CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS 2012 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first plenary of its 2012 session during which it adopted its agenda and heard a message from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as well as statements by more than two dozen speakers on how to end the impasse facing the Conference.

Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, reading out a statement on behalf of Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said the future of the Conference on Disarmament was in the hands of its Member States. But he could not stand by and watch it decline into irrelevancy, as States considered other negotiating arenas. In 2012, the future of the Conference would be under the spotlight as never before. The General Assembly was seized of the matter and, if the Conference remained deadlocked, it was ready to consider other options to move the disarmament agenda forward. Mr. Ban appealed to Member States to support the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on agreed disarmament issues. Prior agreement on their scope or final outcomes should not be a precondition for the start of negotiations, or an excuse to avoid them. The tide of disarmament was rising, yet the Conference on Disarmament was in danger of sinking.

Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador, the President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he believed that the deadlock in the Conference was not the result of simple questions of procedure, but it was much more serious and deep and related to geopolitical realities, security and regional balances which must not be ignored. During informal consultations, and after his presentation of a non-paper, he could see that there was no agreement on how to make headway in the Conference. There was no agreement in sight. There was divided opinion with regard to the future of the Conference. Some said the Conference was the only multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, while others questioned its raison d’etre after 15 years of stagnation. In order to overcome the paralysis, the Conference needed new ideas. The Presidency would hold plenary meetings to discuss the future of the Conference with honesty.

The Conference adopted its agenda (CD/WP.569) and agreed to the request of the following States to participate in its 2012 session as observers: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Holy See, Jordan Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Nepal, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.

Addressing the Conference today were the United States, Canada, Peru, Cuba, Japan, Brazil, China, Mexico, Denmark on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Argentina on behalf of Latin American countries, Croatia on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, Venezuela, Chile, France, Malaysia, Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya, Myanmar, Poland, Republic of Korea, Algeria and Germany.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 January 2012.

Statements

The President of the Conference, Ambassador LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA of Ecuador, said he believed that the deadlock in the Conference was not the result of simple questions of procedure, but it was much more serious and deep and related to geopolitical realities, security and regional balances which must not be ignored. Present frustration was such that the Conference had reached a critical state, which was reflected in General Assembly resolutions calling on it to adopt a programme of work. During informal consultations, and after his presentation of a non-paper, he could see that there was no agreement on how to make headway in the Conference. There was no agreement in sight. There was divided opinion with regard to the future of the Conference. Some said the Conference was the only multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, while others questioned its raison d’etre after 15 years of stagnation. In order to overcome the paralysis, the Conference needed new ideas. He invited delegations to consider, if the absence of progress was due to external factors, then maybe it would be better to take the decision to put the Conference on stand-by until a political solution could be found. Or maybe they should call on the General Assembly to convoke the Fourth Extraordinary Session on Disarmament. The Presidency would hold plenary meetings to discuss the future of the Conference with honesty.

KASSYM-JOMART TOKAYEV, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, reading out a statement on behalf of BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said the Conference on Disarmament had long served as the world’s single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum and had some impressive accomplishments. Yet today, the Conference was no longer living up to expectations. The last occasion on which the Conference fulfilled the negotiating role given to it by the United Nations General Assembly was in 1996, when the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty emerged from an intensive three-year process. Not only did the members of the Conference disagree over its priorities, but the consensus rule, which had served this body so well in the past, was currently used as a de facto veto power to stall every attempt to break the impasse.

The Secretary-General said the future of the Conference was in the hands of its Member States. But he could not stand by and watch it decline into irrelevancy, as States considered other negotiating arenas. Both the high-level meeting that he convened in September 2010 and the General Assembly’s plenary follow-up meeting last July were not just exercises in criticising the status quo, though certainly such critiques featured prominently. Above all, these gatherings were opportunities for the world community to voice its support for new progress in this field. In 2012, the future of the Conference would be under the spotlight as never before. The General Assembly was seized of the matter and, if the Conference remained deadlocked, it was ready to consider other options to move the disarmament agenda forward.

