CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed its draft annual report to the General Assembly, hearing from a series of speakers who suggested proposals and amendments to the document.

The United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of France, and the United States expressed their views on the Treaty on a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, which is scheduled to be signed in Kazakhstan on 8 September, saying that owing to the lack of consultations with nuclear weapon States and concerning substantive elements, they will not grant negative security assurances to the five States which will sign the treaty.

At the beginning of the meeting, Japan provided an overview and its assessment of the Conference’s work this year on the four major agenda items – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Addressing the draft annual report, some speakers said that the structured and focused debates on the Conference’s agenda issues should be reflected, adding that an objective account rather than any assessment or interpretation should be provided. The following States took the floor: Pakistan, Syria, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Australia, Morocco, Algeria, France, Iran, Canada, Russian Federation, Argentina, India, Poland and China.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 7 September.

Statements

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) praised the focused structured debates carried out based on the agenda of the Conference in 2006, but said the Member States should carry this year’s momentum through to the next year and develop it further. He said he wished to provide an overview and assessment of this year’s work on the four major agenda items – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Concerning the focused debated on nuclear disarmament, Ambassador Mine said continuing deliberations on this issue and establishing an Ad Hoc Committee as a venue for these deliberations were two separate issues. Since it was the nuclear weapon States that must carry out nuclear disarmament, ultimately, it was not possible to establish an Ad Hoc Committee without the agreement of all these States. It was clear that no such consensus had emerged. Until that changed, the Conference had to accept, through reluctantly as it may be, the reality that establishing an Ad Hoc Committee was not possible. Priority should be given to the continuation of deliberations rather than establishing an Ad Hoc Committee.

With regards to negative security assurances, a similar situation to nuclear disarmament could be seen. In the statements by the nuclear weapon States, none had expressed a negative view about the provision of negative security assurances via a regional approach. On the other hand, it could not be said that the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances through a global approach commanded consensus. Therefore, as for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on this matter, it could be drawn that such a current situation surrounding the negative security assurances needed to be taken into consideration.

As for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, it was obvious that the nuclear weapon States shouldered the central role. Since the States that had tested nuclear weapons as well as non-nuclear weapon States must also assume core obligations not to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons, this agenda item concerned all Member States of the Conference. Unlike nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was not an issue that the nuclear weapon States should bear sole responsibility for. Although there existed a range of opinions from the perspective of the Conference’s schedule, it was a significant fact that no opposition was expressed from any country including the nuclear weapon States to the establishment itself of an Ad Hoc Committee for negotiating such a treaty.

And lastly, in the focused debates on prevention of an arms race in outer space, it became apparent that the relationship of this issue with existing space-related institutions was ill defined. Also, the weaponization of space was vague and obscure.
The Conference was not an institution whose aim was to adopt ambiguous political declarations, but rather to negotiate legally binding treaties. In drafting legal documents, clarifying the central concept that governed those documents was a necessary minimum requirement. Since deliberations on prevention of an arms race in outer space had not reached maturity due to its ill-defined relationship with existing institutions and the vagueness of its central concept, the Conference was not even at a stage for establishing an Ad Hoc Committee. He hoped that this assessment would be food for thought for the future work of the Conference.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said the draft report of the Conference properly reflected its work during this important year in which the Member States had worked on the basis of the so-called P-6 initiative. This joint proposal on the Conference’s activities had made a marked difference. General debates on all agenda items and focused structured debates took place which was a significant change to the good compared to other years. Now it was the time to translate all this activity into a concrete follow-up. This brought him to the conclusions and decisions which should be contained in the draft report. No conclusions were drawn as yet from the positive developments of this year in the final chapter. The approach was very minimalist as if nothing had changed. To begin with the most obvious, it was clear that this new coordination between the Presidencies should be continued. The Conference should be able to conclude that as for the 2007 session of the Conference, an arrangement had to be sought which on the one hand reflected the spectrum of issues with which the Conference should deal, and on the other hand gave each of them its relative weight in the political environment of today.

