Statement By H.E. Arch. Renato R. MARTINO
on General debate on all Disarmament and International Security Items*

Monday 25 October 1993

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to offer you the warmest congratulations on your election to chair this important committee. And I extend best wishes also to the other members of the Secretariat.

The theme of my remarks today is the need to overcome the paradox that confronts the committee and the world in considering the issues surrounding the arms question.

On the one hand, we have reached a landmark in history. The end of the Cold War has fostered radical reductions in nuclear weapons, a global chemical weapons ban, conventional forces reductions in Europe, a universal arms register, and a decision to negotiate a nuclear test ban in the Conference on disarmament. These are accomplishments that hearten us as we continue the journey to peace with true human security as its chief characteristic.

Yet the warfare, brutality, and atrocities that scar the former Yugoslavia, the Horn of Africa, and other regions of the world are a shocking contrast. The inability of the world political and military systems to stop post-Cold War bloodshed testifies to the fragility of present world mechanisms for peace. The nefarious arms trade continues. And arms races are even accelerating in Asia with a number of nations involved in major arms acquisition programs and the development of high-tech military industries.

That arms production should be excused, even encouraged, today in the name of jobs to shore up faltering economies is a tragic reflection on economic policies and public priorities that have not yet recognized the new demands of the global security agenda.

The picture that emerges out of this paradox of modern weaponry – the good news of arms cuts, the bad news of continuing warfare – is one of continued reliance on militarism as the guarantor of security. Though world totals have declined from the heights of Cold War spending, arms production is driven by a repetition of the idea that it is necessary.

Positive trend lines, welcome as they are, cannot obscure the dangers to the future of human civilization. These dangers lie in the uncontrolled expansion of weaponry, nuclear and conventional, through crisis-ridden regions of the world. They also lie in the atrophy of the political systems unable, or unwilling, to build the conditions for peace with the same intensity that they prepare the weapons of destruction. What the end of the Cold War revealed was the paucity of machinery for peace in the various regions of the world.

This paucity has its roots in the lack of a shared vision for an international community sharing an increasingly despoiled planet. There is not yet a political comprehension of the repercussions of the social injustice caused by the powerful demanding more in a world of finite resources. An international system providing equitability rather than exploitation is the central need of our times.

This Committee, bearing its responsibility along with the rest of the U.N. systems to strengthen the foundation for peace, should be commended for combining the debates on disarmament and international security. For disarmament is now regarded as key element in the integrated approach to international security. Yet all States do not appear to be listening when calls are made for an end to the use of force; for general and complete disarmament under effective international control; for more balanced development of the world economy and redressing the current asymmetry and inequality in economic and technological development between developed and developing countries. These are the basic prerequisites for the strengthening of international peace and security and must be met by more than blandness from those whose commitment to social justice as the basis for enduring peace does not appear to extend beyond lip service.

The Holy See shares the view expressed by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his 1993 Annual Report: «...From every angle of vision, chronological, practical, functional, conceptual, individual and institutional, we come to one conclusion: humanity’s project is now truly universal, and to cope with it we must fashion comprehensive and integral projects, policies and efforts».

The Secretary-General’ s wide-ranging strategy, «An Agenda for Peace», is a significant step forward in combining the elements of preventive diplomacy, peace-making, peace-keeping, and peace-building. The subsequent debate in the Security Council emphasized the need for all States to make participation in and support for international peace-keeping a part of their foreign and national security policy. The importance of «An Agenda for Peace» has been reaffirmed in the recent General Assembly resolution. This new activism in considering the requirements of peace is undoubtedly welcome. But, with the Secretary-General, the Holy See holds that: «… New levels of political will and intellectual creativity must be attained if wider engagement is to produce enduring achievement».

One of the signs of hope for our times that directly concerns this committee is the future of nuclear weapons. All those who have engaged in the moratorium on nuclear testing deserve commendation. But a moratorium cannot be an end in itself. Nor is the cessation of the production of nuclear material for bomb-making. Rather our immediate goal must be a global ban on nuclear testing by all countries in all environments for all time. That goal must be reached in time to ensure the successful extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995; and a Comprehensive Test Ban will be a milestone in the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.

The new period of history the world has entered enables fresh insights into the fundamental policies of nuclear deterrence that have for so long held sway. Today, there is no logical reason for the retention and further development of such cataclysmic firepower. Nuclear reductions are not enough. The collapse of Communism as an international force, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the strengthening of the United Nations peace-keeping and peace-making machinery to deal with incipient conflicts – these and other developments that have shown the magnitude of this new moment in history – challenge the world community to adopt a post-nuclear form of security. That security lies in the abolition of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of international law.

The most perilous of all the old Cold War assumptions carried into the new age is the belief that the strategy of nuclear deterrence is essential to a nation’s security. Maintaining nuclear deterrence into the twenty-first century will not aid but impede peace. Nuclear deterrence prevents genuine nuclear disarmament. It maintains an unacceptable hegemony over non-nuclear nations. It fuels arms race buildups around the world. It spawns a militarism that is choking off development for the poorest half of the world’s population. It is a fundamental obstacle to achieving a new age of global security.

Since the U.N. Charter is, for all practical purposes, a pre-atomic age document, the Non-Proliferation Treaty literally supplements the Charter in addressing the problems of the atom and development. The NPT involves five commitments: acceptance of a political and moral norm against the possession of nuclear weapons; the obligation to eliminate existing stocks; international cooperation in the peaceful uses of energy; special assistance to developing countries; measures to ensure a world free of nuclear weapons. In essence, the NPT promised a world in which nuclear weapons would be eliminated and technological cooperation for development would be widespread. The gap between the promise and the performance has widened, and each five-year review of the treaty has been confrontational.

The successful extension of the NPT, beyond 1995, depends on the compliance of the near-nuclear states, which are increasingly dismayed by what they consider the deception of the nuclear powers. They are demanding that the nuclear powers terminate their nuclear-weapons programs. The onus for stopping the development is clearly on the present nuclear powers. With ballistic missile technology expanding rapidly through several regions, with the division of the world into two classes, rich and poor, becoming more pronounced, with the revival of nationalisms and the rise of new and old resentments as well as with many regional economic disputes, now spawning huge migrations and terrorism, it is inevitable that the regional conflicts ahead will employ modernized weapons – possibly including nuclear – unless the leaders of the world instigate a global ban on the production as well as the transfer of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear.

A comprehensive test ban would, inter alia, reduce the discriminatory nature of the NPT and such discrimination will only be fully overcome when the existing nuclear weapon States renounce reliance on nuclear weaponry and move expeditiously to accomplish its elimination.

One year ago, the Holy See stated in this Committee: «The world must move to the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal, non discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority».

Today, we repeat those words, conscious that the widening agenda for global security is acquiring a momentum. These past few years have revealed the physical, security, economic and social connections that increasingly affect modern life. A new ethical view of nuclear deterrence should come from greater recognition of what the «common ground» of our one planet means.

*The Holy See at the United Nations, 1987-1998, New York, Pro Manuscripto, 1998, Part. I, p.301-303.