CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES UPCOMING HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed the upcoming high-level ministerial meeting called for by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that will take place in New York on 24 September under the title of revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament and taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that as the Personal Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Conference on Disarmament, he could say that the high-level meeting would serve as a unique opportunity to provide greater political impetus to support the Conference on Disarmament through high level participation.

In the discussion on the high-level meeting, delegations expressed support to the United Nations Secretary-General for deciding to hold the meeting. Brazil said that the high-level meeting should express genuine support for the activities of the Conference on Disarmament. Algeria said the Conference was a captive of external problems. The problems had nothing to do either with the Conference itself or with its ability to take decisions but rather concerned the security issues between States and the selective approaches taken by some States. Pakistan said it did not see how a half-day meeting could reach any meaningful conclusions that could revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament, or the wider disarmament machinery. Canada believed that they needed to open the discussion not only on the Conference on Disarmament but to the whole international approach of disarmament and national security concerns. Syria was surprised that a three to four hour meeting would be able to solve accumulated problems that they had been witnessing for more than twelve years now.

The United Kingdom hoped the meeting would reinforce the disarmament architecture. It should not seek to change the Conference on Disarmament consensus rule, nor damage its role as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. The United States said it should be seen as an opportunity to move forward. Morocco expressed doubt that a summary would help the Conference on Disarmament to move out of its current blockade. A compromise document on the statements made or a road map would be more helpful. Germany said that if States took a clear and enlightened view at their real security situation and the security threats in a broader perspective, they would see that opening international negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would strengthen their own security. After years of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament, it was more than appropriate to place the question of international disarmament before the wider international community, said Ireland. Sweden said that for delegations in Geneva it had been difficult to explain to their political leaders, year after year, the situation in the Conference. It was thus good that Ministers would be able to discuss the situation among themselves. The Netherlands said the Conference was an instrument and if it could not get the job done, one should consider other instruments. Ukraine said that given the rarity of such a meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers, they should do their utmost in order to try to extend the meeting to a full day.

The Republic of Korea said the Secretary-General had had to respond to the frustration of the international community concerning the stalemate of the Conference. Norway noted that excluding civil society from the proceedings had also prevented the Conference on Disarmament of benefiting from their experience. Mexico said the high-level meeting placed global security at the centre of the international debate. Italy believed that the discussions at the meeting should be as free as possible and should look into the wider disarmament architecture and into the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament. Russia said the innovative approach proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General should not undermine the virtual agreements that had been found in the programme of work adopted last year under the presidency of Algeria. Switzerland said they did not consider the high-level meeting as a threat but an opportunity to solve the problems that were blocking the Conference for many years now.

Cuba said that the comments of the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament had been disturbing. An ultimatum had never been handed down to the Conference on Disarmament in the past. France said the meeting would perhaps be a first step forward in solving an anomaly in the Conference on Disarmament; the fact that it was the only forum which had never moved to a higher level since it was blocked, as was the case in other forums. India noted that the outcome of the high-level meeting would be a summary reflecting the views of the United Nations Secretary-General and those of the Member States but that there would be no conclusions. Colombia said the Conference had not been able to adopt a programme of work for more than 10 years. This could be due to the lack of political will, or because of the political situation outside the Conference, or because of the rule of consensus, or maybe even the conditions inside the Conference. Iran said the problem of the Conference on Disarmament was not an institutional problem, but one of political will. Australia said that they strongly supported the United Nations Secretary-General’s initiative in calling the high-level meeting. They saw it as an opportunity and it should not be wasted.

Pakistan said the problem was the existence of the practice of double-standards of certain States which, on the one hand professed certain things and on the other hand did other things inside the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which directly affected Pakistan’s security. This was their concern and problem with the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This did not mean that the Conference on Disarmament could not negotiate any other issues on the agenda.

Some delegations also noted that a logical step for overcoming the deadlock could be the convening of a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament. However, other delegations were of the opinion that there was currently no consensus to hold such a meeting.

Serbia, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament, said Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament stated that the membership of the Conference should be reviewed at regular times and this issue had to be addressed at the high-level meeting.

Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he was still planning to hold an informal discussion on the high-level meeting and that he would further consult on this issue with the regional groups. He would communicate by tomorrow when the meeting would take place.