Addressing specific issues, Ambassador Landman asked why not include reference to the initiative of the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference, as well as reference to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. The Conference members should also have the courage to map out what they planned to do next year.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said he would like to make a brief statement on a different issue on behalf of the United Kingdom and France. On 31 August, Kazakhstan had formally brought to the attention of the Conference their intention with Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to sign a Treaty of a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone on 8 September. The United Kingdom and France had long supported the formation of nuclear free zones as an important path towards disarmament and non-proliferation. However, owing to the lack of consultations with nuclear weapon States and concerning elements of substance, this draft treaty did not in the view of the United Kingdom and France meet the objective and principles of nuclear weapon free zones as expressed by the 1999 UNDC guidelines.

The United Kingdom and France had expressed their concerns on these issues to the five countries and had requested further consultations in order to resolve them, but these requests had never been answered. The United Kingdom and France would not be in a position to support the treaty and to sign the relevant protocols that would grant negative security assurances to the five States signatory to the treaty.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said that the basic criterion for the report of the Conference to the General Assembly was that it should be factual and reflect the negotiations and work of the Conference. This year, no negotiations took place, but the Conference worked and the report should thus faithfully reflect what happened. The Presidents of the Conference and the Member States, if quoted, should be quoted in full and in proper context. Among other suggestions, Pakistan wanted the quote of the first President of the Conference, which was only a partial quote, to be put in full. Also, reference to the Friends of the Presidents should be placed in one paragraph.
These comments were not being made as solid negotiating proposals, but to help make the report more comprehensive and representative.

THOMAS CYNKIN (United States) said referring back to the statement by the United Kingdom on the Treaty on a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, the United States shared many of the concerns articulated by the British Ambassador on behalf of the United Kingdom and France. The United States, the United Kingdom and France were concerned and had noted that the five States had not followed the objective and principles of nuclear weapon free zones as expressed by the UNDC guidelines concerning consultations with nuclear weapon States. The United States, the United Kingdom and France had been in touch with the five States, expressing their concern over the inadequacy of consultations. They continued to have substantive reservations and had been waiting for further consultations with the five Central Asian States. Should these States go ahead and sign the treaty, the United States would not be in a position to support it.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said Syria had not wished to take the floor during this meeting, but after what had been said by Japan and the Netherlands, it had requested to take the floor. Japan had said that no Member State had objected to the start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), but this was only partially true. The whole truth was that the great majority of Member States had put a condition on the setting up of an Ad Hoc Committee on an FMCT which was the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work which dealt with the four main issues on the agenda – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, prevention of an arms race in outer space and fissile materials – equally. The other condition was that such a committee should work on the basis of the Shanon mandate.

Syria agreed with all the points made by the Ambassador of Pakistan on the draft report, but would like to make some additional comments. With regards to reference to the Friends of Presidents, with all due respect to them, this group should not be mentioned in the report at all as the Friends of the Presidents did not have any legal or formal status. Syria also proposed other changes.

DIEGO BELEVAN (Peru) said the regulations of the Conference spoke of an objective annual report which reported appropriately what had happened. That meant that prejudices had to be left out. The present draft report represented a good balance of the definitions of the term “objective”. It fully represented the meetings in 2006, objectively referred to the work done and provided a general overview for the year. Peru was not closed to examining any proposals to maintain the current harmony and support of the draft report. Peru particularly appreciated the way the interests of all the members of the Conference in the agenda had been reflected. It was also important to make appropriate mention of the coordinating work carried out by the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference. Peru also believed that it was relevant to keep the reference to the Friends of the Presidents in the report.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said one of the striking aspects of the meetings this year was that solid discussions on serious matters had been held in extremely good moods, and there had been no polemics. He hoped that they would be able to conclude and agree on the draft report in this manner, making the required adjustments. He apologized to his Syrian colleague, saying that he had meant to say in his earlier statement that the Conference should at least be able to conclude that as for the 2007 session of the Conference, an arrangement had to be sought which reflected the whole spectrum of issues which the Conference should deal with, giving each its weight, while at last giving a mandate to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He had also listened carefully to the other remarks made by Syria and his distinguished colleague from Pakistan who had made many pertinent remarks and the Netherlands had to ponder on them. It had no problems with some of them. He hoped that this report would succeed in convening the message that something happened in the Conference this year, something different to what had been happening in the last nine or ten years.

