ACCESSIBILITY AT UNOG A A A A The United Nations in the Heart of Europe

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADDRESSED BY DIGNITARIES OF EIGHT COUNTRIES

Vice-President of Iraq, Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia, and Dignitaries of Mongolia, Viet Nam, Estonia, Qatar, Kazakhstan and Japan Address the Conference
26 February 2013

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning, hearing addresses from the Vice-President of Iraq, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, the Foreign Ministers of Mongolia, Viet Nam and Estonia, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Qatar, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, and the Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan.

Khudier Alkhuzaie, Vice-President of Iraq, said that Iraq believed in respecting and implementing the Non-Proliferation Treaties and Conventions and reiterated its respect to international instruments related to disarmament.  Iraq emphasised the need for the Conference to start negotiations on a phased programme for the total elimination of nuclear-weapons within a specific timeframe and to conclude a convention on nuclear weapons.

Miroslav Lajčák, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, regretted that the Conference once again had failed to establish a programme of work and said that individual ambitions prevailed over global security interests and prevented the international community from advancing on issues that would strengthen security for all.  It was not possible to overlook aspirations to open other disarmament avenues and to take multilateral disarmament forward. 

Luvsanvandan Bold, Foreign Minister of Mongolia, recalled that last year marked the twentieth anniversary since Mongolia declared its territory free from nuclear weapons.  Mongolia strongly supported and further encouraged the strengthening of existing nuclear weapon free zones and was prepared to contribute to promoting the goal of ridding the Korean Peninsula from nuclear weapons through negotiation and cooperation and, on a wider scale, establishing a nuclear-weapon free zone in Northeast Asia.   

Pham Binh Minh, Foreign Minister of Viet Nam, recalled that this historic room had witnessed the signing of many peace agreements, including the Geneva Accords that ended the hostilities and restored peace in Indochina in 1954.  Since its first participation in the Conference’s meetings in 1983 and becoming a full member of the Conference in 1996, Viet Nam had always attached great importance to the Conference as the sole global forum responsible for the discussions and negotiations on international disarmament treaties. 

Urmas Paet, Foreign Minister of Estonia, regretted that yet another year was going by without the Conference being able to start negotiations or even agree on a programme of work.  As the stalemate continued and the Conference on Disarmament remained deadlocked, there had been several calls to address the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) outside the Conference’s framework. 

Khalid Bin Mohammad Al Attiyah, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Qatar, said that consistent with its positions which aimed to achieve security and stability in the Middle East and across the world, Qatar had hosted a number of conferences and seminars on disarmament issues, such as the Conference on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the Gulf in March 2012.  Mr. Al-Attiyah emphasised the right of all countries to get and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

Alexei Volkov, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, strongly condemned the recent nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in violation of Security Council resolutions and called for the immediate resumption of six-party talks and on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to refrain from any steps that could lead to the escalation of tensions.

Toshiko Abe, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, renewed its strong demand for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to immediately and fully implement relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.  Once again, Japan urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take concrete actions towards comprehensively resolving outstanding issues of concern, including its abductions of Japanese citizens, and its nuclear and missile programmes.   

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea responded, saying that each country had the right to self-defence and, here in the Conference on Disarmament, States often discussed the importance of sovereignty.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would never accept discriminatory resolutions and double standards. 

The Republic of Korea urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to become a responsible member of the international community by complying with relevant resolutions and obligations.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Wednesday, 27 February at noon, when it will hear addresses from dignitaries from Ireland, Jordan and Slovenia.

Statements

KUDHEIR AL-KHUZAIE, Vice-President of Iraq, said that Iraq believed in respecting and implementing the Non-Proliferation Treaties and Conventions and reiterated its respect to international instruments related to disarmament.  Iraq had acceded to the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions as well as to the Anti-Personal Land Mines Convention.  Last year Iraq had ratified the Additional Protocol related to the safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and was in the last stages of ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  The Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral forum that dealt with disarmament issues, was going through a very critical time, and States had to double their efforts to reach an agreement on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work that addressed the aspirations of all Member States and dealt with all concerns in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Conference.  The issue of nuclear disarmament should stay at the top of the agenda of priorities of the Conference.  The continuing existence of nuclear weapons threatened international peace and security.  Iraq emphasised the need to start negotiations on a phased programme for the total elimination of nuclear-weapons within a specific timeframe and to conclude a convention on nuclear weapons.

