CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL ON SUBSIDIARY BODIES AND SPECIAL COORDINATORS

The Conference on Disarmament today discussed the draft decision by its President that sought to advance the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament by establishing four subsidiary bodies and two special coordinators. It also heard several delegations deliver statements in relation to the high-level segment.

The draft decision was submitted by the President of the Conference on Disarmament, Aidan Liddle of the United Kingdom, and circulated to the delegations on 21 February 2019. It seeks to advance the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament in fulfilment of its mandate and proposes the establishment of four subsidiary bodies, on nuclear disarmament, on fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The text also proposes the establishment of two special coordinators on emerging issues and new technologies, and on working methods and expansion of the membership.

Argentina expressed support for the proposal to establish a troika of coordinators that represented regional groups to look at working methods and membership expansion. Poland noted that reviewing methods of work, and membership expansion would in no way be in contradiction to the substantial work of the Conference. Belarus was in favour of adopting a comprehensive approach to all agenda items related to nuclear disarmament because it would help the Conference to have a comprehensive and interrelated approach to the relevant agenda items. United States welcomed establishing special coordinators on working methods and membership expansion as an important way forward.

Ecuador said the current draft proposal was balanced and pragmatic and could be supported, but Ecuador needed to know more detail about the appointment of the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, and of the special coordinators. Indonesia said that the United Kingdom’s proposal sounded like a programme of work and that there was still imbalance on the degree of substantive issues to be discussed in each subsidiary body. Finland welcomed the establishment of a special coordinator on emerging issues and new technologies because it would focus the discussion and give a base for a more cross-cutting approach. Chile would have preferred to see a programme of work, but given that it was not possible, the establishment of the subsidiary bodies was a pragmatic solution to sustain a substantive dialogue in the Conference. Brazil noted that it would be safer to work along the lines of the adopted agenda items, as well as along the lines of the reports adopted by the subsidiary bodies in 2018. South Africa said that the mandate of the coordinators should be clearly defined to avoid discussions that had no relevance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament.

Mexico underlined that the summaries provided in the draft proposal did not reflect the actual substance of the work of the Conference, and gave an idea that some issues were more important than others. Australia agreed that the draft proposal looked like a programme of work, and that it was pragmatic and balanced. France said that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was ripe for substantive work and should be a priority, while Egypt noted that there was no clarity on how the report of the subsidiary bodies would be agreed on among Member States. China stressed that negotiating legally binding instruments on the Conference’s agenda items was the collective responsibility of its Member States. It would be desirable for the Conference to start its substantive work before the 2020 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference.

India highlighted the importance of starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, as one area in which the Conference could make concrete progress. Pakistan agreed that, in the absence of a consensus for launching negotiations on any issue, holding substantive discussion on agenda items without any preconditions and predisposition towards particular outcomes seemed to be the best alternative. Iran stated that it was not yet convinced of the need to have special coordinators on working methods and membership extension, while Turkey opposed creating parallelism between the discussions on substance and procedural issues. Russia clarified that the presentation of the Russian Permanent Representative delivered during the high-level segment was its official contribution to the discussion on the draft proposal.

At the beginning of the meeting, Venezuela, Iran, Romania, United States, Russia and Poland took the floor to deliver statements in reaction to declarations made during the high-level segment on 27 February 2019.

The Conference on Disarmament will hold its next plenary meeting on Tuesday, 5 March at 10 a.m.

Right of Reply Statements

Venezuela welcomed the constructive statements by many countries during the high-level segment and said that Venezuela had always participated in the Conference in a respectful and cooperative manner and never used it to discuss issues outside its agenda. Venezuela deplored that the United States had discussed Venezuela’s domestic affairs in the Conference, and stressed that the openly belligerent and interventionist Trump Government had no moral authority to question the participatory and people-led democracy in Venezuela. It did not have the right to strip the people of their political will, expressed in the constitutional elections held in May 2018 when Nicolas Maduro had been elected President by millions of Venezuelans in free and fair elections. The majority of the world’s countries had condemned the attempt to settle political differences in Venezuela by means of military action, while the Trump Government and its satellites were using the issue of humanitarian aid as a cynical pretext to invade Venezuela. They offered precarious supplies in medicines and contaminated food in the value of $20 million, while they pillaged and blocked more than $35 billion that belonged to the Venezuelan people. The current situation was similar to the coup d’état against former President Hugo Chavez in 2002, said Venezuela, stressing that instead of promoting war and interventionism, it was necessary to promote political dialogue between all stakeholders. Dialogue, understanding and tolerance were essential elements for the human brotherhood. Venezuela was raising the flag of peace and rejecting the threat of war, and it called on countries represented in the Conference on Disarmament to refuse the war that the Trump’s Government wanted.