Ambassador Landman said that since the opening of the register for signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 10 years ago this month, the Conference had not produced very much, but this year it had produced something and this should be reflected. There had been one striking event this year, the presentation by a high-level Government official of a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This was the first time any such event had happened. It was all a matter of presentation of the facts in the report.

ENRIQUE OCHOA (Mexico) said he wanted to make some general comments. He agreed with Pakistan that in paragraph 13 of the draft report, the quote was selective and did not reflect the feelings of all the members of the Conference. There was a contradiction between paragraphs 25 and 26. And in paragraph 32, there was an important omission that the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea had introduced a document on his own behalf preparing a compilation of the proposals made under agenda items one and two.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said Italy had thought the discussion on the report would be done informally, but as they had engaged on it in a formal plenary, Italy wanted to make its views known. In general terms, the draft annual report was factual and objective and in accordance to the rules, it reflected the negotiations on the work of the Conference. Clearly, there were adjustments to be made and Italy was ready to participate in discussing the text. However, the drafting should be done in an informal plenary. Finally, and concerning some of the statements made earlier, he suggested that that the Member States should not be too ambitious as the report itself could not solve some of the problems of the Conference. He reminded the Conference that it had to report to the General Assembly on its work.

THOMAS CYNKIN (United States) said the United States had anticipated that the discussion on the draft report would be held in an informal meeting and thus had not addressed it in his earlier statement. The United States commended the Secretariat on its efforts to produce an intellectually honest report reporting factually and reflecting what was said. The United States had some general comments and observations. In paragraph 38 on prevention of an arms race in outer space, the language was generally fulsome and rich. But paragraph 34 on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty had a series of footnotes which would make it difficult even for a practised hand to find out exactly what had transpired on this issue. The United States considered it very important that Stephen Rademaker, the United States Under-Secretary of State, had presented the draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This had been reflected in a footnote, but maybe a somewhat more fulsome description could be provided. That would give more prominence and a highly significant approach to this issue like that given to the prevention of an arms race in outer space which was far better articulated.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) endorsed the characterization of the work in the draft report and the description. Australia called on the Presidents of the 2007 session to adopt a similar approach so that this momentum was not lost. With respect to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in paragraphs 34 and 35, these were the flattest paragraphs and it was very diffuclt to see what could be seen to agree or disagree on them. Australia also supported a more clear mention of the FMCT draft treaty as it was a significant development in the Conference and a flat mention should be made of it.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said he wanted to respond to what the United States had said. Nothing in the internal procedures of the Conference referred to the point that some issues on the agenda were more important than others, or that what was presented by a senior official at the Conference was more important than something presented by a diplomat. Syria objected to the proposal of the United States to add reference to the presentation of a draft treaty by the United States Under-Secretary of State to the Conference.

MOHAMMED BENJABER (Morocco) said the draft report was factual to a great extent. In order to make it more precise and faithful, Morocco had some comments. The Friends of Presidents were appointed directly and informally by the president of the Conference and no decision was taken by the Conference on their work. Morocco was ready to discuss the proposal by Pakistan on the Friends of Presidents in another session. Also, the draft report should reflect all positive developments in the Conference, like the debate on small and light arms and weapons and other issues. It should also mention all the meetings of the Conference, including the informal meetings.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria was one of the Friends of Presidents and it had not had an opportunity to have its views known on the draft report and it now wanted to make this position official. In paragraph 16, the report said delegations stressed the need for a balanced and/or comprehensive approach on the work of the Conference, but Algeria did not think they could be alternatives, the approach should be both balanced and comprehensive.


