will recall, just over a month ago, Ambassador Whyte presented, in this very chamber, the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention that my country and Malaysia submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2007. Total, complete and verifiable disarmament is our highest aspiration and for that reason our proposal still stands. Such a convention would prohibit the development, testing, manufacture, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. States that possess nuclear weapons would be obliged to destroy their arsenals in a phased process. The convention would also prohibit the production of fissile material. An international monitoring system would be set
GE.16-08393 5 CD/PV.1346
up to ensure compliance with the convention. The positive experiences of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons would be taken into account in this initiative. My country is proud to be part of a region that has a long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament. The signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967 led to the creation of the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a highly populated region. Almost half a century after this milestone was reached, however, the aspirations that we had 48 years ago remain unrealized. This is why, in August 2013, the States parties to this Treaty adopted a resolution on the urgent need to move towards total and complete nuclear disarmament, and why we strongly support the call to initiate a diplomatic process for negotiating an international legally binding instrument for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Last year, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) declared Latin America and the Caribbean to be a zone of peace. Costa Rica has just completed its term as president pro tempore of CELAC. On 29 January, the Community’s Heads of State and Government adopted a special declaration concerning the urgent need for a world free from nuclear weapons. The Political Declaration of Belén, Costa Rica, reaffirms our deepest concern over the threat posed to humanity by the existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use or the threat of their use. We reiterate our commitment to continue to promote nuclear disarmament and the pressing need to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons. We are convinced that the only effective guarantee against the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons is their complete prohibition and elimination. For three years, my country has been at the forefront of the discussion on the humanitarian impact of nuclear explosions in the preparatory meetings for the Non- Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the conferences in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna. In April 2012, we were part of a group of 16 countries that believed that humanitarian impact, and not only strategic security considerations, should prevail in the approach to nuclear disarmament. Today we are proud to have helped pave the way so that, in the space of only 30 months, a total of 155 countries have indicated that it is in the interest of humanity’s survival that nuclear weapons should never again be used under any circumstances, with the seventieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serving as a reminder of this. The conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons organized by Norway, Mexico and Austria have generated a renewed sense of commitment among the majority of States to take concrete action and revitalize nuclear disarmament efforts. We must seize this opportunity. The President of the conference held in Nayarit observed that prohibition has typically preceded elimination in the previous disarmament processes. It is for this reason that Costa Rica, in solidarity with the rest of the members of CELAC, supports the call to initiate a diplomatic process for negotiating an international legally binding instrument for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Costa Rica is ready to enter negotiations on such a treaty. Moreover, I reaffirm my country’s commitment to the Austrian Pledge, submitted to this Conference yesterday by Minister Sebastian Kurz of Austria, to identify and address the legal gap in respect of the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. On the subject of conventional weapons, it should be noted that, on 24 December 2014, the Arms Trade Treaty, of which Costa Rica is a co-author, entered into force. The path leading to its adoption was long and not without obstacles. However, we finally have a treaty and the international community has high expectations for the fulfilment of its objectives. We hope that the Treaty can contribute to providing an effective response to the serious consequences that trafficking and unregulated trade have for many people and
6 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
States, in particular when arms are diverted to non-State actors or unauthorized users, who often have links to transnational organized crime and drug trafficking. Disarmament is not only a matter between States: it has a profoundly human dimension, which makes it a priority for my country. We are proud to be a State party to and a stakeholder in the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, in the context of which we chaired the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which I have the honour of chairing currently. These conventions have the common objective of preventing and putting an end to the unnecessary suffering of the victims of this type of weapon. The humanitarian impact of mines and cluster munitions remains long after the end of the conflict. During the Costa Rican presidency of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, we have sought to promote the universal ratification of the Convention and set ourselves the goal of reaching the milestone of 100 States parties before the Review Conference in September. We have also highlighted the importance of promoting the standard on the non-use of these types of weapon, which has led us to condemn their use when it has occurred. Unfortunately, they have been used in the past and even this year in the Ukraine. I would like to finish as I started, with a request that my country’s voice, alongside that of other countries that have also requested to join the ranks of the member States of the Conference, be given a chance to be heard. The conventions negotiated in this chamber have universal scope. It is ironic and unjustifiable that a country that has achieved total disarmament and the ideals pursued by this Conference should not be one of its members. