CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM 12 SPEAKERS ON HOW TO START SUBSTANTIVE WORK, OTHER ISSUES

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard general statements from 12 speakers on how to start substantive work as well as other issues. Some speakers urged the Conference to adopt the Draft Presidential Decision and its concomitant statements in order to create a significant momentum to bring the Conference out of its longstanding stalemate, while others stressed that the security concerns of all had to be taken into consideration.

Sri Lanka, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Conference should promote a balanced and comprehensive programme of work which would help it accelerate progress towards consensus. How to achieve this balance was the challenge before the Conference.

Japan said the Conference should remember that this was the tenth year since it last engaged in negotiations, and it was important to revitalise it as the single multilateral negotiating forum of the international community. Last year, there had been important substantive discussions on all important items, including the four core issues. Together with the complementary Presidential Statement and draft decision CRP.6, the Conference could begin discussions again this year.
The Republic of Korea said no one could deny that the Draft Presidential Decision, together with the two other documents, were the most noteworthy product of the 2007 session. They were based upon a realistic and balanced approach, and would not deprive any Member State of the ability to assert their national position in the subsequent phases of work. The Draft Presidential Decision was the only possible compromise to bring the Conference back to work. Given that the proposal enjoyed large support, the Conference should seek the way to mobilise the necessary consensus by addressing any remaining concerns.

Pakistan said in order to succeed, the Conference should make combined efforts, and take on board the concerns of all members. The way to progress was to achieve agreement on a programme of work so that the Conference could begin work on the core elements of its agenda. Egypt said it was well-known to all that any serious move in the Conference would not come about until the interests and priorities of all parties were treated equally, without selectivity or double-standards. There should be no imposition of a certain subject without taking into account the concerns of others. The work should progress in a manner that covered the concerns of all, as this would strengthen the current international climate.

Australia said the balanced and carefully crafted Presidential Decision and accompanying documents were a fair and just basis for work, and remained the most realistic opportunity through which the Conference could make the progress the international community had sought for more than a decade. The Decision set out vital goals and a means for achieving them. Germany said with the adoption of the Presidential Decision as it stood, the Conference would clearly send a signal to the world outside the chamber that it took its task seriously. This would also underscore the relevance of a multilateralist approach to security, and testify to the Conference’s commitment to a multilateral treaty system, which provided the legal and normative basis for all disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.

Brazil said it fully supported the proposal of the Six Presidents of the 2006 session, and the proposed Presidential Declaration. Although it had elements which displeased most delegations, it provided an opportunity to resume the work of the Conference - namely, to negotiate important multilateral disarmament treaties. The Conference should not be discouraged by the difficulties in its path - it was in such times that solutions emerged. Chile said it had supported the formulation of the Six Presidents, and did so again this year, and supported the proposal in the Draft Presidential Declaration and the other documents. The innovative mechanism of the P-6 platform provided for cohesiveness, transparency, and coherency.

Israel said it should be clear that striving to achieve long-term goals, without first identifying and addressing the present threats could be ineffective. Israel therefore attached great importance to the export control regimes, and their evident contribution to efforts aimed at curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and evidence to that lay in its recent legal and institutional reform process.

Iran said today a statement had been made full of unsubstantiated claims by Israel. The Middle East was facing the problems created by that regime. Against strong condemnation by the international community, the regime continued its indiscriminate actions against civilians, men, women, and children. Such a regime had no moral authority to advise others on their actions.

The Netherlands spoke about the immense waste of paper by the Conference, which was a waste of money and bad for the environment, as information could be sent via the Internet, and did not need to be printed out. Germany said with regards to the programme of work - if delegations wished to address issues one to three at the outset in the formal Conference meeting, then they would have to address all items next week, which was when they were on the agenda. This would cause complications, for various procedural reasons.

In 2007, the Conference was not able to reach agreement on a programme of work and so was unable to start work on substantive issues. A Presidential Draft Decision (CD/2007/L.1**) was submitted as a basis for an agreement to begin substantive work in the Conference, and successive Presidents conducted intensive consultations with a view to reaching agreement on it. Presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1** calls for the appointment of four Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Complementary Presidential Statement, CD/2007/CRP.5*, reflects an understanding of the Conference on the implementation of the Presidential decision, and the third text CD/2007/CRP.6* is a short decision stating that when the Conference adopts the Presidential decision, it will be guided by the Presidential statement in its implementation.