During the meeting, Turkey also took the floor, extending sympathy to Pakistan for the hard times that country was currently going through.

The date and time of the next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be communicated at a later date.

Statements

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria) wished a warm welcome to the students of the United Nations Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament who were attending the meeting today.

OGUZ DEMIRALP (Turkey), in his first statement to the Conference, said that as a newcomer he intended to learn a lot about disarmament. For him, diplomacy was important in achieving disarmament. He also extended his sympathy to Pakistan for the hard times that country was currently going through.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) presented some of the views of the Brazilian Government concerning the upcoming high-level ministerial meeting. Brazil considered the existence of a multilateral permanent forum for the negotiation of disarmament issues to be essential. The continuation of the deadlock around the adoption of a programme of work had direct implications over the credibility of the organ as well as over the whole machinery for negotiations and substantive discussions on subjects that were central to the agenda of international security. Given the positive result of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the Conference on Disarmament was expected to be able to maintain the political impulse and to start substantive work, in particular on a treaty on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. Brazil considered that the high-level meeting should express genuine support to the activities of the Conference on Disarmament, preventing the establishment of parallel negotiations. It further expected that the Conference might recover the vitality it had demonstrated in the negotiations of former instruments. A logical step for overcoming the deadlock could be the convening of a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that they needed to clarify the concept, definition and reasons that were behind the decision to hold this high-level meeting. It was due to the fact that the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to go into a negotiating phase for a very long time. The concept of “revitalizing the work of the Conference” did not seem to be sufficient; it gave the impression that the Conference on Disarmament was asleep. The delegations present here had always given all their energy to achieve a programme of work. Last year the Conference had adopted a programme of work by consensus. Unfortunately it had remained a dead letter because of other outside events that had occurred at that time and which had upset the fragile balance in the Conference on Disarmament. Since then, the situation had remained blocked. The Conference was thus a captive of external problems in respect of regional security balances. The problems had nothing to do primarily with the Conference itself or with its ability to take decisions but rather concerned the security issues between States and the selective approaches taken by some States in the way they were implementing the non-proliferation regime.

The upcoming high-level meeting needed political support. No parallel initiatives should be taken outside of the Conference, as this could have negative results. They should stop the attempts to have parallel forums to the Conference for negotiations. States should also avoid any selective approaches on the Conference’s priorities against the detriment of other States. The items that some countries called ripe for negotiations were the result of a subjective selection by those States. Some States thought that the item of the prohibition of fissile material was ripe for negotiations, whereas others thought that a convention on global nuclear disarmament or the prevention of an arms race in outer space were the questions that were ripe for immediate negotiations. A global consistent vision was needed in order to serve the interests of all States and groups of States. An environment of trust could be created only given such an approach. The summary of the high-level meeting that would be prepared by the United Nations Secretary-General should take into account all priorities and trends expressed. Any possible proposed follow-up mechanisms must not jeopardize the work of the Conference; it should strengthen its authority and prestige. He also called for the holding of a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament to give more impetus to the whole disarmament machinery.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that as the Personal Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Conference on Disarmament, he could say that the high-level meeting would serve as a unique opportunity to provide greater political impetus to support the Conference on Disarmament through high level participation. As he understood it through his meetings with the regional groups, all were supportive of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament and to take forward multilateral disarmament, including through addressing the larger challenges facing the wider architecture of disarmament machinery.

Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that the Secretary-General would reflect, at the end of the high-level meeting, whatever would be said during the meeting. This summary would include the Secretary-General’s own views and the views of the delegations. This was a standard United Nations procedure. There should be no concern that some views would not be reflected. All United Nations Member States would participate in the meeting, not only the members of the Conference on Disarmament. He was not aware whether some kind of parallel discussions were going on or not.

He did not see in which way the Conference might give its input to the meeting except supporting it. The best input would be for delegations to write to their respective Foreign Ministers and encourage them to make statements in support of the Conference on Disarmament during the high-level meeting. Mr. Ordzhonikidze further underscored that the United Nations Secretariat was not taking any political sides; it was only supposed to promote the work of the United Nations.

