THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES EXPANSION OF ITS MEMBERSHIP

In its meeting today the Conference on Disarmament discussed the issue of the expansion of its membership.

In an opening statement Jorge Lomonaco, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, recalled the two previous expansions of the membership of the Conference, in 1996 and in 1999, both of which took into account geographic representation and involved the appointment of Special Coordinators on the Expansion of Membership. No further review of membership had taken place for 13 years, since 2002, despite it being stipulated in Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference.

In the interactive dialogue on expansion of membership of the Conference, many States responded positively to the proposal of an appointment of a Special Coordinator, saying it was high-time the issue was addressed. Inclusive rather than exclusive solutions to address global challenges were advocated, with States saying the Conference needed to take steps to increase its efficiency, transparency and inclusiveness, and above all, its universal representation if it was to play a leading role in universal disarmament processes. Other States raised concerns about the issue, including implications for the Conference in terms of fulfilling its negotiating mandate and for national security issues, noting that universal membership did not necessarily guarantee success. There were 27 States wishing to join the Conference, and some of them had been knocking at the door of the Conference on Disarmament for 30 years, said one State.

The following States spoke in an interactive dialogue on the issue of expansion of membership: South Africa, Czech Republic on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament, Bulgaria, Austria, Ireland, Netherlands, Ghana, Finland, Lithuania, Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, United States, Brazil, Russia, Senegal, Philippines and Algeria

The Conference on Disarmament also heard a special address from Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, Chairperson of the Advisory Board of the Secretary-General on Disarmament Matters and Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), who said UNIDIR was in a serious existential crisis, and unless a solution was found, risked being lost forever. UNIDIR was the sole United Nations analytical body producing policy analysis on disarmament issues and could not be replaced by a civil society organization. There was no doubt that Member States valued UNIDIR’s fact-based, practical and relevant work and it hoped they would be supportive in finding a solution.

France, Finland, Belarus, Netherlands, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland, Germany took the floor in response to the statement by the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, with some speakers offering financial and political support, or proposals for action.

Some States also took the floor to register concern about the manner in which female members of civil society were addressed in the discussion about civil society participation on Tuesday 10 February 2015.

The Conference will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Friday 13 February to further discuss the two draft proposals on civil society participation and establishment of a working group to review methods of work and to decide how to proceed on the issue of the Expansion of Membership of the Conference on Disarmament. As Friday 13 February would conclude Mexico’s Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, the President said he expected to make a concluding statement in the meeting.

Statement by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

Ambassador ISTVAN GYARMATI, Chairperson of the Advisory Board of the Secretary-General on Disarmament Issues and Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), said in his address today he would inform the Conference about the very difficult situation UNIDIR was in, in the hope of finding solutions that would preserve UNIDIR for the next 30 years. UNIDIR was created by Member States, who decided to base it in Geneva so it could best support the predecessor of the Conference on Disarmament. UNIDIR convened meetings, expert panels and workshops on items on the Conference’s agenda. It offered advice and support to Conference Presidents, Groups and Member States looking to take forward initiatives within the body. It had contributed an enormous amount of insight into breaking the deadlock of the Conference, as well as books and papers on specific agenda items such as fissile materials. UNIDIR’s annual Space Conference kept the conversation on the Prevention of an Arms race in Outer Space active and outgoing. Judging from feedback received there was no doubt that Member States valued UNIDIR’s fact-based, practical and relevant work supporting the disarmament community.

Today UNIDIR was in a serious existential crisis. Without a solution it risked being lost forever. UNIDIR had been in a serious situation for decades, but until now the able Directors and staff of UNIDIR had worked to overcome challenges. Today the crisis was different – it was not about the work of UNIDIR but about the fact that financial contributions were insufficient. Mr. Gyarmati described the staffing and financial challenges faced by UNIDIR which were heightened by the introducing of Umoja, a complete re-working of the way the United Nations Secretariat manages its administration, later this year. Mr. Gyarmati outlined possible solutions, which included sources of funding – both from the United Nations General Budget and Member States contributions, which were inadequate. If a solution was not found by 1 November when the new Umoja system would be introduced, UNIDIR would no longer be able to function. UNIDIR was the sole United Nations analytical body producing policy analysis on disarmament issues and could not be replaced by a civil society organization. If UNIDIR was lost not only the Conference on Disarmament would suffer, but other bodies such as the United Nations First Committee, and ultimately Member States themselves, would also lose out.

