CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES EFFORTS TO REACH CONSENSUS ON IMPLEMENTING ITS PROGRAMME OF WORK
The Conference on Disarmament today continued its efforts to reach a consensus on implementing its programme of work, hearing statements by Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Australia, Cuba, China, Brazil, Bangladesh and the United Kingdom as well as from the Austrian Presidency of the Conference and from the Secretary of the Conference.
Pakistan said that immediately after the adoption of the programme of work, it had been confronted with "disappointing" and "alarming" manoeuvres even on procedural issues on the part of some delegations. It was also "alarmed" by arguments that rotation of chairs of all bodies could not be accepted as a principle, and that there could be no understanding on the time frame for rotation. Similarly, the rules of procedure, which required negotiating the programme of work at the beginning of every year, had been sought to be bypassed, with suggestions that the present programme should be rolled over for next year and perhaps beyond. As a measure of its flexibility, Pakistan had accepted most of the amendments (to CD/1870/Rev.1) proposed and had put forward a minimum request to reflect Pakistan's views in a revised subparagraph of the chapeau, which read: "The Conference will ensure, without any discrimination, balanced outcomes in the consideration of all agenda items, particularly the four core issues, while recognizing the principle of undiminished security for all." Unfortunately, that revised text had not yet been formally shared with all delegations and no effort had been made to determine whether and which delegations had any objection to that formulation.
Iran said that the outstanding issue was the notion of a balanced outcome of the work of the Working Groups on the four core issues. In Iran's view, that should not be controversial. The language presented by Pakistan would not hinder in any manner implementing properly and fully the programme of work, in particular for 2009. Iran called on delegations to accept the practical suggestion by Pakistan. Egypt said that while it was one of large number of delegations that had indicated their willingness to join consensus on CD/1870/Rev.1, it was also ready to entertain amendments put forward by other delegations. China felt that the amendment – as read out today – was an effort to resolve the problem. Cuba seemed hopeful that if they continued to demonstrate flexibility and resolve they would be able to find consensus.
The United Kingdom cautioned members to beware of jargon – the Conference was not the "sole" multilateral negotiation forum for disarmament. It was also observed that it was not particularly helpful to talk of alarming procedural manoeuvres or to make veiled criticisms of the work of Presidencies.
Responding to the issue of document circulation raised by Pakistan, Australia (as the previous President of the Conference) asserted that all documents Pakistan had submitted for circulation had been given to the Secretariat for circulation. China and Brazil said they had not seen the document. China asked for clarification on the conflicting statements, and Brazil noted that it would have to put the proposal to its capital for consideration. The Secretary of the Conference confirmed that the document had been prepared in all languages, and distributed to delegations on Tuesday, 25 August at 10 a.m.
Austrian Ambassador, Christian Strohal, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted they were fast approaching the end of the 2009 session. It was for that reason that the Presidency had continued intensive consultations with a view to allowing for consensus on the implementation of the programme of work. Those consultations had continued right up to this morning. He had encountered flexibility and a constructive spirit from all delegations in those consultations. But he was not of the view that they were ready to come to a consensus.
Document CD/1864 is the adopted programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament's 2009 session. Draft decision CD/1870/Rev.1, on the implementation of CD/1864, outlines the conduct of work and decision-making under the Conference Working Groups and Special Coordinators and the rotation and equitable geographic representation of office bearers. The draft decision also includes a list of proposed names for the office bearers of the different Working Groups and Special Coordinators. The draft further includes a timetable of activities for the Working Groups and Special Coordinators, up to the end of the 2009 session.
The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced by the Conference Secretariat.
Statements
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) observed that this was a critical time for the Conference on Disarmament. The only way for them to move forward was on the basis of consensus – by recognizing and accommodating the interests of all delegations. Pakistan had joined the consensus on decision CD/1864 (containing a programme of work for 2009), despite substantive difficulties with the text, in good faith to enable the Conference to make across-the-board progress on all the four core issues. It was Pakistan's expectation that those issues would be addressed in the implementation of the decision. But, immediately after the adoption of the programme of work, Pakistan was confronted with "disappointing" and "alarming" manoeuvres even on procedural issues on the part of some delegations. Pakistan remained concerned over efforts to ensure that the mandates of the Working Groups would remain static without progressing towards negotiations on all four core issues in the future. Pakistan was also alarmed by arguments that rotation of chairs of all bodies could not be accepted as a principle, and that there could be no understanding on the time frame for rotation. Similarly, the rules of procedure, which required negotiating the programme of work at the beginning of every year, had been sought to be bypassed, with suggestions that the present programme should be rolled over for next year and perhaps beyond.
