RUSSIA AND CHINA PRESENT TO CONFERENCE REVISED COMPILATION OF COMMENTS ON PREVENTION OF AN ARMS RACE IN OUTER SPACE

The Russian Federation and China today presented to the Conference on Disarmament a revised compilation of comments and suggestions on the working paper on prevention of an arms race in outer space (CD/1679). Many delegations welcomed this initiative.

Ireland proposed that the Conference allow representatives of women’s non-governmental organizations, when they addressed their traditional message to the Conference on International Women’s Day on 8 March, to do so in their own voice, instead of having a member of the secretariat read out the message as was the usual practice. A large number of delegations echoed the request.

Several speakers also praised the outgoing President of the Conference, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, for his initiatives concerning the close cooperation of the Presidents of the Conference in 2006, outlining a timetable for a structured debate during the session, and the Friends of Presidents initiative.

In his concluding statement, Ambassador Rapacki hoped that the processes initiated by the Polish Presidency, such as the cooperation of the six Conference Presidents, the consultations conducted by the Friends of Presidents and the timetable for the work of the Conference announced last week, would continue to develop during the whole 2006 session.

The Republic of Korea, which will take over the presidency of the Conference next week, outlined a timetable for the structured discussion over the next four weeks on nuclear disarmament and related issues.

The delegations of the following 17 countries spoke this morning: Morocco, Russian Federation, China, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Netherlands, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico and Algeria.

The Conference also approved requests by Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to attend its 2006 session as observers.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 23 February 2006.

Statements

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the Conference had closed its eighth consecutive session last year without a programme of work. This situation of immobility was far from the exception on disarmament issues. He asked if the Member States should allow themselves to become pessimistic and resigned and allow this immobile situation to continue, which would imperil security, stability and peace in the world. Everyone was called upon to ensure that the Conference could meet the tasks requested of it and demonstrate that the Conference could perform the functions demanded of it as the only multilateral negotiating body on disarmament issues. Multilateralism was the fundamental issue which must govern the work of the Conference. Morocco had always taken part enthusiastically in multilateral negotiations and had fulfilled its agreements. Morocco was committed to general disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament. Morocco’s principal commitments in this field included, among others, being a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, although it decried that the latter had still not entered into force.

Since Morocco had joined the Conference in 1979, it had been actively involved in the debate on the priorities in this unique multilateral body, taking the Decalogue as its point of departure. The Conference needed to adapt to the new reality of threats facing the international community. In light of this situation, Morocco could not but encourage the delegations to overcome the dogmatic readings of the Decalogue. Morocco welcomed the initiative to name the Friends of Presidents and supported the formal thematic discussions on all items of the agenda.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation) said that in June 2002, the delegations of Russia and China, together with a group of co-sponsor countries, had tabled in the Conference their working document CD/1679 on “possible elements for a future international legal agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objections. The document had been significantly enriched by various ideas and comments and important proposals had been put forward. Russia and China had asked the secretariat to circulate the second updated and revised version of the “compilation of comments and suggestions to the CD PAROS working paper CD/1679”. The initial version of the compilation was distributed in the Conference in July 2003. This version was based on the first one and in fact reflected the dynamics in the last two years and a half. The purpose of the compilation was to supplement and enrich CD/1679, to help further in-depth discussions, and to single out clusters of issues on which they had similar or identical assessments, and those on which contentious opinions were spoken out. They hoped the compilation would be helpful for formulating and fine-tuning positions of the capitals. It should also assist in streamlining and focusing deliberations on prevention of an armed race in outer space in the Conference this year.