Iran rejected the statement made by the United States on 27 February as a far-reaching stretch of imagination and said that it was completely irrelevant to the work of the Conference and even a collapse of etiquette. Iran said it stood to be corrected if it had made any inaccurate observations about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and nuclear posturing by the United States. When it came to terrorism, everyone knew that the United States had mastered the art of creating, organizing and financing terrorism, and the President of the United States had admitted more than once that ISIS had been founded by the United States.

Romania said in reference to the deployment of the Mk-41 launching systems in Romania in the context of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, that the Deveselu anti-missile system was not covered by the treaty and that the Deveselu facility was purely defensive. In that sense, Romania reiterated that it had given Russia all the necessary assurances and explanations, as had its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.

Unites States said that Maduro was waging a war on his own people, starving them and denying them medicine and that the situation in Venezuela was more than a domestic issue: because three million people had fled the country, it had become a regional concern. Maduro had been elected in sham elections and the regime’s assumption of the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament would be a travesty and disaster, said the United States. The choice in Venezuela was between democracy and dictatorship, and the international community should not deny liberty to 30 million people. The United States said it countered Iran’s self-righteous claims with historical facts, while Russia, which violated countless treaties, illegally occupied Crimea, and conducted the attack in Salisbury, had to start behaving responsibly and stop attacking other countries with sophisticated weapons.

Poland said that Poland was not interested in acquiring any offensive missile systems.

Iran recalled that 40years ago, the Iranian people had decided to kick out a brutal dictatorship supported by the United States and reminded that the will of its people had been quashed by a United States-led coup d’état in 1953. The United States had provided chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, and should not try to manipulate historical facts.

Russia said that its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence had held a briefing about the cruise missile that allegedly violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and wondered what prevented the United States from showing the same level of transparency and alleviating the concerns of partners. Russia had provided unilateral transparency measures, and it was still waiting for the reply from the Trump’s administration.

United States said that clearly, Iran would not apologize for violating international law and taking the United States diplomats hostage in 1979. The United States had gone well beyond in terms of resolving Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and said that Russia’s narrative with respect to this Treaty was old and stale and Russia should stop trying to pin the blame on the United States.

Iran said that the United States should not expect the Iranian people to apologize for having expelled the dictator so loved by the United States, and said that the United States should apologize for the 1953 coup d’état, for having supported Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Iran, for having imposed inhumane sanctions against the Iranian people without any justification, and for having continued supporting terrorist groups around the globe.

United States insisted that the hostage taking 40 years ago involved disrespect for international law, and said it would come back with a full list of all terrorist acts the Iranian regime had committed since then.

Discussion on the Draft Decision

AIDAN LIDDLE, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the Conference on Disarmament, said that he wanted to devote the plenary meeting to hear delegations’ feedback on the draft decision circulated on 21 February 2019.

Argentina appreciated the draft proposal submitted by the United Kingdom’s presidency as it promoted dialogue and presented an opportunity to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Argentina appreciated the fact that the proposal referred to the first and last meeting of each subsidiary body, and expressed support for the proposal to establish a troika of coordinators that represented regional groups to look at working methods and membership expansion.

Poland said that draft proposal was a step in the right direction and noted that reviewing methods and work, and membership expansion would in no way be in contradiction of the substantial work of the Conference. On the contrary, it could enrich and stimulate the Conference in its efforts to return to negotiations. Poland therefore welcomed the draft proposal and it was ready to actively support it.

Belarus believed that the draft proposal had a great potential to be a foundation for progress in the Conference’s work. As for the four subsidiary bodies, Belarus agreed with the proposals voiced by some delegations to adopt a comprehensive approach to all agenda items related to nuclear disarmament. Belarus called for better description of the mandates of the subsidiary bodies, and for better interaction between special coordinators.

United States noted that establishing special coordinators on working methods and membership expansion was an important way forward, and said that it was important to have both formal and informal discussions in that respect.

Ecuador was concerned that States sought security not through diplomacy and dialogue but through the deployment of weapons, and in this context, it was important for the Conference to step up its efforts and counter those trends. The current draft proposal was balanced and pragmatic and Ecuador could support it, but it needed to know more details about the appointment of the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, and of special coordinators.

Indonesia regretted that the Conference had to take a step back and prepare a draft decision instead of a programme of work with a negotiating mandate, and said that the United Kingdom’s proposal sounded like a programme of work. As for establishing the subsidiary bodies, there was still an imbalance on the degree of substantive issues to be discussed in each subsidiary body. Also, too much detail on the substance was given on the issues to be discussed under each subsidiary body, which could create difficulties for future coordinators.