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak this morning. Thank you, Mr. President. The President: I thank Mr. González Sanz for his statement. Allow me now to suspend the meeting for a short moment to escort Minister González Sanz from the Council Chamber. The meeting was briefly suspended. The President: The plenary meeting is resumed. I would like now to invite our guest Mr. Cho Tae-yul, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea. Thank you for addressing the Conference on Disarmament. I have the pleasure and honour to invite Mr. Cho Tae-yul to take the floor. Mr. Cho Tae-yul (Republic of Korea): It is a great honour and privilege for me to address today the Conference on Disarmament, the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. In pursuit of the ideal of achieving peace and security through disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament has produced a series of landmark treaties that constitute the very foundation of international peace and security. As a member of the Conference on Disarmament since 1996, the Republic of Korea has rendered unwavering support to the work of the Conference, while actively participating in its deliberations. I deeply appreciate the ongoing efforts by the President of the Conference, the Ambassador of Mongolia, and the member States to put the Conference on Disarmament back to work, and wish you every success throughout the entire 2015 session. This spring, we are looking at a number of opportunities ahead in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. The nuclear talks between the five permanent members of the Security Council, Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran are on the final stretch. The kick-off meeting of the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification will take place in two weeks. The United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices will convene for its final session. And the States parties to the Nuclear
GE.16-08393 7 CD/PV.1346
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will discuss ways to reinforce the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime at the 2015 Review Conference. Although it would be naive for us to assume that everything will be on an even keel, potentially we can change the scene quite dramatically within a few weeks. But here is one thing to note — we do not see the Conference on Disarmament playing much of a role in any of these international efforts. The inconvenient truth we must squarely face is that the Conference on Disarmament has not delivered anything tangible for nearly two decades. First we called the situation a stalemate, then a deadlock. But when this continues we must admit that the very foundation of the forum will be called into question. It must be seen as a wake-up call for the entire membership. Here we might need to look outward: diverse alternative pathways towards disarmament negotiations are starting to emerge outside the Conference on Disarmament. We know of at least three successful cases — the Ottawa Convention, the Oslo Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty. As we are living in a hyperconnected new digital age where one can manufacture weapons with 3D printers and robots can choose their own targets, a concerned group of individuals can always create a new trend. The Conference on Disarmament cannot take its status as the sole multilateral negotiating forum for granted. Among the core issues of the Conference on Disarmament, the Republic of Korea believes that a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) stands out as ready for negotiations. The Conference on Disarmament has already created two stepping stones — the Shannon Mandate in 1995 and document CD/1864 in 2009. Yet it did not build upon the hard-won momentum. An FMCT will contribute not only to nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation, but also to the global nuclear security architecture. At this juncture, I would like to emphasize the important task entrusted to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on FMCT. Its consensus report will not only provide our future negotiations with useful guidance, but also carries the potential to work as a strong catalyst that drives the Conference on Disarmament forward. I sincerely hope that the work of the Group can provide the international community with fresh hope, positively influencing other forums as well. And we can initiate the change here in Geneva. The year 2015 has a special meaning for the international community as the year of the NPT Review Conference. In 2010, the Review Conference adopted a consensus action plan that contains a number of recommendations to the Conference on Disarmament as well. Aside from requesting the immediate commencement of FMCT negotiations, the action plan called for the establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament, and the immediate discussion of effective international arrangements on negative security assurances. It was a successful conference, filled with a spirit of cooperation. And the adoption of a programme of work in the Conference on Disarmament in 2009 added an extra push towards success in 2010. Now, the Conference on Disarmament can do the same. Progress in Geneva can again alter the whole calculus of the Review Conference in New York. In less than two months, many of the distinguished delegates represented here will be representing their Governments at the NPT Review Conference. At that juncture, a positive metamorphosis of the Conference on Disarmament inspired by progress on the FMCT front would be the best hope we can offer. The year 2015 marks the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, as well as the establishment of the United Nations. For the Korean people, that means the unexpected and unwanted division of the Korean peninsula has also lasted for 70 years. There are stark differences between the two Koreas in almost every area imaginable:
8 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
political system, economic performance and the degree of freedom and dignity that their people enjoy. But perhaps the most fundamental difference is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is developing a programme of weapons of mass destruction, in defiance of the most basic obligation for any United Nations Member State, that is, to be a peace- loving country. The North Korean nuclear issue presents a serious threat to the international non- proliferation regime. The complete resolution of this issue is important, not only for the maintenance of peace and security in North-East Asia, but also for the credibility of the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime. In order to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, we are continuing various efforts for complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization through dialogue and negotiations based on close cooperation with the participating States in the Six-Party Talks, as well as the international community. The international community has been clear and consistent in its position that North Korea must abandon its nuclear programme and cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State. We hope that North Korea will promptly return to meaningful negotiations on denuclearization with a sincere attitude in response to the repeated calls from the international community. Yesterday, the North Korean Foreign Minister addressed this Conference. Although I do appreciate such efforts to explain its views, it is unclear to me whether North Korea has chosen the right forum. This Conference is created to achieve peace through disarmament, not armament. Especially regarding their claim for the status of a nuclear-weapon State, let me simply cite a legal maxim: ex injuria jus non oritur, which means unjust acts cannot create law. The international community will never grant any status whatsoever to the country known for the most blatant case of nuclear proliferation. And it is not without a certain sense of irony that we hear a State which poses a clear and existing nuclear threat calling an annual defensive exercise a “nuclear war exercise” against itself. Historically, North Korea took short-lived but strategic decisions twice in the past — first in the 1970s, in the midst of East-West détente; second in the early 1990s, after the end of the cold war. This means that opportunities for substantial change in inter-Korean relations have arrived on the Korean peninsula almost every two decades. Now, some 20 years after the end of the cold war and at another time of tectonic shift in regional geopolitics, it is time for North Korea to take another strategic decision, difficult as it may be. We will see whether North Korea is wise and courageous enough to do so. Mr. President, it is almost two decades since the Conference on Disarmament produced outcomes from negotiations, and even the most optimistic of our colleagues somehow seem to be getting used to the current situation. I see in your eyes the same doubts and concerns that I feel as well, that we may be tacitly accepting the current deadlock as something unavoidable with no way to break through. But let us start precisely from that point. Now is the time to move forward. Our limited membership is a privilege, and the responsibility attached to the membership demands our joint action. We need to embark on joint endeavours towards the start of substantive work immediately. It is possible that our efforts may fail, and that this forum may lose its relevance and cease to exist, but not today. As long as we have the swords and spears to beat into ploughshares and pruning hooks, our choice should be to move forward with a joint political will, against all odds. Our past achievements will be truly meaningful when they
GE.16-08393 9 CD/PV.1346
remind us that we can advance further. Let us prove that peace will never be achieved through a clash of arms. The President: I thank Vice-Minister Mr. Cho Tae-yul for his statement and also for his kind words addressed to the Chair. Allow me now to suspend the meeting for a short moment to escort Mr. Cho Tae-yul from the Council Chamber. The meeting was briefly suspended. The President: The plenary is resumed. I would like now to welcome our guest Mr. Edgars Rinkevics, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Latvia. Thank you for addressing the Conference on Disarmament. I have the pleasure and honour to invite you to take the floor. Mr. Rinkevics (Latvia): It is my pleasure to have this opportunity to address the Conference on Disarmament today. Allow me first to express our appreciation to the six delegations taking up the presidency of the Conference and wish them every success in fulfilling this important and highly demanding task. My delegation’s full support also goes to the Acting Secretary-General and his team. Latvia aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union on 20 January and endorses the efforts of the European Union in the field of disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as well as science and technology. I would like to add the following points in a national capacity. Latvia is committed to effective multilateral arms control, and in this regard the United Nations disarmament machinery holds a crucial and unique role. The global