............................

Mrs. KRAMPLOVÁ (Slovakia):

.........................

We regard it as highly important that the Conference on Disarmament should keep on playing an irreplaceable role in solving the most fundamental issues. In the global context we have in mind threats resulting from uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, in the nuclear field, the next logical assignment of the Conference on Disarmament should be work on the prohibition of the production of fissile materials for weapons and other explosive devices. The adoption of such a prohibition would first of all change the de facto moratoria adopted by several nuclear Powers to a legally binding obligation. Moreover, it would preclude the illegal proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials. Such a prohibition cannot fail to satisfy the interests of all countries which are active in this aspect of the disarmament process. The door leading to the start of work has been opened thanks to the CD decision in 1995. The opening of concrete negotiations has thus become only a technical question. The Slovak Republic is prepared to commence substantive work immediately.

.........................

Mr. BALBONI ACQUA (Italy):
.........................

Italy takes its place, without any hesitation whatsoever, among the countries who support the process of nuclear disarmament with is final goal of achieving the complete elimination of all such armaments. We already undertook steps in that direction in the past, assuming our full responsibility, and we understand the impatient expectations of some countries in this forum for concrete progress on that path. Nevertheless, we are convinced that no positive results can be attained just through declaratory good intentions and take-it-or-leave-it attitudes. This is why - and I am referring to the words of the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lamberto Dini - we urge everyone to be specific and to embark on negotiations for which we feel, along with others, that the time is now ripe. I am referring to a convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ("cut-off") and to the resumption of negotiations in this field. It is inconceivable to permit fissile materials to be manufactured while nuclear tests are being banned and existing fissile material is being destroyed. It would be an historical contradiction! But "cut-off" is only the first of a series of measures set out in the "Principles and objectives" document agreed on at the Review and Extension Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In the view of the Italian Government this document is itself a plan of action for nuclear disarmament over the next few years. Some of the most promising goals that still lie ahead are the following: consolidating and extending the denuclearized zones, especially in areas of tension; strengthening negative and positive security assurances to benefit States that fully comply with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; extending and enhancing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards in order to detect and prevent more effectively any possible undeclared nuclear activity.

.........................

Mr. de ICAZA (Mexico) (translated from Spanish): At the last plenary meeting of this Conference, on 12 June, a group of delegations tried to impose a decision whereby the Conference on Disarmament would deal with the subject of anti-personnel landmines and would even hold consultations on a negotiating mandate in the Conference, despite the fact that in the informal consultations it had become clear that there was no consensus for such a proposal. The delegation of Mexico opposed this attempt. This opposition was misrepresented in some cases and misconstrued in others. I am taking the floor today in the hope of fully clarifying our position.

......................

The PRESIDENT (translated from French):
........................

I am now coming to the end of my term as President of the Conference on Disarmament. When I took on these functions I was aware of the immensity and the complexity of the task on which I was embarking with apprehension, but also with the profound feeling that we were all determined to spare no effort to emerge from the deadlock. The difficulties we had encountered in drawing up the agenda of the Conference at the beginning of our session certainly gave us grounds for thinking that agreement on a balanced programme of work giving equal prominence to the interests, concerns and priorities of everyone would be difficult. However, all the praiseworthy efforts of my two predecessors to this end were unsuccessful. I myself made a modest attempt to find ways and means to bring the Conference out of the current deadlock, and to ensure that we could finally get down to our substantive work. Unfortunately all attempts to open the way to wisdom and to create the conditions for a balanced and measured approach to our programme of work have thus far proved fruitless. At times we thought that we could blame our difficulties on the rigidities of the Conference and what was deemed to be the untransparent process of consultations among the various groups in the Conference. But we must acknowledge that neither the open-ended informal consultations nor the discussions in plenary have brought any more clarity or transparency to our discussions, and have sometimes even contributed to making positions more rigid. I will therefore not surprise anybody when I say that it is not so much our established working methods and procedures which hinder progress, but rather the persistence of fundamental differences concerning the priorities attached by the different parties to the items on the agenda of the Conference, even in a context which is at last free of the influence of the cold war.

............................