In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

 

 

Distinguished colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

            I declare open the 235th plenary meeting, the first of the 2000 substantive Session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

 

At the outset, I would like to thank you all for your flexibility and cooperation during the organizational session of the Commission and particularly in the course of our informal consultations. The agreement on the provisional agenda reflects the readiness of all delegations to engage in constructive deliberation, and provides a conducive environment to make headway in the hard work ahead of us. I rely on your continued support, cooperation and accommodation to ensure successful conclusion of this substantive session.

 

Allow me also, on your behalf, to extend my sincere gratitude to Mr. Jin Yongjian, Under-Secretary-General for Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, which is responsible for servicing the UNDC; Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, which will provide substantive support to the session of the Commission; and Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament.  The presence of these globally renowned and  respected diplomats among us once again underline the importance of the UNDC in general and the high expectation of member-states from this session in particular. 

 

I should not fail to thank our distinguished secretary, Mr. Timor Alasanya and his able colleagues in the secretariat for their tireless efforts in ensuring smooth and constructive operation of the Commission.

.


The United Nations Disarmament Commission, since its inception in 1978 following the SSOD I, has provided a universal forum for in depth consideration of issues, and offered invaluable recommendations in the field of disarmament. Today, the Commission, especially after its organizational reforms, could better serve the process of disarmament and help build on the achievements. It shoulders an onerous responsibility. As the universal deliberative disarmament setting, the Commission has a unique position to provide for broader participation and consensus building. Furthermore, being a deliberative body, it is not bound by the limits of disarmament negotiations. It can thus mainline new and innovative ideas into the disarmament diplomacy and stimulate a reinvigorated international debate on disarmament and security agenda. The Commission is therefore in a position to inspire a constructive change in the existing international security paradigm, which is still haunted by balance of terror and exclusive security arrangements.

 

Adding to the significance of the Commission’s deliberations, in particular this year, is the fact that the Conference on Disarmament has not been able to adopt its program of work for three years in a row and all the submissions to break the deadlock have proved unavailing. I hope that the final agreements of NPT 2000 Review Conference and a successful UNDC session could break the ice and encourage the CD members to nail down a balanced program of work.

 

Our agenda this year is in and of itself testament to the opportunities and formidable challenges before this Commission:

 


The ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of use and threat of use of nuclear weapons was a turning point in international campaign against nuclear arms; a campaign which started from the very first sessions of the General Assembly and subsequently reinforced by article VI of NPT as well as the declaration on Principles and Objectives of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. The Court’s advisory opinion, in fact, charted a new course for nuclear disarmament in the aftermath of the Cold War, underlining the legal obligation to proceed in good faith towards a world free from nuclear weapons. The declaration by President Mohammed Bedjaoui of the ICJ -- calling nuclear weapons as “the ultimate evil” for their indiscriminate effects on humanity and natural environment -- put this legal obligation in proper moral perspective.

 

A more recent achievement has been the successful conclusion of the NPT 2000 Review Conference with consensus on key issues. The Conference succeeded to agree on a range of guidelines and required steps to rid humanity of nuclear nightmare, which should be pursued vigorously through various unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral initiatives. It illustrated once again that the NPT had never meant to perpetuate classification of states as nuclear and non-nuclear ones; and that the obligation to create a nuclear-weapon free world  has always been a fundamental underpinning of the global disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

 

The statement by some nuclear weapons states that they will cease production of fissile material and will place their withdrawn fissile material from military stockpiles under the IAEA supervision can be regarded as a starting point that needs to be followed by further measures, such as de-alerting of nuclear weapons, abandoning first use doctrines, deeper reductions, and elimination of all tactical nuclear weapons.

 

As for bilateral undertakings, the welcome ratification of START II by the Russian Federation Duma should be further augmented by bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation on START III.

 


Moreover, some coordination and cooperation on nuclear disarmament has been instigated among the five nuclear weapon states. Though for the time being it is largely restricted to coordination of positions on nuclear disarmament negotiations, the arrangement has the potential to eventually evolve into a forum for serious negotiations and consensus building on concrete collective nuclear reduction measures.

 

On the multilateral domain, the Conference on Disarmament remains the sole negotiating body, with  nuclear disarmament atop its agenda. It should, therefore, be allowed to make a substantive and meaningful contribution to nuclear disarmament. The involvement of the CD might be perceived, at the first glance, not to satisfy the short-term interests of some nuclear states. But, its engagement in these negotiations would certainly promote confidence and in turn pave the way for a general and comprehensive disarmament. Meanwhile, it is high time for the Conference to commence negotiations on a long sought fissile material cut-off treaty.