Large arsenals of nuclear weapons and the development of new types, including different means of delivery, was a great cause of concern.  Although negative security assurances were vital and a justified demand, they were not an alternative to total nuclear disarmament.  The continuing production of fissile material endangered to the non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament process and Iraq supported efforts to draw up a multilateral treaty to ban the production of fissile material for the production of nuclear weapons and explosive devices.  Outer space constituted a common heritage of humanity and should be explored for peaceful purposes only and it militarization could trigger an arms race.  Iraq also supported the expansion of membership of the Conference and the appointment of a special coordinator for this process.  Establishing nuclear weapon free zones was a crucial step to eliminate nuclear weapons and Iraq supported and participated in efforts to establish these zones in different regions, in particular, in the Middle East.  Israel should start the process to disarm its nuclear weapons, accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and submit its nuclear facilities under the additional protocol of Safeguards Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Iraq regretted the postponement of the Helsinki Conference on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East due to unacceptable excuses.  Iraq called on the Conference to double its efforts to agree on a balanced programme of work that addressed the concerns of all Members.

MIROSLAV LAJCAK, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, recalled that on 12 February the Democratic People's Republic of Korea conducted a third nuclear test, which constituted a great threat to international peace and security.  Slovakia categorically rejected and protested against such irresponsible and provocative acts, in violation of international obligations, and urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to refrain from any action that could escalate tensions in the Korean Peninsula and undermine diplomatic efforts to find peaceful solutions in the region.  Mr. Lajcak also called upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear weapon and missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, to cease all related activities and to comply with all its international obligations.  Mr. Jajcak regretted that the Conference once again had failed to establish a programme of work and thus to respond to numerous demands from the international community.  The Conference could not neglect calls of the United Nations General Assembly and must take its recommendations into account while establishing a programme of work.  Individual ambitions prevailed over global security interests and prevented the international community from advancing on issues that would strengthen security for all.  The Conference on Disarmament was the single multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament matters and it could not afford its further inactivity and deadlock to continue. 

It was not possible to overlook aspirations to open other disarmament avenues and to take multilateral disarmament forward, such as the resolutions adopted last year by the General Assembly.  Slovakia had supported these resolutions with the aim to create a new momentum, but was convinced that the Conference remained the best place to produce global, well-founded and viable instruments.  Slovakia continued to support the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices, which would offer a unique opportunity to create a non-discriminatory regime with equal obligations for both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, and to prevent such material from being used for production of nuclear weapons or falling in the hand of groups linked to terrorism.  Global security had been affected by poorly regulated trade in conventional arms and Mr. Lajcak regretted that a consensus could not be reached to adopt an Arms Trade Treaty at the diplomatic conference in July 2012.  Slovakia believed that substantial progress had been made towards a final agreement and that the adoption of the Treaty should be continued to be sought.  Slovakia was ready to work with all partners to bring the deadlock in the Conference to an end and to bring forward multilateral disarmament negotiations.

LUVSANVANDAN BOLD, Foreign Minister of Mongolia, said half a year after the New Government for Changes had been established in Mongolia, he was pleased to emphasise that the continuity of Mongolia’s foreign policy, especially the priority attached to the core issues of the Conference on Disarmament, remained the same.  Mongolia placed great emphasis on maintaining and strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime as a key multilateral instrument in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  Mongolia attached high priority to nuclear disarmament and commended the outcome of the General Assembly’s First Committee last year, and the adoption of three essential resolutions regarding the establishment of a group of governmental experts on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), the establishment of an open-ended working group on nuclear disarmament, and the convening a high-level meeting on 26 September 2012.  Mongolia supported negotiations on a fissile material treaty in the framework of a balanced programme of work that could contribute to the dual objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  The challenge posed by the proliferation of small arms and related materials remained on the agenda.  Although last year’s Arms Trade Treaty diplomatic conference had failed to adopt a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms, Mongolia hoped that a legally binding treaty would eventually be adopted.