MIKAEL GRIFFON (France) said France agreed with what was said by Australia on paragraphs e and g of part three of the report. These subjects should be mentioned under the agenda item where they were actually addressed.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) said Iran commended the work of the Secretariat for the professional report. However, it had not been finalized and not every man or every report was complete and without a deficiency. There was a mixing between reporting and the verbatim process and this was causing the problem.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) thanked the President and the secretariat for the well conceived draft report. He wished to echo the wise comments made by Pakistan and other colleagues that the report should be factual and not interpretative. Also he agreed with his Dutch colleague who said that the facts should speak for themselves. Interpretation opened up real complications for the Conference Members, so they should stick to factual accounting in the draft report, however flat that might seem. Canada also agreed with Italy that the report was not going to solve the problems of the Conference or the elusive programme of work and it was unlikely that colleagues in New York or others would be pouring over the report to extract words of wisdom. The solution to the problems of the Conference lay in a diplomatic forward-looking exercise.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said this excellent draft text could be a very good basis for future work. The Conference should be able to share the various points of view on issues already dealt with in order to conclude this special year on disarmament with a good factual report. The Russian Federation agreed with Italy and called for the Conference to move as quickly as possible to practical work on the text. This required an informal meeting.

Concerning the proposal of the United States to note the contribution of a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the Russian Federation was prepared in principle to consider this. The draft should reflect a factual appeal to all to concentrate on what was important, noting the positive achievements of this year; to concentrate on what brought everyone together and to avoid ideas which could not unite.

MARCELO VALLE FONROUGE (Argentina) said Argentina had no objections to approving the draft report as it was. The draft was a complete, factual text which reflected what had been happening in the Conference.

INDRA MANI PANDEY (India) joined others in praising the factual and balanced report and India had no major difficulty with the report. However, India had some suggestions, and hoped the report could add in paragraph 25 the need to agree on a programme of work.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said he was very much encouraged by recent speakers who had attempted to underline what was needed and to note the need to report fairly and accurately on what had been done this year and how the Member States had managed to succeed in re-energizing the Conference. The Conference on Disarmament was unique, the only international forum which was mandated with issues of the highest level of political and military issues which were fundamental for world security. The Conference had a heavy responsibility to find questions to the challenges facing the world. The United Kingdom was encouraged to see some compromise and flexibility in the Conference. The draft report presented a good structural balance. It reflected the majority view on how to find a way to build on this year’s experience. The Conference should focus on the minor amendments required to approve the text.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said the report was balanced and objective and reflected events that occurred during the session. But the Member States could always improve on it and he thanked the speakers before him. Concerning the Friends of Presidents, a colleague had suggested that no reference be made to them because they were not an institution existing in the rules of procedure. It was true the Friends of Presidents did not exist in the rules of procedure, but they existed in the history of the Conference. The Friends of the Presidents were extremely helpful during this session and they merited their place in the report. Paragraph 13 properly reflected their actual achievements and he requested that this should be maintained. Poland was open to any proposals to improve the report. As for what had been said about his partial quote in the report, he agreed with them that it should be replaced by the full quote. Finally, he hoped the formal plenary would soon proceed to an informal meeting to be able to discuss the draft report further.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said China expressed its appreciation to the President of the Conference and the secretariat for all the efforts made to prepare this year’s draft annual report. On the whole, the draft report provided a fairly good basis for the work of the Conference. China would make specific proposals in the informal plenary. China wanted to highlight that it shared the amendments on paragraph 25 proposed by Pakistan and Algeria on the programme of work. The draft report was not a summary of the conclusion of ideas of individuals or delegations. With regard to the discussion, if each country gave its conclusions, there would be dozens of reports and it would not take the discussion anywhere.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06049E