CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES THE WAY FORWARD TOWARDS ADOPTING A PROGRAMME OF WORK
The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard general statements by a number of delegations, and discussed the way forward towards adopting a programme of work.
Peters Emuze, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that consultations on a programme of work had shown that some countries favoured the constitution of an informal working group while some others favoured an informal debate on the core issues. Delegations had underlined the need for all core issues to be addressed in a balanced manner. Two draft programmes of work had been received, but had not been circulated yet. The President expressed the view that the way forward was to have an open discussion on the programme of work in the plenary.
Making general statements today were Ireland, Belarus, Netherlands on behalf of the European Union, Malaysia and Turkey.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in right of reply.
Speaking in the discussion on the programme of work were Pakistan, United States, Russian Federation, China and India.
At the end of the meeting, China requested that the Conference’s meeting next Tuesday, 9 February be postponed on the occasion of the Chinese New Year celebrations. While Pakistan expressed its support for that request, the United Kingdom and the United States were concerned that this would constitute a precedent and lead to additional requests of the sort being formulated in the future. The President of the Conference said he would make a decision and inform delegations in due time about the date of the next public plenary.
Opening Statement
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, opening the meeting, invited delegations to make general statements and to share views and expectations regarding this year’s programme of work, and hoped that a draft would be adopted as soon as possible.
The Conference then accepted requests from the following non-member States to participate in its work during the 2016 session: Afghanistan, Armenia, Kuwait, Lithuania and Luxembourg.
General Statements
Ireland said that it was a pivotal time for disarmament, with some significant successes for multilateral diplomacy. Ireland deeply regretted that the Conference on Disarmament had not been able to achieve consensus over a programme of work in the past two decades. Due consideration ought to be given to the gendered impact of weapons, as well as to the need for women to be empowered in disarmament and non-proliferation fora and negotiations. Ireland expressed support to efforts to move forward on the process leading to a Fissile Material Treaty as part as the Conference’s programme of work. Ireland stressed the importance of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban to enter into force and called upon remaining States to ratify it at the earliest opportunity. In that regard, the recent nuclear test by “North Korea” was of utmost concern, and Ireland urged the authorities of that country to re-engage with the Six Party talks. Ireland expressed support for broad participation in the open-ended working group established by General Assembly resolution 70/33, which provided an opportunity to work towards nuclear disarmament. It finally expressed support to the contribution of civil society to the debate on disarmament and the expansion of the membership of the Conference.
Belarus called upon all Member States to unite to reach consensus on the way forward, on the basis of the proposal of the presidency on the establishment of a programme of work for the 2010 session (document CD/WP/559), the outcome document of the High-Level Meeting on Revitalizing the Work of the Conference on Disarmament held during the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly, and the outcome document of the High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament held during the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly. The Conference should remain the key forum to negotiate disarmament and arms-control issues, and its mandate should not be eroded by the formation of separate negotiating tracks with restricted memberships. Belarus supported the need for substantive work to be started, based on those proposals which received consensus amongst Member States.
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, after noting some recent positive developments in the field of disarmament, said that the adoption of a programme of work would require sustained political efforts from all Members of the Conference. The immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty remained a priority. The European Union had a long commitment to the enlargement of the Conference, and welcomed the enhanced contribution of non-governmental organizations and research institutions. Another key priority for the European Union was to uphold and preserve the Non-Proliferation Treaty and strengthen its implementation. Calling for the universalization of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union called upon States that have not yet done so to join the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States without delay and conditions. The European Union had proposed an international code of conduct for outer space activities, and hoped that all nations would render their support to such a step. In conclusion, the European Union condemned in the strongest possible terms the irresponsible nuclear test recently undertaken by the “DPRK”, and said that the European Union would discuss appropriate response with its partners.
Malaysia regretted that the lack of progress and political will had led to a rollback of trust and confidence in the ability of the Conference on Disarmament to uphold its mandate. While the Conference remained the same, progress had been achieved on the outside. The Conference could not work in a vacuum. It was vital for Member States to adopt a comprehensive and balanced programme of work that would lead to tangible outcomes. Malaysia’s priority remained nuclear disarmament, and it recognized that progress could be made on the issue of fissile materials. The issue of negative security assurances was a further subject where progress was possible, as no delegation had opposed further work on that topic. The open-ended working group established by General Assembly resolution 70/33 should not be seen as a rival to the Conference on Disarmament, as its work would rather complement the work of the Conference. All delegations should engage with it constructively and actively. While the principle of consensus should be maintained, the Conference needed to review its methods of work in order to adapt to an ever-changing security climate. Inputs from civil society organizations would enrich and stimulate the work of the Conference.