Mr. Ban urged the Conference to seize this moment, when the world was focused intently on advancing disarmament goals, and appealed to its Member States to support the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on agreed disarmament issues. Prior agreement on their scope or final outcomes should not be a precondition for the start of negotiations, or an excuse to avoid them. The tide of disarmament was rising, yet the Conference on Disarmament was in danger of sinking. They must restore the Conference to the central role it could and must play in strengthening the rule of law in the field of disarmament. It was their shared responsibility to make the Conference work, not only for them but for future generations.

The representative of the United States said despite herculean efforts by a number of Member States of the Conference, the Conference continued to languish and a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), the next logical and necessary step in the multilateral nuclear disarmament process, remained no closer to negotiation. Every government represented in the Conference had national security concerns and obligations associated with an FMCT, including the United States. But as responsible governments, they also had a collective obligation to and responsibility for international peace and security, to which an FMCT would significantly contribute. Regarding the possibility of the Conference simultaneously negotiating on the four core issues – FMCT, nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and prevention of an arms race in outer space – it was not a practical option. The United States hoped that 2012 would be the year when the Conference emerged from its prolonged impasse and once again contributed to international peace and security by beginning negotiations on an FMCT. If the Conference failed to deliver an FMCT negotiation this year, it would again have shirked responsibility to move toward a world without nuclear weapons. Business as usual was a recipe for disaster.

The representative of Canada said for too long, the Conference had stood moribund, failing to provide direction and leadership. They must seek to overcome their differences and bring innovative solutions to the challenges that they faced within the Conference. Canada feared that if they continued to be unable to agree to even a programme of work this year, they would contribute irrevocably further to the loss of credibility of the Conference. A programme of work that allowed for negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and substantive discussions of the other core issues was the best option to return the Conference to work. Such a programme of work would require difficult compromises but it would also represent a pragmatic recognition that treating all issues in an equitable and balanced manner did not mean that all issues must be treated in the exact same manner all at the same time. To insist on this was a recipe for deadlock.

The representative of Peru said the Conference had been warned of the dangers it faced as the only multilateral forum to negotiate disarmament, and if the Conference did not establish a programme of work and start negotiations, then the Conference would be in danger. Peru recognized that States had a responsibility to ensure the strengthening of conditions to allow institutions to progress on disarmament issues. Peru called on nuclear weapon States to give greater importance to the collective security of other States. Peru was ready to start substantive work on the four core issues, including fissile material, nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and preventing an arms race in outer space. The balanced treatment of the different agenda issues was the way to start work. Establishing working groups and special coordinators could facilitate having the Conference start its work.

The representative of Cuba said that solutions agreed upon in a multilateral fashion were the only sustainable way to approach disarmament and international security issues. The Conference had an indispensable role to play to negotiate universally acceptable disarmament treaties. Some said that the lack of progress in the Conference was because of its working methods, but Cuba believed that the main cause of the impasse was political in nature. Today, the First Committee of the General Assembly continued to adopt resolutions that were simply not implemented. Cuba supported improving the disarmament machinery within the United Nations, but the paralysis was due to the lack of political will of some States. Some said it was time to set the Conference aside, but Cuba opposed replacing the Conference with ad hoc bodies run by selective States. This would be a very dangerous step backward. It was the responsibility of all to preserve and strengthen the Conference. It was feasible for the Conference to negotiate simultaneously on issues, including a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, a treaty to prohibit an arms race in outer space, and a treaty to prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

The representative of Japan said that Japan believed that CD/1684, adopted by consensus in 2009, presented the best way forward in the Conference. The negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should be commenced as early as possible as it constituted the next logical step to the realization of a peaceful and secure world without nuclear weapons. The commencement of these negotiations had been blocked by one country on the grounds of its national security consideration. The Conference’s rule of consensus must not be abused to justify blocking the start of negotiations on the issue that the international community regarded as the most necessary next step for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

The representative of Brazil said that for Brazil, to get the Conference back to work meant addressing the root causes of inaction in multilateral disarmament negotiations. What needed to be addressed was the continuous lack of political will in many quarters to advance meaningful commitments in the area of nuclear disarmament. Brazil favoured, as a matter of priority, the establishment of a subsidiary body with a view to discuss the question of nuclear disarmament, in particular a treaty banning nuclear weapons. However, Brazil was prepared to consider proposals for the commencement of negotiations on any of the core issues of the agenda. The deadlock in the Conference would only be overcome with flexibility and desire to compromise, not only on one item of the agenda but on all its core items.