Nuclear-weapon free zones greatly contributed to enhancing global and regional peace and security, expanding and strengthening nuclear non-proliferation regime and advancing nuclear disarmament.  Last year marked the twentieth anniversary since Mongolia declared its territory free from nuclear weapons.  Mongolia valued and appreciated the P5 commitment to respect this status and would further seek full security-assurances by institutionalising this status.  Mr. Bold regretted that the Conference on the Middle East Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction had been postponed.  Mongolia believed that the Conference on Disarmament remained the most appropriate place for conducting multilateral negotiations on disarmament and efforts should be made to safeguard and enhance its authority.  Mongolia looked forward to an earnest solution to the ongoing stalemate in the Conference and supported international efforts aimed at revitalising its work.  Mr. Bold reaffirmed Mongolia’s commitment for general and complete disarmament and hoped that the Conference would revitalise its work and once again fulfil its mandated role negotiating multilateral disarmament treaties.

KHALID BIN MOHAMMAD AL-ATTIYAH, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Qatar, said the arms race had negative effects and, in the light of technological progress and high production costs, forced many countries to assign a higher proportion of resources to the defence sector to the detriment of sustainable development.  Qatar hoped that the Conference would be able to reach agreement on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work during its 2013 session.  Mr. Al-Attiyah pointed out the importance of the availability of Members States’ genuine political will and flexibility in order to break the deadlock that had plagued the conference since 1996, and to move towards the achieving the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  The Conference should review its membership enlargement and to allow greater participation by non-Member States and civil society.  Qatar had expressed its wish to become a member of the Conference and a request had been sent to the Secretariat in June 2012.  Qatar had joined and ratified many major international conventions in the field of disarmament, among others, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Biological Weapons Convention, Conventional Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.  At the national level, Qatar had also established in 2004 a National Committee on Arms Embargo, which included representatives from a number of ministries, in order to provide advice to governmental agencies.  Qatar had also hosted a number of conferences and seminars on disarmament issues, such as the Conference on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the Gulf in March 2012. 

Qatar regretted the postponement of the Helsinki Conference which was scheduled to be held in December 2012 on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons.  The postponement of the Conference as well as its negative effects on regional and global security would deprive the international resolutions of their value and the optimism of their application.  Qatar reaffirmed the importance of having Israel accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that its nuclear facilities were placed under the comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as an important step towards enhancing peace and security in the region.  Mr. Al-Attiyah emphasised the right of all countries to get and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in accordance with relevant legal commitments and in full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Qatar welcomed General Assembly’s resolution 67/56 on the establishment of an open-ended group to set out proposals to achieve further progress on nuclear disarmament negotiations and real progress in the Conference’s agenda, strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and create a world free of nuclear weapons.

ALEKSEY VOLKOV, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that Kazakhstan considered that the Conference was the single standing multilateral forum for negotiations on key mechanisms of strengthening international security, and hoped that the open-ended working group established by the General Assembly would put forward useful proposals for its revitalisation.  The suspension of the work of the Conference until an appropriate political environment emerged or the creation of alternative platforms, as well as bringing some issues outside the Conference on Disarmament, were unacceptable.   Kazakhstan supported proposals for the revitalisation of the Conference submitted by the Secretary-General of the Conference as well as other proposals such as, convening a special high-level meeting, appointing three Special Coordinators (on the agenda, rules of procedures and membership), and on establishing of a Group of Eminent Persons to find out a way out of the deadlock.  The consensus rule ensuring the protection of the interests of all States should not be questioned.  In security matters and multilateral diplomacy, everyone should be equal.  Kazakhstan strongly supported a broader membership of the Conference and stood ready to work closely with all parties to adopt a balanced programme of work.  Kazakhstan was a strong advocate of signing a universal, legally binding multilateral instrument eliminating the nuclear threat.

Kazakhstan regarded the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones as a reasonable practical measure, and hoped that the creation of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East would be implemented.  Kazakhstan believed that the prevention of an arms race in outer space was another critical issue in the Conference’s agenda.  In 2012 there had been some positive developments in the nuclear non-proliferation area, including the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit and the first Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  Today, in Almaty, Kazakhstan, the Six-Party talks on Iran’s nuclear programme had started their next round of negotiations and Mr. Volkov hoped that this event would be instrumental in promoting convergence of approaches and would contribute to the peaceful settlement of this important issue.  Kazakhstan was willing to contribute to the cause of non-proliferation and had offered to host an international nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Mr. Volkov strongly condemned the recent nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in violation of Security Council resolutions and called for the immediate resumption of six-party talks and on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s to refrain from any steps that could lead to the escalation of tensions.

