New York Official Records VERBATIM RFL0RD OFTHE 23rd MEETING I Chairman% Mr. MFSHHADI (Islamic Republic of Iran! (Vice-Chairman) aNTENTS General debate (continued) , ., . MLT/rae A/C. 1/44/PV. 23 2 In the aberncr of the Chairman, Mr. Mashhadi (Islamic Republic of Iran), Vice-Cha irman, took the Chair . The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p .m. AGEmA ITmS 49 X) 69 AND 151 (continued) GENERAL DEBATB Mr. INSANALLY (Guyana) 8 If we have sought to speak in thicr dehate, 1 k ia not because of any particular expertiae in disarmament matter8 but rather hecauas of a determination to aeaert the interest of! a emall country such au mine in thio vi ta1 quee tion. As hae been so aptly eaid, disarmament is too important a auhject to he left to the nuclear Powetsr it must he the concern of all States, irrespective of their eize. We would therefore wiah to be heard cn thoRe isauc~ affecting our welfare and to ensure that our security ~FI not held hoataqe to the military aupeciority of othero. Ist me say at the outnet that notwithRtandinq our unfailinq support of the disarmament proceae, global stability can heat be achieved hy the collective system envisaged in the Charter of the United NationsI. Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Charter clearly s tipula teFi that the wor Id Otganiza tion should he a centre for hacmonixing the actions of nationfi in the attainment of their common ends. That responsibility is only proper .since the United Naticne, based aR it is on the tlemocratic principle of the ecu~lity of Statea, is ideally suited to the Lwk. ‘I t s role in the field of di,sarmament mCLst therefore be paramount if gcnuiw and 1a:;I:inq proqreas is to he made towards a regime of peace and aecur i ty. This concept of collective secuei ty, as delineated in the Charter, is w)t restricted to disarmament. It is premised rather on the establishment OE .TI universal and comcreheneive peace which encompasfles every facet of mankind’:1 exi.stence. We should therefore he cnmmittinl: a qrave error were we to look at Pht? i.qnue of security through the narrow pri.sm of diRarmanu?nt. Glohnl wcur 1 ty cannot: MLT/r as A/C. 1/44/W. 23 3 (Mr. Insanally, Guyana) be judged from the level of possession of armaments of death and drrtruction but rather from the political , economic and social equilibrium whioh oan be aohieved in in terna tional rela tione. Thus, while the arma race may be both a oauae and a ooneequenoe of prevailing insecurity , there are other non-military threat6 to world PMCO and eeourity such ZIR Poverty, diseaee, druga and environmental degradl\tion which, though perhaps not af3 alarming as nuclear war, are potentially just aa explosive and deatructiveo Even the nuclear States are not immune to their ravage8 and oan wither away and die BFI easily as the smalleet State. The time hse therefore con to realaetxf Our approach to the question of diaarmament to see why it has thus far failed to produce siqni f ican t results! ta see whether, as the Frenoh would say, the 9am is in fact worth the candle. It will be quiakly realized, we feel, that dirarmament cannot occur in a vacuuml ite eucceee requiree an interns tional environm9nt in which d sense of aecur i ty prevails. To appreciate the complex and complicated nature of the problem, one has only to read any recent sttiy on the interrelation of ieeuee an the global agenda. One Ruth report, “Our Conmron Future”, published two yeare ago by the World Conariesion on KnvironKen t and Development, in concluding that the poeeibility of a nUCleaC war was one of the greatest dangers facing the environment, advocated a multilateral endeavour to minimize the risk of such a catastrophe. It may he apposite to quote here the obaervation made in the repart in this tonne ct ion I “The exintence of nuclear weapons and the destructive potential inherent in the velocity md intensity of lmdern conventional warfare ha& given rise to a new understanding of the requirements for security amonq nations. In the nucl ear age, nations can no longer obtain Recur i ty at each other ‘s expense. ‘rtley must seek security through weperation, agreements and mutual restraint1 I MLT/r a8 A/C. 1/44/PV. 23 4 (Mr, Insanally, Guyana) I they mUi t seek common eecuri ty. Hence interdependence, which is a0 fundamental in the rdalm of environment and ecanomicfl, is a fact alao in the sphere of armfi -competition and military security. Interdependence has become a compelling fact, forcing nations to reconcile their approach to ‘security ‘.