CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES THE WAY FORWARD ON A PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which States discussed the inability of the Conference to adopt a programme of work, which had created an impasse in the body for the last 12 years.

During the discussion, speakers pointed out that there were documents that had been formulated in the past, such as CD/1864, which, while not perfect, at least provided a basis for developing a programme of work for the upcoming year. There were also other options available, such as a simplified programme of work that was essentially a schedule of activities, or the option for individual mandates for stand alone subsidiary bodies. Many speakers expressed their flexibility and willingness to examine alternatives to the traditional programme of work in order to get the Conference back on track to addressing its substantive work.

Throughout the discussion people noted that the programme of work was not a goal in and of itself, it was a mere tool and enabling instrument and it should not become an obstacle. Many delegations said they saw the merits of a more simplified approach. Some expressed the view that the excessive focus on mandates had not been at all beneficial for the Conference on Disarmament. In fact, it had become a key problem of the body that the programme of work was interpreted as a complicated document that needed to be negotiated, giving de facto veto to any of the 65 members who might wish to hold up serious work on any of the issues at hand. Instead of negotiating a programme of work, the Conference on Disarmament should simply establish such a programme and agree on it. A simplified programme of work could be a way out of the current deadlock. The Conference on Disarmament needed to start work now. Given its unique status, the Conference and all Member States bore a special responsibility to perform and deliver.

It was also pointed out that that there was no fundamental need for the programme of work to contain a detailed mandate for their work; this was the approach followed before 1997 in the Conference. If a minimal calendar was the best way to get back to substantive work then many States supported that. In the past there had been more simple programmes of work that had been adopted without mandates. This simplified programme of work would not make all their problems disappear, but the excessive focus on the programme of work had created an obstacle to the real work and functioning of the Conference on Disarmament.

Some speakers cautioned that while a simplified schedule of activities could be an alternative to start proceedings, it was not a substitute for the mandates needed for beginning substantive work. Even if they agreed on a simplified programme of work, they needed to think about two points: one, they needed to continue to discuss and agree on a mandate to set up the necessary subsidiary bodies, and secondly it should be flexible. One delegation expressed the belief that the problem with the programme of work did not lie in the procedures or working methods of the Conference, but rather with political obstacles.

All the speakers during the discussion expressed their sympathy and condolences for the people of New Zealand who were the victims of a 7.1 magnitude earthquake.

Speaking in general statements were India, the Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Austria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Cuba, China, Canada, Argentina, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Kenya, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ireland, and Indonesia.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 24 February, at 10 a.m.

Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that before they began work he wanted to extend to the Ambassador of New Zealand and the people of that country condolences and support after the earthquake they experienced in that country. Mr. Oyarce also welcomed the new ambassador from Belgium. As he was just assuming the presidency of the Conference, Mr. Oyarce said that the direction they would take under Chile’s presidency would be guided by the concept of collective responsibility. The Conference was responsible for multilateral negotiations on disarmament and this was crucial for creating a climate of confidence in the international system which was fundamental to global security. They had repeatedly heard that they were facing an opportunity to avoid having just another year of routine work. There was the option of a simplified programme of work, and Mr. Oyarce asked how Members of the Conference felt about this idea. The advantage of this modality, as its proponents saw it, was that it enabled Member States to focus their substantive work. There was also the option of individual mandates for stand alone subsidiary bodies. The advantage of this approach was that it provided greater flexibility to begin substantive work without linking the core issues which eliminated possible interferences that would restrict future negotiations, if any. There were precedents for both of these options so the Conference had options for facilitating future work.