Ambassador Loschinin said the outcome of the compilation clearly illustrated, among other things, the importance of the issue and its close connection to the core security interests of States, and the need of reaching a compromise on the programme of work of the Conference at an early date so that the Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an armed race in outer space could be re-established.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said China and the Russian Federation had jointly presented the second version of their compilation of comments and suggestions to the Conference on their working paper (CD 1679) on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It included additions from the open-ended consultations which had been held as well as other developments. As with the first version of the compilation, China and the Russian Federation had attached main importance to objectivity and openness. They hoped that the compilation would facilitate further discussions on this issue and help formulate views. As discussions on prevention of an arms race in outer space deepened, more countries were realizing the importance of avoiding weaponization of outer space. The compilation would assist in laying a good basis to help the Conference negotiate a new legal instrument to present weaponization of outer space. China hoped that the Conference would soon re-establish the ad hoc committee to negotiate relevant treaties to avoid weaponization of outer space.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said that on 7 February, she had expressed the wish that the annual statement to honour International Women’s Day conveyed to the Conference by civil society representatives should be delivered by its authors. She recalled that for many years, the statement drafted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had been read out to the Conference by a member of the Secretariat. To many it was inexplicable that these women’s NGOS who drafted the statement had not been permitted to deliver it themselves. She had carefully read the rules of procedure of the Conference and found no rule which would prohibit a statement being made by NGOs on International Women’s Day. She requested the incoming President of the Conference to take appropriate steps to facilitate any request from NGOs in this regard.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), speaking as incoming President of the Conference starting next week, said that given the lethargic state of the Conference along with the unprecedented failures of disarmament and non-proliferation events in 2005, the announcement of the timetable of activities for 2006 at the last plenary meeting should be remembered as a remarkable milestone which had given the Conference a glimmer of hope. To maintain this precious momentum and to make the debate more organized and output-oriented, he wanted to suggest the following basic principles to guide the deliberations. First, during the general debate meeting, he expected each Member State would have a chance to clarify its national position in an updated formula. At the same time, he wanted delegations to make their interventions more structured. For the focused discussion on nuclear disarmament, he suggested that delegations make their interventions under the relevant sub-titles if applicable. He also encouraged delegations to invite experts from capitals to submit their positions, ideas or proposals in written form for the benefit of interactive discussions.

Ambassador Park suggested a timetable during his Presidency, which included opening the discussion and holding the general debate on nuclear disarmament on 23 February; holding focused debates on nuclear disarmament on 28 February and 2 March; holding general debates on the issue on 7 and 9 March; holding general debates and high-level segments - if applicable - on 14 and 16 March, and then closing the debate on 16 March. He said the timetable was only indicative and was flexible. He impressed upon Member States the importance of the high-level segment.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said the statement made by Ireland had compelled her to add her voice of support. For Sri Lanka, it was incomprehensible that in the year of UN reform, a group of women’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should not be allowed to make their statement to the Conference on International Women’s Day. She urged Ambassador Park and the P6 to give attention to resolving this issue this year and enable the women’s NGOS to deliver their statement in their own voice.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden) said he wished to react to some of the remarks that had been made. He thanked the President for his impressive efforts. Sweden also wished to echo the comments expressed by Ireland and Sri Lanka about allowing the women’s non-governmental organizations to deliver their message by the authors. Sweden had also studied the rules of procedure carefully and thought that there was nothing to prevent the Conference from inviting the authors to read out their statement. He urged Member States to approve this. Sweden also wished to thank Russia and China for the timely introduction of their document. It introduction more than three months in advance of the debate on this agenda item was very timely and an example of how to help delegations to prepare for the debates.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said after hearing the interventions of Ireland and Sri Lanka, he wanted to support their appeal, and to broaden it to look more closely at the important role of non-governmental organizations and how they were kept outside the doors of the Conference. The Netherlands also thanked the President for his efforts. He had managed to produce the timetable along with the P6, and now Member States had an idea of the different time slots for the difficult issues which were of gravest concern to all Member States. The Conference must make optimum use of the timetable. The Secretariat had, at the request of the Netherlands, distributed the timetable of the activities which was meant to be a working tool to visualize which President would be in charge at which point, and to clearly note the different clusters. The Netherlands hoped that this would provide a structured debate. The clusters had to be carefully prepared for 0and he hoped Member States would respond to the requests of Ambassador Park concerning the debate. The credibility of the Conference was at stake and it could not continue as it had done in the past.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) expressed South Africa’s thanks to the President of the Conference for his efforts. As she had pointed out before, South Africa had considerable sympathy for the considerable tasks faced by the President, as it would find itself in a similar situation next year. South Africa would continue to closely monitor and evaluate the efforts of the President to ascertain whether they had contributed to moving the Conference to adopt a programme of work, and if they could be used to get consensus on the programme of work. She wished to place on record again her appreciation for the President’s hard work to rescue the Conference from its slumber and get it back to work.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) thanked the President for the excellent manner in which he had conducted his work. He wished to take this opportunity to indicate Egypt’s support for the proposal of Ambassador Mary Whelan on the delivery of the statement of the non-governmental organizations by their representative. This could only promote the work of the Conference.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said he wished to indicate Brazil’s full support for the proposal of Ambassador Mary Whelan. He hoped that the incoming Presidents would explore all possibilities to allow representatives of women’s non-governmental organizations to deliver their statement on 8 March. He also thanked Russia and China for their presentations and compilation on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space. The presentation, which was made ahead of time, gave Member States time and material to help them progress on their work on this issue. It would be a pity if Member States wasted their time. The Conference had to engage in serious work with the view to finding grounds for negotiations.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) thanked China and Russia for their revised compilation, saying that Pakistan appreciated their effort to update the documentation on prevention of an arms race in outer space. This document outlined the rational behind the proposals made by those two countries, and it would keep the Conference on line on this issue. It was clear that the concerns about the weaponization of outer space were shared, and Pakistan hoped that the Conference would soon be able to start work on prevention of an armed race in outer space. Pakistan also supported Ambassador Mary Whelan for her suggestion concerning non-governmental organizations addressing the Conference.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said Norway had been on the record for years advocating that the statement of non-governmental organizations on International Women’s Day be delivered by the authors and not an intermediary. Norway continued to hold this view because it was a matter of principle. Norway hoped that the President would use his prerogative and settle this issue once and for all.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) wished to associate himself with the proposition of Ambassador Mary Whelan. He hoped that they could start off on a new track at the Conference, and this would be one very modest way to demonstrate their change of attitude. Canada also commended the Russian and Chinese delegations on their revised compilation on prevention of an arms race in outer space. Canada drew the attention of delegations to the fact that the compilation had a structure and sub-titles. In reviewing the document, Canada noted the utility of moving from the general to the specific and synthesizing various views and observations on the original proposals. This strategy should be extended to the other issues before the Conference.

