CONFERENCE HEARS GENERAL STATEMENTS FROM FRANCE, NIGERIA, GERMANY, IRELAND, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY AND SYRIA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard general statements from France, Nigeria, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Syria on their priorities within the Conference and how to get substantive work started.

At the beginning of the plenary, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, the President of the Conference, expressed condolences on behalf of the Conference and himself on the sinking of an Egyptian ferry in the Red Sea which was carrying 1,400 people, out of whom 1,000 might have lost their lives. He expressed condolences to the families of the victims and to the Egyptian Government. A minute of silence was observed. A number of delegations also expressed their condolences.

Egypt thanked the Secretary-General of the Conference, the President of the Conference and the delegations for the sincere condolences conveyed and the words of sympathy. These condolences would be conveyed to the Egyptian Government.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the Secretary-General of the Conference and the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, informed the Conference that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan had approved the selection of Ambassador Tim Caughley of New Zealand as Director of the Conference’s secretariat and Under-Secretary-General of the Conference. He congratulated Ambassador Caughley.

The President of the Conference also congratulated Ambassador Caughley, saying that it was with satisfaction that an Ambassador which the Conference knew and respected for his knowledge and experience would assume this post. Ambassador Caughley thanked the Conference and said he looked forward to swapping sides of the room and serving the Conference and its future Presidents.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 9 February.

Statements

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said France today had the honour to table as an official document of the Conference the text of the speech delivered by the President of France on 19 January at l’Ile Longue in Britanny. The President had recalled that the fundamental principles of nuclear deterrence had not changed. The calling of French deterrence was to secure the vital interests of France against any threat, irrespective of where it may come from and what form it may take. The reconfiguration, that was the modernization and adaptation of the means of the deterrence force to the evolution of the strategic context, were fully compatible with the commitments undertaken by France under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). France continued to be very active in this area, in conformity with its commitments. The President had recalled that France continued to support international efforts in favour of general and complete disarmament, and in particular, the negotiation of such a treaty. France had also reaffirmed and specified in 1995 the security guarantees to non-nuclear States that were parties to the NPT. Furthermore, it had provided legally binding negative security guarantees to more than 100 countries.

As recalled by the President, the way to disarmament was a demanding one. France continued to support international efforts but it would obviously only be able to move ahead if the conditions of its global security were maintained and if the willingness to make progress was unanimously shared.

JOSEPH AYALOGU (Nigeria) said Nigeria commended the President and the other Presidents for 2006 for the initiative they had jointly committed to pursue this year. Nigeria also full heartedly supported the initiative of the P6 to appoint Friends of Presidents to help them in their endeavour. As Nigeria had mentioned last week, all considered themselves as friends of Presidents and Nigeria would surely support and cooperate with the Ambassadors appointed to lead all the friends in the search for a common goal.

With regards to the Friends of the P6, Nigeria had suggestions to make to the President. The agenda for 2006 had already been adopted and it was flexible and balanced. As far as Nigeria was concerned, the four core issues which were still the most relevant to the international security environment were on the agenda and flexibility had been built into the agenda to deal with any other issues that gained consensus in the Conference. Concerning working methods, the Conference on Disarmament was probably the only institution where decisions were taken only by consensus. Could any creativity help the Conference overcome this point? One could not be so hopeful, largely because political will would be required to solve the problem and it appeared that the lack of it had been the cause of the impasse in the Conference. The Friends of Presidents should focus their efforts on the search for a programme of work which all delegations had said was their priority. The A5 enjoyed overwhelming majority support but not consensus. Nigeria suggested that the Friends of Presidents focus their efforts in the search for a work programme based on the A5.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said Germany considered the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament, based on the Decalogue, appropriate for dealing with current disarmament and security issues. The four so-called core issues including fissile material cut-off treaty, nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space were still topical and essential on the international agenda. A comprehensive approach taking into account the differing priorities and security concerns constituted the most realistic and feasible way out of the stalemate of the Conference.