Discussion with United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)

France said it placed great store on the continued work of UNIDIR at the service of the disarmament community in Geneva and at the service of the Conference on Disarmament. France thanked UNIDIR for its very important, very substantive and very interesting input and said it continued to provide support, including in financial terms. 2015 was traditionally the year that the First Committee was presented with the draft resolution on UNIDIR, submitted by France, and so this year would be an opportunity for all Member States of the United Nations, not just of the Conference on Disarmament, to provide UNIDIR with the necessary financial and political support. UNIDIR’s financial difficulties were modest in context of the unilateral budget, said France, especially as it played an irreplaceable role in supporting disarmament work.

Finland said the cooperation it enjoyed with UNIDIR, including during its Presidency of the Conference, was extremely helpful. Finland said it depended upon the independent research carried out by UNIDIR and hoped a financial solution could be found.

Belarus thanked UNIDIR for its important statement this morning which would prompt Permanent Missions to the United Nations Office at Geneva to ensure the support of Permanent Missions in New York and urge them to keep the matter under consideration. Belarus also enquired which Fifth Committee bodies would consider UNIDIR’s budgetary issues.

Netherlands said it continued to be a strong supporter of UNIDIR whose work played an important role in formulating national policy and hoped a solution could be found to UNIDIR’s problems.

Turkey regretted that fact that UNIDIR, such a broadly beneficial instrument, was in dire straits. Turkey noted that it regularly provided financial contributions, albeit modest, to UNIDIR. Clearly there was an institutional crisis and a solution must be found.

Austria said UNIDIR’s contributions to the field of disarmament were excellent. Austria said it had recently made a financial contribution to UNIDIR despite economic challenges. The real problem seemed to be that the research institution was treated like any other United Nations body but really was incomparable to other units. UNIDIR needed a waiver from Umoja, which may dependent (depend?) upon the United Nations Secretariat.

Switzerland praised the commitment of the Director and staff of UNIDIR. UNIDIR was a crucial element of the disarmament mechanism established by the first special session of the United Nations General Assembly dedicated to disarmament issues. UNIDIR had contributed to the field of disarmament significantly over the year, often in precarious conditions. UNIDIR needed to strengthen its foundation: that was the main challenge and should be of concern to all United Nations Member States that collectively established the organization. Member States should make a strong political and financial commitment to ensure UNIDIR continued to function effectively in the future. Colleagues in the First and Fifth Committees in New York ought to be mobilized on the issue.

Germany thanked UNIDIR for its close cooperation in past years, and said UNIDIR had a vision in context with disarmament and peace-building worldwide. It flagged UNIDIR’s important work in the field of cyber-technology which it hoped would continue. Germany hoped that the financial and structural problems described could be solved soon and would watch the development in that context closely.

Ambassador ISTVAN GYARMATI, Chairperson of the Advisory Board of the Secretary-General on Disarmament Issues and Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), in response to statements, emphasized that not only colleagues in the First Committee at the United Nations in New York needed to be mobilized but those in the Fifth Committee as well. There should be harmony between Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Finance, he remarked. It was important that support from the United Nations Secretariat for the administrative, financial and Umoja challenges continued. The subvention UNIDIR received from the United Nations Regular Budget was around USD 280 thousand per year. For the five staff posts needed, UNIDIR would need approximately USD 1.5 million – an increase of USD 1.2 million. Mr. Gyarmati thanked all Member States for their support, in particular Switzerland, as well as that given by France, whose continued support was invaluable particularly in preparing the five-year draft resolution for the General Assembly. The challenge was to transfer political support into financial support by the deadline of 1 November 2015.

Statement by the President on Expansion of the Membership of the Conference on Disarmament

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, turned to the issue of the expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament. There had been two previous expansions of the membership of the Conference: in 1996 and in 1999, recalled the President. Geographic representation was taken into account on both occasions and in both cases Special Coordinators were appointed to seek a list that could be agreed upon. However, subsequent efforts by Bulgaria did not result in a new round of expansion, as Member States were still not unanimous on the modalities of such expansion. For 13 years, since 2002, no further review of membership had taken place, despite it being stipulated in Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure.

