GA/DIS/3187

FIRST COMMITTEE HEARS INTRODUCTION OF SEVEN ADDITIONAL DRAFT RESOLUTIONS; WILL BEGIN ACTING ON DISARMAMENT TEXTS 25 OCTOBER

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard the introduction of seven draft resolutions today, including texts on nuclear disarmament and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, as it concluded the second stage of its work. Action on all draft texts will begin on Wednesday, 25 October.

The Committee also heard introductions of draft resolutions on: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); a new agenda for a nuclear-weapon- free world; a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere; security questions in Central Africa; and the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

According to the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, introduced by the representative of Myanmar, the General Assembly would urge the nuclear- weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. In a related provision, it would urge those countries, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear- weapon systems.

According to the text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Assembly would call upon Israel, the only State in the Middle East that was not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to: accede to the Treaty without further delay; not develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons; renounce possession of nuclear weapons; and place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as an important regional confidence-building measure and as a step towards enhancing peace and security. The representative of Egypt introduced the draft.

The Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signing and ratifying the CTBT, without delay and without conditions to achieve its early entry into force, under the terms of a draft resolution introduced by the representative of Australia. States would be urged to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear-weapon tests, pending the Treaty�s operation, and be called upon to sign and ratify the CTBT as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3187 21st Meeting (AM) 23 October 2000

Under the terms of a draft resolution entitled �Towards a nuclear-weapon- free world: the need for a new agenda�, the Assembly would call for the nuclear-weapon States to undertake the following steps, among others: reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally; increase transparency of their nuclear weapons capability; further reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives, and the operational status of nuclear-weapons systems; and diminish the role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used. The representative of Sweden introduced the draft.

The Assembly would call upon all states to support the disarmament process and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons, according to the terms of a draft resolution introduced by the representative of Brazil on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. It would also call upon the states parties and signatories to existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

By the terms of a draft resolution introduced by the representative of Burundi on the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa, the Assembly would reaffirm its support for efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels in order to ease tensions and conflicts in the subregion and to further peace, stability and sustainable development.

A draft introduced by the representative of France, on the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, would have the Assembly recognize the importance and high quality of the Institute�s work and reiterate its conviction that it should continue to conduct independent research on problems relating to disarmament and security and to undertake specialized research requiring a high degree of expertise.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Iraq, Cameroon, Belarus, Viet Nam, New Zealand, United States, Pakistan, Guinea, Syria and Nepal.

The representatives of Israel and Egypt made statements in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 25 October, to begin taking action on all disarmament and security related draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3187 21st Meeting (AM) 23 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its second phase of work, namely a thematic discussion on disarmament and security items as well as the introduction and consideration of related draft resolutions. It will convene its third and final phase of work, action on all drafts, from Wednesday, 25 October to Friday, 3 November.

The following subjects are under consideration in the thematic discussion: nuclear weapons; other weapons of mass destruction; the disarmament aspects of outer space; conventional weapons; regional disarmament and security; confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; and, related matters of disarmament and international security. The deadline for submission of draft resolutions was Friday, 13 October.

The Committee was expected to hear introductions of drafts on the following: nuclear disarmament; the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); a new agenda for a nuclear-weapon-free world; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas; activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa; and the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

A draft on the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (document A/C.1/55/L.3) would have the Assembly recognize the importance and high quality of the Institute�s work, and reiterate its conviction that it should continue to conduct independent research on problems relating to disarmament and security and to undertake specialized research requiring a high degree of expertise.

The Assembly would request all Member States to consider making financial contributions to the Institute in order to ensure its viability and the quality of its work over the long term. It would recommend that means be sought of increasing the Institute�s funding.

The draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" (document A/C.1/55/L.4) would have the Assembly call for the following: the upholding of a moratorium on nuclear-weapon test explosions pending the entry into force of the CTBT; applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures; the early entry into force and full implementation of Strategic Arms Limitation and reduction Treaty II (START II) and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible, while preserving and strengthening the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions; and the completion and implementation of the trilateral initiative between the United States, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call for: steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promoted international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all, further efforts by them to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally; increased transparency with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to article VI of the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament; the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used; and, to facilitate the process of their total elimination, the engagement, as soon as appropriate, of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would also call for all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material, designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes, under the IAEA or other relevant international verification arrangements for the disposition of such materials for peaceful purposes. It would also call for regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process of the NPT, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI of the Treaty and paragraph 4 of the 1995 decision entitled �Principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament�, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

Further, the Assembly would call on all States not yet party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without condition, particularly those States that operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. It would also call upon those States to bring into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements, together with additional protocols consistent with the Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) between State(s) and the IAEA for the application of safeguards for ensuring nuclear non-proliferation and to reverse clearly and urgently any policies to pursue any nuclear-weapon development or deployment.

It would call upon those States that had not yet done so to conclude full- scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreement on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 15 May 1997. The Assembly would agree to pursue the further development of the verification capabilities that would be required to assure compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Austria, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d�Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Jamaica, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

By the terms of a draft resolution on: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/55/L.12) the General Assembly would reaffirm its support for efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels in order to ease tensions and conflicts in the subregion and to further peace, stability and sustainable development.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the creation of a mechanism for the promotion, maintenance and consolidation of peace and security in Central Africa, to be known as the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa, by the Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Central African Countries, held at Yaound� on 25 February 1999, and would request the Secretary-General to give his full support to the effective realization of that mechanism. It would also emphasize the need to make the early-warning mechanism in Central Africa operational and request the Secretary-General to provide it with the assistance necessary for it to function properly.

The Assembly would further request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to lend all their support to the effective establishment and smooth functioning of the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa. It would also request the Secretary-General to support the establishment of a network of parliamentarians with a view to the creation of a subregional parliament in Central Africa.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/55/L.19) the General Assembly would call upon all States to support the process of disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. It would also call upon the states parties and signatories to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba, in order to pursue the common goals envisaged in those treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

By the further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the vigorous efforts being made among the parties and signatories to promote their common objective and consider that an international conference of States parties and signatories can help in promoting those objectives. It would encourage competent authorities of the treaties to provide assistance to the states parties and signatories to facilitate the accomplishment of those goals.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, C�te d�Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

A draft text sponsored by Egypt on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East reaffirmed the importance of Israel�s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards, in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East.

The Assembly would call upon Israel, the only State in the region that was not party to the NPT, to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security. It would ask the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its next session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Under the terms of a draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/55/L.37) the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT.

The draft resolution would also have the Assembly urge States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, pending entry into force of the Treaty, and call upon all States that had not signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its objective and purpose in the meanwhile. It would also call upon States that had signed, but not yet ratified, the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force, to accelerate their ratification processes.

The draft resolution was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, C�te d�Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, Turkey, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, United States, Uruguay and Zambia.

A draft text on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41) would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. The Assembly would also urge them, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapon systems. It would also urge those States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons as an effective nuclear disarmament measure.

In a related provision, the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, with a view to conclusion within five years. The Assembly would also call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear- weapon States.

By a further term of the text, the Assembly would call upon those States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on the joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It would call on all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non- use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call for the early entry into force and strict observance of the CTBT. It would reiterate its call upon the nuclear-weapon States to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of those weapons.

It would reiterate its call upon the Conference to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament early in 2001 and to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. It would call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures of nuclear disarmament.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d�Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People�s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Statements

KYAW THU (Myanmar) introduced a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41), saying that it represented the view of the majority of the members States of the Non-Aligned Movement, although it was not an official view of that body. The draft resolution contained a vision of nuclear disarmament that led to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It proposed concrete actions. It also reflected present day realities and priorities, including a call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

He said that the draft resolution asked nuclear-weapon States, as an interim measure, to immediately deactivate their nuclear weapons. Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, those States should agree to a legally- binding agreement not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. They should also agree not to us those weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. He hoped that the draft resolution would have overwhelming support, as it did last year.

MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD (Iraq) spoke about the draft resolution just introduced on nuclear disarmament. The use and threat of use of nuclear weapons was a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and represented a crime against humanity, he said. Nuclear disarmament, therefore, represented a fundamental priority of the international community. The poisoned international atmosphere was another reason to strengthen efforts aimed at preparing a convention banning nuclear weapons. That objective was not academic or theoretical. Nuclear weapons had been used twice against innocent civilians, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the danger of their use still remained.

The report of the Secretary-General�s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters had stated that the nuclear doctrines advocated by certain nuclear- weapon States had been focused on nuclear deterrence and on the threat of use of nuclear weapons. It was up to all States, therefore, especially the nuclear- weapon States, to ensure that the world abstained from the use or threat of use of those weapons. Thus, he supported the present draft resolution as a positive measure aimed at banning nuclear weapons, pending the total elimination of those and other weapons of mass destruction.

MARC NTETURUYE (Burundi) introduced a draft resolution on regional confidence�building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/55/L.12). He said that as part of the activities to promote peace and security in the Central Africa region, three ministerial meetings had been held in the subregion. They included one in Ndjamena on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons in Africa, in October 1999, and a subregional conference on refugee issues and displaced persons in Central Africa, in August in Bujumbura. Those gatherings were designed within the context of the effective implementation of the Council for Peace in Central Africa set up in Yaound� in 1999.

The security cooperation structure in the region was being strengthened, he continued. Other projects were in progress, notably the establishment of a regional parliament. Central Africa was going through a turbulent time, particularly in the Great Lakes area, which was ravaged by a war. That situation had led to the displacement of persons beyond and within borders. The problems confronting the region deserved the attention of the United Nations. To express solidarity and support for the region, the draft resolution should be adopted unanimously.

NGOH NGOH FERDINAND (Cameroon) spoke in support of the draft resolution on the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/55/L.12). The Advisory Committee had played a very significant role in promoting peace and security in Central Africa. It had proven to be a very special way of getting people to work in concert with each other and building confidence in the subregion. Remarkable achievements could be cited, including the adoption of specific disarmament measures and the promotion of confidence-building measures. In several cases, those steps had managed to dissipate tension and reduce insecurity in the border areas. Ministerial meetings and regular gatherings had enabled the Advisory Committee to examine specific challenges and devise specific solutions.

He said that such meetings had identified security issues and led to the adoption of recommendations or appropriate responses. The ceaseless conflicts that had plagued Central Africa had left in their wake countless victims and all kinds of destruction. Fear of insecurity had badly mortgaged prospects for regional development. The Committee had a clear cut manifesto to get the subregion out of the vicious cycle of death, destruction and poverty and create the appropriate conditions for peace, stability and security, which would foster the well-being of its people. Those objectives were worthy of the international community�s support. Indeed, the Advisory Committee had laid the groundwork for a real system of collective security on the subregional level.

The Advisory Committee could highlight the achievements made under the aegis and with the support of Member countries, including non-aggression and mutual assistance pacts, among others. A multinational force and a subregional parliament would soon complete the institutional architecture. However meritorious, those promising results could not have been achieved by the subregion alone. He expressed profound gratitude to the Secretary-General and his Office, the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, and interested and other member countries for their constant support. The Special Purpose Fund had made it possible for the Advisory Committee to better organize its work. Improved solidarity by the global community would further advance the Committee�s work. He hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

CLEUZA MARIA PEREIRA (Brazil) introduced a draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/55/L.19). She said that the Bahamas, Honduras, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Sao Tome and Principe had joined as new sponsors of the draft resolution. This was the fifth year that her country would introduce a draft resolution on that subject. New Zealand had joined Brazil this year. The sponsors hoped that the draft resolution would enjoy the same broad support it enjoyed last year. This year the draft resolution had some important changes. It included a call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which was at the core of nuclear disarmament and the nuclear-weapon-free zone initiatives. The sponsors were convinced that that should not cause concern to any States parties to the NPT. One of the most significant developments of the last decades was the fact that, in several parts of the world, the nuclear option had already been ruled out.

