STATEMENT BY H.E.MR. SUMIO TARUI

AMBASSADOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF JAPAN

TO THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

Geneva, 15 February 2007

Effective International Arrangements to Assure Non-Nuclear Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons

(Japan)

Mr. Coordinator,

At the outset, let me congratulate you, Ambassador da Rocha Paranhos, on your assumption of the role of Coordinator for this informal meeting on Agenda Item IV. when it addresses such an important issue for the international community and wWe assure you of our full cooperation in your efforts.

Mr. Coordinator,

Japan has always basically supported the concept of negative security assurances (NSA). At the time of signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, Japan emphasized within its statement at the time of signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970 declaration that “nuclear -weapon sStates should must not have recourse to not use of nuclear weapons or threaten to use nuclear such weapons against non-nuclear -weapon sStates.”

NeverthelessS, since it is the nuclear -weapon sStates that must provide NSAs, their position is fundamental to the achievement of progress in of the discussions on this issue. In this respectIn this regard, there is still appears to be consensus among all the nuclear -weapon sStates on the provision of negative security assurances to the levels set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), and this must should be re-acknowledgedaffirmed. Beyond Resolution 984, we would like to highlight recall that the examination considering of further steps for NSA was agreed to within the NPT framework of the NPT in 1995. Again, in 2000 it was agreed that legally binding security assurances NSAs would strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Mr. Coordinator,

Japan believes that for the creation of legally-binding, multilateral NSAs we must need to gain the consensus of all the nuclear -weapon sStates, and in order to progress to the next step, clarifying the definition of a non-nuclear weapon sState is crucial. For example, shouldn’t it stands to reason that a scountries tate that has tested and declared the possession of nuclear weapons should not be granted is ineligible for NSAs, regardless of whether itthey isare inside or outside the NPT.? Moreover, shouldn’t it also stand to reason that such a state is ineligible to be recognized as a provider of NSAs, since such recognition would grant this state treaty or de facto status as a nuclear weapon stateConversely, do we then have to grant such countries treaty status as nuclear-weapon States??

Mr. Coordinator,

Japan is of the opinion that the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones, through declarations on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by among countries States in the regions that meet the generally appropriate and general conditions, can contribute to regional peace and security and nuclear non-proliferation. HoweverSupport, agreement by by the all the nuclear -weapon sStates is requiredimportant, in this respect, for the provision of NSAs to specific relevant regions. In this connection, Japan is watching carefully with hope the the current efforts towards the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones. As stipulated in the 1999 UN Disarmament Commission Guidelines, these efforts should proceed , and hopes these efforts proceed and be realized via through sufficient the necessary consultationss with the nuclear -weapon sStates, as stipulated in the 1999 UN Disarmament Commission Guidelines.

Thank you, Mr. Coordinator.