community is still faced with various security challenges that should be addressed in a multilateral and efficient way. Therefore, Latvia is concerned at the lack of progress and stalemate for more than a decade in the Conference on Disarmament. Latvia believes that the Conference is the main international body for negotiations. It is precisely due to the immense and fruitful work done in the past in the Conference and its predecessor bodies that today we have a number of important arms control treaties at our disposal. These include the Biological Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In April this year we will be commemorating 100 years since the first large-scale deployment of chemical weapons in Ieper, Belgium. Today we have a successful convention — the Chemical Weapons Convention — which eliminates a whole category of weapons of mass destruction. This important convention was also negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. It is important to remember that some progress has been achieved on disarmament issues during 2014. Discussions in the informal working group have highlighted the will of members of the Conference to revitalize this body, despite the fact that the programme of work for the Conference was not adopted. Latvia believes that there is an opportunity to build on these achievements. As for other positive developments, the year 2014 marked the adoption of the landmark Arms Trade Treaty and the signing of the Protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia. At the same time, however, fundamental changes have taken place in Europe. Some countries believe that the international order can be overturned and that agreements can be torn up at will. I am referring to the Budapest Memorandum and the concept of territorial integrity. It is deeply worrying that the efforts of Ukraine in strengthening the NPT by abandoning its nuclear arsenal and acceding to the Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State have been mistreated and exploited in a most unacceptable way. I hope that this will not set a dangerous precedent. Such actions erode the level of trust and undermine nuclear non-
10 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
proliferation efforts. I firmly believe in diplomatic and political approaches. We must do our best to restore confidence. I hope that one of the most important events in arms control in 2015, the Review Conference of the NPT in New York, will be successful, and I would encourage everyone to work towards this. While some concerns regarding the Review Conference are already appearing on the horizon, I would like to highlight some positive signs. Firstly, the NPT still fulfils its role as the only comprehensive nuclear non- proliferation regime. We are still guided by its provisions in all three pillars. Secondly, there are ongoing developments regarding the NPT’s disarmament pillar, such as the New START Treaty, or the announcement by the United Kingdom on the completion of the reduction of nuclear weapons capabilities. I would also like to highlight the efforts by the United States, together with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, to form an international partnership on nuclear disarmament verification. Along with unilateral and bilateral initiatives, the five NPT nuclear-weapon States are engaged in the process, which I believe to be reassuring for the non-nuclear members of the NPT. Just last month the five States held a conference, and their joint statement highlighted the fact that multilateral nuclear disarmament is high on their agenda. The statement also pointed out that nuclear-weapon States are aware of the severe consequences of the possible use of nuclear weapons, which motivates them to prevent such possible use. This is an important message to convey to those who believe that nuclear-weapon States are unaware of the humanitarian consequences. Latvia believes that the will to work towards progress in all three pillars of the NPT has been continuously shown by the majority of member States. The success of the Review Conference will depend on us, the members of the NPT. It will depend on our will to negotiate in good faith and to reach compromises. The 2010 Review Conference, through the adoption of a comprehensive, balanced and substantive action plan, highlighted the fact that members of the NPT are able to agree on common goals. The basis for consensus — the 2010 action plan — is still valid, and Latvia urges NPT members not to sideline or overshadow the action plan. Its goals are still relevant and can only be achieved through its comprehensive implementation. We urge States to continue building on the achievements made so far through the implementation of the action plan, whether or not these achievements are seen as being satisfactory. I would like to use this opportunity to underline the importance of treaties complementary to the NPT. Latvia supports the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material. But it also places particular importance on the prompt entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. In this regard, I would like to commend the efforts made by the United States Government in promoting the ratification of the Treaty in the United States Senate. Latvia hopes that the remaining Annex 2 countries, upon which the entry into force of the Treaty depends, will do their utmost to facilitate its entry into force. The trust that Latvia has placed in the Conference on Disarmament is best demonstrated by our application for membership of the Conference in 2004. We have become one of 27 States which, through their endeavour to join the Conference, have continuously given credibility to the Conference as the main international body for negotiations on disarmament. We welcome the recent discussions on the issue of the expansion of the Conference. We believe that a consensus can be reached regarding the appointment of a special coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference.