HAMID ALI RAO, (India), said that India attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. It had all the relevant players and it Rules of Procedure provided the necessary assurances to Member States that their security interests were fully protected in the conduct of its work. The main vocation of the Conference was the negotiation of multilateral treaties of universal application and discussions in plenary meetings or in informal meetings, whatever they wished to call them, were not a substitute for negotiations. As stated earlier, India would not stand in the way if consensus emerged on a programme of work. However, if there was no consensus it was incumbent on the Conference president to continue consultations to build the necessary consensus on an acceptable programme of work so that the Conference on Disarmament could discharge its responsibilities. India would continue to contribute to discussions in the Conference on Disarmament with the aim of commencing substantive work by reaching consensus on the programme of work as early as possible.

EVAN P. GARCIA, (Philippines), wanted to reiterate the attention the Philippines had drawn to the Final Outcome Document of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which called on the Conference on Disarmament to undertake actions which would directly bear on the programme of work, namely the immediate establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament within the context of an agreed upon, comprehensive and balanced programme of work; discussion of negative security assurances; and the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material in accordance with the Shannon Mandate. Mr. Garcia underscored the importance the Philippines placed on the core issue of negative security assurances, particularly on the strengthening of nuclear weapons free zones. The Philippines appreciated their tangible contribution to the vision of global zero, and they wished to advance cooperation and dialogue accordingly on these zones in the Conference. They strongly felt the need to bring the issue of membership enlargement to the agenda of the Conference. The last round of expansion occurred over a decade ago so it was high time the issue was revisited. Mr. Garcia reiterated their call for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur for this question to facilitate discussion on the matter without pre-judging the outcome.

CARLOS ENRIQUE VALENCIA MUNOZ, (Colombia), said that a useful and valid programme of work was needed to establish subsidiary bodies with negotiated mandates. The programme of work was a guide to the organization of the Conference’s work. Colombia was flexible on a number of approaches, but a programme of work should not present an obstacle to the process and work of the Conference. What they really needed was political will which required flexibility and ideas as well as a desire to represent the collective will. Everyone had to make contributions to move the Conference forward. They had a great deal of material on which to base their work, and work meant negotiating; this was why this organization existed, to carry out negotiations. The Conference had to show that it was complying with the mandate established for it, which was to establish a safer world free from the nuclear threat.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), said the Rules of Procedures made clear that it was the responsibility of the presidency to present a programme of work. The programme of work did not emanate from a single Conference on Disarmament presidency, but rather from the Conference itself. The Rules of Procedure provided guidelines in this sense, namely that: the programme of work should be established on the basis of the Conference on Disarmament’s agenda; it should take place at the beginning of each session; it must include a schedule of activities for that session; it must address all items on the agenda; and it should take into account the recommendations made to the Conference on Disarmament by the General Assembly. The roadmap was there, yet they all knew that some States wished to start negotiations exclusively on one item on the agenda, and that at least one other State had difficulties concerning the proposed mandate for such negotiations. Notwithstanding, it was always worth recalling that a large number of countries represented were prepared to consider proposals for the commencement of negotiations on any of the four core issues of the agenda as well as on any other issue related to the agenda as their actual commitment and purpose was to effectively promote nuclear disarmament.

FERNANDO ROJAS, (Peru), said that Latin America and the Caribbean had historically shown a commitment to a nuclear free world, setting up the first nuclear weapons free zones more than 40 years ago. This demonstrated the peaceful vocations of these nations and Peru was happy to see Chile presiding over the Conference. The Rules of Procedure stated that the Conference would take up items of interest in plenary, which was what they had been doing since the beginning of the first half of this session. The Peruvian delegation was of the view that they could take up all items of the agenda in plenary in a way that would allow them to proceed beyond an exchange of views and expression of positions and opinions. In this way, they could take up without delay items 1 and 2 of the agenda addressing two of the four core issues, nuclear disarmament and fissile material. Just to use their time and organize debates better, they could draw on existing proposals on nuclear disarmament such as ones put forward by Costa Rica and Malaysia or any other proposals that could be useful, such as those that had already been put forward by other countries on fissile material. They had a very good basis from which to start and they could take up the two other core issues in turn in the same way.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL, (Austria), said that in 2009 the Conference on Disarmament finally reached consensus on a programme of work, often referred to as the gold standard. Austria would support the adoption of a similar programme of work, as well as subsequent proposals or differing ones, which would not necessarily prejudge the nature of their work. A programme of work was there to enable substantive negotiations, not to pre-empt them. As elsewhere, the value of their Conference on Disarmament decisions was determined by the subsequent actions, the actual deeds that followed announcements. It was therefore his delegation’s hope that they would not only agree to a programme of work as soon as possible, but also break the Conference’s deadlock by faithfully implementing this programme. A programme was only as good as the show it enabled. Austria stood ready to support the president of the Conference and the P6 endeavours in this regard.

ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), said the Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum and its work depended on catering to the security interests of all its members. They fully shared the desire of their colleagues to start substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament. They must also recognize that the stalemate had not existed for the last few years, but rather for the last 12 years and it was a consequence of the security considerations of at least one State which ensured that the Conference on Disarmament did not make any substantive progress during those years. Pakistan had made abundantly clear its reasons for delaying the start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament. Nevertheless, Pakistan had always stated that it was ready to begin substantive work and negotiations on other core issues on the agenda such as nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Conference on Disarmament was not there only to negotiate on fissile materials and they should not allow disagreements on fissile material to block negotiations on other core issues on the agenda. They should engage in negotiations on those issues on which consensus was possible. Pakistan had clearly stated why it could not join negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, but they had not heard any clear explanations for why negotiations on nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space could not begin.

SAROYA SIRISENA, (Sri Lanka), said that the Conference was passing through an extremely crucial juncture, which warranted that Members should continue to make concerted efforts to reach an early agreement on a programme of work for this year. They were confident that an open and transparent debate on the programme of work would enable the president of the Conference to identify elements of a possible draft programme of work. They suggested that the president undertake consultations on draft elements in order to build and seek consensus in the Conference while taking into account the concerns of all delegations. Sri Lanka attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. In order to continue to preserve the unique role of this body, it was vital that the conference began its substantive work on the basis of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. Sri Lanka was of the view that the focused debates on all agenda items could and should help in having a better understanding of their positions, which could reinforce efforts their efforts in breaking the Conference’s impasse.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said years were going by and at the beginning of each session they hoped to adopt a program of work that would allow the Conference to live up to its pioneering role. Unfortunately, despite efforts to raise the awareness about the increasing dangers that threatened their collective security, the Conference remained in a stalemate. The challenge of nuclear weapons to peace and security was still present and Algeria would like the Conference to play a major role in guaranteeing that the world was free of all forms of war, destruction and genocide. They needed collective action to face these dangers that would take into account the responsibility they had as members of this assembly. They must live up to their task and make a collective commitment to meet the security concerns of the international community while rejecting any egoistic approach. They had begun a fruitful dialogue and with respect to the items on the agenda, and they all agreed that this conference was of the greatest importance as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. They wanted this dialogue to be continued in a way that would allow them to pursue negotiations. They should not come up with a programme of work just to give the impression that they were working, but rather to really work on collective security to strengthen confidence and allay fears.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA, (Cuba), appealed for the necessary flexibility based on the Rules of Procedure and constructive dialogue to adopt a broad and balanced programme of work which would take into account all the real priorities in disarmament and arms control. Cuba believed the main priority should be nuclear disarmament and the total elimination of all nuclear weapons in a specified time period and under strict international control. Cuba was concerned that the negotiations on fissile material were politicized, in the interest of the West. More important steps needed to be taken on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and urgent action needed to be taken to establish a treaty in this area.

