CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS THOUSANDTH MEETING

The Conference on Disarmament, the world’s sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, this morning held its thousandth meeting, an anniversary that was highlighted by all the speakers who urged further cooperation, compromise and change in order to break the deadlock and return the Conference to the successes of the past.

Addressing the Conference, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference, said without political decisions at the highest levels, even the most determined efforts of the existing multilateral disarmament bodies, including the Conference on Disarmament, would not succeed. The Conference should not be discouraged from using existing and potential mechanisms available to it now, such as debates on issues on the agenda, for mutually influencing policies and security perceptions of Member States and for furthering the consensus building process. In parallel, the Conference should review its working methods and seek new approaches that could make it more responsive to contemporary security threats and challenges.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, said today was the thousandth plenary meeting, and it was time to take advantage of this opportunity to reflect on, and to draw lessons from, the accomplishments of the Conference and to reaffirm its unique role in the international system. For years, success in striking a balance between priorities had eluded the Conference, and instead of negotiating agreements, it had searched to reach consensus on priorities.

The responsibility to progress and negotiate conventions came from the Conference’s mandate, and the considerable successes achieved in the past, said Switzerland. The Conference remained a unique and authoritative international forum, and the international community associated with its activities hopes for a more secure peace and a just world order, said the Russian Federation. The Conference could not remain deaf to the legitimate expectations of the international community, said Ukraine.

Today’s “millennium” should make all reflect on the nobility of the cause pursued, and on the benefits for humanity of successful results, said Italy. It should be recalled that the Conference was a means, not an objective, said Norway, and the Conference needed more emphasis on availability rather than on time-consuming artificial procedural mainstreaming. Those blocking progress should be made to understand that the inertia in the Conference was doing damage not only to common security, but to their own, said Sweden. There was a group of members that seemed to believe that only if items of interest to them were negotiated would they negotiate on items of interest to their interlocutors, said Colombia.

In searching for the best way to break the impasse, there was a need to broaden the vision of the Conference by reassessing today’s world, the basic understanding on security as well as the relationship between security and arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, said China. The Conference should never find itself in the situation that in retrospect only a disaster could have catalysed the necessary political will to start working again, said the Netherlands.

The Republic of Korea and other speakers offered their condolences to Poland for the collapse of the roof of an exhibition hall in Poland on 28 January.

The next plenary meeting will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 2 February.

Statements

IN-KOOK PARK (Republic of Korea) said the roof of an exhibition hall in Chorzow, Poland, had collapsed on 28 Jan 2006, and as the next President, he wished to express, on behalf of the Conference and on his own behalf, the most sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to the people and Government of Poland.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), President of the Conference, said today was the thousandth plenary meeting, and it was time to take advantage of this opportunity to reflect on, and to draw lessons from, the accomplishments of the Conference and to reaffirm its unique role in the international system. The Conference should not be judged by its functioning or the number of its subsidiary bodies. The missing link today was the lack of so-called political will, or more precisely different perceptions of today’s threats to security among nations, and this was what the Conference should concentrate on.

Consensus was often blamed for the lack of progress. Until 1996, the Conference had had a programme of work, and since then it had been without one. It had, at times, had certain successes, due to times when people in the room were concentrating, and rightly so, on current issues of importance to the international community. This was proof that substantive work could take place, if there was consensus to do so, even if problems of a procedural nature persisted. Methods of work needed to be improved consequently. However, from old documents, it could be seen that the programme of work was not the basis for the substance itself. Substance came in the form of working papers, non-papers, proposals and others from delegations and the NGO community.

