|
Statement
New York, 9 April 2001
Madame Chairperson, Let me first say how pleased my delegation is at seeing you presiding over our deliberations. We are happy that this year the Disarmament Commission is chaired by an outstanding representative of Jamaica, with whom Indonesia has maintained friendly and cordial relations. Being aware of your dedication to disarmament, we are confident of achieving substantive progress in our endeavors under your guidance. Our felicitations also go to the other members of the Bureau on their elections. We are grateful to the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Dhanapala, for his comprehensive statement delivered this morning and which should guide our deliberations. When the Disarmament Commission was convened last year, my delegation had the opportunity to present its views on the two agenda items that are before us. As this is the second year of the general debate, I shall confine my remarks to only some aspects, while reserving more detailed comments on specific questions during our deliberations in the Working Groups. Madame Chairperson, When the historic Millennium Summit was convened last September, it provided an unparalleled opportunity for reflection and reassessment of our objectives and priorities in disarmament. In coming to grips with some somber realities, the Declaration adopted by our Heads of State and Government urged the international community "to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim...". It is undeniable that the most important question confronting the world in disarmament is the abolition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. After the INF, steady progress in eliminating nuclear arsenals by about two-thirds was made, unilaterally or bilaterally, under the strategic arms reduction process which was reinforced by the declared willingness to initiate START III and which will lead to significant reductions in the arsenals of the two leading military powers. These endeavors were greatly facilitated by a significant reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles in the post-Cold War era, by the offer of some nuclear weapon states to cease production of fissile materials for military purposes and to place them under IAEA safeguards and by the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The need for greater progress for global nuclear disarmament was also the focus of attention at both the NPT Review Conferences held in 1995 and during last year. The obligation contained in Article VI of that Treaty was reinforced by the Decision on Principles and Objectives adopted in 1995 as well as by the acceptance at the 2000 review exercise of "an unequivocal commitment to nuclear disarmament" and of "practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts" towards the abolition of nuclear armaments. These decisions reaffirm that the fundamental obligation to rid the world of the dangers posed by nuclear weapons continues to be the high priority in the international agenda. Progress was also made on some issues peripheral to the nuclear agenda such as the irreversibility of nuclear disarmament measures and transparency with regard to weapons capabilities. Indonesia was gratified to note that the Final Document acknowledged the diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security strategies in order to minimize the risk of these weapons from ever being used and affirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons offered "the only absolute guarantee" against their use. The issue of tactical nuclear weapons was also taken up for the first time at a review conference and is no longer an obstacle for future deliberations. These constituted significant changes in approaches to nuclear disarmament and have provided a direction for a future non-proliferation agenda and steps toward nuclear disarmament. These positive developments notwithstanding, we can not but follow with great concern at the lack of deep reductions in nuclear arsenals. Reminiscent of the persistence of deadlock during the Cold War period, some of the nuclear weapon states are solidifying their stockpiles and consolidating their weapons infra-structure. Modern designs are not only being maintained but also upgraded into more sophisticated weaponry. The focus continues to be on new rationalizations for the retention of nuclear weapons. The world is thus confronted by a seemingly irreversible spiral of escalation, now threatened by the initiation of space technologies for military purposes, by the ominous prospect of the unraveling of progress made by the selective implementation of arms limitation treaties and by the threat of a fresh round of arms race. The nuclear situation has indeed deteriorated as negotiations are either stalled or there are no negotiations on some critical issues leaving open the possibility of a nuclear arms race being reignited and leading to an uncertain strategic era. The window of opportunity opened in the post-Cold War era to make nuclear weapons reductions and to move present opportunity and continue with outmoded approaches, a new period of global tension may result with a renewed arms race aggravated by new technological developments. In this regard, we have before us numerous proposals advanced by states or groups of states reflecting an international consensus for the total abolition of nuclear arsenals. Common approaches and identification of practical and realistic measures to achieve this objective involving all member