CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM CHINA, RUSSIA, EUROPEAN UNION, NETHERLANDS AND SRI LANKA

The Conference on Disarmament today heard general statements from China, the Russian Federation, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Netherlands and Sri Lanka, focusing on how to move forward on a programme of work. It also heard an opening address by the incoming President of the Conference, and adopted its agenda.

Ambassador Samir Labidi of Tunisia, President of the Conference, underscored the importance of the "unprecedented event" of having the United Nations Secretary-General address the opening of the Conference's session, which served to reinforce confidence in their forum. The President said he had had helpful consultations with all delegations on the documents before the Conference submitted at its 2007 session. While some delegations had said that they were ready to adopt the texts, others said they would join a consensus, and still others had indicated that they were ready to continue working to find a consensus. What was notable was the good will of all to work towards a consensus on the basis of the Presidential proposal, as the foundation of a programme of work. He was sure they would make progress.

In their interventions, speakers focused on the search for consensus on a programme of work. China said it was confident that if they could continue treating each other as equals, respecting the concerns of all, faithfully abiding by the rules of procedure and preserving transparency and openness in their work, substantive work of the Conference could be launched at an early date. Russia agreed that the main aim they all shared was to achieve consensus on a programme of work, in a spirit of compromise, and taking into consideration the concerns of all delegations, and underlined that the six Presidents' efforts last year had been crucial in that effort. The European Union said the six Presidents proposal represented a carefully crafted compromise, and urged other Members to go ahead with its adoption, warning that this could be delayed no longer. The Netherlands underscored the European Union's message that a balanced and carefully crafted compromise was on the table. On that they must proceed as "there was no other way". Sri Lanka highlighted that strivings in the field of nuclear weaponization were a symptom of insecurity – real or perceived. Sri Lanka was not at all convinced that a chorus of exhortation to “climb on the bandwagon” was the way to go. If some States had some misgivings that kept them from joining the consensus then those real underlying concerns, such as negative security assurances, had to be addressed.

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.

The 2008 agenda of the Conference includes the following items: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; transparency in armaments; and adoption of a report to the General Assembly.

At the meeting, the Conference agreed to invite the following States to participate in its 2008 session as observers: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iceland, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Moldova, Mozambique, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Sudan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United Arab Emirates.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 January. The President of the Conference announced that the Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom, Des Browne, would be present at the Conference's plenary meeting on Tuesday, 5 February; the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, would be present on Thursday, 7 February; and the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the United States, Thomas D'Agostino, would be present at the Tuesday, 12 February, plenary of the Conference.

Statements

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia), President of the Conference, in brief opening remarks, said Tunisia deeply appreciated its role as President at this critical juncture for the Conference; the task before this session was of particular importance. Evidence of that had been the participation of two honoured guests – the United Nations Secretary-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia – in the opening plenary of the Conference. That unprecedented event had been applauded by Conference members as reinforcing confidence in their forum.

Mr. Labidi thanked the six Presidents of the 2007 session for their efforts to further the work of Conference. As President, he had held bilateral consultations with delegations, and Ambassadors and Experts had also met to discuss the Conference’s methods of work. Those consultations had brought excellent results. It appeared there was a widespread consensus among Members to adopt the agenda at the beginning of its session. That would give a strong signal of the confidence of Members to move forward with the Conference’s work. The President had also had helpful consultations with all delegations on the documents before the Conference submitted at its 2007 session. While some delegations had said that they were ready to adopt the texts, others said they would join a consensus, and still others had indicated that they were ready to continue working to find a consensus. What was notable was the good will of all to work towards a consensus on the basis of the Presidential proposal, as the foundation of a programme of work. The President pledged to work tirelessly and in a balanced and open manner to achieve the needed consensus. He was ready to do what was needed to move the work of the Conference forward, and he was sure they would make progress.

WANG QUN (China) observed that traditional security threats were still with them, while new threats, such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, had emerged. As the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, the Conference had a heavy responsibility to bear. To that end the Conference should work collectively to meet security challenges and to promote international peace and security. China had noted the address of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in which he appealed for a spirit of compromise from all parties in order to further the work of the Conference, and called on them to all work together to make this year a "breakthrough year".