TOSHIKO ABE, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that disarmament and non-proliferation comprised one of Japan’s most important policy areas.  The international community presently faced a number of difficult challenges to its efforts to further disarmament and non-proliferation.  In order to find a way forward, it was especially important for all countries to deepen engagement and involvement at the political level.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had recently announced that it had conducted its third nuclear test on 12 February.  This was totally unacceptable, as it constituted a grave challenge to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime centred on the Nuclear Weapon Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and seriously undermined the peace and security of Northeast Asia as well as the international community.  In addition, remarks made in this Conference on Disarmament plenary session by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea about the Republic of Korea on 19 February had been utterly inappropriate to this venerable multilateral disarmament negotiating body, and were unacceptable to Japan. Japan renewed its strong demand for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to immediately and fully implement relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.  Once again, Japan urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take concrete actions towards comprehensively resolving outstanding issues of concern, including its abductions, and its nuclear and missile programmes.    

While both unilateral steps and bilateral cooperation were important, it was particularly important to move forward with multilateral efforts that reflected the concerns of non-nuclear weapon states.  Within the international community there was a broad understanding that the next logical step in multilateral disarmament negotiations was to commence work on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).  It was necessary to propose concrete steps for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.  Political engagement was indispensable to the success of the efforts of the Conference.  As the only country ever to have suffered from a nuclear bombing during wartime, Japan knew from its own experience the appalling humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.  The disasters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never be repeated.  Ms. Abe wished that the permanent exhibit on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the United Nations Office in Geneva would promote understanding on the reality of the tragedy caused by the use of nuclear weapons and would further deepen awareness of the need for the entire international community to strengthen efforts to bring about disarmament. 

PHAM BINH MINH, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, recalled that this historic room had witnessed the signing of many peace agreements, including the Geneva Accords that ended the hostilities and restores peace in Indochina in 1954.  Since its first participation in the Conference’s meetings in 1983 and becoming a full member of the Conference in 1996, Viet Nam had always attached great importance to the Conference as the sole global forum responsible for the discussions and negotiations on international disarmament treaties.  Given the previous achievements of the Conference, the international community could not help but to expect new breakthroughs in the Conference which would contribute to strengthening of peace, security, and stability in the world.  In 2013 there were many expectations.   The sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly had adopted two resolutions providing for discussion mechanisms on topics of great interest for the Conference.  Among others, the second Preparatory Committee of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, scheduled in May, offered another opportunity to take stock of the implementation of the outcome of the 2010 Review Conference; and the United Nations General Assembly’s high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament, scheduled in September, provided a good opportunity for states to discuss and manifest their political will at a high level. 

Viet Nam’s commitments to peace and disarmament were clearly and consistently manifested in its diverse bilateral relations with other United Nations Member States and regional and international cooperation mechanisms.  As an active member of the Conference on Disarmament, and one of Presidents in 2009, Viet Nam had always given it its full support and contributed to the work of the Conference.  Viet Nam was also aware of the challenges facing the Conference in reaffirming its role and credibility.  Failure to overcome the current deadlock would erode the international community’s confidence and cooperation within the Conference.  Viet Nam believed that an early endorsement and implementation of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work were the only way to break the deadlock. 

URMAS PAET, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Estonia, echoed the deepest concern and condemnation expressed by the whole international community about the nuclear tests conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on 12 February 2013.  This act constituted a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2087, and posed a grave challenge to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, including to the goals and objectives of the Conference on Disarmament.  Estonia agreed that the next logical multilateral step towards nuclear disarmament was to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), a universal agreement banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  Ms. Paet regretted that yet another year was going by without the Conference being able to start negotiations or even agree on a programme of work.  As the stalemate continued and the Conference on Disarmament remained deadlock there had been several calls to address the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) outside the Conference’s framework.  This was not a surprise as the frustration over the impasse had grown over the years.  However, for the sake of the universal nature of the future treaty, the overall health of the international arms-control regime and effective multilateralism, the negotiations and conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) must be carried out within the Conference on Disarmament. 