Germany did not believe that one core issue was inherently more or less important than the other three issues. This being said, in Germany’s view, the cut-off issue was ripe for the immediate commencement and early conclusion of a non-discriminatory, universally applicable and verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the prevention of an arms race in outer space could serve to explore and discuss the issue of strengthening the international framework and rules governing the civil as well as legitimate military use of outer space. Continued tangible progress towards irreversible and verifiable nuclear disarmament was indispensable and could only be achieved by an incremental approach. The 13 practical steps for the systematic and progressive implementation of Article VI adopted by the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference served as benchmarks on that road.

In conclusion, it was the task of each President to explore the feasibility of possible alternatives to bring the Conference back to substantive work, and that included the possibility of exploring additional issues. However this should be done as a possible addition, not as a substitute to dealing with the current issues on the agenda, and only if they increased the basis for consensus.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said that the President had already challenged inaction in the Conference and shown creativity in seeking to address the agenda. Ireland's priorities for the Conference in 2006 were the commencement of negotiations on a treaty dealing with fissile material, the establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament and embarking on a process leading to an eventual agreement on the non-weaponization of outer space. Of those, the commencement of negotiations on a fissile material treaty was the highest priority.

Ireland reaffirmed that the A5 proposal had the best potential to address the range of concerns of the Conference. While Ireland did not oppose the introduction of new items on the Conference's agenda that were likely to command consensus, adding new items to a list that had failed to find consensus for the past nine years was perhaps akin to trying to build an extension to a building whose foundations were in danger of collapsing. Finally, Ireland wished to reiterate its strong commitment to enhancing the role of civil society in the Conference's deliberations and, at a minimum, hoped that starting in 2006 the annual statement of non-governmental organizations made on International Women's Day could be delivered by the authors.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said the mandate of the Conference quite clearly included conventional weapons without remit. New Zealand was happy to engage in the Conference on any other disarmament issue that was regarded by the international community as requiring urgent attention. Last week, the common theme in the debate was international security. It was a truism that there were quite a number of classes of weapons and weapon systems that had to be the subject of international attention if global security was to be enhanced. The Conference necessarily had to prioritise its approaches to these issues. New Zealand’s concern had been and remained that the matters requiring the most urgent attention were those covered by the four core issues. Prime amongst them – that was, the sole one with which a negotiating mandate had been labeled – was a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The problem that arose was that that label was not unconditional. When an FMCT’s negotiation was no longer conditional, work, New Zealand assumed, would begin on that topic.

What would the Conference do in the meantime. Concentrate on other issues, or concentrate on securing a work programme that embraced the core issues, or some of them. If the Conference pursued this second course of action, which was New Zealand’s preference, they could be faced with continuing frustration and unproductive sessions. Or they could have a debate on the backdrop to the core issues. New Zealand was flexible as to the course of action pursued, as long as the Conference’s objective was more about the real issues of the day, than about issues of lesser universal moment, or worse, talking for the sake of talking. New Zealand had no difficulty in testing on any subject, for example, an important subject such as MANPADS (man portable air defence systems), whether there was a clamour in the Conference to pursue an issue that was patently a matter of disarmament.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said the delegation of Australia had proposed last week that the Conference consider the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) with the view to develop measures to combat this. MANPADS was a weapon system which was highly attractive for terrorists. It was a defined weapon category, and national and regional efforts were already being undertaken in order to regulate its production, transfer and use. There was already an international consensus on MANPADS, which provided the Conference with an opportunity to examine this issue and develop non-proliferation measures. This consensus should encourage the Conference not to take MANPADS as hostage to other issues on the agenda. MANPADS could and should be considered at its own merit.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said the Conference had adopted its agenda at its opening meeting this year and this was ground for satisfaction. It was also an achievement compared to other years. Following this adoption, a number of delegations had proposed fresh additional topics for consideration within the Conference. It was only logical that these items should have been proposed prior to the adoption of the agenda, and these proposals had now been sent to capitals for appropriate instructions. Syria felt that no consensus existed within the Conference for consideration of these new topics. Delegations had required instructions from capitals, and it was also necessary to hold discussions within regional groups before any consensus could be reached.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06006E