What was truly needed at the Conference today was creativity. It had the necessary potential to make things move forward: best diplomatic skills, and necessary expertise. It needed to create a basis for substantive deliberations, which would then lead to real work on substance. Arms control strategy was currently taking shape in an environment for which a functioning security system was still lacking. The Conference was confined to that environment, and needed to address challenges in a creative and unconventional way, a way that went far beyond the anachronism that was the Cold War mentality. Recent years had brought new challenges, and the disarmament community should pay more attention to the issues of universalisation of the arms control and disarmament treaties, as well as to their effective verification. The Conference should be treated as a tool to address real challenges of the world.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said it was the thousandth meeting of the Conference, and most delegations would agree that there was no reason to celebrate this anniversary, given the piteous state of progress of the Conference. It was perhaps the right moment to evaluate the situation, think of the future, and remember the responsibility given to the Conference by the community of States. The responsibility to progress and negotiate conventions came from the Conference’s mandate, and the considerable successes achieved in the past. The Conference was an institution that functioned, the problem lay in the absence of political will to begin new negotiations. A change in structures would change nothing. Disarmament was a long-drawn out process which touched on the fundamental security interests of States. Some successes had taken place. The Conference had known its apogee in 1968, with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and between 1968 and 1996 it had been most productive. But there had been no new convention for almost ten years, and it was time for this to change. It was hoped that the spirit of peace would guide the Conference, and help to bring it out of its rut.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said today was the thousandth plenary meeting, and some believed that there was not much to celebrate. But the Conference should be cautious with its self-flagellation, and should be proud of the past tangible results achieved by the forum. The priceless improvement obtained in terms of international security and stability and in terms of humanitarian benefits which derived from existing and potential disarmament and non-proliferation agreements should be considered. Today’s “millennium” should make all reflect on the nobility of the cause pursued, and on the benefits for humanity of successful results. It was true that past years had not been productive, and a compromise on priorities had not been reached, but efforts on this should continue. After the adoption of the agenda, the Conference should seek a consensus on a programme of work.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said today was the thousandth plenary meeting, and there were few reasons for celebration, as the Conference should not continue to be bewildered by the conventional wisdom that it had a glorious past and that problems in recent years did not affect the excellence of this “best club in town”. The problem was not that it was being repeated over and over again in the chamber that the Conference was the best club in town, but that it was being stated with no irony. It was true that it had produced two arms control treaties in the 1990-1996 period, but it was also true that in its 27 years of history, nothing else had been produced. It was also true that almost all existing arms control instruments had been negotiated before the Conference was established, or outside it, in parallel tracks. At this meeting, it should be recalled that the Conference was a means, not an objective. Occasionally, means could obscure objectives - and in the chamber, all issues were being kept hostage by each other. It was prohibited to address one concern unless all thinkable concerns were being addressed simultaneously. The Conference needed more emphasis on availability rather than on time-consuming artificial procedural mainstreaming.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation) said the Conference remained a unique and authoritative international forum, and the international community associated with its activities hopes for a more secure peace and a just world order. Russia shared the assessment concerning the thousandth plenary meeting, and the analysis provided by the President’s statement, as well as his optimism. The Conference’s substantial contribution to the cause of international peace, security and disarmament during its existence could not be ignored. A number of interesting points and proposals had already been put forward, and practical proposals made, all of which moved the Conference ahead towards its main goal, which was to find a compromise on the programme of work. The initiative to strengthen cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear power in the context of efforts to ensure global energy security, which was put forward by the President of the Russian Federation on 25 January, should be supported by all interested countries. Its main point was the creation of a prototype of a global infrastructure which would assure all interested countries equal access to the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear power under strict compliance with all norms of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said the meeting today was of special significance, as it marked the thousandth plenary meeting, and the Conference had come a long way, experiencing evolutions and bearing witness to profound changes in international situations. It had made significant contribution to world peace and security. Its importance was undoubtedly beyond questioning, and was an essential part of the international and multilateral disarmament regime. But the glory of its past could not cover up its present difficulty: it had not been able to carry out substantive work for many years. In searching for the best way to break the impasse, there was a need to broaden its vision by reassessing today’s world, the basic understanding on security as well as the relationship between security and arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. Security was always relative, and only when common security for all countries was achieved could the security of individual countries be guaranteed. China favoured cultivating a new security concept with mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation as its core value, and advocated multilateralism and democraticisation in international relations, and stood for security through cooperation. It was hoped that the deadlock would soon be broken, and that substantive work in a comprehensive and balanced manner would be started at an early date.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that to the incoming participants in the Conference, three things stood out: the peculiar role of the regional groups, the absence of civil society, and a certain lack of imagination. When speaking about the present stalemate, a number of participants had reluctantly agreed that perhaps only a massive catastrophe in the near future would give renewed urgency to agreeing on a programme of work and getting down to business. But the Conference should never find itself in the situation that in retrospect only a disaster could have catalysed the necessary political will to start working again. That was why it was its duty to timely imagine all possibilities, and its task to come up with security analyses that were as broadly shared as possible, and to compromise in order to effectively contribute to preventing catastrophe. A timetable should be designed which allowed the Conference to engage in focussed discussions. Expectations were high, but the stakes were high as well, including the very existence of the Conference as a viable and credible framework for global negotiations on disarmament and non-proliferation.