Mr. Ordzhonikidze added that in his opinion, if the Conference was not able to resume its work, there could be some parallel mechanisms and meetings taking place. If one was not delivering what it was expected to deliver, somebody else would do it. Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that in his opinion, the Conference on Disarmament would be given maximum one more year. His personal guess was that somebody else would organize parallel meetings, consultations or discussions by then. This would be a great blow to him, as Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament. The Member States had to start working and he hoped that with the help of every delegation they would be successful. They had spent too much time doing nothing, now they would have to hurry up.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) agreed with the views expressed by Brazil and Algeria. For Pakistan, the whole proposal of holding the high-level meeting was a half-baked idea in terms of procedure and substance. In terms of substance, he did not see how a half-day meeting could reach any meaningful conclusions that could revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament, or the wider disarmament machinery.

Also, there were certain aspects of the statement by Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament that needed to be responded to, said Mr. Akram. He did not share the view of the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament that the Conference was supporting the high-level meeting, as the Conference on Disarmament had not, to this date, held any meeting to discuss this issue. Concerning the outcome of the meeting and the summary that would be prepared by the United Nations Secretary-General, this would remain a summary of the Secretary-General’s perceptions of what had been said. He did not see how such a document would help to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament.

The existence of the Conference on Disarmament was the result of the First Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament. In order to revitalize the Conference, one should hold the Fourth Special Session on Disarmament and not this high-level meeting. Mr. Akram also noted that attendance at the high-level meeting would not be very high as he understood it, as many Ministers and other high-level representatives had already a heavy schedule in this period of time.

Further, Mr. Akram said that Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament had threatened the Conference on Disarmament in very clear terms by saying that if the Conference on Disarmament did not deliver another forum would come up. Every delegation in the room represented the national security interests of their country and they would take their decision in accord with those security interests. He did not recall any other Secretary-General having made such a clear threat to the Conference on Disarmament in the past 14 years. They could not accept such a threat. The work they did was the prerogative of the Member States and only that of the Member States.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that in his previous statement he had only highlighted the preliminary analysis of the mission of Algeria. They had been invited to do so; to make a contribution to the debate on the high-level meeting, in the hope that with all other contributions it would be helpful for the United Nations Secretary-General. What they needed to revitalize was not the Conference, it was the international approach to disarmament, so as to take things forward. All should be aware that the problem was not just a procedural problem in the Conference. The search for alternative forums would not be a solution as long as they did not address the roots of the problem.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) wondered if they would still hold an informal discussion on the high-level meeting today as had been planned by the President.

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), said that he had wanted to organize an informal meeting to discuss the high-level meeting, assuming that all Members were agreeing over the holding of informal informals. He had however received a request this morning by a regional group to postpone the planned informal.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that they were four weeks away from the high-level meeting and it was about time that they had some more open discussions to prepare the meeting. He did not think that the Conference on Disarmament had been asleep in the past years, but rather sleepwalking. Canada was very supportive of the United Nations Secretary-General’s call to hold a high-level meeting. Canada also believed that they needed to open the discussion not only on the Conference on Disarmament but on the whole international approach of disarmament and national security concerns. The First Special Session on Disarmament had recognized the need for a disarmament multilateral forum of limited size. But that Special Session had also recognized the fact that all the people of the world had a vital interest in the success of disarmament negations. Thus, the Conference on Disarmament was accountable not only to itself but to the wider global community.

The Second and Third Special Sessions on Disarmament had been brave attempts but had not lived up to the expectations, said Mr. Grinius. Thus, the Conference on Disarmament was still living under the outcome of the First Special Session. The high-level meeting was not a half-baked idea; it was an important element in the current pattern of high level events in the area of disarmament. The high-level meeting was a serious building block in that pattern. Also, he did not see the comments made by the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament as a threat but rather as a reality check as the Conference on Disarmament continued to sleepwalk. On the issue of parallel mechanisms, he reminded delegations of the existence of the Ottawa and Oslo Conventions, which had all been successful.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMMOUI (Syria) said that he was a little bit surprised that a three to four hour meeting would be able to solve accumulated problems that they had been witnessing for more than 12 years now. He had no doubt that when the United Nations Secretary-General had called the meeting it had been with all his good intentions. Although Syria was not convinced that the meeting would lead to magical solutions on all issues under consideration in the Conference on Disarmament and in nuclear disarmament, they would still respond to this invitation, hoping that it would lead to a reconfirmation that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negating body. Everybody knew fully well that the solution did not lie in the high-level meeting, but rather in the hands of some capitals. These capitals did accept a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty but neglected all the other main pillars of nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. These capitals did not take into account the security concerns of a number of States. It was natural that when one did not take into account the security concerns of these countries, one could not attain consensus.