Interactive Discussion on Expansion of Membership of the Conference on Disarmament

South Africa said before turning to the issue of expansion, it wished to register its concern about the manner in which female members of civil society were addressed in yesterday’s discussion. Such characterization was an affront to all women and served to undermine the important role that women played in advancing peace and security, irrespective of whether they hailed from States or civil society. It was not only a principled matter for South Africa but for the international community as a whole. In that regard South Africa drew the Conference on Disarmament’s attention to the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Women in Disarmament, championed by Trinidad and Tobago and added that “As seasoned diplomats we need to be cognisant of the importance of this platform”.

South Africa commended the President for all of his endeavours in bringing up the discussion on the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament membership. South Africa always advocated inclusive rather than exclusive solutions to address global challenges. The advancement of international peace and security required the participation of the international community. Multilateral engagement was essential to address the challenges in a sustainable manner. South Africa hoped that the Conference on Disarmament would take the decision to appoint a Special Coordinator on the issue.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, thanked South Africa for its statement regarding respect for women members of civil society.

Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament (IGOS), said since 2002 there had not been a single discussion devoted to the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament so today was the first time in a decade we would hear the views of the membership on such an important issue. Members of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament were deeply concerned over the continuing inability of the Conference to resume negotiations on disarmament issues after nearly 20 years of impasse. While the security environment was evolving rapidly the Conference had come under increasing criticism for its inability to reflect and act upon the changing realities of the contemporary world.

If the Conference was to play a leading role in universal disarmament processes, it needed to undertake steps to increase its efficiency, transparency and inclusiveness, and above all, its universal representation, said Czech Republic. The Rules of Procedure clearly provided that ‘the membership of the Conference will be reviewed at regular intervals’ quoted the Czech Republic, saying that Observer States had proved their interest in joining the Conference as they regularly contributed to the re-start of its disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control efforts. The Czech Republic reiterated its call for a concrete action on expansion to be taken by the President.

Bulgaria said the issue of the expansion of the Conference was one to which it attached serious attention. The commitment of States wishing to join the Conference deserved to be recognized. Bulgaria cited the Rules of Procedure which called for regular reviews of the membership, regretting that the last decision was taken in 1999, following substantial efforts. New members would bring new energy and new ideas. Enlargement would revitalize the Conference. History taught us that the inclusive approach was far more effective than the exclusive one, said Bulgaria.

Austria expressed its full support to the statements of South Africa and the President regarding providing full dignity when referring to female members of civil society. Regarding expansion of the Conference, Austria said it was vital that a forum which tackled issues of disarmament – which by definition impacted upon all States – should be open to more States. It was high time the Conference addressed the issue of expansion of membership, in a structured way.

Ireland reminded delegates that it was now almost 40 years since the General Assembly spoke of the urgent work needed to be accomplished in the field of disarmament. The Conference had achieved much, but regrettably its list of achievements had not been added to for the last 20 years. The principle of review of the membership of the Conference was so important it appeared as the second item in the Rules of Procedure. The annual report of the Conference had been misleading for many years, said Ireland, because it implied that a review of the expansion of membership took place every year in plenaries, but that was not in fact a review as Ireland understood the term.

Netherlands said there were political and practical reasons why the membership had been expanded in the past; consultations had to be started on the issue to identify the reasons and find solutions, suggestions and ideas.

Ghana said its goal, as mandated by the people of Ghana, was to obtain the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. In that regard Ghana had signed or ratified all disarmament treaties and actively worked in the field of disarmament. Ghana deserved to be a Member States of the Conference in order to sustain its contribution to disarmament contributions. Ghana asked Conference Members’ to receive the suggestion of expansion in a positive light, saying the expansion was long overdue.

Finland said it was in favour of enlarging the membership of the Conference on Disarmament, and agreed with the statements of Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands.

Lithuania welcomed the President’s efforts to bring the Conference on Disarmament back on track and said the expansion of membership was an outstanding issue.

The universal goal of international stability and security, respectively disarmament, must by definition by addressed by a universally represented body reflecting developments in the global security environment. Lithuania also called for practical steps on the expansion of membership of the Conference on Disarmament; it believed that expansion could help regain the credibility of the Conference by transforming it into a universally represented body.

Switzerland noted that the General Assembly had invited the Conference to specifically discuss the matter of its expansion in 2015, in the context of its most recent annual resolution on it. Furthermore, the concluding document of the General Assembly special session on disarmament lay down the parameters for the issue. The global security situation had evolved since the Cold War, and continued to evolve. There were 27 States wishing to join the Conference, and some of them had been knocking at the door of the Conference on Disarmament for 30 years. Switzerland supported the proposals of Ireland and Austria.