During the meeting, the Conference also agreed to invite the Dominican Republic to participate in the work of the Conference, in keeping with the rules of procedure.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Sri Lanka for the Group of 21, Japan, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Australia, Israel, Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Chile, Iran and the Netherlands.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Samir Labidi of Tunisia, the President of the Conference, said he had asked the Secretariat to circulate a detailed calendar of activities so that delegations could organise themselves for future meetings, following agreement thereon. Bilateral consultations would be organised. As regarded high-level visits, there would be several of these. The detailed calendar of activities would allow the work of the Conference to continue.

The next meeting of the Conference will be on Thursday, 31 January 2008 at 10 a.m.

Statements

SAMIR LABIDI, President of the Conference, said he had asked the Secretariat to circulate a detailed calendar of activities so that delegations could organise themselves for future meetings, following agreement thereon. Bilateral consultations would be organised. As regarded high-level visits, there would be several of these, including from the United Kingdom, the United States, the Russian Federation, and from many other countries. The detailed calendar of activities would allow the work of the Conference to continue.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Group of 21 fully appreciated the Conference’s striving to find common ground on a programme of work to begin its efforts as soon as possible. The Group firmly believed that the promotion of multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Conference should be regarded as the core principle of any negotiations that may be pursued in the Conference. This would preserve the unique role of the forum, which was the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. Achieving total nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority of the Group, and it was mindful of the urgent need to address the issues pertaining to fissile material, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances, and in this regard the Group appreciated the different priorities of different delegations in addressing these four core issues. The Conference should promote therefore a balanced and comprehensive programme of work which would help it accelerate progress towards consensus. How to achieve this balance was the challenge before the Conference, and the Group of 21 would cooperate fully in that exercise.

SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said it was often said that the early stages of the annual session were difficult, and this year was no exception. However, the Conference should manage to achieve the tasks set by the international community. The Conference should remember that this was the tenth year since it last engaged in negotiations, and it was important to revitalise it as the single multilateral negotiating forum of the international community. Last year, there had been important substantive discussions on all important items, including the four core issues. Together with the complementary Presidential Statement and draft decision CRP.6, the Conference could begin discussions again this year. Japan reiterated the importance for all Member States to continue and intensify their efforts to reach a consensus on the programme of work. The Secretary-General of the United Nations had said last year that adoption of the Presidential Decision would not deprive any State from asserting its national position. Japan supported the current programme of activities, and was willing to actively participate in the discussion of the four core issues. In order for the Conference to fulfil its main function as the only disarmament negotiating body, the Conference should continue its work to find consensus on a negotiating mandate in parallel with its substantive discussions.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said in 2007 the Conference engaged in constructive and serious discussions under the able leadership of the different Presidents, based upon the new P-6 mechanism initiated in 2006, and the appointment of Coordinators for seven items of the agenda. This initiative had, without a doubt, greatly contributed to increasing the consistency and intensity of discussions in the Conference, creating a significant momentum to bring the Conference out of its longstanding stalemate. The appointment of Coordinators complemented the coordination among Presidents, by their genuine engagement and dedication, and this tradition should be maintained to lead the discussions in a more constructive and efficient way.

At the last meeting, the Agenda for 2008 had been adopted. The priorities for more focused debates had been extrapolated last year, and these were a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, nuclear disarmament, negative security assurance, and preventing an arms race in outer space. Given the importance of the continuity and coherence of discussions in the Conference, it would be better for it to concentrate on the core issues in order to build on what had been achieved in 2007. No one could deny that the Draft Presidential Decision, together with the two other documents were the most noteworthy product of the 2007 session. It was based upon a realistic and balanced approach, and would not deprive any Member State of the ability to assert their national position in the subsequent phases of work. The Draft Presidential Decision was the only possible compromise to bring the Conference back to work. Given that the proposal enjoyed large support, the Conference should seek the way to mobilise the necessary consensus by addressing any remaining concerns.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the Coordinators [nominated by the President of the Conference in an informal meeting this morning] were being appointed under the prerogative of the President, not by the Conference. Their role was different from that of Special Coordinators who in the past were appointed by the Conference, and had a clear mandate. The Conference could establish subsidiary bodies - the Coordinators did not fall into any of these categories. They would work informally and unofficially under the President, and did not supplant any mechanisms of the Conference. Their discussions would have no status, and would be transmitted under the authority of the President. The P-6 Initiative was very important, and the arrangement remained informal, and the negotiations thereunder remained negotiable. The outcome of these negotiations was not a fait-accompli. In order to succeed, the Conference should make combined efforts, and take on board the concerns of all members. The way to progress was to acheive agreement on a programme of work so that the Conference could begin work on the core elements of its agenda. Pakistan looked forward to working constructively with all Conference members.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said the reality was that the Conference had achieved very little in the past decade - it had discussed, debated, deliberated, questioned and argued some of the most important security challenges facing the international community - and yet, all the while, the expectations of the communities had seemingly far outgrown the capacity of the body to meet them. It was time that the Conference fulfilled its negotiating mandate, and met the expectations of the international community. The balanced and carefully crafted Presidential Decision and accompanying documents were a fair and just basis for work, and remained the most realistic opportunity through which the Conference could make the progress the international community had sought for more than a decade. The Decision set out vital goals and a means for achieving them.

The negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices was of the utmost importance to Australia, and such a treaty was an essential and practical contribution to global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Australia urged the nuclear weapon States, and other States holding nuclear weapons to make deeper, faster, and irreversible cuts to all types of nuclear weapons, and to do so with even greater transparency. Non-nuclear weapons States should ensure their actions contributed to ensuring an environment conducive to nuclear disarmament. Together, nuclear weapons States and non-nuclear weapons States should use the Presidential Decision’s mandate as an opportunity for the Conference to strengthening the process and pace of nuclear disarmament. The discussions of security assurances over the past two years had reinforced this issue as one of continuing concern. All nations had a right to unhindered access to outer space for peaceful purposes. It was not acceptable by any standard that the world’s principal forum for negotiation on arms control and disarmament remained idle for so long, all the more so as it was the clear will of the overwhelming majority of nations in the chamber and beyond that it took action.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said last year’s deliberations in the Conference on the seven agenda items had demonstrated that the Conference had the potential of becoming a useful instrument in the hands of the international community to address global security issues. Member States had all made a significant effort to work towards a better understanding of national positions in the realm of global security. At the same time, the deliberations had emphasised the fact that for some States, work in the Conference related to issues closely linked with vital national security needs, and these national considerations should be respected. It should be clear that striving to achieve long-term goals, without first identifying and addressing the present threats could be ineffective. It was incumbent upon the members to work jointly towards creating the conditions that would allow eventually achieving general and complete disarmament.

There were two fundamental threats to global peace and security which deserved to be placed as the highest priorities of the Conference: the threat of terrorism in all its dimensions; and the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Israel believed that the responsibility to prevent arms from falling to wrong hands lay first and foremost on strong national commitment to act decisively to prevent such illicit transfers. No international arrangement in this regard would be effective without this fundamental national obligation. Israel therefore attached great importance to the export control regimes, and their evident contribution to efforts aimed at curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and evidence to that lay in its recent legal and institutional reform process.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said the valuable P-6 formula of the 2006 and 2007 sessions had been retained, and this had provided substantial progress towards overcoming the deadlock in the work of the Conference, and the resumption of substantive negotiating. The Presidential Proposal, supplemented in a serious, patient and strenuous process to add clarity and to provide answers, indeed reflected the necessary decisions the Conference would have to agree on to get back to work. The Presidential Proposal took into account in an honest, fair, balanced and comprehensive manner the interests of all Conference members - and in a realistic sense of compromise left them equally unhappy with it. There was no realistic and viable alternative to this approach. And yet, the adoption of this balanced and carefully crafted Decision would not deprive any Member State of the ability to assert its national position in the subsequent phases of the Conference’s work. All delegations should go along with the consensus and adopt the documents which were on the table since last year’s session as swiftly as possible.

Getting the Conference back to fulfilling its function as the single multilateral forum at the disposal of the international community for disarmament negotiations was all the more important against the backdrop of the security challenges that were being faced today. Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control remained indispensable elements of cooperative security between States, and were essential for effectively addressing these threats. With the adoption of the Presidential Decision as it stood, the Conference would clearly send a signal to the world outside the chamber that it took this task seriously. This would also underscore the relevance of a multilateralist approach to security, and testify to the Conference’s commitment to a multilateral treaty system, which provided the legal and normative basis for all disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.

