CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS APPEALS FOR ADOPTION OF A PRESIDENTIAL DRAFT DECISION TO GET THE CONFERENCE BACK TO WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements by Germany, Brazil, and Canada, speaking in favour of the adoption a draft decision (CD/1840) presented by the six Presidents of the 2008 session at the 18 March plenary, and aimed at starting substantive work in the Conference.

Germany said that the carefully crafted draft decision by the 2008 Presidents took into account the interests of all members in an honest, fair balanced and comprehensive manner and, in a realistic sense of compromise, left them equally unhappy with it. Germany wholeheartedly welcomed the draft: its elements reflected the necessary decisions the Conference would have to agree on to get back to work. 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 urgent against the backdrop of the security challenges that the world was facing today.

Brazil believed that the draft presidential decision contained elements which could be a stepping stone for the work of the current session. Its adoption should not be considered as closing the possibility of new avenues being opened in the future. The draft decision represented less than what many Member States might wish in terms of negotiation of legally binding instruments, but it would allow the Conference a way out of immobility.

Canada hoped that the Conference would move forward after 10 years of stalemate and polite expressions. One way forward might be to have a number of unofficial discussions that would try to ascertain what the fundamental concerns were with regard to state security, so that one could understand what was the root cause preventing this forum from moving forward and which would allow for more than the insufficient polite exchanges they were having.

At the end of the meeting, Yevhen Bersheda, the outgoing President of the Conference, noted that statements made at the Conference on behalf of a number of groups showed that draft decision CD/1840 enjoyed wide support. While it was clearly not yet time to sum up the 2008 session, it could be asserted that their common achievement so far this year was an atmosphere of constructive approach, tolerance and transparency, and a united commitment to reach consensus in order to step up the work of the Conference.

According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Chile as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; appoint Japan as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations; appoint Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; appoint Senegal as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and would request those Coordinators to present a report to the Conference on the progress of work before the conclusion of the session. The Conference would also decide to request the Coordinators for the agenda items previously appointed by the 2008 Presidents (i.e., new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems for such weapons, radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armament) to continue their work during the current session.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held under the Presidency of the United Kingdom, at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, 26 May.

Statements

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said Germany had been very encouraged by the momentum developed as a result of the 2006 six presidents (P-6) initiative that had been clearly taken up and brought to an even higher level in 2007. That had fostered their hope that in 2008 the deadlock in the work of the Conference could be finally overcome. In particular, Germany highly commended the way in which the 2008 P-6, building on the work of their 2007 predecessors, had again gathered the views of the Member States and managed to merge them into a coherent layout for their work. Solid bridges had been built by the Conference presidencies and other Member States throughout last year and during this session to help the few remaining members join the existing consensus. The carefully crafted draft decision by the 2008 Presidents (CD/1840) took into account the interests of all members in an honest, fair balanced and comprehensive manner which, in a realistic sense of compromise, left them equally unhappy with it. Germany wholeheartedly welcomed the draft decision; its elements reflected the necessary decisions the Conference would have to agree on to get back to work.

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 urgent against the backdrop of the security challenges that the world was facing today, said Mr. Brasack. The threats to security were more diverse, less visible and less predictable. Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control remained indispensable elements of cooperative global security between States and were essential for addressing these threats in a global manner. With the adoption of the draft decision, the Conference would clearly send a decisive signal to the world that they were taking this task seriously. It was of outmost importance that the Conference adopted the fundamental decision to get back to work. It was of the utmost importance that the Conference adopted the fundamental decision to get back to work, and Germany called on all delegations to show flexibility and display constructiveness to achieve that goal by quickly adopting the draft decision.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil), echoing the statement by the Conference President at their last meeting, said they were possibly at the closest to a consensus than they had been for years in this forum. This opportunity had to be seized. Brazil was greatly concerned that the international security environment, which had been clearly deteriorating, affecting political as well as economic prospects. The lack of progress in terms of nuclear disarmament was the basis for the general insecurity. The growing number of regional conflicts might receive mote attention in the media, but the ominous amount of lethal potential lay in the nuclear arsenals. Moreover, the multilateral system as a whole suffered from this situation, as individual States remained aloof, or worse, adamantly kept their arsenals and improved their technological weapons capabilities. Brazil did not identify itself with the logic of any system which relied upon the accumulation and refining of armaments to ensure stability. Issues related to international security had a universal character and thus required multilateral responses within a framework of collective responsibility. Nothing could replace multilaterally negotiated, legally binding agreements.

Mr. De Macedo Soares said the draft presidential decision contained elements which could be a stepping stone for the work of the current session. Its adoption should not be considered as closing the possibility of new avenues being opened in the future. The draft decision represented less than what many Member States would wish in terms of negotiation of legally binding instruments but it would allow the Conference a way out of immobility. Brazil was fully aware that some delegations remained concerned with the implication for their security of starting negotiations on a fissile material treaty. In many aspects, Brazil shared those concerns. But it was recalled that the introduction of that element in the draft decision meant that no Member State was prevented from raising in the course of the negotiations any issue that it might consider vital for its security interests. Any State was free to present proposals. Brazil favoured a fissile material treaty that included a multilateral verification mechanism and stockpile control. By the same token, it favoured negotiations on all items on the agenda. That said, Brazil agreed to start negotiations on a fissile material treaty withhout preconditions and to start substantial discussions on the other items on the agenda, as a contribution to consensus building and to end the longstanding stalemate. Brazil called on other delegations to display the same flexibility and goodwill.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that Canada supported and continued to support the further work of the Conference on the basis of the presidential draft decision. The efforts of the P-6 to move things forward were applauded. Canada wished to see things move forward on negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and on outer space issues.

A willingness to move forward had been witnessed in the past months, and Canada hoped that the Conference would now move forward after 10 years of stalemate and polite expressions. One way forward might be to have a number of unofficial discussions that would try to ascertain what the fundamental concerns were with regard to state security, so that persons like him could understand what was the root cause preventing this forum from moving forward and which would allow for more than the insufficient polite exchanges they were having. The P-6 efforts were welcomed, but more work had to be done unofficially and outside the Council Chamber, Mr. Grinius said.

YEVHEN BERSHEDA (Ukraine), President of the Conference, noted that today‘s meeting was the last under the Ukrainian Presidency. The peculiarity of his presidency had been the timetable. It had made it possible to use an important intercessional period for conducting bilateral and multilateral consultations immediately after his predecessor had tabled the draft proposal CD/1840. During their previous plenary, he had already had the opportunity to inform Members about generally positive feedback that had resulted from the consultations mentioned, as well as about endeavours of the Presidents to reach a consensus programme of work. Statements by Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, by Belarus on behalf of the Eastern European Group and by a number of representatives of the Group of 21, allowed them to assert that the draft enjoyed wide support.

Along with the end of term of the Ukrainian Presidency, the Conference was crossing the "time equator" of this year’s session. Clearly, it was not yet time to sum up. But it could be asserted that their common achievement was an atmosphere of constructive approach, tolerance and transparency, united commitment to reach consensus in order to step up the work of the Conference. The Ukraine delegation would continue to work effectively in the P-6 format. This mechanism was increasingly demonstrating its viability. It allowed for the softening of the transition between the presidents of different countries, the creation of a spirit of tolerance, and the taking into account of the interests of each and every Conference member. Draft decision CD/1840 and its support by the majority of delegations was practical evidence of the P-6 format's effectiveness.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08016E