UGLIJESA ZVERKIC (Serbia), speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament, thanked the presidency for its consistent contacts with the Group with regard to the upcoming high-level meeting. On the procedural aspect of the meeting, they were pleased that representatives at the ministerial level and above were invited to participate. Also, the fact that the meeting would be attended by all United Nations Member States was welcomed. The United Nations Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament should facilitate the presentation of the position of the Informal Group and allow them to sign up on the speakers list of the meeting as such.

Mr. Zverkic said they hoped that the deliberations of the high-level meeting would include a forward-looking dimension. They recognized that the aim of the meeting was to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Thus, Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament, stating that the membership of the Conference should be reviewed at regular times, had to be addressed at the high-level meeting and a Special Coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament in 2011 should be appointed.

RUPERT BARTHORP (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom welcomed the personal commitment that the United Nations Secretary-General had shown on disarmament issues. They were looking forward to the high-level meeting and hoped that it would send a message to the General Assembly to allow the Conference on Disarmament to better address disarmament challenges. The high-level meeting would reinforce the Conference on Disarmament in order to help it agree on a balanced programme of work and immediately commence negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The United Kingdom hoped the meeting would reinforce the disarmament architecture. It should not seek to change the Conference on Disarmament consensus rule, nor damage its role as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Consensus on the convening of the Fourth Special Session on Disarmament did not exist at this time.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) expressed her solidarity with Pakistan which was currently affected by the floods. She had listened with great interest to all comments made today. She would hold her own comments on the high-level meeting for the planned informal meeting. She also welcomed the clarifications made by the Conference on Disarmament’s Secretary-General. The United States supported the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a high-level meeting which was most welcome. It should be seen as an opportunity to move forward and they should bake this meeting into a delicious meal for all.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said that the Kingdom of Morocco had been pleased with the call of the United Nations Secretary-General to hold the high-level meeting. He had had to react to the blocked situation in the Conference on Disarmament. Morocco expected that the meeting would not only consist of going to New York, make speeches and come back. The idea of the Secretary-General was to have a very frank discussion and to determine where the problems lay and to provide solutions and compromises. In order to achieve this goal, it was the duty of delegations here in Geneva to establish a frank dialogue and leave aside the various issues that blocked the Conference on Disarmament. They had to avoid transposing the frictions and blockages of Geneva to New York. Going to New York with the same state of mind would be a catastrophe and end up into a failure. Coming back from New York empty-handed would also not be good. He however did not agree with the Conference on Disarmament’s Secretary-General’s vision that the Conference on Disarmament would disappear within a year.

The Conference’s Member States were the ones negotiating and thus they had to tell the United Nations Secretary-General and other non-members in New York what the problems really were. Going to New York without any vision would be a direct way to fail. If they failed it was the members of the Conference on Disarmament that would be responsible, not the United Nations itself. Mr. Hilale also expressed doubt that a summary would help the Conference on Disarmament to move out of its current blockade. A compromise document on the statements made would be more helpful. Why not a road map? Why not imagining a more positive outcome document than a summary?

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said that it was high time that the Conference on Disarmament was discussing substantially the upcoming high-level meeting, which was only four weeks away. He had been quite taken by surprise that the planned informal discussion would not take place today as had been planned. No one expected the United Nations Secretary-General to take sides. But it was important that Member States made their voices heard so as to assist him in his task. Germany attached major importance to the high-level meeting. He hoped that many Foreign Ministers and Heads of States would attend the meeting. Why had this meeting become necessary at all? Because for over a decade there had been no consensus on what to negotiate at all. In 2009, they had achieved an agreement, but unfortunately events had led to a situation where one delegation had explicitly raised objections. Many efforts had been made on many levels to break the deadlock. Germany still believed that CD/1864 constituted the best possible approach. This document provided a good basis, together with the Non-Proliferation Treaty Revision Conference outcome document.