The initiative contained in the draft resolution aimed at achieving the recognition by the General Assembly, for the fifth consecutive year, of the progressive emergence of a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. Such recognition should be considered as a confirmation of the commitment of the international community towards non-proliferation and disarmament. The draft resolution did not create new legal obligations. It did not contradict any norm of international law applicable to navigation, such as those contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The changes introduced this year did not touch on the language on the Law of the Sea. States that had not done so should move towards ratification of the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties and their protocols.

VALENTIN RYBAKOV (Belarus) said that efforts to establish nuclear-weapon- free zones were links in the gradual trend towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world. All of those initiatives, at their various stages of implementation, had withstood the test of time. Others were at the stage of discussion, and still others were simply an idea being put forth. The aim was the creation of equitable security for all. An international conference on reducing nuclear danger, which was proposed by the Secretary-General, could explore the means of removing the nuclear threat and establishing a nuclear- weapon-free world. Global security should supplement regional efforts, in order to increase the effectiveness of measures to control weapons and strengthen trust.

He said he wished to point out, once again, the humanitarian aim of initiatives to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe. Now, the fact that no nuclear weapons were present in any of the countries of the region -- and they had assumed their legal obligations not to deploy those weapons on their territories -- could strengthen such a proposal. His country�s initiative to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe would meet the long-term interests of both the European continent and the international community. The historical opportunity provided to the States of the region and Europe, with the geo-political progress made at the beginning of the 1990s, should not be missed.

He added that certain political factors had made the adoption of the proposal difficult to fulfil in the immediate future. Nevertheless, he was hopeful that such a noble initiative would be implemented in the future. He would continue to search for agreement on the issue, including at the current General Assembly session. Meanwhile, he wished to draw attention to the ongoing work to prepare a consensus text.

HOANG CHI TRUNG (Viet Nam), speaking on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), expressed support for the draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament and the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. He called on the international community to work together towards the goal of the total elimination of all nuclear weapons and to build a world free from such weapons in the near future. Both nuclear-weapon States and non- nuclear-weapon States needed to make a concerted effort to carry out that task. The Association�s firm belief in nuclear disarmament was expressed in its attachment to the South Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty).

He commended Malaysia�s efforts in upholding the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice by introducing a draft resolution on that subject. The Association attached great importance to the 8 July 1996 ruling that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law that were applicable in armed conflicts. Equally important was the unanimous conclusion that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion of negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Member States of the United Nations should fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations next year leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear-weapon convention banning the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

BRONTE MOULES (Australia) introduced the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/55/L.37). She said that the international community had embarked upon the project of banning all explosive nuclear tests nearly half a century ago. It was only when the cold war ended, however, that the world community was able to develop a comprehensive ban. When the time was eventually right to do so, the Treaty took less than three years to negotiate. Now, however, the CTBT was in the paradoxical position of being both a highlight of recent efforts on arms control and disarmament and, regrettably, also unfinished business.

She said that the conclusion of and strong support for the Treaty, which had firmly established a powerful global norm against further nuclear testing, could be considered a major achievement. But, four years after its adoption by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly, it had not yet entered into force. The draft resolution had always been straightforward in its objective of contributing to ongoing efforts to meet the Treaty�s preconditions for operation. That call, often echoed by individual countries and by the Assembly each year through the resolution, had found a ready resonance at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The Conference had recognized the Treaty�s entry into force as a key step towards implementing collective responsibilities on nuclear disarmament. That clear call was contained in the first operative paragraph of this year�s text.

Her country had continued to be encouraged by the progress made by the CTBT�s Preparatory Commission to establish an international monitoring system, she said. That system was a key component of the Treaty�s verification mechanism and had represented a large investment by the international community. It would generate significant running costs, but it would form the guardian against further nuclear testing.

JOHN BORRIE (New Zealand), supporting the draft resolution on the CTBT, said that the text was transparent and balanced. It focused on the need for all States to sign and ratify the Treaty. His country believed that countries that had carried out tests in the past and who had signed, but not ratified, the Treaty had a particular obligation to ratify it.