GE.16-08393 11 CD/PV.1346
Latvia believes it is important to continue consultations on the expansion of the membership of the Conference. Universalization is an important part of the process of adapting the Conference to the new and changing international security environment. The President: I thank Minister Rinkevics for his statement and also for his kind words addressed to the President. Allow me now to suspend the meeting to escort Minister Rinkevics from the Council Chamber. The meeting was briefly suspended. The President: The plenary meeting is resumed. We have exhausted the list of dignitaries speaking at the high-level segment for this morning. Now I would like to ask: would any other delegation like to take the floor? I recognize the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Mr. Kim Chang Min (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): I have requested the floor to exercise the right of reply to the statement of the South Korean Vice-Minister delivered this morning. As a fellow countryman, while listening to the statement of the South Korean Vice- Minister I felt very disappointed that he tried to deliberately distort the reality and essence of the nuclear issue in his statement on the Korean Peninsula. Let me make it clear that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula originates from the decades-long United States nuclear threat against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Therefore, this issue should be settled between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States. The Vice-Minister said many things about the security of the Korean Peninsula. Yes, the prevailing situation on the Korean Peninsula is very tense: a fragile peace on the verge of disruption at any moment. At this very moment, large-scale military exercises involving tens of thousands of foreign troops are being staged in the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. As far as the security issue on the Korean Peninsula is concerned, South Korea has no say in this matter. South Korea is unable to exercise the elementary right to sovereignty as it has no right to command wartime operations. The right to command the armed forces in South Korea has been exercised by the United States all along since the South Korean army was organized. The current South Korean authorities even implored the United States to extend this right, which had been scheduled to be transferred to South Korea by 2015, to the period after 2020. As is well known, the Korean Peninsula remains the last relic of the cold war. Seventy years have passed since this division which was imposed by outside forces. For the last seven decades, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been making untiring efforts, leaving no stone unturned, with the hope of achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula through direct talks with the United States. However, the United States turned away from our repeated proposals; on the contrary, the United States seeks to keep the situation on the Korean Peninsula ever tense and maintain the pretext for an arms build-up in the Asia-Pacific region. The President: I thank the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for his statement. I recognize the representative of the Republic of Korea. Mr. Park Young-hyo (Republic of Korea): The Conference on Disarmament session this week is dedicated to the high-level segment, which should contribute to promoting multilateralism and strengthening the rule of law in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. However, regretfully my delegation has requested the floor to speak in response to the preposterous North Korean argument, which is contrary to the proposed intent of this segment.
12 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
North Korea has a history of blaming others for its illicit activities and provocations. Needless to say, tension in the region has its roots in continued missile launches and nuclear tests by North Korea. It is a flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions which prohibit any launch using ballistic missile technology and nuclear programmes. Once again, I would like to draw your attention to the joint exercises of the Republic of Korea and the United States, which are defence-oriented, transparent in nature and conducted in accordance with international law, as a response to the clear and current military threat from North Korea. Regarding the North Korean proposal, as is well known, the nuclear test by North Korea is an illegal act under international law according to a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions. North Korea has already committed to not carrying out further nuclear tests, in line with the joint statement of 19 September 2005. A nuclear test is something North Korea has the obligation to refrain from conducting. It is not something that can be put forward as a conditional bargaining chip. In his statement yesterday, the North Korean Foreign Minister mentioned the power of nuclear deterrence and a pre-emptive strike against any of the Conference members on the other side of the ocean. This means that we should be more concerned about this ever- advancing nuclear and ballistic missile programme. The President: I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea. I now give the floor to the Ambassador of the United States of America. Mr. Wood (United States of America): Mr. President, I apologize for taking the floor, but I would like to respond to some remarks that were made by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I am not going to respond to the issue of the joint military exercises. I think I did that in detail yesterday. But let me just outline very clearly that the paramount goal of United States policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been and remains the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. My President and Secretary of State Kerry have said that North Korea has a choice to make. It has an option that will end its isolation, but to do that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has to make a real choice to take irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. It must demonstrate a willingness to come into compliance with its international obligations, and we continue to offer the opportunity for meaningful engagement and