If States took a clear and enlightened view at their real security situation and the security threats in a broader perspective, they would see that opening international negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would strengthen their own security. If it turned out that the blockade could not be lifted soon, Germany was ready to consider innovative ideas; there were already such ideas under discussion. However, the Conference on Disarmament would still hold its importance as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum.

GERARD CORR (Ireland) also welcomed the Secretary-General’s initiative to call for the high-level meeting. An important point was that all United Nations Member States would attend the meeting and that it would address the whole disarmament architecture, not only the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference was of course the central multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. It had, for years, failed to meet this definition. Ireland’s commitment to multilateral disarmament stemmed from the view that smaller States had to place faith in international disarmament forums, treaties and conventions. After years of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament, it was more than appropriate to place the question of international disarmament before the wider international community. The meeting sought to give a political push. There should not be any finger pointing on procedural points. The aim should be to look at possible ways forward. It would be naive to think that all problems of the Conference were to be found in the Conference itself. Factors external to the Conference played a role, perhaps even a major role.

Foremost among the aspects that needed to be discussed was the manner in which the Conference adopted its annual programme of work. In most other forums the programme of work was rather a calendar of events with a purely administrative function. It was difficult to understand why consensus was needed to begin with negotiations, said Mr. Corr. Also, the practice of conducting negotiations between regional groups and the question of the limited membership of the Conference on Disarmament needed to be addressed, as all States had an interest in the mandate of the Conference. Many of the Observer States had wished to become members of the Conference on Disarmament for many years now.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden) said that Sweden strongly welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General’s initiative and the fact that he was taking a personal interest in the issues that blocked the Conference on Disarmament and in trying to break the deadlock. For delegations in Geneva it had been difficult to explain to their political leaders, year after year, the situation in the Conference. It was thus good that Ministers would be able to discuss the situation among themselves. It was high time for the Conference to move forward. Like all governmental bodies, the Conference needed to go through a result-based assessment.

PAUL VAN DEN IJSSEL (Netherlands) said that he had also thought that they would hold an informal meeting today and had been surprised to learn about the postponement of the meeting. The Conference could not go on the way it had been going on for over a decade now. The Conference on Disarmament was not facing temporary difficulties. If they did not act now, the Conference risked becoming irrelevant. Going on with sleepwalking or dreaming would not prevent this from occurring. It was not a threat. The Netherlands was ready to start negotiations on all four core issues, but was not ready to wait for any longer, maximum one year. The Conference on Disarmament was an instrument and if it could not get the job done, one should consider other instruments. The Conference was not the first body to look for advice from outside but the process should not take too long.

ANDRIY KASIANOV (Ukraine) said that Ukraine was most appreciative of the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Many had placed great hopes on the high-level meeting, as the Conference on Disarmament was not able to address its problems on its own. They believed that the main aim of today’s discussion was to have a discussion on the political aspect of the upcoming high-level meeting. There were various views concerning the format and the results of the high-level meeting. Given the rarity of such a meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers, they should do their utmost in order to try to extend the meeting to a full day. Everyone should be allowed to speak at this meeting and an interactive dialogue should also take place. This would facilitate, at the concluding phase, to lead to specific recommendations on how to renew the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament. He also recalled that the basic responsibility for this meeting to succeed lay on the shoulders of the Members States.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said that the holding of the high-level meeting had been a direct request of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference outcome document. There were also other reasons why this meeting had been called for. The Secretary-General had to respond to the frustration of the international community concerning the stalemate of the Conference. Delegations should note that they would be participating in the meeting as members of the United Nations, not as members of the Conference on Disarmament. On the statement by the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, his remarks should not be dismissed and its good intentions had to be taken seriously.

JON ERIK STROMO (Norway) said that it was important that the United Nations Secretary-General had invited all United Nations Member States, thus allowing the meeting to address all issues linked to disarmament and not only the Conference on Disarmament. Norway hoped the debate in New York would help to kick-off wider discussions on the disarmament architecture. If the Conference on Disarmament was unable to fulfil its purpose, the United Nations Secretary-General had to consider the issue. With sufficient political will it was possible to find ways to make progress. Excluding civil society from the proceedings also prevented the Conference on Disarmament from benefiting from their experience. The same applied to the Observer States.

ATRURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE (Mexico) said that Mexico did not understand the fears expressed by some about the idea of convening a high-level meeting on such an important issue. It placed global security at the centre of the international debate. The focus in the Conference was to achieve concrete results. Unfortunately, it had been experiencing a paralysis for more than 13 years now. They thus understood the appeal from many States that said the Conference was unable to address disarmament issues and challenges and which had called for opening discussions outside the Conference. As the world moved on, international bodies should not remain static but evolve in face of the international challenges.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) said that Italy fully supported the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General to convene the high-level meeting and urged all countries to participate at Ministerial level. Italy’s Foreign Minister had already confirmed his participation in the event. Italy believed that the discussions at the meeting should be as free as possible and should look into the wider disarmament architecture and into the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament. The high-level meeting should be as free as possible of recriminations and finger pointing, which would not serve to revitalize the work of disarmament.

VICTOR VASSILIEV (Russia) said that, unlike the lack of consensus on the Programme of Work, there seemed to be full consensus on the fact that the situation the Conference was unsatisfactory and that it needed to change. The Russian delegation had done everything possible to support the draft programme of work. Russia’s Foreign Minster had come twice over the past years to the Conference to present Russia’s position. The best would be to hold a ministerial meeting in Geneva, but they understood that it was not practical for several reasons. Russia fully supported the high-level meeting. However, magical solutions would not take place as it would be hard to find solutions to problems that had blocked proceedings for 12 years. The innovative approach proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General should not undermine the virtual agreements that had been found in the programme of work adopted last year under the presidency of Algeria. It would also be premature to hold a Fourth General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament at this stage. Russia was ready to discuss the parameters of the high-level meeting in an informal meeting, as had been planned.

RICCARDA TORRIANI (Switzerland) added Switzerland’s support to the planned high-level meeting and said that they welcomed the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General. Switzerland did not consider the high-level meeting as a threat but an opportunity to solve the problems that had been blocking the Conference for many years now. In order to bring dynamism into the disarmament discussions Switzerland was looking forward to short- and medium-term solutions. They were looking for an exchange of views on current challenges and requirements for the disarmament machinery of the twenty-first century, for medium- and long-term measures to make the Conference on Disarmament fit to address the challenges of the twenty-first century and a debate on short-term issues to make progress on the four core issues on the agenda of the Conference very soon. In order not to end up in a paralysis, they should also try not to pre-negotiate the outcome of the meeting inside the Conference on Disarmament.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), responding to the statement by the United States, noted that in order to prepare a tasty dish one needed good ingredients and sufficient time to prepare it. A half-day meeting was not sufficient to discuss all the important issues. And what were the ingredients that would be used to take the disarmament machinery forward? He was not surprised about the westernized expressions of opinions this afternoon. He believed that these had already all been communicated to the United Nations Secretary-General. The United Kingdom’s statement gave an overview of what the United Nations Secretary-General had been advised about what the outcome of the high-level meeting should be. It would be interesting to compare the summary of the Secretary-General after the high-level meeting with the statement made by United Kingdom today.

Mr. Akram said that for Pakistan, the Group of 21 and the larger group of the Non-Aligned Movement, the issue of the highest priority was nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. In principle, fissile material was an issue that most in the Group of 21 and the Non-Aligned Movement would take into account as far as it included the ban of future production and the issue of verification. For Pakistan the problem was the existence of the practice of double-standards of certain States which, on the one hand professed certain things and on the other hand did other things inside the Nuclear Suppliers Group which directly affected Pakistan’s security. This was their concern and problem with the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This did not mean that the Conference on Disarmament could not negotiate any other issues on the agenda. The Conference should operate where there was a consensus. This was the way the Conference needed to operate. It was clear to Pakistan that there were options to negotiate the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty outside the Conference on Disarmament. Pakistan had no problems with that, but would not take part in them.

