The 2000 NPT Review
Conference (RevCon)
14 April - 19 May 2000, New York
STATEMENT
BY
H.E. AMBASSADOR T.J.B. JOKONYA
ON BEHALF OF THE ZIMBABWE DELEGATION
BEFORE THE
2000 REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES TO THE TREATY
ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
NEW
YORK 2 MAY, 2000
MR.
PRESIDENT,
Allow
me to associate my delegation with the congratulations already
addressed to you upon your election to this demanding post of the
President of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In view of your wealth of
experience, we hope to work fruitfully and successfully under your
guidance in search for mutually acceptable decisions on the complex
issues of disarmament and international security. Needless to say, you
can count on the Zimbabwe delegation for support in discharging your
duties.
It
has been observed that there are some moments in life which mark the
close of a period like boundary posts and at the same time point - in
a new direction. Indeed, the 2000 Review Conference is one such
moment. We are meeting at this conference not only to take stock of
what has been achieved since the indefinite extension of the NPT in
1995, but also to further strengthen the review process of the Treaty.
Mr.
President,
Most
delegations have submitted that the NPT is the cornerstone of the
international regime for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and
that the 2000 Review Conference should strive to determine the
continuing viability of the Treaty. But can we say that the "new
world order" provides a framework for strengthening the review
process in our endeavors to "promote the full implementation of
the Treaty.?"
With
your indulgence, let me quote from Secretary General Kofi Annan's
Report to the Millennium Assembly, "The objective of nuclear non-proliferation
is not helped by the fact that the nuclear weapon states continue to
insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security, while in
the hands of others they are a threat to world peace. If we were
making steady progress towards disarmament, this situation would be
less alarming. Unfortunately the reverse is true. Not only are the
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) stalled, but there are no
negotiations at all covering the many thousands of so-called tactical
nuclear weapons in existence, or the weapons of any nuclear power
other than those of the Russian Federation and the USA."
Mr.
President,
Zimbabwe,
a state-party to the NPT, is committed to the goal of global nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation. While it is not the intention of my
delegation to remind this august body that the 1995 Review Conference
indefinitely extend the Treaty and, not the right for nuclear weapon
states to keep their arsenals forever, let me take this occasion to
reiterate that the NPT places contractual obligations on both the
nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states to make progress toward general
and complete disarmament. Some nuclear weapon states recognize this
and I wish to quote from the statement of H.E Mr. Li Changhe,
Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs of the Peoples' Republic of China
at the First Committee of the 53rd Session of the United Nations
General Assembly on 14 October 1998. Mr. Changhe stated;
"Complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons
is the common aspiration of mankind. We fully understand the wish of
the large number of non-nuclear-weapon states for general and complete
nuclear disarmament. The indefinite extension of the NPT does not
imply that the nuclear-weapon states can possess nuclear weapons
forever. The nuclear-weapon states should intensify their efforts to
fulfil the obligations contained in Article VI of the NPT."
Mr.
President,
As
long as there is an exclusive club which is reluctant to give up its
nuclear option, there will always be an irresistible temptation on
threshold nuclear powers to knock at the door and gain entry into that
club. Indeed the Canberra Commission Report concluded that "the
possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to
other states to acquire them.'
There
is no doubt that the 2000 NPT Review Conference is being held against
a backdrop of an adverse trend in disarmament which we hope will not
trigger a fresh nuclear arms race. Recent events that cast an ominous
shadow on the disarmament agenda include:
the
failure by the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
an action that negates the assurances delivered during the First
Committee General Debate on 14 October 1998 by acting Under Secretary
of State and Director of the United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, Mr. Holum, when he declared, "Let me assure
you, the United States remains committed to nuclear disarmament
pursuant to NPT Article VI.
