CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT BY WOMEN’S NGO ON OCCASION OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY
The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a statement from a representative of the Women’s League for International Peace and Freedom on the occasion of International Women’s Day (8 March). The President of the Conference presented a working paper containing a draft programme of work for the Conference’s 2010 session for consideration, and Pakistan responded on the substance of that proposal.
Beatrice Fihn of the Women's League for International Peace and Freedom highlighted that, among other disarmament-related events, 2010 was also important because it was the anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security. By placing gender within the United Nations mandate of maintaining international peace and security, resolution 1325 provided an important framework and context for raising gender awareness in all aspects of security and defence. It also brought into light a focus on the contribution of women as stakeholders in peace and disarmament, and the role of women in decision-making as a necessary element for promoting the prevention of conflicts. The Conference had taken a small step to implement resolution 1325 by allowing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom to read out its statement today for the first time.
Ambassador Mikhail Khvostov of Belarus, President of the Conference, introduced a Presidential proposal for a draft programme of work for the 2010 session of the Conference (CD/WP.559). It was not new. Two weeks ago he had prepared an unofficial document based on last year's programme of work (CD/1864) and recommendations contained in General Assembly resolutions. It was not an ideal document, but he believed this was the most constructive way to reanimate the Conference and give it new confidence. He had endeavoured to take into account proposals that had been received in numerous consultations and which it was believed would not have a negative effect on regional consensus. He had also received proposals from individual delegations and from groups of States, which, in his view, did not at this stage enjoy the necessary support to set up a programme of work. In particular, many participants had referred to nuclear disarmament as a priority in the Conference’s work, and some delegations had indicated the need to have a negotiating mandate on that issue. As had been correctly noted by a number of delegations, there were at least three basic issues on which they needed to continue targeted work and were ripe for negotiations. However, it was his assessment that the agreement that had been achieved with unanimous support in 2009, and which had been supported by two consensus resolutions of the General Assembly, had the greatest support at this stage.
Pakistan observed that the working paper just introduced was mainly a copy of CD/1864, which did not enjoy consensus anymore and therefore could not serve as a starting point. Indeed, the President had acknowledged that there was no consensus on that text. It was not balanced; it did not reflect the Group of 21's proposal to establish an ad hoc committee for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, the raison d’être of the Conference. The working paper also ignored a number of ideas and proposals by Conference members, including Pakistan, and was not comprehensive, as it did not propose any work on item 2, prevention of nuclear war. The working paper further mixed up the two issues of the programme of work and its implementation, including decisions on the appointment of chairs, which should be handled separately. Finally, it was observed that the nuclear cooperation agreement signed by the nuclear weapon States had rendered a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices (FMCT) ineffective before negotiations could even be begun. The Conference could not and should not be held hostage by the FMCT issue. There were other important issues on its agenda that needed to be addressed in order to strengthen international peace and security, including nuclear disarmament and a legally binding treaty on negative security assurances.
Also speaking at the meeting were representatives of Croatia and the Russian Federation, which both underlined the importance they attached to the celebration of International Women’s Day.
The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 11 March at 10 a.m., when it is expected to discuss further the working paper on a draft programme of work before it.
Document CD/WP.559 is a Presidential proposal for a programme of work for the Conference’s 2010 session. It specifically references the programme of work for 2009 (CD/1864), as well as recommendations to the Conference by the General Assembly (which encourage the Conference to begin work on an FMCT). It envisages the establishment of four working groups: on cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, to exchange views and information, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral character; a working group to negotiate an FMCT, on the basis of CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein; a working group to discuss substantively, without limitation, all issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; and a working group on negative security assurances to discuss substantively, without limitation, with a view to elaborating recommendations “... not excluding those related to an internationally legally binding instrument”. It also appoints three coordinators – on new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; on a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and on transparency in armaments – to seek views of members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to those issues. The proposal also sets out or highlights a number of basic principles, including that rotation and equitable geographic representation will apply to the working groups and special coordinators.
Statements
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, began the meeting by drawing attention to the earthquake in Turkey, in which many had lost their lives and which had caused much destruction, and extended the Conference’s condolences to the Government and the people of Turkey. He also welcomed Sergio Duarte, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, who would be attending the Conference today and next Thursday.