Finland valued the draft proposal that could take the Conference on Disarmament further in its work, and said it was a promising base for a consensus. The establishment of a special coordinator on emerging issues and new technologies would focus the discussion and give a base for a more cross-cutting approach. The discussion on working methods could be useful and Finland stressed the importance of a balance among regional groups in appointing the coordinators.

Chile would have preferred to see a programme of work, but given that it was not possible, the establishment of the subsidiary bodies was a pragmatic solution to sustain a substantive dialogue in the Conference. Chile appealed to all countries to adopt a spirit of cooperation and flexibility.

Brazil supported the United Kingdom’s proposal as a natural alternative to a full-fledged programme of work, and a follow-up on last year’s work. It was necessary to recognize the different nature of issues. It would be safer to work along the lines of the adopted agenda items, as well as along the lines of the reports adopted by the subsidiary bodies in 2018. The idea of discussing nuclear disarmament under a single basket was tempting, but it would not necessarily facilitate agreement.

South Africa noted that the mandate and scope of the coordinators should be clearly defined to avoid discussions that had no relevance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. As for the special coordinator on working methods, was there a common understanding on what was meant by the working methods of the Conference? What would happen if coordinators could not reach consensus?

Mexico underlined that there should be a direct link between the competencies of the subsidiary bodies and the actual agenda items, and noted that the summaries in the draft proposal did not reflect the actual substance of the work of the Conference and gave an idea that some issues were more important than others. Mexico did not believe that there was greater maturity in some issues than others. Some issues were specified to a greater extent, while others were more general. There must be a similar goal to the different subsidiary bodies.

Australia agreed that the United Kingdom’s draft proposal looked like a programme of work, and that it was pragmatic and balanced. It also agreed with the United States that it would be useful to have both formal and informal discussions on working methods and membership expansion. Australia would prefer to have a separate subsidiary body on fissile material.

France would like to see a new impetus in the work of the Conference, and it appreciated that the draft proposal aimed to build on the previous work done in the subsidiary bodies. The United Kingdom’s proposal was an excellent foundation for reaching a consensus. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was ripe for substantive work and should be a priority. France welcomed the idea of having a subsidiary body on emerging issues and new technologies, even if the issue did not have the same level of maturity as others.

Egypt reiterated the necessity to adopt the draft proposal in a manner that ensured the sustainability of the basic principles and tenets of the Conference, as well as the rules of procedure. It welcomed the proposal to establish four separate subsidiary bodies on the four agenda items of the Conference. However, there was no clarity on how the report of the subsidiary bodies would be agreed by Member States. Egypt agreed that there should a direct link between the agenda items and issues discussed by each subsidiary body.

China stressed that, in light of the serious international security context, it was necessary to preserve the multilateral system of arms control and break the deadlock in the work of the Conference on Disarmament. China expressed hope that the Conference could start substantive work on the basis of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, and on the basis of the last year’s work, preferably before the 2020 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference. The balance of the draft proposal had to be improved, especially with respect to the mandate of the subsidiary bodies.

Iran called for a balanced approach in the draft proposal and suggested that there should be a reference to legally binding instruments in the subsidiary bodies dealing with fissile material and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Providing assurances against the use of nuclear weapons should be mentioned in the subsidiary body dealing with effective international arrangement to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Iran was not yet convinced of the need to have special coordinators on working methods and membership extension.

Pakistan agreed that, in the absence of a consensus for launching negotiations on any issue, holding substantive discussion on agenda items without any preconditions and predisposition towards particular outcomes seemed to be the best alternative. However, the United Kingdom’s draft proposal differed in many ways from the one adopted on the subsidiary bodies in 2018. Pakistan preferred that the subsidiary bodies be established on the basis of the agenda items of the Conference, as in 2018, rather than on the basis of four core issues.

Turkey considered the work of the subsidiary bodies established in 2018 a rare achievement in the Conference on Disarmament, noting that discussions in the subsidiary bodies and their consensual reports had provided a foundation for further discussions. In 2019, Turkey would prefer to have more expert participation from the capitals. The Conference suffered from arbitrary linkage between agenda items, said Turkey and added that it opposed creating parallelism between the discussions on substance and procedural issues.

Russia explained that the presentation of the Russian Permanent Representative delivered during the high-level segment was its official contribution to the discussion on the draft proposal.

United States said that it could not accept a separate decision on substantive agenda items and procedural matters.

India stated that negotiating legally binding instruments on all four core issues required that the Conference on Disarmament keep those issues under different subsidiary bodies, rather than merging them into one subsidiary body, as that would deprive countries of the opportunity to have focused discussions on various issues. India highlighted the importance of starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the most mature issue for commencing negotiations. That was one area in which the Conference could make concrete progress. India would prefer not to limit the discussions of the subsidiary bodies.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CD19.016E