 

Acknowledging the imperative of averting nuclear threats, the UN Secretary General in his Millennium Report has suggested the convening of an international conference on the subject matter. This submission merits serious and positive consideration, especially by this Commission.

 

The establishment of nuclear-weapons free zones inches us closer to the lofty objective of a world from nuclear weapons.  These frameworks are already in existence in some parts of the globe. At the same time, the creation of similar zones in other regions, in particular in the Middle East, must be pursued with greater vigor and energy. In this respect, the UNDC guidelines on nuclear-weapons free zones, finalized a year ago, could serve as a manual.

 

This is merely an in-exhaustive list of areas of actions. I sincerely hope that our deliberations at this session would lead to articulation and facilitate adoption of innovative approaches for attainment of nuclear disarmament.

 

            As for our second item, the General Assembly has for the last several years called for transparency in armament and confidence building. Numerous regional initiatives, in particular in Africa, have been launched to enhance transparency in conventional armament or to wind down the increasing flow and accumulation of conventional weapons. Transparency in certain categories of conventional weapons has been also pursued for some years with varying degrees of success. A UN study group is at present reviewing the likelihood of expansion of the UN registry to other areas.

 

Moreover, given the enormity of human toll and suffering, confidence building in the increasingly important area of small arms has received a sharpened focus. And a host of propositions on the problem of illicit trafficking in small arms, including the holding of a UN conference on this matter in 2001,have been advanced. It is heartening to note that the preparatory work for the Conference has started. On our part, we should also provide substantive input for the Conference.     

 

A Time for Change

 

While we address important areas of disarmament at this forum, it is imperative that the international community take a renewed look at the dominant approach to international relations and articulate a new global security paradigm. For centuries, concepts such as enemies, security dilemma, arms race, deterrence, and balance of power dominated much of the discourse in international politics and played a determining role in shaping of the relations among nations.

 

Bloc rivalries and exclusive security arrangements, feeding fear and arms race, have all been products of a global security paradigm, which was based on exclusion: Not only exclusion of some state actors from global security arrangements, but at the same time exclusion of non-state actors and the civil society from the global debate and decision making on security.

 

Security perceptions and disarmament are very much mutually reinforcing. Thus, the future course of disarmament norm setting will hinge above all on the evolution of international security. The ending of the Cold War has given boost to some areas of disarmament. But, its continuity requires forging an encompassing international security arrangement, which would promise security to all nations worldwide. I have elaborated on this imperative prerequisite at the Conference on Disarmament more than a year ago and submitted the concept of Global Security Networking that attempts to go beyond the narrowly defined interests of existing alliances. Evolution of security systems and their transformation into a global security network would induce states to take further steps in ensuring sustained progress in arms control and disarmament.

 

Taking the very first steps into the new millennium, we stand at a defining moment in the history of mankind. A mix of opportunities and challenges lies ahead. Much has changed. But, much more remains to be changed. Suggestions are made to the effect that security issues need no longer be seen in black and white or as a zero sum scenarios; that the advantages of cooperation and partnership could certainly far exceed the possible gains of armament and rivalry. And, that today the prospects for arms control and disarmament in all fields are brighter.

 

However, the worst is still far from over. We are steering through a defining transitional and yet formative stage. Things could conceivably go wrong and unravel the positive achievements reaped so far.  Insistence on military applications of information and space technologies with its sobering ramifications, and half-hearted commitment to and selective implementation of the existing disarmament agreements might trigger a snowball effect, resulting in erosion of credibility of disarmament treaties and commencement of a fresh round of arms race.

 

History may be rewritten, but it can never be relived. The time has come to invest in the future, and confidence building is the key for such an investment. We are offered the greatest opportunity of all times. It is our chance and we have to make much of it. The time has come to stamp out once and for all the fallacy that improved armaments, in particular nuclear ones, bring security. Progressive and systematic pursuit of disarmament negotiations and the urgency to accelerate nuclear disarmament are the challenges to be met. These and other challenges, along with complexities, setbacks and surprises would assert themselves against our hopes and wishes.

 

Political will and commitment as well as involvement of the civil society are the key factors in winning this uphill battle. The civil society is an increasingly active participant  in disarmament diplomacy. To secure the achievements and to further advance disarmament, it is imperative to welcome and enhance the involvement of civil society at both national and international levels. The participation of NGOs, institutions and individuals in NPT 2000 Review Conference was an enriching experience. I hope that this process would be further institutionalized, providing for their participation in all disarmament fora including the CD.

 

In our collective effort to build an inclusive global environment, it is absolutely imperative to engage in an inclusive dialogue, drawing upon the rich and diversified contribution of all actors -- states, civil society, international organizations, academia and all other segments of humanity  -- who stand to loose from the perils of war and armaments and have much to contribute to their elimination.