The representative of China said China was concerned about the status quo in the Conference and hoped that the Conference could remove itself from this stalemate soon. Some had expressed pessimism about the Conference, but China believed it remained the most appropriate body for multilateral disarmament and its authority should be promoted. They should focus efforts to seek solutions in the Conference and should also try to create favourable conditions beyond the Conference. Arms control and disarmament were related to international security and all parties should create favourable conditions for disarmament. Chine supported an early adoption of a comprehensive programme of work in the Conference and hoped all parties could work in a constructive manner.

The representative of Mexico said that a world without nuclear weapons was the only guarantee for peace and security in the planet. The General Assembly had invited Member States to “explore all options” should the situation in the Conference prevail. Therefore, the preservation of the status quo in the Conference was not a feasible option at this stage. Mexico hoped that the members of the Conference could move from procedure to substance and from the interests of a minority of States to the interests of the collectivity. Otherwise, the General Assembly would have to reassume its capabilities and functions in this matter, given by Chapter 11 of the Charter.

Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached a clear priority to the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Launching and concluding these negotiations was urgent and important as an essential step to seek a safer world for all and to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The European Union also remained ready to engage in substantive discussion on the other items that were included in CD/1864. The European Union was attached to the enlargement of the Conference. The European Union was aware that the adoption of a programme of work would require sustained political effort.

Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, said they firmly believed that 15 years of deadlock in the Conference was enough. The Eastern European Group reiterated its support for the enlargement of the Conference and the call for the appointment of a special coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference.

Argentina speaking on behalf of Latin American Countries, said 2012 was a definitive year for the future of the Conference, which remained the appropriate forum to continue to negotiate nuclear disarmament instruments. In order to overcome the situation that the Conference was inheriting this year, the speedy adoption and implementation of the agenda and programme of work were clearly necessary. Latin American countries hoped that a language of consensus would allow the Conference to adopt its programme of work and start substantive work. Latin American countries were committed to achieving nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

Croatia, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, said they were starting this year with ever stronger appeals made for the Conference to commence substantive work without further delay. Of special importance for all applicant States for membership in the Conference was the resolution of the report of the Conference on Disarmament that recognized the importance of continuing consultations on the question of the expansion of the membership of the Conference. The Conference should appoint a special coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference in order to continue consultations in an organized manner which may lead to the eventual expansion.

The representative of Venezuela said traditionally, Venezuela supported general disarmament and considered that the negotiation of new disarmament instruments and non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and strengthening of existing instruments were very important. The negotiation of an agreement on fissile material which considered existing materials and stockpiles was important. The 2012 session would be absolutely decisive and the Conference could no longer postpone its substantive work. An agreement on the programme of work was needed.

The representative of Chile said 2012 could be definitive and crucial for the future of the Conference. There had been a long history of efforts, but unfortunately all efforts had not been sufficient to build a political commitment. Today, the United Nations Secretary-General sent the Conference another message. Chile saw the need to adopt and implement an agenda and programme of work. It was clear that they had reached the limit. 2012 was a new opportunity and they should reflect on it so as not to repeat what had been happening in previous years. Political agreement was needed to guarantee a safer world. This was a new opportunity and they should reflect on it so that the Conference did not repeat what had happened in previous years. The path to follow was to not confront differing views but to seek a realistic balance with regard to the four core issues.

The representative of France said the Conference had progressively become the reflection of international tensions. He hoped that the Conference would be able to find a solution that was acceptable to everyone. He knew that this would be very difficult, but they should not give up. The Conference needed a stronger political approach to break the deadlock.