Over
the past decade the United States has eliminated more than 10 000
nuclear weapons from its military arsenal, along with more than 1700
missile launchers and bombers under the INF and START 1 Treaties. We
have not conducted a nuclear weapon test explosion since 1992."
the
"new" Alliance Strategic Concept which in large part is a
repetition of NATO's Cold War Strategic doctrine that states that in
order for NATO to protect peace and to prevent war or any kind of
coercion, the alliance would maintain an appropriate mix of nuclear
and conventional forces based in Europe. The 1997 US Presidential
Decision Directive 60 also states that nuclear weapons will remain the
"cornerstone" of US security policy. This posture has
undoubtedly partly influenced Russia to retract from its "no
first use" commitment.
the
impasse on the Conference on Disarmament, the nuclear tests by India
and Pakistan; and the challenges to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
(ABM) and the intention of the US to deploy an anti missile defense
system.
Mr.
President,
On
the credit side, Zimbabwe lauds the recent ratification of START II
and the CTBT by the Russian Duma and regards this action, an
indication of Russia's "full commitment to its obligations under
Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty" as declared last week
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, H.E. Mr.
Igor S. Ivanov. While this ratification opens the way for the
commencement of the START III negotiations, it will be also important
to give due considerations to Russia's concerns vis a vis the
challenges to the ABM Treaty. Foreign Minister Ivanov reminded us that
further reductions in strategic offensive weapons could only be
considered in the context of preservation of the ABM Treaty. According
to the Russian Foreign Minister, "one has to be fully aware of
the fact that the prevailing system of arms control agreements is a
complex and quite fragile structure. Once one of its key elements has
been weakened, the entire system is destabilized. And in the context
of globalization, the interdependence of these elements has
drastically increased. The collapse of the ABM Treaty would,
therefore, undermine the entirety of disarmament agreements concluded
over the last 30 years. The threat of the erosion of the
non-proliferation regimes related to nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery means would therefore, grow."
Mr.
Ivanov’s observation echoes Secretary General Kofi Annan’s
assertion that, "unless plans to deploy missile defenses are
devised with the agreement of all concerned parties, the progress
achieved thus far in reducing the number of nuclear weapons may be
jeopardized. Confidence-building is required to reassure states that
their nuclear deterrent capabilities will not be negated.'
Mr.
President,
When
I sojourned to New York for the Third NPT Prep.Com in May 1999, I
informed the meeting that our experience in Geneva at the Conference
on Disarmament had demonstrated the futility of engaging into
negotiations without political will. I also observed that history had
shown that bilateral agreements could easily be held hostage to
national interests and I am glad to say that Secretary General Kofi
Annan has vindicated us. In his address to the 2000 NPT, Review
Conference Mr. Kofi Annan stated, "much of the established
multilateral disarmament machinery has started to rust, a problem
due not to the machinery itself but to the apparent lack of political
will to use it."
The
Secretary General also showed the way forward - a resultsbased
Treaty review process that focuses on specific benchmarks. One such
benchmark would be the entry into force of the CTBT. The CTBT is not
only a non-proliferation treaty that raises political and technical
hurdles for any country designing nuclear weapons for the first time,
but also a cornerstone of efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. It
is disheartening that some members of the P5 have chosen not to ratify
the CTBT - an instrument that makes it possible for them to meet their
disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.
Another
benchmark would be the irreversible reduction in stocks of nuclear
weapons, wherever they exist. Proposals by the New Agenda Coalition
provide a route-map to this end. It will also be imperative for this
Review Conference not only to consolidate existing nuclear weapon free
zones but to negotiate the creation of new zones in regions where they
do not exist. Another benchmark would be binding security guarantees
to non-nuclear weapon States Parties.
Nuclear
Weapons States should be encouraged to formally recognize and affirm
that the assurances of non-use against non-nuclear weapon states
parties to the NPT and to regional nuclear weapon free-zone treaties
are legally binding. It is also the considered view of my delegation
that the determination of whether a state is in good standing under
the NPT and regional treaties and protected by the assurances be a
matter for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other
authoritative international body.
Mr.
President,
In
conclusion, my delegation would like to recognize those Nuclear Weapon
States that have ratified the CTBT. We also urge the P5 to fulfil
their Treaty obligations and to pursue and conclude negotiations aimed
at the elimination of nuclear weapons. The International Court of
Justice's 1996 Advisory Opinion unequivocally emphasizes the
importance of honoring those obligations. This is no longer the time
for "Do as I say, not as I do."
Thank
you.
Back to Official
Documents and Statements
|