CLEMENCIA FORES UCROS (Colombia) said 2005 had ended with scant results in the field of disarmament, and 2006 had begun with few causes for optimism, as things were heard which brought fresh disquiet to the disarmament field. The President’s proposals were very constructive, and it was hoped they would be rewarded by the consolidation of the necessary political will which would contribute towards putting an end to the worrying lack of consensus that had paralysed the body for too long. There was a group of members that seemed to believe that only if items of interest to them were negotiated would they negotiate on items of interest to their interlocutors. The importance of negative security issues brought up the issue of balance, which could not be omitted from any part of the work of the Conference. If all members of the Conference believed that to take up additional themes dealing with issues on the agenda separately with no interlinking or awaiting the new programme of work based only on ripe issues was the most efficient way to end the paralysis, then Columbia was behind this. But if the members of the Conference believed it should work without prejudging the outcome, and what was really needed was to overcome political mistrust and lack of will, then perhaps an agreement could be reached at a high level.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said today was the thousandth plenary meeting, and in hundreds and hundreds of these past meetings, the members of the Conference had joined in sincere search of solutions to common problems. New and creative approaches were tried, important pieces of international law negotiated. Rejecting the use of the Conference to develop necessary rules and norms and to strengthen verification and compliance carried the risk of a slippery slope towards anarchy and the use of force in international relations. This was particularly disturbing at a time when globalisation worked to make weapons and weapon technologies widely accessible, and security problems more and more interconnected. For too many years now the Conference had been effectively stymied by fruitless debates where some agenda priorities were pitched against others. The failure was political. The legitimate security concerns of all States should be acknowledged and addressed; effective multilateralism meant seizing opportunities when they arose. Those blocking progress should be made to understand that the inertia in the Conference was doing damage not only to common security, but to their own.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said the thousandth plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament was an appropriate occasion to assess past achievements, to reflect on the causes of the impasse which had existed since around 1999, and to give thought to ways and means of restoring the leading role of the Conference in multilateral arms control and disarmament negotiations. After the conclusion of negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention, in 1992, and on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, in 1996, the Conference had entered a period of slowing-down of activities, which over the years had led to the impasse. Paradoxically, the origins of the impasse could be attributed to the end of the Cold War, which changed significantly the international security equilibrium and led to a re-evaluation of disarmament priorities by States. These priorities – until then rather stable – had started to evolve with the changing perception of security by States. New actors had emerged on the international scene, and with the possibility of acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, international relations had become even more complex, more dangerous and less predictable than previously. Notions of strategic stability, war avoidance and nuclear deterrence have been redefined, and multilateralism had been giving way to a predominance of particular national interests.

Over the years, the impasse has been attributed to a number of causes, including differing views concerning the agenda, the rules of procedure, the decision-making process, the informal system of political groups, the composition and the lack of involvement of civil society. Potential remedies have not had the desired effect. In this context, we should not lose sight of the fact that progress on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation had also been elusive in other contexts. The greatest disappointment of the 2005 World Summit in September was no doubt the failure to reach agreement on even a single paragraph on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that without political decisions at the highest levels, even the most determined efforts of the existing multilateral disarmament bodies, including the Conference on Disarmament, would not succeed. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations had stated in his message to the Conference this year, “the impasse cannot be broken by procedural means or by merely fine-tuning existing proposals. Capitals need to thoroughly reassess attitudes towards the Conference, and develop a new political consensus on priorities in arms control and disarmament.” The Conference should not be discouraged from using existing and potential mechanisms available to it now, such as debates on issues on the agenda, for mutually influencing policies and security perceptions of Member States and for furthering the consensus building process. In parallel, the Conference should review its working methods and seek new approaches that could make it more responsive to contemporary security threats and challenges. Progress may be modest, but the Conference could not afford to remain inactive.

YEVHEN BERSHEDA (Ukraine) said the year 2005 had proved to be another year of standstill and stalemate for the Conference, which was unable to effectively launch its work, notwithstanding the numerous and tireless efforts made. The Conference could not remain deaf to the legitimate expectations of the international community. All needed to restate their commitments to multilateralism as a core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation with a view to maintaining and strengthening appropriate universal norms and enlarging their scope. Progress on nuclear disarmament was as essential to winning the struggle against proliferation as ever. Safeguards served as an important technical tool for sustaining an environment in which there could be peaceful use of nuclear energy without the threat of proliferation. Universal adoption and faithful implementation of the strengthened safeguards system and additional protocol to them was a prerequisite for an effective and credible non-proliferation regime. There was deep concern at the continuing lack of consensus in the Conference which could eventually cause and was already leading to the erosion of the multilateral instruments in the arms control and disarmament sphere, thus having a negative impact on mutual trust and confidence among States.

* *** *

For use of information media; not an official record

DC0604E