HISAO YAMAGUCHI (Japan) said that, like last year, his delegation had again co-sponsored the draft resolution on the CTBT. The draft had called for the early entry into force of the Treaty, which was one of the highest nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation priorities of the international community. The importance and urgency of the matter had been underscored at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Since last year, the number of ratifiers had steadily increased and now stood at 65.

He said that through his country�s efforts to promote ratification by other States, he had learned that there would be additional ratifications in the near future, although there was still a distance to go before the Treaty�s entry into force. Japan had ratified the CTBT in 1997 and was making great efforts to encourage others to do so. His delegation had held high-level talks with some key countries in order to urge them to take action towards the Treaty�s operation. In that regard, he welcomed the pledges made by India and Pakistan concerning the signature and ratification of the Treaty, as well as the recent ratification by the Lao�s People�s Democratic Republic. His country would continue to make such efforts.

Also welcome were the moratoriums declared by all concerned States, he went on. He would emphasize the significance of the draft�s third operative paragraph, which urged States to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear-weapon test explosions, pending the Treaty�s entry into force. He hoped the text would receive the widest support of Member States.

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden) introduced a draft resolution entitled �towards a nuclear weapon free world: the need for a new agenda� (document A/C.1/55/L.4). He said that the final document adopted at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at the last Review Conference represented a new beginning in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. It defined the steps to be taken and provided for the further development of each of the steps agreed. It anchored the NPT, in a more fundamental way, as the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. That document was neither as far-reaching nor as detailed as the States parties were entitled to expect. The compromise it represented reinforced the determination of the co-sponsors of the present draft resolution that the steps agreed to at that Conference should be implemented without delay.

He said that this year the draft resolution reflected the results of engagement between the non-nuclear-weapon States and between them and the five nuclear-weapon States over the past three years. The co-sponsors were aware that, in a number of instances, the common ground on a future approach was more generalized than they would have wished. They, however, believed that real progress had been achieved in setting down benchmarks. Those would enable the evaluation of the implementation of each of the agreed undertakings.

The draft resolution set out the measures that nuclear-weapon States should undertake, as well as those instruments that the non-nuclear-weapon States, working with the nuclear-weapon States, should accomplish, he said. It called for the development and implementation of interim measures, so as to lessen the role of nuclear weapons in the security policies of concerned States and to further reduce the operational status of nuclear-weapon systems.

ROBERT GRAY (United States) said he had considered all resolutions whose stated aim was to assist the international community in reaching the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Those texts had sought to use as their basis the consensus results of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. For the first time, the Review had produced a comprehensive and substantive final document by a �true� consensus. Indeed, the final document had charted a realistic future course and had indicated a direction for progress on all substantive issues involving the NPT. The United States, for its part, would seek to move forward on the nuclear disarmament and proliferation agendas set forth in the final document.

Regarding the recommendations for practical steps, some of the nuclear disarmament drafts were said to be aimed at translating those commitments into early practical action, he said. He did not question the motives behind those initiatives, but the NPT outcome was the direct result of delicately balanced compromises. Taking individual disarmament measures out of their context or attempting to expand the undertakings could only endanger the Conference�s hard- won consensus. The final document had chartered a future course; it had not created a basis for seeking a more expansive disarmament agenda. He would evaluate proposals by how faithfully they reflected the NPT consensus. Everyone had agreed that the practical steps defined in the final document needed to be implemented, but endless permutations would only blur the goals being sought and make them harder to achieve.

He said that a number of actions had already been taken to implement article VI of the NPT, which concerned the obligation of nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament. The Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States had already met three times and agreed on security initiatives to strengthen trust, and on the future development of agreed measures to enhance strategic stability. In June, they had announced a bilateral agreement on nuclear-weapon-grade plutonium, particularly on the material in excess of self- defence needs. That would help to ensure the irreversibility of nuclear-weapon reductions.