BEATRICE FIHN, of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, delivering a statement on the occasion of the celebration of International Women's Day (8 March), noted that 2010 was an important year in many ways. All in this room knew about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May and other significant events, but she would highlight that 2010 was also the anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security. By placing gender within the United Nations mandate of maintaining international peace and security, resolution 1325 provided an important framework and context for raising gender awareness in all aspects of security and defence. It also brought to light a focus on the contribution of women as stakeholders in peace and disarmament, and the role of women in decision-making as a necessary element for promoting the prevention of conflicts. As one of the most important decision-making bodies in multilateral disarmament, the Conference had taken a small step to implement resolution 1325 by allowing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom to read out its statement today for the first time.
The linkages between nuclear weapons and women ran deep, Ms. Fihn said. Women's organizations had protested nuclear weapons since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and had campaigned for cessation of nuclear testing. Women anti-nuclear activists had successfully closed nuclear weapons bases, such as the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp in the United Kingdom, and had engaged in concerted efforts that had forced Governments to change policies or create nuclear-weapon-free zones at the municipal level throughout the world. Furthermore, notions of gender affected efforts to abolish nuclear weapons and to halt their proliferation. For that reason, it was important that Governments and non-governmental organizations consider gender issues in their deliberations and used the tools of gender analysis to reform traditional behaviours and values expressed in negotiations and discussions on nuclear weapons. The role of a certain kind of masculinity in the dominating political structures that organized wars and oversaw security matters was beginning to be questioned. The Conference was an excellent place to continue questioning and reforming assumptions about weapons and security. The Conference provided a forum for the nuclear-armed States to engage with others that did not possess nuclear weapons in order to reach agreements that enhanced global collective security. It had a central role to play in establishing international law that would help prevent conflict, war, and increases in military expenditure. Security had to reflect the true needs of all people – economic and welfare needs alongside social, environmental and political justice. True security of human beings was in fact undermined by the creation, existence and use of nuclear weapons. They needed to make progress towards nuclear disarmament in order to even stand a chance of tackling other global threats – such as climate change, terrorism, food, water and energy shortages, and increasing global economic disparity. The Conference had a crucial role to play in that; on its permanent agenda it was tasked with work on the reduction of military budgets and armed forces, the linkages between disarmament and development, nuclear disarmament, conventional weapons, and disarmament as a confidence-building measure. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom supported and encouraged the Conference on Disarmament to find innovative ways to make progress on those issues.
DANIJELA ŽUNEC BRANDT (Croatia) thanked the International Women's League for Peace and Freedom for their statement, and also extended thanks to the Conference on Disarmament Member States for having allowed the statement to be made in the Conference. Croatia expressed its continuing interest in the work of the Conference; it had one of the longest candidatures on record to become a member of the Conference. Croatia would also like to welcome and join strong statements made by the delegations in support of the involvement of civil society in the work of the Conference, as well as the recent proposals to form a working group to advise on and advance that goal. However, the statement today had not just represented a contribution by non-governmental organizations; it had underscored the role of women in the peace and disarmament process. In that connection, she wished everyone a happy International Women’s Day.
VICTOR VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said that, as had been stated in the last meeting, 8 March continued to be celebrated in Russia as International Women's Day. It was now less of a political event and more of a celebration of women, peace and love.
[The delegation of the Russian Federation then had white roses distributed to all the women present in the Council Chamber.]
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, introducing a Presidential proposal for a draft programme of work for the 2010 session of the Conference (CD/WP.559), noted that the draft programme was not a new document. Two weeks ago he had prepared an unofficial document based on last year's programme of work (CD/1864) and recommendations contained in General Assembly resolutions 64/29 and 64/64 of 2009, which had been circulated through the regional coordinators. The process of preparing that document had been closely done with the six Presidents of the Conference; he had also held many bilateral meetings and had consulted with regional and other groups. It was not an ideal document, but it was a working document and he believed this was the most constructive way to reanimate the Conference and give it new confidence. He had endeavoured to take into account proposals that had been received in numerous consultations and which it was believed would not have a negative effect on regional consensus.