For China, the number one priority was to work on the basis of prior achievements and through the process of dialogue and consensus to arrive at a balanced work programme that was acceptable to all parties. If they could continue with their past tradition of showing mutual respect and treating each other as equals, and in particular to the concerns of all, and if they faithfully abided by the rules of procedure and preserved transparency and openness in their work, China was confident that the substantive work of the Conference could be launched at an early date.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the international community and this forum faced extremely acute problems, as had been pointed out in the Secretary-General’s address to the Conference's opening plenary. Indeed, expansions of zones of conflict, regional crisis, the terrorist threat, increased threats of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and stagnation in the area of arms reduction all threatened international peace and security. They also challenged the achievement of economic growth worldwide. What needed to be done was to establish clear rules for international intervention in such areas. Russia held dear the multilateral approach, on the basis of strict implementation of existing agreements and the development of new international agreements. They needed to make more active use of the Conference for the elaboration of a regime of non-proliferation weapons of mass destruction and disarmament. As for efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space, the Council had to show that area could be addressed by filling in gaps in international space law. Russia and China had drafted a proposed treaty for prevention of an arms race in outer space, and the proposal would be officially submitted to the Conference on 12 February this year. Russia would not object to the start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Such a treaty would be a real contribution to strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons regime. Russia also had no objection to holding substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and on negative security assurances, and was ready to take an active part in such debates.

The President had a difficult duty ahead of him, the Russian Federation said. The main aim they all shared was to achieve consensus on a programme of work, in a spirit of compromise, and taking into consideration the concerns of all delegations. The six Presidents' efforts last year had been crucial in that effort, and the proposals made by the new President in this area were also very positive and constructive.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, assured the current President and the future 2008 Presidents of his personal and the European Union’s support for moving the work of the Conference forward. The European Union remained convinced that the work of the 2007 Presidents had moved the work forward, particularly during the first part of the session. In March 2007 the six Presidents had presented a proposal for a programme of work, which the European Union had supported. The European Union reiterated its support for the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, and would spare no efforts to ensure that this unique forum returned to its true purpose and started substantive work. The European Union believed that a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices constituted a priority ripe for negotiation. It was also ready to begin talks on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances, and other issues related to the Conference's agenda.

The European Union remained convinced that CD/2007/L.1**, later complemented by CD/2007/CRP.5* and CD/2007/CRP.6*, represented a carefully crafted compromise. The European Union urged other Members to go ahead with its adoption. The issue could be delayed no longer. Finally, the European Union reminded everyone of its longstanding engagement to the expansion of the membership of the Conference, in particular for Member States of the European Union who had applied for membership.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that, further to the European Union statement, with which the Netherlands associated itself, the Netherlands wished to add its congratulations to the President for the smooth adoption of the Conference's agenda, which augured well for further proceedings this year. Last Wednesday, for the first time in the Conference’s history, the United Nations Secretary-General had addressed the opening plenary of the Conference on Disarmament. He used strong words. He had reiterated the value placed by the international community on the Conference on Disarmament, as the world’s sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations. However, he had said that he was “deeply concerned” by the impasse over priorities, and called for this year to be a "breakthrough" year. The Netherlands believed they had to seize that historic opportunity now. A balanced and carefully crafted compromise was on the table. On that they must proceed. There was no other way.


The Netherlands then quoted famous politicians and writers as lessons for the Conference, such as Molière, who had said it was not only what we do, but what we do not do for which we are accountable. Also quoted was a New York Times editorial on prospects for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world, drawing the lesson that the Conference needed to chart a course to higher ground, from which prospect the path to take could be clearly perceived.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) wondered whether the wisdom from the ages, as quoted by the Netherlands, gave them much comfort. Heraclitus had said that war was the father of all things. It was not necessarily very helpful to quote thinkers of past and present. What was noteworthy was that strivings in the field of nuclear weaponization were a symptom of insecurity – real or perceived. They were an epiphenomenon of certain projects or efforts to gain or maintain position or status. There were underlying reasons behind the build up or proliferation of those awful weapons. It was incumbent on the Conference to be sensitive to those issues and concerns of countries that resulted in the phenomenon they were trying to combat. Sri Lanka was not at all convinced that a chorus of exhortation to “climb on the bandwagon” was the way to go. If some States had some misgivings that kept them from joining the consensus then those real underlying concerns, such as negative security assurances, had to be addressed. What was needed was understanding, wisdom, concern, patience and a reaching out to partners, making modifications if necessary, being flexible, and drawing everyone in to their constructive pursuit.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08005E