A further look at the implementation of the final document�s practical steps should recall that a fissile material cut-off treaty had been accepted by all as the next item of business. Nevertheless, that had remained a �prisoner of political maneuvering� -- seven years since the General Assembly had adopted the relevant resolution, and five years since the Conference on Disarmament had agreed on a mandate for such negotiations in Geneva. A universally verifiable cut-off of fissile material production at a certain date was the next step towards implementation the NPT Review Conference final document. Absent such progress, there was no incentive to consider other proposals.

Nonetheless, he continued, two or three States in the Conference on Disarmament had frustrated the efforts of a succession of presidents to get fissile material cut-off negotiations started. The excuses had ranged from a need to curb a non-existent arms race in outer space to the United States� initiative for limited national missile defence. President Clinton�s announcement to leave that decision to the next administration had eliminated all excuses for delaying action in the Conference on Disarmament. His country was meeting with friends around the world to explain why national missile defence would �strengthen, not threaten� security. As the final document had stated, fissile material cut-off negotiations should begin immediately. The real problem had been the unwillingness of two or three Conference members to agree to move forward, using obfuscation, delay and disingenuousness.

He noted that a draft resolution on the treaty on the Limitations of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems(ABM Treaty) had again been introduced. President Clinton�s decision to defer national missile defence, as well as other factors, should have made that introduction unnecessary, he said. Its introduction in the Committee had been source of fruitless contention last year. It was inappropriate for the Assembly to insert itself into the ongoing discussion about the implementation of an international agreement by the parties to it. The draft text had also taken the highly dubious position that the ABM Treaty should not be amended, even though the Treaty had provided for amendments. The draft resolution also invited the Assembly to take sides in the argument.

Several months ago, the United States had suggested to the draft�s main sponsor that it did not need an ABM text this year, he continued. The five permanent members of the Security Council had issued a statement on 1 May addressing those issues. The United States and the Russian Federation had issued three statements, including one signed by both Presidents. The ABM Treaty was negotiable and signed in a different political era and under different circumstances. The proposed amendments would update the Treaty and ensure that strategic nuclear deterrent forces were not threatened by the missile defence capabilities of the other, and make it possible to continue reducing strategic offensive arms.

He said that the 1972 ABM Treaty had not contemplated new emerging threats. Indeed, the Treaty�s failure would lay with the responsibility of those who insisted that it had to remain static and could not be amended. He would again oppose the draft resolution and urged other delegations to do so. Far from strengthening the ABM Treaty or strategic stability, the text contained dangerous precedents and special pleading.

HUBERT DE LA FORTELLE (France) introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (document A/C.1/55/L.3 Rev.1). He said that during the tenth General Assembly special session on disarmament in 1998, the French President had proposed the creation of an independent United Nations institute to carry out studies in disarmament. That proposal eventually led to a General Assembly resolution by which the Institute was created. In his presentation to the First Committee, Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament, had praised the work of the Institute and its small team of dedicated staff. France and the sponsors of the present draft resolution extended the same tribute to the Director of the Institute and her team. He thanked the 70 co-sponsors who had joined in supporting the resolution and hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted without vote.

ALAA ISSA (Egypt) introduced the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29). He said the General Assembly had adopted a text by that title since 1994, with overwhelming support. The draft had conveyed the international community�s concern over the continued presence of unsafeguarded nuclear activities in the Middle East and the risk of nuclear proliferation there. The issue was of particular importance and priority today, since all countries of the region, except Israel, had become parties to the NPT and had accepted safeguards of the IAEA for their nuclear activities.

He said that the draft resolution had invited Israel to join the 182 States that had renounced the nuclear weapon option. Acceptance of that premise was an obligation if the NPT was to remain credible and continue to have non-proliferation value. On 19 May 2000, the international community had addressed that concern by distinctly recognizing the importance of achieving universal adherence to the NPT in the Middle East and, in explicit and unequivocal terms, had emphasized the importance of Israel�s accession to the Treaty, as well as its placement of all nuclear installations under IAEA safeguards. The adoption of the final document was a positive contribution to all non-proliferation endeavours in the Middle East.