The representative of Malaysia said the Conference’s failure to have any serious substantive work on its agenda for more than a decade should be taken as a challenge. Positive developments in various international security settings for the past year showed that there were ample commitments and political will to pursue the disarmament agenda. The Conference had to build on this momentum and commence substantive discussions as soon as possible. Nuclear disarmament remained Malaysia’s highest priority. However, pending negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty remained one of the next essential steps towards preventing the proliferation of nuclear material, which would eventually lead to the attainment of genuine nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Belarus said the Conference was starting its work in difficult conditions after being unable to start substantive work for more than 10 years. In 2011, not a single delegation in the Conference on Disarmament was against the start of substantive work and negotiations, so that meant that they had the prospect to start work. The Conference remained the sole multilateral body to negotiate disarmament and arms control and its main role was to protect the interest of all the people of the world. It was difficult for Belarus to assess the non-paper which the President had prepared as they did not understand what his intentions were and what he planned to do with the non-paper.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his country looked forward to the start of substantive work in the Conference in line with the agenda which the Conference had adopted this morning. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea appreciated the efforts to find common grounds to reach a consensus on a programme of work, keeping within the rules of procedure.

The representative of Libya called for intensified efforts in order to reach a consensus on a balanced programme of work in 2012, taking into account the importance of embarking on serious negotiations that would lead to the eradication of nuclear weapons and the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. What worried Libya was that four decades after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed, the dangers of nuclear weapons still existed as some nuclear weapon states kept their nuclear weapons and on full alert. Effective guarantees for non-nuclear weapon States were important and the Conference must start work on an international legally binding instrument in order to ensure the safety of non-nuclear weapon States from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon States. The security of the Middle East could not be realized as long as Israel had nuclear weapons and was the only country in the region that was not a member to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The representative of Turkey said that the Conference on Disarmament was a unique platform and all should strive to maintain its relevance by allowing it to fulfil its fundamental tasks. Turkey welcomed the adoption of the agenda today and the next step must be to agree by consensus on a programme of work to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and to make parallel advancements on other issues. The challenge was considerable as the problems facing the Conference were not its internal procedures.

The representative of Myanmar said Myanmar consistently attached paramount importance to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their proliferation would also remain. The best and only genuine effective defense against a nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of these ominous weapons. The unique composition and the historic achievements of the Conference provided Myanmar with a reason to believe that the Conference on Disarmament was relevant as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Procedural issues could not be held responsible for the failure of the Conference.

The representative of Poland said that as this was the initial meeting of the Conference, it might not be the proper time to get into specific discussions on how to proceed in the weeks to come. However, he wished to make some remarks. With respect to the non-paper which the President had presented, the number of working groups and special coordinators which were proposed was impressive, but this impressive number could not compensate for the lack of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. To make real progress, they had to focus on crucial issues.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that the Conference on Disarmament had failed to fulfill its mandate as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum for more than a decade and the international community had expressed frustration with the years of stalemate and its patience was running out. This year may be the last window of opportunity that the international community gave to this forum. It was clear that in order for the Conference to move forward, each Member State should think more creatively and exercise more political flexibility with respect to both security concerns and the rule of procedures in the Conference.

The representative of Algeria said that the situation that the Conference on Disarmament found itself could not continue, and it was a source of real concern. Algeria was fully committed to the principle of nuclear disarmament and on the need to preserve the Conference. There was a need for a comprehensive approach that would reconcile the positions of all Member States. Algeria attached special importance to the issue of negative security assurances.

The representative of Germany thanked the President of the Conference for his “think piece”, adding that it was important for Presidents to try to find a way forward. He wished to thank his colleague from France for all his contributions in this forum.

At the end of the meeting, the President of the Conference invited all States to examine the reflections put forward today so that they could overcome their present situation. In one of the consultations that he had held, someone had said that they were all on the path of collective suicide and all should reflect on this.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC12/002E