Canada welcomed Ambassador Park’s pre-notice on the approach he intended to take during his Presidency, and endorsed the idea of sub-items being used to structure the future discussions. The Conference had had enough of general debates. Canada would make suggestions to the incoming President and hoped others would do so as well in order to encourage him to make his Presidency as substantial as possible and allow the Conference to start the level of work everyone aspired to.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) thanked the President for his efforts. The start that the Conference had had this year and the debate had helped the Member States deepen their level of engagement. A lot of credit went to the efforts of the President. New Zealand also welcomed the statement by Ambassador Park. New Zealand felt that there was a need to move beyond the general debate as others had noted this morning, and it welcomed the efforts of China and Russia to help the Conference intensify how it looked at one of its core issues on prevention of an arms race in outer space. New Zealand also joined its voice to many others in support of Ireland’s initiative to allow women’s non-governmental organizations to deliver their important message at the Conference.

ENRIQUE OCHOA (Mexico) congratulated the President for the initiative to hold a structured debate. He hoped that it would bring the Conference closer to a consensus on the programme of work, and hoped the work of the Friends of Presidents would lead the Conference down the same path. Mexico also thanked Russia and China for their updated document. This practice was extremely useful and Mexico hoped that it would be repeated on other subjects, and this was the joint responsibility of all delegations. Mexico also supported the proposal by the delegation of Ireland.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) thanked the President for his efforts to reactivate the Conference. He also thanked Ambassador Park for his timetable concerning the organization of the work of the Conference during his Presidency. Algeria also thanked Russia and China on the updated working paper regarding prevention of an arms race in outer space. Algeria believed that outer space must not be weaponized. The examination of this matter should come within a balanced and comprehensive programme of work based on the Five Ambassadors proposal. Algeria also supported the voices to allow civil society to make a statement in person before the Conference.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), Outgoing President of the Conference,
in his closing statement, said that though this was traditionally the time to sum up and draw conclusions, he would not be doing so today. It was his hope that the processes initiated by the Polish Presidency, such as the cooperation of the six Conference Presidents, the consultations conducted by the Friends of Presidents and the timetable for the work of the Conference announced last week, would continue to develop during the whole 2006 session. He said that the mandate of the Friends would be addressed in greater detail by his successor to the Presidency, Ambassador Park of the Republic of Korea.




Reflecting on the Winter Olympic Games that were taking place in nearby Turin, he noted the similarity in the symbolism of the Olympic flag, whose five linked rings represented unity, cooperation and peace, and the five interlinked hands in the ceiling mural above the Council Chamber where the Conference met. He said that while some might say that those ideals were fading in the Conference, he wanted to assure everyone that they were very much alive and he hoped that, together, the Conference could make this year different from the preceding nine.