Turkey hoped that the Conference would resume substantive work this year, and called upon all Member States to show flexibility regarding a possible programme of work, which would pave the way towards the commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, but also materialize advances on other agenda items. The problems faced by the Conference were not created by its procedures, membership or internal dynamics. The universalization of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was of utmost importance. Turkey was concerned that the 1995 resolution on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons was yet to be implemented. Turkey joined concerns regarding the recent nuclear test by the “DPRK”, which would be bound to affect peace and stability in the region. On a positive note, Turkey welcomed the attainment of the “Implementation Day” of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Iranian nuclear programme.
Right of Reply
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a right of reply, reiterated its right to self-defence and sovereignty, and regretted biased statements that deliberately failed to recognize the reality in the Korean Peninsula. An objective and impartial assessment of the situation in the Korean Peninsula should be made to propose solutions that would truly be helpful for ensuring peace and security in the region. The persistence of unilateral views unacceptable to others would only bring endless controversy, increase tensions and confrontations and would never benefit future developments.
Discussion on a Programme of Work
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that consultations on a programme of work had shown that some countries favoured the constitution of an informal working group while some others favoured an informal debate on the core issues. Delegations had underlined the need for all core issues to be addressed in a balanced manner. Two draft programmes of work had been received, but had not been circulated yet. The President expressed the view that the way forward was to have an open discussion on the programme of work in the plenary.
Pakistan called for the re-establishment of an informal working group to search for a consensus-based formula in an open and transparent manner. A schedule of activities providing for informal discussions on all agenda items would also be useful. Pakistan was not in a position to accept a programme of work that included a negotiating mandate for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Pakistan stood ready to accept a programme of work that either contained a discussion mandate for all issues without any exception, or a negotiating mandate for nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. Turning to the open-ended working group established by General Assembly resolution 70/33, Pakistan said that the solution to the Conference’s inaction did not lie in abandoning it or in exploring progress outside it on a non-consensual basis and without the participation of key stakeholders. Pakistan finally expressed support to Ireland’s call for strengthened women’s participation.
United States said informal consultations would be useful at this point to discuss the two draft programmes of work mentioned by the presidency.
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the two proposals were similar in content.
Russian Federation said there was no alternative to the Conference on Disarmament to discuss disarmament matters. Parallel tracks only produced one-sided documents which could never become universal by nature. Global agreements were only possible on the basis of consensus, which was only possible at the Conference on Disarmament. This required Member States to show the political will to work together and responsively. The Russian-Chinese draft Treaty on the Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space was a good basis to moving forward. The advantage of that initiative was that it only addressed one specific issue, therefore avoiding confrontation. International legal guarantees for the placement of weapons in outer space would allow us to strengthen strategic stability. The legal vacuum in this field had to be filled. The Russian Federation was prepared to make the political commitment to not place weapons in outer-space as negotiations moved forward. The Russian Federation believed that establishing an informal working group, similar to what had been done the year before, was the only way out of the current impasse.
China said that a programme of work should be reasonable and balanced, and take on board in a balanced manner the concerns and priorities of parties. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was not the only mature item of the Conference on Disarmament, and substantive negotiations could be carried out on other items as well. The principle of consensus should also be maintained. To give up that principle would give rise to a series of negative consequences. Another principle was to act according to the changing times, and to ensure that the Conference on Disarmament had a serious evaluation on the impact of scientific and technological development on strategic balance and stability and the arms control process. New items on cyber security and lethal autonomous weapons were needed. The membership of the Conference should also be enlarged in order to strengthen its universality and to make initiatives from the outside unnecessary. With regards to the open-ended working group established by General Assembly resolution 70/33, China again underlined the principle of consensus and stressed the importance of the Conference as the only forum for discussing disarmament.
India agreed that, unless there was a consensus, bringing a proposal to the formal plenary may not be a productive exercise, and supported informal consultations in various formats. It noted the need to have more transparency in the negotiations on a programme of work, for the sake of clarity. Referring to the statement made by the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union, India said it would not join the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear State. India reiterated its proposal made last year to update the webpage of the Conference on Disarmament, and proposed that a common group photograph was published on it at the beginning of every year.
United States, responding to the statement made by the Russian Federation, said that the Russian-Chinese draft Treaty on the Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space did not include an integral legally-binding verification regime for effectively monitoring compliance with its obligations and prohibitions. Furthermore, the draft Treaty’s definitions were insufficient to define what a weapon was, and failed to address concerns about a potential breakout capability. “Russia’s so-called no-first placement initiative” contained a number of significant problems, including a lack of a viable definition of a space weapon and the fact that its implementation could not be verified and confirmed by others. Furthermore, Russia continued to justify the absence of terrestrially-based anti-satellite weapons in the draft Treaty with ill-founded arguments, leading the United States to conclude that Russia was actually intending to develop and maintain terrestrially-based anti-satellite weapons.
Russian Federation said that the topic of outer-space was an important one, and called for further negotiations on it. The United States should demonstrate leadership and draft a proposal together with the Russian Federation. On verification, the important thing was to transform political will into substantive work within the Conference on Disarmament.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC16/003E