The draft this year flowed from that consensus, he said, and faithfully reflected the principles and language adopted by all States parties to the NPT just five months ago. Certain new amendments to the draft had been based entirely upon language contained in that consensus document. A new sixth preambular paragraph recognized the commitments of NPT States parties to achieve universality. A new eleventh preambular paragraph stressed the need to advance towards the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and for all States in the region to place its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards. A new operative paragraph 1 reaffirmed the importance of Israel�s accession to the NPT and the placement of its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards. The operative paragraph 2 called on Israel to join the Treaty, thereby accepting the same obligations that had been entered into by all States of the region.

The draft was not confrontational, he said. Rather, it urged Israel to accept the same legally binding commitments that had already been accepted by 182 States and to refrain from any action to undermine peace and security. That call had been deemed an urgent priority by the NPT States parties in 1995. All States parties and those parties that had participated in the 2000 NPT Review were urged to support the draft resolution. To do otherwise would be a mockery of the final document. He, therefore, urged all Member States, as well as all States parties to the NPT, to transmit a clear and forceful message through the General Assembly affirming their commitment to the role of nuclear non- proliferation. Such a message would also reflect respect for the consensus achievement of five months ago. There should be no double standard when it came to the risk of nuclear proliferation.

He said that during the past three weeks the world had witnessed a deterioration of the political situation in the Middle East of �terrifying proportions�. Despite that, he had continued to approach the non-proliferation issue as a prerequisite for any future regional security arrangement. That approach was distinct from the political settlement of the Middle East conflict, through what was known, perhaps euphemistically, as �the peace process�. Leniency or complacency could not be tolerated. The call for prompt action by the Assembly must be unequivocal and unwavering, because the question at hand was the credibility of the NPT regime and of those States that had expressed support for that regime.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that, as he noted earlier, the graph of hope for disarmament had risen, due to the outcome of the recent NPT Review Conference and the decision of the President of the United States to postpone a decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system. His country hoped that the unequivocal commitments contained in that outcome of the NPT Review Conference would be implemented. It was, however, not as optimistic about such implementation as some other countries. Pakistan�s positive response to that outcome reflected its evaluation that there was no difference in the essential objective of the country and that of the international community with regard to the promotion of international peace and security, especially in South Asia. Pakistan�s objective was to avoid tension, promote regional stability and seek equitable solutions to underlying disputes, especially the Kashmir dispute.

The NPT Review Conference outcome dealt with South Asia harshly and inequitably, he said. Several aspects of that decision were such that Pakistan had to express strong disagreement with them. Since it dealt with the security situation in South Asia in several areas, the States parties should have invited the concerned countries to participate on an equal footing in those deliberations. His country did not accept exparte pronouncements that impinged on its national security. The Conference was deficient in substantive terms on several counts, including its criticism of Pakistan�s 1998 nuclear tests. Pakistan did not initiate that situation. It had every right to carry out the tests after its neighbour did so. While the tests by its neighbour destabilized the region, Pakistan�s tests restored the balance.

He added that his country never sought recognition for its nuclear capability from anyone and would not concede its ability to deter. The Review Conference decided not to classify Pakistan as a nuclear-weapon State. The political effect of that was the opposite. It confirmed that the five nuclear weapons States parties to the NPT had such a status. If the tests carried out by Pakistan were to be criticized, why did the parties not criticize the tests that had taken place previously, which contributed immensely to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It was strange that the Conference not only called for immediate commencement on fissile material cut-off treaty, but also its conclusion within a period of five years, he continued. His country did not accept artificial deadlines. The call would have been more credible if there was also agreement on a time frame for the elimination or nuclear weapons and for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The matters he mentioned impinged on Pakistan�s national security and, as such, his country was obliged to reject them. Pakistan would not support any draft resolution that welcomed the result of the Review Conference or which incorporated the discriminatory elements of its decisions. ARAFAN KABINE KABA (Guinea) said that as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/55/L.11), he would support the statement made earlier in the discussion by the representative of Mali. Indeed, notwithstanding the significant strides made in disarmament by the international community, it still faced numerous challenges that continued to jeopardize international peace and security and compromise development. The alarming proliferation and circulation of light weapons had destabilized his country. His delegation attached much importance to the draft and hoped the international community would consider the vigorous efforts undertaken by individual countries to combat that scourge.