As for the outcome of the high-level meeting, Pakistan wanted the high-level meeting to have a meaningful and relevant outcome. But if one expected that one would make progress with a summary of the Secretary-General, many would be disappointed. He had also not heard about the opportunity of the President of the Conference on Disarmament to make a statement at the high-level meeting. The President should be allowed to speak at the high-level meeting.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said that the comments of the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament had been disturbing. An ultimatum had never been handed down to the Conference on Disarmament in the past. The General Assembly had established the Conference on Disarmament as the only multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament and it should remain so.

ERIC DANON (France) said that the Conference on Disarmament was at such an impasse that it could not even decide on the holding of informal informals and needed to discuss this issue at length. This showed how far they had landed in terms of inefficiency. Concerning the high-level meeting, France fully supported it; it was a very good initiative and reflected the commitment of the United Nations Secretary-General to these questions. This meeting would perhaps be a first step forward in solving an anomaly in the Conference on Disarmament; the fact that it was the only forum which had never moved to a higher level since it was blocked, as was the case in other forums.

France was also pleased that the Secretary-General had decided to open the participation in the high-level meeting to, not only the membership of the Conference on Disarmament, but also to other United Nations Member States. However, all knew that the Conference on Disarmament was a mirror reflecting the state of the world of the Cold War. They also had to continue to talk about the substance of the high-level meeting, so that countries could prepare their positions for it. Answering Algeria’s statement on the ripeness of certain items, Mr. Danon said that negotiations would take place one day or the other and that something ripe for negotiations was something that enjoyed consensus or near consensus.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) noted that the outcome of the high-level meeting would be a summary reflecting the views of the United Nations Secretary-General and those of the Member States but that there would be no conclusions. India had constantly attached priority to nuclear disarmament and was ready to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, as had been called for by the Secretary-General. India’s views on the disarmament machinery were very well-known and looked forward to the informal meetings.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS (Colombia) hoped that the planned informal meeting would still happen. Colombia supported the initiative taken by the United Nations Secretary-General to hold the high-level meeting. The Conference had not been able to adopt a programme of work for more than 10 years. This could be due to the lack of political will, or because of the political situation outside the Conference, or because of the rule of consensus, or maybe even the conditions inside the Conference. The high-level meeting would be an opportunity to say how everyone was attached to the Conference on Disarmament. The active participation of all delegations was required at the high-level meeting in order to make the Conference on Disarmament healthier.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that many delegations had a problem with holding an informal meeting to discuss the high-level meeting and had discussed whether this should be done in a informal meeting or not. He was however very pleased with today’s discussion and he would support the idea of continuing it in a formal setting.

MOHAMED HASSAN DARYAEI (Iran) said that, in reaction to some of the comments he had heard today, he had had no choice but to react. He thanked the Conference on Disarmament’s Secretary-General for informing the Conference on Disarmament on the main purpose of the high-level meeting. Iran shared the view of the importance of the planned exercise. The outcome of the meeting remained solely with the United Nations Secretary-General. The Secretary-General was however encouraged to take the views of the Member States into account.

Mr. Daryaei said that they should however avoid any half-cooked situation. He could not see consistency between the encouragement for political support and the threats issued to delegations, even more when these were issued by the Secretariat. Iran hoped that they would not see such a situation again. The problem of the Conference on Disarmament was not an institutional problem, but one of political will. There was currently no political will to start negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. It had however a broad agenda and Iran could not understand why the work of the Conference had been taken hostage because of one single item. Iran had no problems with starting negotiations on all four core issues.

PAUL WILSON (Australia) said that Australia strongly supported the United Nations Secretary-General’s initiative in convening the high-level meeting. Australia saw it as an opportunity and it should not be wasted. Australia also welcomed the cross-regional exchange of views expressed in today’s meeting.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, answering the question of whether the President of the Conference on Disarmament would be allowed to speak at the meeting or not, said that the President would speak as well as the President of the General Assembly.

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), said that this might have been the last plenary meeting under his Presidency and it certainly had been the longest plenary of this year. Concerning the informal informals on the high-level meeting, he had planned to do it today but he had been requested by a regional group to postpone the meeting. It was however still the wish of the whole body to hold such a meeting. He would thus further consult on this issue with the regional groups. He would also not want to be again in a position to call for an informal meeting and to have to postpone it. He would communicate by tomorrow when the meeting would take place.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/036E