WANG QUN, (China), said that all parties concerned wanted to respect and uphold the Rules of Procedure of the Conference. China fully supported what the president had pointed out on the work that needed to be done in the Conference. Regarding the programme of work, its importance was self-evident. It reflected the explicit commitment on the part of all delegations to the work of the Conference, it was the basis of the work of the Conference to fulfil its mandate and it offered guarantees for the orderly and smooth work of the Conference. They should seize the momentum they had and work to put aside their differences to adopt a programme of work as soon as possible. To that end, they should pay attention to the following points: they should work to identify areas of consensus; they must treat all agenda items in a balanced way because the core issues reflected the various security concerns and priorities; and they must focus on the real impact of their work, rather than being bogged down by the wording in documents.

GEOFF GARTSHORE, (Canada), said that Canada understood the importance that many delegations attached to a programme of work with a negotiations mandate. The Conference on Disarmament was, after all, to be a negotiating body. Nevertheless, several Member States had taken the floor during the Canadian presidency to urge the Conference to consider the adoption of a simplified programme of work, without subsidiary bodies or mandates. Indeed, until 1997 the Conference on Disarmament adopted such a simple schedule of activities as it programme of work. This was consistent with the decision adopted by the Conference on Disarmament several years ago in August 1990. Canada also understood that such a simplified programme of work would remain consistent with the Conference on Disarmament’s Rules of Procedure. The adoption of a simplified programme of work would not, in itself, resolve the question of mandates. The mandates of any subsidiary bodies would still have to be agreed. If there was political will in the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate, then the Conference on Disarmament would negotiate, either by adopting a programme of work with a negotiating mandate, or by adopting a simple programme of work plus a subsequent decision or set of decisions. The Canadian delegation was ready to consider any proposal, or set of proposals, which would allow the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiating what they believed to be the next logical non-proliferation and disarmament measure: a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

HECTOR RAUL PELEAZ, (Argentina), said that it had become clear that the consensus reached in 2009 was fragile, but this shouldn’t discourage them. One of their priorities should be to continue any negotiations in this forum on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation so Argentina would support any such measures to continue this work. Even without negotiations if there could be interactions that led to concrete steps in that direction, they would support a simplified programme of work that addressed the four core issues.

UGLJESA ZVEKIC, (Serbia), said that the president’s efforts in consulting and exploring the question of Conference on Disarmament enlargement with the Conference as a whole would be greatly appreciated. He also thanked those groups and members of the Conference on Disarmament who had expressed their support for the examination of membership expansion. Again, their only wish was to begin discussions on this issue and not to prejudge or presume a particular outcome. The call for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur was meant to promote exploration of the issue of membership expansion. Serbia supported the president’s energy and creativity in seeking to advance the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Regrettably, they had not yet been able to adopt or implement a programme of work, but they continued to encourage the Conference to realize at its earliest opportunity a balanced programme.

MICHAEL COMBRINK, (South Africa), said that South Africa had listened carefully to the plenary debates over the last few weeks on the issues on their agenda and believed that this again had illustrated the importance that Conference on Disarmament Members attached to the work of the Conference. They were particularly encouraged by some of the suggestions that were made during the last three weeks aimed at getting the Conference back to substantive work. It needed to be recognized that document CD/1864, the so called gold standard for the programme of work, had not led to a resumption of work in the Conference on Disarmament for many years. Judging by the debate this year, this seemed to still be the case. Last year the South African delegation had warned against formulations that could straightjacket the Conference. Their intention was not to downplay the important breakthrough achieved in 2009, nor was it an indication that South Africa could not join consensus on such a programme of work. They therefore wanted to state for the record that they remained flexible on any approach that would allow the Conference to make progress. In this regard, they would be ready to consider a programme of work for 2011 that contained a mere schedule of meetings or one that would establish subsidiary bodies to deal with the items on the agenda without the need for first elaborating extensive negotiating mandates. It was their hope that Members would again show the necessary political will and flexibility to enable them to move forward on the important work of the body.