‘I (A/ 42/ 427, p* 290) Just ata persuasive are the findings and conclusiane of the Group of Consultant aperts on the climatic md other global effects of nuclear war, which were presented to the General Aseembly 1aRt year. That report. should dispel once and for all whatever illue ions we mey have had on the value of nuclear wsapons. The many consequence8 of nuclear testing could be truly devastating. In the event of an actual exchange, the recovery of the planet, even in the long term, would be highly uncertain, 80 that wnile today we struggle to preserve the environment for sustainable development, with the existence of nuclear weapona we run the risk scCner or later of destroying the planet. It ie most aaauredly this latter realiza tion that has impelled the two super-Powers - the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - to reach aqreelrent nn limitiny their intermediate nuclear forces and now to search for other arean of weapons reduction. It is devoutly to he hoped that their continuing bltateral arms neqotiations will soon lead tn agreement on a 50 per cent reduction in their strategic nuclear arsenals. We must, however, urge the IJni ted States and the Union oE Soviet %ciali.st Republics tc qo even further and translate their --entente into epacific action which would allow disarmament to spread even further. Their co-operation could he epitcmized by concluding, at the Conference on Di!~armament in Geneva, work on the chemical weapons convention1 by pursuinq, with a eense 0 f utqency, a comprehensive test-han treaty a.4 the hiqhest priority Step towards nuclear diearmament and by hreaklnq the impasse cn those issues within the MLT/r a8 A/C. l/ 44/Pv. 23 5 (Mt. Insanally, Guyana) Conference on Diaarrmrrnent upon which no negotiating mmdatee have been agreed in terma of the setting up of ad hoc bodies. It ie at the same time regrettable that while nuclear Statea mny be prepared to abandon co-called obeolete weapons eye teme, many are still in active pureuit of the qualitative improvements of armamenta and the development of new syrtrm through the application of technological innovations to military purpoaee, The OreatiOn Of more eoghieticated armaments oan have a potentially deetabilising impaat on the sepuri ty environment and thus represents a ma jar challenge to the oauae of dirarmament. General Aeeent,ly reeolution 43/77 A, which we eupportad lart year, alluded to such a danger. More and more, technologiaal developmntr rapidly outstrip the paae of arme negotiationa, therehy render inq meaninglea@ whatever proqreee might be made in arms limita tion. We therefore eaho the call mnde by the Foreign Ministers of the members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countriea at their meting in Harare last May, for a curb on the development of a new generation Of weapon8 and for global measures to ensure that ecientific and teohnologiaal achievements be applied exclusively to peaceful enda. We are also concerned at the lack of progreee on the oompreheneive teat-ban treaty. It ie naw more than a quarter of a century since the three par tie8 to the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Teats in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (partial test-ban Trenty) stated their intention of: “Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all tima ,. “, Although this resolve was reaffirmed in the preamble to the Treaty on the Non-Prolifsra tion of Nuclear Weapons, the pace of United Ski teS-Soviet bilateral negotiations on nuclear testing would seem to suggest that the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban remains a distant goal. At the mu1 tila ter al level, the Conference on Disarmament haa not even established a workinq group or an ad hoc MLT/r aa A/C. 1/44/PV, 23 5 (a-a) (Mr. Ineanally, Guyana) committee, mrch leas oanducted negotiation8 an this ireue. Beaause we regard a comprehensive test-ban treaty ata the highest priority, we whole-heartedly support the ammdrmnt Conference on the partial teat-ban Treaty to be held next year. It ie our expeotation that thir Conference will serve aa a catalyst for advanaing discussions in the right direction. EH/edd A/C.1/4d/PV.23 6 (Mr. Insanally, Guyana) We are eaually worried by the continuing trend of nuclear proliferation. With the accelerated race to join the nuclear consortium, the danger of further eroelon of the nuclear non-proliferation reginre is considerably heightensd. In this context we eeriouely advocate the establishment, wherever feasible, of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Such zones, we believe, help to deter the spread of nuclear weapons and prorote wider nuclear disarmament. With that in mind my delegation last year supported resolution 43/62 on the Treaty of Tlatelolco, despite the Treaty’s exclu&‘ionary clause in article 25, paragraph 2.