Statement by
Ambassador Eric M. Javits
United States Representative to the Conference on Disarmament
Geneva, June 27, 2002

- As Delivered-

Mr. President,

Before I proceed with my prepared remarks, I would like to make a brief comment on statements made earlier this morning by the ambassadors of Ireland and India. Both of them referred to the Nuclear Posture Review that was recently conducted by the Untied States. It is important to understand, however, that this was a review and not a statement of agreed U.S. policy. Further, the Nuclear Posture Review calls for less reliance on nuclear weapons and greater emphasis on conventional weapons.

On May 28 and 29, I had the honor to participate in an informal conference to discuss the topic, "Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade- Offs." This highly interesting gathering was held in England and was sponsored by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the University of Southampton's Mountbatten Center. Since I believe that my remarks during the in-formal conference may be of interest to colleagues here in Geneva, I have asked that the statement I gave on May 29 be distributed as a CD document. (Text of May 29 Statement)

I doubt that anyone in this room will be surprised if I reiterate now, as I did on May 29, that the United States sees no need for new outer space arms control agreements and opposes the idea of negotiating a new outer space treaty. We believe the existing outer space regime is sufficient, and the statement I gave at the conference explains the rea-sons for that belief.

The United States understands that certain other Member States have differing views. We understand that the work of the Conference on Disarmament must be broad enough to encompass diverse priorities and goals, and we hope that Member States will be able to develop an agreed approach that will lead to consensus. In that spirit, the U.S. re-mains willing to support the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on outer space that would carry out broad-ranging discussions at the same time as the Conference conducts active and ongoing negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

Since these outer space discussions would be exploratory in nature, the United States is not willing to specify in advance what the net results may ultimately prove to be. We cannot support any draft mandate that attempts to bias the work of the future Ad Hoc Committee toward a particular goal or outcome, and we certainly cannot accept the view that the Ad Hoc Committee should start its work with the preconceived idea that it will later be necessary to negotiate a legally binding instrument.

Discussion in the Ad Hoc Committee must be frank and free, sweeping and sincere. CD Member States have not reached consensus on the need for further measures in regard to outer space, and they will not unless broad discussions yield common con-victions and goals.

The chairman of the future Ad Hoc Committee on outer space will have to guide it in
a fair, transparent, and even-handed way. I realize that U.S. views and recommendations would need to be considered in a context that includes the views and reflections of other Member States. This, after all, is how the Conference works.

On the other hand, Mr. President, Member States of the Conference simply will not en-gage in efforts to reach consensus if they believe it would undermine their own national security needs and goals or those of their Allies and friends - even if theoreticians or spokespersons for other nations were to assert that some arrangement they envisage would benefit humanity. In practice, common concerns and mutual advantage would have to be the basis for any joint effort. It would therefore make sense for the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to accord high priority to work aimed at identifying such factors.

I do not know whether such an endeavor would succeed, but let us suppose that it does. Treaty negotiations may not be the most likely result. Proponents of some new treaty would have to meet a high burden of proof, including the obligation to offer convincing reasons for believing that such an undertaking would increase stability and that effec-tive provisions for compliance and enforcement could be worked out.

In contrast, I find it easier to imagine consensus being reached on a proposal to develop new confidence-building measures. For example, Member States might decide to work on measures that would increase the flow of information or otherwise enhance openness and transparency about activities in space. Such measures would be valuable in and of themselves, and they would tend to discourage possible actions that might be destabil-izing or counterproductive.

I offer these comments in a practical and cooperative spirit, for we really do not know where exploratory discussions in an Ad Hoc Committee on outer space may eventually lead. The priority goal of the United States is negotiations to conclude a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, but in that context we are also prepared to participate in good faith in the work of other Ad Hoc Committees that would foster serious and thoughtful discus-sion of topics related to nuclear disarmament and outer space.

Mr. President, I believe that Members States of the Conference should now take the crucial decisions that would end the long-standing deadlock. I hope that Members of the Conference will address that challenge with a resolute and determined spirit during the summer break, and I look forward to cooperating with you when the CD reconvenes in late July.

Thank you, Mr. President.