an improved relationship. But, frankly, the onus is on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take meaningful actions towards denuclearization and to refrain from these unfortunate provocations. The President: I thank the Ambassador of the United States of America for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Mr. Jo Chol Su (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): Thank you, Mr. President, for giving my delegation a second opportunity to exercise the right of reply. I do not feel any necessity at all to respond to the South Korean delegation’s remarks, as they are not worthy of even passing note. I rather take this opportunity to make clear once again the position of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in response to the views expressed by the United States delegation just now and some other countries yesterday. The efforts of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea aimed at securing lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula went through three distinct phases. In the
GE.16-08393 13 CD/PV.1346
first phase of its efforts, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea endeavoured to establish a nuclear-free zone through peaceful dialogue and negotiations. As early as 1959, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proposed an atomic-weapon-free peace zone to be set up in Asia. However, the United States turned a blind eye to our efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and posed an increasing nuclear threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In the second phase of its efforts, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea endeavoured to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by the United States by relying on international law. As is well known, in 1978 the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, the depositaries of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), announced in a statement on negative security assurances that they would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States that were parties to the NPT. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea acceded to the NPT in December 1985 with the expectation that this would help remove the nuclear threat posed by the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. However, the United States openly threatened the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with nuclear weapons by staging a series of joint military exercises with South Korea on the Korean Peninsula. The Bush Administration listed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as part of the “axis of evil” in its State of the Union address in 2002, and included the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on a list of targets for nuclear pre-emptive strikes in its Nuclear Posture Review. It endangered the security of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the extreme calamity of a nuclear war loomed large in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was clear at this point that all our efforts, be it through dialogue or reliance on international law, including the NPT, had failed. The unique conditions of the Korean Peninsula called for a unique solution. The only choice left for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was to counter the threat of nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. In short, the extremely clear threat posed by the United States relentlessly forced the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to go nuclear. Thanks to the efforts of deterrence resulting from possession of nuclear weapons by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula was considerably reduced. This is our current effort, that is, the effort to remove the nuclear threat by countering United States nuclear weapons with our own nuclear weapons instead of a mere verbal appeal. The President: I thank the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for his statement. I now give the floor to the Ambassador of the United States of America. Mr. Wood (United States of America): I apologize for taking the floor for a second time, Mr. President, but I promise you I will be very, very brief. Let me just make very clear to all of our colleagues in the room that the United States poses absolutely no threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. North Korea is isolated. It knows it is isolated. It knows what it needs to do to get back into the good graces of the international community. It needs to take the steps that I just outlined a bit earlier, if we are ever going to be able to deal with this issue in an acceptable manner. So, I would just again call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to do what it needs to do: come into compliance with its international obligations so that we can move forward. The President: I thank the Ambassador of the United States of America for his statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea.
14 GE.16-08393 CD/PV.1346
Mr. Park Young-hyo (Republic of Korea): Mr. President, I apologize for taking the floor again. I do not feel any necessity to respond word for word to the statement by our North Korean colleague. In order for any meaningful negotiation to resume, it is imperative that North Korea first demonstrate sincerity towards denuclearization by fully complying with its previously agreed commitments. If North Korea makes a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear programme, we are prepared to fully cooperate with the international community to help North Korea participate in the global economy and develop peacefully. It is our firm hope that North Korea will move in this direction. Denuclearization is not made by words but by action. I hope the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will stick to the spirit of the Conference on Disarmament as a member of this august body for disarmament. The President: I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea for his statement. Would any other delegation like to take the floor? That does not seem to be the case. This concludes our business for this morning. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held this afternoon at 3 p.m., when we will hear addresses from the dignitaries of Ireland, Italy and Chile. The meeting rose at 12.10 p.m.
GE.16-08393 15