The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects

STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. YOSHIKI MINE

AMBASSADOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF JAPAN

TO THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON PROHIBITIONS OR

RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS

WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS OR

TO HAVE INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS

Geneva, 24 November 2005

First of all, let me congratulate you Mr. Chairman, on your assumption of the chair of this important meeting. We are confident that under your excellent chairmanship the States Parties meeting will be able to produce a meaningful outcome. Please be assured of my delegations full support of your guidance.

Mr. Chairman,

Japan believes that the CCW offers a number of clear advantages for States Parties. Firstly, the CCW framework, harmonizes both the security requirements of States Parties and the need to resolve humanitarian problems, as the contents of bans and limitations differ between the categories of weapons. Secondly, the CCW involves a large number of participants, including all the key states. Thirdly, the CCW has the capacity to handle a wide range of humanitarian issues caused by a variety of conventional weapons. These three points make the CCW a particularly important convention amongst the wide array of arms control conventions and treaties. For the purpose of tackling conventional weapons from a humanitarian viewpoint, we would like to re-emphasize that the CCW is a trusted international multilateral legal framework.

Mr. Chairman,

The revision of Article 1 of the framework convention, came into effect in Japan on 18 July last year. Nevertheless, out of the 100 High Contracting Parties to the convention, only a disappointing 44 High Contracting Parties have concluded the Revised Article 1.

It is our hope that in the future, the whole CCW and all the Protocols, including the Revised Article 1, will be adhered to by a greater number of countries and ultimately achieve universalization.

Mr. Chairman,

It is very disappointing that a final agreement on text could not be obtained during the current meeting. Nonetheless, through this current meeting’s discussions many of our queries have been sufficiently addressed.

In the four years of GGE meetings, active discussions have been conducted and almost all the issues except for a very few have reached agreement. It is, therefore, extremely regrettable that the State Parties cannot agree on the Coordinator’s paper, which has been the comprehensive and authoritative basis for consideration and is a compromised text incorporating the comments of many countries. At this outset, we would like to reiterate our sincere appreciation to our Coordinator on MOTAPM, Ambassador Markku Reimaa, for his brilliant job and long untiring efforts.

Since we have already considered all relevant proposals following the current mandate, it is clear to our eyes that we must enter a new phase of formal negotiations next year and conclude a protocol on MOTAPM based on the Coordinator’s paper, by resolving the remaining issues, as soon as possible, but no later than the Third Review Conference. The mandate for next year must reflect these points.

Of course, the Coordinator’s paper is open to any proposal. Actually, in the formal negotiations, all proposals would enjoy more formal attention. I noticed that some States said we cannot start formal negotiation because there are still issues that have not reached agreement, but if we already had agreement on every single point, we would already have a protocol. It is very normal to start negotiation with few remaining issues. We are confident that the work of concluding a protocol will not take long considering the remaining areas of contention are limited. We strongly hope that all States Parties, setting aside their differences of position, exercise flexibility in a spirit of cooperation and will be committed to this noble task of reducing the humanitarian hazard by concluding a protocol on MOTAPM.

Mr. Chairman,

In the current CCW, apart from the Amended Protocol II, a compliance mechanism does not exist. As we have stated in previous meetings, to maintain the effectiveness of the convention, it is imperative that a compliance mechanism is established for the whole convention. Looking towards the 2006 Review Conference, for the purpose of establishing concrete results, we hope that negotiations reach consensus in relation to the work for next year.

Mr. Chairman,

Japan considers that the capacity to add new protocols through negotiations is one of its great strengths of the CCW. By adding new Protocols to the CCW can develop and evolve to tackle the problems that face international society. Henceforth, it is important to gain the active support of the High Contracting Parties for new practical proposals so that the effectiveness and universalization of the CCW framework will grow.

Next year will be a landmark year for the CCW with the convening of the 3^rd Review Conference. Even though we desire great progress on the various issue areas out of the current talks, we should also seek to reaffirm the significance of the CCW and keep in mind next year’s Review Conference.

Thank you