|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
AMBASSADOR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA RESPONDS TO BRITISH DEFENCE MINISTER AT DISARMAMENT CONFERENCEThe Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva07th February 2008 Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United
Nations, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka responded to the statement made by
the British Defence Secretary, Mr. Des Browne, at the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) on Tuesday, 5th February 2008. Following is a summary of the statement made by Ambassador Jayatilleka.: Sri Lanka was situated in a volatile part of the world that included
two nuclear weapon States and had, therefore, a vested interest in
the themes and objectives of the Conference on Disarmament. However,
he said, he had listened to the speeches of that morning with a growing
sense of unreality. He was reminded of a statement attributed to both
Hitler and Stalin "What's mine is mine, what's yours, let's negotiate".
That attitude would not ensure progress in the Conference. If there
were States that had not come "on board", it was inaccurate
to say that there was international consensus. There was some consensus,
but it was obviously not international consensus. That was not because
they had run out of time; it was because they had serious differences
of opinion. That was true about document CD/2007/L.1, and other issues
raised. Great progress could not be expected on the basis of agreements
forged during the period of détente when there is a revival
of the dream of encircling Russia with new weapons systems on its
periphery. They could not expect their great Asian friend to come
on board the consensus that was supposed to exist, with speculation
over whether it constituted the new enemy. Progress would not be made
on the FMCT issue if they continued to demonize one or two States
in a volatile ark of crisis, forgetting that there was at least one
State with a long-standing nuclear stockpile, and which had invaded
almost all of its neighbours. Progress could not be made while there
was talk of unilateral strikes on certain States, including strikes
with low-yield, tactile nuclear weapons. None of that would work.
Sri Lanka and the Group of 21 certainly did not believe in the moral
superiority of certain countries that had invaded others on the basis
of an outright lie on WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). In the view of the Third World, what was needed was realism and
new thinking - a new paradigm - one that frankly addressed the concerns
of all, and that eschewed threats and moral grandstanding. Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom,
told the Conference on Disarmament on 5 February 2008 that he wanted
to send a strong message about the priority the United Kingdom gave
to its disarmament commitments. The international community needed a transparent, sustainable and credible
plan for multilateral nuclear disarmament, Mr. Browne said, one that
also addressed proliferation, so that disarmament and counter-proliferation
both moved forward together. Their goal should be a "virtuous cycle",
where progress on one reinforced the other. Without doing so, they risked
generating the perception that the nuclear weapon States were failing
to fulfil their disarmament obligations, and that would be used by some
States as an excuse for their nuclear intransigence. A key milestone
towards building the climate for disarmament was securing a Fissile
Material Cut-Off Treaty, which, among others, would limit the ability
of signatories to expand their arsenals and would provide the necessary
reassurance to their neighbours and the international community. As
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said last month, they all had national
security concerns, but without preconditions, let them at least get
down to negotiations on a treaty where those security concerns could
be addressed. Mr. Browne said the United Kingdom wanted to be seen as a "disarmament
laboratory" - a role model and testing ground for measures that
it and others could take on key aspects of disarmament. Of paramount
importance, in that connection, was the development of verification
techniques that assured non-nuclear weapon States and nuclear weapon
States both that when a State said it was not pursuing the development
of nuclear weapons that it was telling the truth. Ambassador ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) began by expressing Iran's support
for the statement made by Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka of Sri Lanka
on 29 January 2008 on behalf of the Group of 21. The promotion of
multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions should remain the
core principle of any negotiations undertaken in the Conference on Disarmament.
Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority of Iran, and it was
a subject of regret that the international community had not been able
to give that issue its due attention. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments had not been fulfilled, and the
NPT's 13 practical steps (to implement nuclear disarmament) appeared
to have been put on ice. Iran was gravely concerned by the thousands
of nuclear weapons currently in stockpiles. Given the current state
of affairs, that issue was becoming more and more present. The total
elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against
the use or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Pending that, negative
security assurances, and the conclusion of a binding treaty on effective
international agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against
the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, should be concluded as
a matter of priority. The four core issues identified by the Conference
on Disarmament were of equal value and had to be subjected to equal
treatment. Any possible programme of work should be balanced, and acceptable
to all delegations. Ambassador MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said that the first meetings
of the Conference on Disarmament session were always difficult. However,
with the presence of the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister
of Tunisia, and with the appointment of the seven Coordinators today,
there were some good signs. The Presidential draft decision (CD/2007/L.1)
had generated momentum in the Conference last year. However, it was
not the only basis or a realistic basis for starting work this year.
If so, work would have started last year. It had two blind spots: it
ignored the Five Ambassadors proposal, which had enjoyed near-universal
support, and the Shannon mandate, on which all had agreed. Secondly,
it called for its blind acceptance, as is. An aversion to changes in
L.1 would erode its acceptability. The Secretary-General, in his address to the Conference on Disarmament
had said that "the adoption of this decision [L.1] would not deprive
any Member State of the ability to assert its national position in the
subsequent phases of the Conference's work". That advice was well-meaning
and sincere. Pakistan now asked the States concerned pursuing their
own security interests about their confidence on that point. The way
business was conducted in the Conference, if L.1 was adopted, a non-verifiable
fissile material treaty would become received wisdom; substantive limitations
built into L.1 had to be removed. Pakistan required four elements be included in Presidential draft decision L.1 for it to be acceptable: the Conference had to set the task of negotiations on a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable" fissile material treaty (FMT); an FMT mandate should distinctly recognize the possibility of considering the scope of the treaty, as well as the existing stocks; an equal and balanced treatment had to be given to all four core issues; and ad hoc committees, as provided for in the Conference's rules of procedure, should conduct negotiations. CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT |
||||||||||||
|
|
Disclaimer: The comments contained
within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents
of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the
views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual
authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any
loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which
you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or
reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
Copyright
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||||||