RETO WOLLENMANN, (Switzerland), said that Switzerland saw the merits of a more simplified approach. In fact, they would support a programme of work consisting simply of a schedule of activities without going into the fine art of complex and interlinked mandates. Switzerland shared the view that the excessive focus on mandates had not been at all beneficial for the Conference on Disarmament. In fact, it had become a key problem of this body that the programme of work was interpreted as a complicated document that needed to be negotiated, giving de facto veto to any of the 65 members who might wish to hold up serious work on any of the issues at hand. Instead of negotiating a programme of work, the Conference on Disarmament should simply establish such a programme and agree on it. A simplified programme of work could be a way out of the current deadlock. The Conference on Disarmament needed to establish proper working groups and start work now. Given its unique status, the Conference on Disarmament and all Member States bore a special responsibility to perform and deliver.

MARIA ANTONIETA JAQUEZ HUACUJA, (Mexico), said that the programme of work should be a streamlined calendar of events without the need for pre-negotiations. In line with this, Mexico would support a simplified programme of work. Each item needed to be taken on its own merits without preconceptions as to the outcome of negotiations and for the last 15 years Mexico had insisted that they needed to negotiate and these preconceptions were an obstacle to these negotiations actually taking place. They should negotiate on all items on the agenda and while Mexico’s priority was nuclear disarmament, they supported a balanced programme of work so they would not oppose anything that led to consensus. None of the proposals that had been tabled over the last 15 years had ever been implemented so it was important to explore new avenues.

PAUL VAN DEN IJSEEL, (Netherlands), said that the Netherlands’ approach to an agreement on a programme of work was pragmatic. The programme of work was not a goal in and of itself, it was a mere tool and enabling instrument and it should not become an obstacle. If they could agree on a programme of work of work without establishing mandates they would support this as well. They were not married to the wording of pervious documents, although they still believed they provided the best way forward. They were flexible, but pragmatic as well. They would find it hard to support a programme of work that lacked substance and did not bring them closer to the start if negotiations, but they would be open to a simplified schedule of activities.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), said that in Iran’s view a comprehensive and balanced programme of work to enable the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiations on the four core issues could best serve the purposes of the Conference on Disarmament as well as the safety and security for the entire international community. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority for the Iranian delegation and for a better and safer world the Conference on Disarmament should agree on establishing an ad hoc committee to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament as soon as possible and the programme of work should provide a negotiation mandate on this issue. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of such weapons. Iran supported the start of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a legally binding treaty to fully ban the possibility of an attack from space, a war in space or the weaponization of space. On fissile material, Iran had said that the issue of stocks and verification should be covered under a possible treaty. Past production and existing stocks as well as the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices must be covered under the scope of any treaty dealing with fissile material. Any negotiations of a treaty that did not include stocks would be fruitless.

LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), said that she had noted with interest the comments made by colleagues from other countries, particularly the comments made by the speaker from the Netherlands who noted that the programme of work was a tool and not a means in and of itself. Ms. Kennedy had been heartened by some of the other comments that had been made as well. The United States fully supported the president of the Conference and looked forward to returning to substantive work.

JO ADAMSON, (United Kingdom), said there seemed to be little disagreement that the items listed in document CD/1864 were the ones they were most interested in. They really wanted to do work here so it was important not to get bogged down in discussion on programmes of work and agendas. The United Kingdom was open to working with other Members to move forward so it was important that they did not allow themselves to get stuck; the patient was off life support but it was time to get on with the cure and the president of the Conference would be the surgeon who guided them forward.