Mr. Khvostov had also received proposals from individual delegations and from groups of States, which, in his view, did not at this stage enjoy the necessary support to set up a programme of work. In particular, many participants had referred to nuclear disarmament as a priority in the Conference’s work, and some delegations had indicated the need to have a negotiating mandate on that issue. In preparing the draft programme of work, the basis on which they had worked was that the treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (FMCT) was one of the proper steps for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. As evidence of that, there were statements by a significant number of delegations that would like to see the new treaty as a universal disarmament document. With regard to an FMCT, a number of delegations would like guarantees now that the scope of a future treaty would extend to existing stocks; a number of others would prefer to refrain from an unambiguous reflection of that issue in a negotiating mandate. His position was that the common denominator here was to be found in CD/1299, which indicated that any problem could be brought to the consideration of the specific body set up under that item. He was aware that that could still be a stumbling block, but for that reason they had set up a negotiating forum to discuss, find compromises and move forward. Moreover, in adopting without a vote A/RES/54/29, they had agreed that an FMCT should be a non-discriminatory treaty, that it should be multilateral and that it should be subject to effective international control. As had been correctly noted by a number of delegations, there were at least three basic issues on which they needed to continue targeted work and were ripe for negotiations: an end to the arms race and nuclear disarmament; the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and an effective international agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. However, it was his assessment that the agreement that had been achieved with unanimous support in 2009, and was supported by two consensus resolutions of the General Assembly, had the greatest support at this stage. He was fully aware of the concerns of some delegations that needed to be taken into account and discussed, not just within this forum, to ensure that those delegations could once again support the fragile compromise achieved in the Conference last year. So that they could familiarize themselves with the document just presented, the proposal had been distributed to delegations. He would prefer not to open a debate today on this document, but to wait until the plenary on Thursday, 11 March to allow delegations to have more time to familiarize themselves with the document and to hold consultations with their capitals.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) extended Pakistan's condolences to Turkey on the recent earthquake in that country. He also welcomed the representative of the International Women’s League for Peace and Freedom and the statement they had made today. Pakistan had always worked in favour of the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference on Disarmament and would do so in the future.
In his remarks, the President had asked for comments on the working paper at a later time and had said that he would like members to examine the proposal. If that were so, he should have shared the working paper informally and not in the formal plenary. As it had been presented in the formal plenary, it was incumbent on Mr. Akram to make a statement. The working paper, like the non-paper circulated earlier, was mainly a copy of CD/1864, which did not enjoy consensus anymore and therefore could not serve as a starting point. While presenting the working paper today, the President had again acknowledged that there was no consensus on that text. That begged the question, what purpose had been served by putting forward the working paper? The working paper was also not balanced, and did not reflect the Group of 21's proposal to establish an ad hoc committee for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, the raison d’être of the Conference. The President was urged to put forward a working paper on that G-21 proposal. Further, the working paper ignored a number of ideas and proposals by Conference on Disarmament members, including Pakistan. It therefore did not provide a level playing field and equal treatment to members to enable any useful and results-oriented discussions. The Working paper was also not comprehensive; it did not propose any work on item 2, prevention of nuclear war. Pakistan once again suggested that the Conference undertake substantive work on measures to reduce the risk of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, including through de-alerting weapons, as well as the two other items it had suggested in earlier plenary meetings. The working paper further mixed up the two issues of the programme of work and its implementation, including decisions on the appointment of chairs, which should be handled separately. Finally, the future FMCT, as being envisaged by some nuclear-weapon States, would be inherently flawed and contrary to the objectives of nuclear disarmament. The nuclear cooperation agreement signed by the nuclear weapon States had rendered an FMCT ineffective before negotiations could even be begun. The Conference could not and should not be held hostage by the FMCT issue. There were other important issues on the Conference on Disarmament's agenda that needed to be addressed in order to strengthen international peace and security, including nuclear disarmament and a legally binding treaty on negative security assurances. Pakistan encouraged continued consultations on a future programme of work, which would be meaningful if the suggestions of Conference members were taken on board.
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that the document before the conference was circulated as a working document, and the elements in it were based on the President's understanding of the situation prevailing in the Conference. As he had said, each delegation was free to make its own contribution to drafting and adopting the document that would enjoy mutual support. As he understood it, the Rules of Procedure of the Conference required that the President had to try and move forward on the basis of documents that could be proposed for consensus. He also announced an event to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the entry-into-force of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was being held today at 1 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC10/016E