The existence of a credible verification mechanism for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) seemed to be one of the most crucial elements in future negotiations.  Strong verification mechanisms could help maintain confidence in the effectiveness and transparency of multilateral treaties, but there was not a single formula for addressing verification issues and different options needed to be discussed and debated.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty showed that different features of a treaty could be negotiated separately not only in space but also in time.  Nevertheless, time had been exhausted and delaying the start of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) negotiation process was not a feasible option.  Estonia reiterated its request to participate fully and equally in the disarmament discussions as a full member of the Conference.  The advancement of membership could become an achievement for the Conference and increase its relevance. 

Democratic People's Republic of Korea condemned the allegations made by Slovakia, Kazakhstan and Estonia against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and its right to self-determination, its right to sovereignty, and its right to development.  The delegation asked these countries whether Member States were equal in international relations and each country had the right to development, to launch satellites; and, whether or not, each State had the right to defend its sovereignty.  The nuclear test carried out by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a legitimate counter measure to defend its sovereignty and it hoped that these countries would look at the situation objectively and without the influence of hostile forces.  Responding to the remarks made by Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea also said that Japan was a war criminal and defeated State and had international obligations to uphold peaceful principles.  Japan was systematically destroying these principles, and had dangerous plans and a military alliance with the United States.  It was very clear that the danger came from Japan and its pursuit of hostile policies alongside with the United States.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s nuclear test had a legitimate counter-measure to defend its sovereignty, its right to development, and to develop satellites.  Japan had also mentioned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in remarks that, to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, sounded hypocritical.  It was important to ask who had carried out these bombings.  The delegation called on Japan to give up and discard its hostile policies and actions against Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Japan, responding to the remarks made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that Japan maintained an exclusively defence-oriented policy and therefore exercises conducted by its forces did not target any particular country or area.  Moreover, the ballistic missile defence system which Japan had decided to introduce was also defensive and did not threaten any country or area.  Japan had stated in its 2008 Space Act that it would abide by international treaties and observe the peaceful principles of its Constitution when developing and using the space.  The comments made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were completely pointless.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, on the other hand, was not ceasing its ballistic programme, in flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and which constituted a challenge not only for the security of Northeast Asia but to the whole international community.  Before the Democratic People's Republic of Korea criticised any other State’s activities, it should fully comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and other international commitments. 

Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that Japan was a war criminal and a defeated State and had the obligation to uphold the peaceful principles.  Japan was militarily collaborating with outside forces targeting other Member States and maybe even more, if past crimes in the Korean Peninsula were considered.  Concerning satellites, didn’t Member States have the right to have satellites?  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea condemned and resented their remarks and urged Japan to uphold its peaceful principles, and to openly recognise past crimes.

Republic of Korea stressed that, today, the statements of several Ministers had condemned the nuclear test carried out by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s, in addition to statements previously made by many other States.  This showed how the repeated nuclear testing and missile launches by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea threatened international peace and stability.  The delegation urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to become a responsible member of the international community by complying with relevant resolutions and obligations.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that the Koran Peninsula, a small territory, was still divided between north and south.  Members should focus more on the southern part, its sophisticated weapons, ground forces, were targeting the North and joint-military exercises were carried.  Yet, they claimed that these were defensive measures.  Who could believe that?  The United States was far away but their hands were on the Korean Peninsula.  It was nonsense.  The threat was hovering over the Korean Peninsula due to Republic of Korea and United States’ hostile policy.  Each country had the right to self-defence and, here in the Conference on Disarmament, States often discussed the importance of sovereignty.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would never accept discriminatory resolutions and double standards; it had never done so before and would never do.

Republic of Korea said that around 10 years ago, the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had reached an agreement on the denuclearisation of the Peninsula.  Since then, no nuclear weapons had existed in the territory of the Republic of Korea.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had nevertheless acquired nuclear weapons and a ballistic missile programme, and had carried out several tests.  Where did the threat in the Korean Peninsula really come from?  The Republic of Korea’s military exercises were defensive.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that the Republic of Korea claimed to be under the nuclear umbrella of the United States.  In other words, nuclear weapons were there, ground forces were there.  How many?  It was nonsense that American troops were there carrying out exercises with the Republic of Korea but kept claiming that these were defensive.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had intended to transform the current armistice into a peace treaty but its proposal had been rejected.  This was the reality.  Member States with an objective view could understand where the threat was coming from.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC13/008E