CARLOS DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said over the years, Brazil had played a constructive and active role in the Conference to achieve a programme of work that would encompass the concerns of every Member State. It had supported the Shannon Mandate, and had, during its Presidency in 2000, contributed a proposal to overcome the impasse of the long-standing impasse. Last year, a significant effort had been put forward by the P-6, with strenuous efforts to formulate a programme of work. Unfortunately, there had been no consensus on this, but it was still on the table, and consultations continued. Brazil fully supported the proposal of the Six Presidents of the 2006 session, and the proposed Presidential Declaration. Although it had elements which displeased most delegations, it provided an opportunity to resume the work of the Conference - namely, to negotiate important multilateral disarmament treaties. The Conference should not be discouraged by the difficulties in its path - it was in such times that solutions emerged. Brazil was committed to continue to work of the Conference, and to move forward on negotiations on the basis of the tabled documents.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said Egypt was ready to cooperate with all Presidents of this year. This was a time when the international community was looking forward to discovering the optimum method for the Conference to resume its role, return to the appropriate path, and discharge its responsibility to attain the goals of disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament, which would strengthen international peace and security. It was well-known to all that any serious move in the Conference would not come about until the interests and priorities of all parties were treated equally, without selectivity or double-standards. There should be no imposition of a certain subject without taking into account the concerns of others. The work should progress in a manner that covered the concerns of all, as this would strengthen the current international climate.

Egypt was committed to working seriously and unflaggingly to attain the goals and objectives of disarmament- it was important to get rid of all weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament would always remain an important priority in all international fora on disarmament, and should remain one of the priorities of the Conference during the new session, in particular in the light of the numerous challenges seen by the international community. The Conference had a great responsibility to the international community, in order to attain the important goal that was nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons were a threat to international peace and security, and their irreversible and complete disappearance was a vital priority, in particular in the Middle East region. Egypt welcomed the adoption of the agenda for 2008, and looked forward to active and constructive participation on the debate on all issues therein, and would support all serious initiatives made to bring the Conference out of the impasse, whilst safeguarding the interests of all and the mandate of the Conference itself.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the appeal made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations was a responsibility the Conference should assume vis-à-vis the international community in 2008. Constant efforts had been made, and they should not go to waste. The Conference should resume substantive work - over the last decade, failed attempts to rescue the Conference from stagnation had been made, and it had remained bogged down. Chile had supported the formulation of the Six Presidents, and did so again this year, and supported the proposal in the Draft Presidential Declaration and the other documents. The innovative mechanism of the P-6 platform provided for cohesiveness, transparency, and coherency. Today, in the same will to cooperate in the search for an outcome, Chile was prepared to assume the office of Coordinator that it had been asked to take on, and under this title, it would not seek to assume for itself any rights or prerogatives that would impede progress. Chile would spare no effort to ensure progress in the prevention of nuclear war and the cessation of the arms race. Chile would like a world that was free of nuclear weapons.

MOHAMMAD TAYHI HOSSEINI (Iran) said today a statement had been made full of unsubstantiated claims by Israel. The background of that regime was filled by all sorts of inhumane actions, such as State terrorism and proliferation of mass destruction. The Middle East was facing the problems created by that regime. Against strong condemnation by the international community, the regime continued its indiscriminate actions against civilians, men, women, and children. Such a regime had no moral authority to advise others on their actions.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said after the mostly lofty interventions heard this morning, he wished to raise a very down to earth subject, taking the opportunity of the New Year to make a new beginning. This was the immense waste of paper by the Conference, which was a waste of money and bad for the environment. Information could be sent via the Internet, and did not need to be printed out. Member States received the records of the meetings in many copies, then new versions in many copies, and a wide range of other documents. One hard copy should suffice, with new versions sent by email. This could save thousands of dollars and euros which could be better used. The Conference was used to receiving a lot of paper, and not much else, and this waste problem could be treated more effectively. If necessary, the Netherlands would make a formal proposal in this regard.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said he also had a down-to-earth question and topic. There were two questions with regards to the programme of work - if delegations wished to address issues one to three at the outset in the formal Conference meeting, then they would have to address all items next week, which was when they were on the agenda. This would cause complications, for various procedural reasons. Further, there were no formal meetings scheduled on Thursday 21 February, and on Thursday 6 March, and the reason for this required clarification.

SAMIR LABIDI (President of the Conference on Disarmament) said that things would be organised to proceed as effectively as possible with regards to these two issues.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08006E