Title: "NPT Debate Continues for Third Day." Remarks by delegates from a number of countries on the third day of debate at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference.
Translated Title: Debate TNP continua en su tercer dia. (950420)
NPT DEBATE CONTINUES FOR THIRD DAY (NPT Excerpts: Speeches during NPT debate) (920) United Nations -- As the 1995 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference progressed April 20, delegates representing some 178 countries continued their opening remarks.
Following are excerpts from some their speeches: -- Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa: "We insist on achieving the universality of the treaty -- literally and with no exceptions -- and on its credibility, also in the true sense of the word, through serious and effective security assurances and safeguards. We also deem it essential to maintain its balance through the commitment of all countries to honor their obligations under the treaty. Unless this is achieved, the non-proliferation regime would become a misleading regime designed to benefit some at the expense of others while, perhaps forever, excluding yet a third group.
"We have come to this conference imbued with hope that the spirit of dialogue, not of defiance, will prevail in our proceeding and that understanding and not confrontation will also prevail. Our main commitment is to strengthen the treaty, achieve its universality and increase its effectiveness. This is why the review should be objective in order to strengthen that which is positive and take the necessary decision to redress the negative aspects....
"I would like to point out that in extending the NPT, we are but reaffirming the legal norm upon which the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons regime was established. This established norm should be abided by even by the states (that are) non-parties to the treaty, or else we would be undermining our efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation regime by according a special status to the states who chose to remain outside the regime. This seems to us to be both unfair and illogical....
"Egypt has expressed its readiness to respond positively to any specific preliminary steps taken by Israel, provided they constitute a practical move towards its accession to the NPT, or towards the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East....
"Persistent ambiguities concerning the Israeli nuclear program would lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region and could well carry the seeds of a regional arms race with all its grave repercussions, not to mention its implications as to the failure of the treaty to achieve its desired objectives, as well as the negative implication it would convey to the regional parties, to the effect that their accession to the treaty did not provide them with the safety and security against nuclear dangers. Such a situation would also raise a serious question: Is it logical, politically correct or even responsible for the states of the region to agree to support the indefinite extension of the treaty, whereas a state within its region is benefiting from an exemption allowing it to maintain a nuclear program outside the boundaries of international legitimacy, a fact which could threaten their very security and stability?....
"Egypt finds itself, today, in a position where she cannot support the indefinite extension of the treaty because the regional situation in this regard remains volatile and, by no means, satisfactory."
-- Peru's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Efrain Goldenberg-Schreiber: "For practical reasons and for reasons of principle we firmly support the indefinite extension of the NPT as the sole instrument at our disposal to continue the process of nuclear disarmament and to make peaceful nuclear cooperation possible. In other words, Peru supports the indefinite extension of the NPT and the strict compliance with its letter and spirit, because we believe the NPT represents a realistic and successful answer. With that aim in view, we should maintain the review conferences every five years and, perhaps, consider some mechanism for follow-up between conferences in order to monitor compliance with agreements....
"Developments in the world in the last five years show us that no aspiration, remote though it may seem, is beyond reach. What is needed, especially during the next three weeks, is a great deal of political acumen, a spirit of compromise and, above all, a clear perception that what we are deciding here will have inevitable implications for the future of mankind."
Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the U.N. H.L. de Silva (who spoke April 19):
"The treaty has withstood many challenges in the past. It proved its resilience throughout the Cold War period and has nearly as many states parties as United Nations members. Despite unprecedented problems of compliance and others relating to sovereign rights, no state party has withdrawn from the treaty.
"The NPT can face the challenges of the future if the states parties boldly confront the problems of its operation and address them in a spirit of cooperation, good faith and solidarity. The common good of all states parties rather than a subjective view of good and bad should be the main criterion for collective action. If the states parties do so (the) treaty can move into the future with confidence.
"My delegation will work assiduously to promote a consensus on a long-term extension of the treaty. We do, however, believe that the extension will be applicable to the treaty in its entirety. That is a positive approach which will enhance the confidence of the existing states parties. It would also allay the security concerns of at least some of the threshold states which remain outside the treaty and will promote universality. We all need to work together to develop a consensus on that score."