He said that his country had been the target of arms bandits from neighbouring countries in conflict. In that regard, he appreciated the recent visit by a Security Council delegation to his subregion. The ill-considered accumulation and illicit circulation of light weapons in West Africa had made the spectre of violence even more threatening. That, in turn, had led to the significant deterioration of good relations among many countries, which was quite harmful to consolidated regional peace and security. In dealing with the regional destabilization wrought by the circulation of light weapons, persistent conflicts must be managed, as their serious consequences had proved catastrophic to all countries. Wherever peace was breached and justice was denied, real human tragedy had resulted.

Refugees, who were the innocent victims of such crises, had been forced into exile, he said. For Guinea, the forthcoming international conference on small arms would enable it to cope with the numerous constraints stemming from the neighbouring conflicts. His country was paying a heavy cost for a decade of crisis. His country would continue to work towards the development and implementation of an across-the-board approach that would be strict and designed to regulate the transfer and circulation of light weapons. His support for the draft text was based upon its firm conviction that as long as that scourge continued, peace and security would remain elusive.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD(Syria), supporting the draft resolution introduced by Egypt on the nuclear threat in the Middle East, said that the situation in the Middle East required greater efforts from the international community to force Israel to accede to the NPT. There was no reason to justify Israel�s insistence on not acceding to the NPT, while more than 182 countries today were party to it, including all Arab countries.

The result of the last NPT Review Conference represented the international will to put an end to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was a considerable threat to international peace and security. The message of the Review Conference was clear and there was no need to try to interpret it in any other way -� nuclear weapons must be eliminated. The justifications presented by Israel, including its claims regarding security for the population, were unacceptable. The Arab populations were the ones most in need of security, since Israel possessed the most lethal weapons in the world. The Arab Summit,

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3187 21st Meeting (AM) 23 October 2000

which ended yesterday, made an appeal to the international community and asked Israel to make its nuclear installations open to IAEA inspections.

HIRA B. THAPA (Nepal) supported the draft resolution introduced by the representative of Myanmar on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41). He supported the draft for the following reasons, among others: the final document of the 1978 tenth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament had accorded the highest priority to nuclear disarmament; and the text called for the urgent negotiation of agreements for the cessation of the qualitative improvement and development of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate elimination. Also, during the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the States parties had reiterated the urgent need for nuclear disarmament. The unequivocal commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to pursue negotiations with a view to completely eliminating their nuclear arsenals was also compelling, as was the Millennium Declaration, which referred to the nuclear disarmament impasse.

Rights of Reply

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel), exercising the right of reply with respect to the draft resolution introduced by the representative of Egypt on the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29), said that that text was contentious, divisive and one- sided. Resolutions should focus on ways to enhance and not undermine peace and security. The real risk in the Middle East region emanated from the States of the region that were parties to international treaties, but who were at the same time undermining those treaties. Those States were engaged in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The draft resolution undermined the achievements contained in the final document of the NPT Review Conference. It removed the delicate balance by which that outcome was adopted. All delegations should vote against the draft resolution.

ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt), speaking in the right of reply, said that the draft resolution was not confrontational in nature. Rather, it urged all States of the region to accede to the same legally binding commitments undertaken by all other States in the region �- indeed, by 182 parties worldwide -- and to refrain from any act that would undermine international peace and security. The text faithfully reflected the consensus reached just five months ago on the importance of universal adherence to the NPT and to Israel�s accession. The resolution conveyed the concern of the international community over the continued presence of unsafeguarded nuclear activities in the Middle East and the resulting risk of nuclear proliferation. The issue was of particular importance and priority today, since all Middle East countries, except Israel, had joined the NPT and had subjected their nuclear activities to IAEA safeguards.

* *** *

United Nations