DELL HIGGIE, (New Zealand), thanked everyone for their expressions of sympathy and support for New Zealand after the earthquake suffered in the country. The expectations of the Conference on Disarmament were not the president’s alone, but rather a collective responsibility. They needed to show that the resources invested in were warranted. New Zealand welcomed any proposals that offered the prospect of dealing in a substantive way with fissile material and all the other items on the agenda. Ms. Higgie said New Zealand agreed that there was no fundamental need for the programme of work to contain a detailed mandate for their work; this was the approach followed before 1997 in the Conference. If a minimal calendar was the best way to get back to substantive work, New Zealand fully supported that.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said that the purpose of this body was to negotiate instruments on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The problem was there was no agreement on the topics of negotiation and there were different approaches to the priorities which delegations thought were ripe for negotiation. Meanwhile, they engaged in discussions which were good, but the focus of their work must remain negotiations and discussions per se were only a substitute. He encouraged the president to adopt a programme of work, but there were different understandings of what a programme of work meant. Germany would be happy to work on the basis of previous documents, but they would also be happy to look at other possibilities such as a simplified programme of work that consisted of a schedule of activities as long as it led to a process that led to negotiations. Transparency in the process would be important, as it was important to know how close they were to consensus.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that a simplified schedule of activities would be an alternative they could use to start proceedings, but this would not be a substitute for the mandates needed for starting substantive work. Even if they agreed on a simplified programme of work, they needed to think about two points: one, they needed to continue to discuss and agree on a mandate to set up the necessary subsidiary bodies, and secondly it should be flexible. The delegation of Japan still believed that documents CD/1864 and CD/1889 should be the basis for the kind of agreement they had to seek during the course of the year to start substantive work.

TOM MBOYA OKEYO, (Kenya), said that over the last month their discussions had contributed to a deepening of the understanding of the positions, priorities and concerns of States. These proposals could provide the framework for substantive discussions. Unfortunately, they had yet to make any headway. If they could not establish a programme of work, their efforts would be meaningless. They needed to build on the momentum established under the Canadian presidency. The Kenyan delegation remained flexible and reiterated its support for the president of the Conference.

JON YONG RYONG, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said the problem with the programme of work did not lie in the procedures or working methods of the Conference, but rather there were political obstacles before them. It was their hope that delegations would demonstrate the political will to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.

JAMES C. O’SHEA, (Ireland), said that Ireland had supported CD/1864, which was a compromise that all States were able to live with at the time. Ireland was interested in looking at alternative approaches if they would bring them closer to substantive work and continuing the functions of the body. In the past there had been more simple programmes of work that had been adopted without mandates. This simplified programme of work would not make all their problems disappear, but this excessive focus on the programme of work had created an obstacle to the real work and functioning of the Conference on Disarmament, and they needed to focus on the substantive work that was required of the Conference. Mr. O’Shea was not convinced that negotiating with regional groups was the best way to ensure transparency and openness.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said the delegation had listened with interest to statements made by delegations that they supported a simplified programme of work. Algeria had some questions related to that trend, namely whether the adoption of a simplified agenda meant they would discard the Shannon Mandate and start from scratch.

ETIKA JUNIATI YUSTISIANINGRUM, (Indonesia), said that the draft programme of work proposed by the Brazilian ambassador in 2010 was a good basis for negotiation. They supported negotiations with Member States in a transparent manner. Nuclear disarmament remained their highest priority and they would continue to support the president of the Conference in their mutual endeavours.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Conference had been talking a lot, but producing very few papers. They had a programme of work, but there was no consensus on it. If delegations could come up with a format for a simplified version of the programme of work, it might just work if people saw the ideas outlined on paper. Mr. Ordzhonikidze said he would be very interested in having Member States who raised this issue produce their ideas on paper so that where they stood on a simplified programme of work would be clearer.

Concluding Remarks

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), said that it would be good if there was a transparent account of where they stood on consensus and he planned to keep the Conference informed on where they were in terms of a programme of work. This presidency, as with all presidencies, had a responsibility, but there was also the collective responsibility of the Conference. The programme of work was a means to an end, an instrument, and what they sought was to have an inclusive balance. There was positive evaluation which would serve as a basis toward work on a future agreement. They already had CD/1864 and CD/1889 with limitations, but they also contained important elements. There was concern about excessive links among mandates, and as president he hoped he had the active complicity with all the presidents this year to generate a dynamic that enabled them to move toward a programme of work that included everyone and excluded no one. They needed ideas and political will and that’s what they would be driving at in the next few weeks.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/011E