states are among their most distinguishing features and hallmark. And their implementation with a time-frame would drive the process inexorably towards their final elimination. These include, inter alia, the elimination of destabilizing tactical nuclear weapons whose very existence is fraught with the danger of accidental or unauthorized use; unilateral reductions based on reciprocity which will open up new frontiers on arms limitation and lead to radical cuts in strategic arms; a fissile material cut-off treaty focusing attention equally on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament; universal adherence to the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty; and the ratification of the Protocols that established nuclear-weapon-free zones in various parts of the world together with specific modalities to respond to the security concerns of each region. Indonesia and other non-aligned countries are firmly committed to nuclear disarmament. The Movement’s principled position was reiterated at the Ministerial Meeting held last April in Cartagena, Colombia. Madame Chairperson, My delegation shares the increasing concern over the development, proliferation and deployment of ballistic missiles which can carry weapons of mass destruction. Our concern is prompted by apprehension of a shift in arms race from Europe to Asia. These have underscored the need for a multilaterally negotiated, comprehensive and non-discriminatory agreement to reduce and eliminate destabilizing ballistic missiles without in any way hindering their application for peaceful purposes. Of equal concern, are plans for missile defense which will inevitably have far-reaching repercussions on existing arms control treaties and on the prospects for future agreements. These would be incompatible with the limiting provisions of the ABM Treaty which has been generally recognized as a critical component of strategic stability and an indispensable element to further reduce strategic armaments. The need for a comprehensive approach in resolving this issue in order to create an international climate conducive to the promotion disarmament and international security is self-evident. As far as the second item on our agenda is concerned, Madame Chairperson, we are greatly benefitted by the past endeavors of the Disarmament Commission in formulating guidelines and recommendations, among others, on conventional arms control with particular emphasis on the consolidation of peace; on international arms transfers; on regional approaches to disarmament within the context of global security; and on confidence-building measures. During its intervention last year, my delegation has dealt in detail and elaborated on some of these measures. We will extend support to the Commission’s efforts in formulating guidelines on confidence-building in the context of conventional arms. We believe that they have an important role to play as means of increasing transparency, clarifying intentions, and particularly, in addressing the security dilemma. Rather than injecting issues that are irrelevant to disarmament, our endeavors should be guided by a sense of realism and pragmatism. Indonesia has been a co-sponsor of General Assembly resolutions on objective information on military matters. Lack of adequate information on the military strengths of states has often been a major cause of suspicion and a prime factor in the continuation of the arms race and the slow progress in disarmament efforts. Hence, the sharing of data could contribute significantly to dispel suspicion and secrecy. For these reasons, efforts to improve the flow of information on military matters are needed to establish confidence, overcome mistrust and thereby facilitate the process of disarmament. In this context, the great potential offered by modern technology, including information technologies and devices, can be utilized in preventing crisis, reducing risks and ensuring the observance of arms control agreements and thereby contributing to confidence-building among nations. My delegation has also participated in the United Nations sponsored standardized reporting of military expenditures which constitutes another important approach to the objective of reliable information on military matters. If this system were to be further developed and widely participated into a series of measures, it could lead not only to a considerable increase in the data available on resources devoted for military purposes but also at an enhancement of confidence-and-security-building in various parts of the world. Against the backdrop of an increase in the number of intra-state conflicts, a welcome development in recent years has been the growing awareness of the tragic consequences emanating from the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. Specific and realistic proposals for addressing this problem has already been advanced as part of a far more multifaceted approach. As was the case with land mines, progress will depend on cooperation among member states, based on a sense of humanity and common purpose. Ultimately, the credibility of our efforts in addressing this question will be measured in human terms: it will rest on whether or not our efforts help peoples and communities live in greater security. I remain confident that the forthcoming international conference will adopt a realistic and implementable programme of action that would put in place global norms to be implemented by all member states. I thank you, Madame Chairperson.
|