Turkey noted that the Rules of Procedure did not presume automatic expansion of membership and expressed concern about the timing of expansion, wondering if by doing so it may work against the security interests of many States or add to the Conference’s work. The Rules of Procedure already allowed non-Member States to take part in Conference debates in an open manner. There was an argument that the Conference ought to be open to universal membership but it was not a given that every country was interested in being a Member. Turkey cited other disarmament bodies that had universal membership, noting that the former did not necessarily guarantee success. It was well known that the problems faced by the Conference were not created by its procedures, membership or internal dynamics. In the absence of political will, Turkey was not sure that addressing issues of membership would bring the Conference closer to fulfilling its negotiating mandate. Expansion should only be embarked upon once the Conference had restarted negotiations, and then on a case-by-case basis. There was no consensus to appoint a Special Coordinator on the issue of expansion, said Turkey.

Sweden agreed with South Africa’s initial remarks regarding respect for women. Regarding enlargement of the Conference, Sweden said it was an issue which ought to be pursued more actively.

Portugal said it agreed with the IGOS statement read on behalf of all Observer States by the Czech Republic, and thanked Member States which had made encouraging statements. The Conference would gain greatly from a serious discussion on expansion.

Greece said it had been waiting for Membership of the Conference on Disarmament for more than 30 years. There was no valid or moral reason to exclude States; it was an anachronism to restrict negotiations on disarmament issues to only 65 countries. Greece reiterated its call for Members of the Conference to appoint a Special Coordinator on matters of disarmament without prejudice to the outcome. Greece said a small minority of Member States exacerbated the indignation of Observer States, and did not help in enhancing the legitimacy and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament.

United States expressed its full support for the statement by South Africa regarding the way in which female representatives of civil society had been addressed. Any comments which degraded or appeared to degrade the role of women were not acceptable, said the United States. Regarding the issue of enlargement, the United States said should a proposal be put forward it remained willing to discuss an appropriate but limited expansion of Conference on Disarmament membership.

Brazil added its voice to the large number of Member States which pointed out the importance of considering the question of enlargement of the Conference. For the sake of coherence, Brazil said the Conference should not avoid a broad and deep discussion on the issue.

Russia said the issue of membership of the Conference was indeed a very important one and it fully supported serious and constructive consideration of it. The Conference ought to consider what would be the most optimal membership. The reference to review of membership in the Rules of Procedure did not automatically mean expansion of membership, noted Russia. Saying that the expansion of membership would help the Conference overcome its difficult situation was just a supposition and could not be proved in an empirical fashion. The two waves of expansion which took place in 1996 and 1999 coincided with the fact that the Conference on Disarmament entered into a deep crisis which it could not overcome. Perhaps that was just a strange coincidence, but it was a fact that was hard to deny, commented Russia.

Senegal addressed questions regarding the Rules of Procedure article referencing ‘periodical review’ of the membership of the Conference, saying that did not automatically mean expansion – it could even refer to the opposite. Was the case that any non-Member States of the Conference that may develop nuclear weapons in future should become a Member? Senegal supported the nomination of a Special Coordinator on issues related to expansion as quickly as possible.

Philippines thanked the Member States of the Conference who expressed support for the expansion of membership. Philippines underscored that it wished to begin a discussion on expansion without prejudicing a particular outcome and thanked the President for his efforts to advance the cause of Observer States.

Algeria said it was in favour of the democratization of the international system in general, not just in the Conference on Disarmament. However, if the consensus relating to the expansion did not exist then it did not make much sense to appoint a Special Coordinator as the discussions would not lead to anything positive in the end.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, speaking in his capacity as the Permanent Representative of Mexico to the Conference on Disarmament, said Mexico believed weapons of mass destruction and their impact upon humanity were of concern to the whole of the international community. Therefore the whole international community should have a say in how to deal with weapons of mass destruction.

In his capacity as President, Mr. Lomonaco thanked all who participated in and listened to the debate and asked States not to prejudge the outcome of the appointment of a Special Coordinator. Today, the Council Chamber may not be unanimous, but the majority spoke overwhelmingly in favour of the Conference on Disarmament addressing the question of enlargement in 2015. Most Member States considered it high time for the Conference to fulfil the provisions held in the Rules of Procedure. The President said he heard many calls for him to appoint a Special Coordinator for the Expansion of the Membership of the Conference.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/008E