"Some delegations have even gone to the extent of proposing that the fundamental basis of our work, the principle of consensus, may have to be reconsidered if they don't get their way", Mr. Akram noted. "Equally alarming" was the implied threat that if the Conference did not make progress as defined by some delegations it might be necessary to take negotiations on issues such as fissile materials out of the Conference. Those were ideas and propositions that were firmly opposed by Pakistan.
For Pakistan, as for many other delegations, substance and procedure were inextricably interlinked, as had been clearly established when the Conference's Rules of Procedure had been formulated in 1979. The four core issues on the Conference's agenda were crucial to the disarmament agenda and global peace and security. Demand for balanced progress on all four was not an extraneous negotiating link, but based on principles espoused by the international community. As a measure of its flexibility and constructive approach, Pakistan had accepted most of the amendments (to document CD/1870/Rev.1) proposed by the previous President and had responded by putting forward a minimum request to reflect Pakistan's views in a revised subparagraph (d) of the chapeau, which read: "The Conference will ensure, without any discrimination, balanced outcomes in the consideration of all agenda items, particularly the four core issues, while recognizing the principle of undiminished security for all." From discussions that Pakistan had held with a number of delegations, it understood that that formulation was acceptable to several of them. Unfortunately, that revised text had not yet been formally shared with all delegations and no effort had been made so far to determine whether and which delegations had any objection to that formulation.
In conclusion, Mr. Akram reiterated the willingness of Pakistan to seek consensus even at this late stage. Pakistan had accepted several of the amendments proposed to them. Pakistan had a right to ask for similar flexibility from others. An absence of such flexibility could only lead them to the conclusion that their concerns were justified.
HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran) said that the Conference on Disarmament was at one of its most important sessions in recent years. If they could adopt the plan for implementation of the programme of work, after 13 years of deadlock, they could enter into substantive work. But if the meeting today could not adopt a plan for the programme of work, practically speaking, there would be no further opportunity to implement the programme of work and they should accept the fact that the stalemate would continue for the foreseeable future.
The adoption of the programme of work in May 2009 had opened up an unprecedented optimism and hope that the Conference could begin its substantive work. After that adoption, many consultations were taken on the draft decision for its implementation. The draft was however subjected to additional negotiations, and in particular Pakistan had offered several amendments. After consultations, there had been agreement on many elements of the proposals by Pakistan, and it had showed flexibility. Based on the statement of Pakistan today, the outstanding issue was subparagraph (d) and the notion of a balanced outcome of the work of the Working Groups on the four core issues. In Iran's view, that should not be a controversial notion. Even in the absence of such language, many delegations were working towards a balanced outcome on those four core items, in particular countries which were members of the Non-Aligned Movement. The language presented by Pakistan would not hinder in any manner implementing properly and fully the programme of work, in particular for 2009. Even if speculation could be made on possible implications of the language proposed today, not accepting that language would have disastrous consequences. Practical considerations should override those fears. Iran called on delegations to accept the practical suggestion by Pakistan.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt) remarked that the 2009 Conference session had allowed them to overcome the decade-long stalemate. Collective ownership of the process of implementation was necessary to achieve progress. A large number of delegations had indicated their willingness to join consensus on CD/1870/Rev.1. However, Egypt was also ready to entertain amendments put forward by other delegations. In Egypt's view, consensus was close at hand.
CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), with reference to Pakistan's statement, affirmed that (as the Previous President) all documents Pakistan had submitted for circulation had been given to the Secretariat for circulation. Moreover, she had made exhaustive efforts to see whether any and all suggestions put forward by all delegations were capable of achieving consensus and it had not been possible.
JUAN CARLOS FROMETA DE LA ROSA (Cuba) said Cuba was convinced that flexibility and resolve to move forward and respect for the rules of procedure would prevail in the search for consensus.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), clarifying his earlier statement, regretted the impression it had given. He agreed that former Conference President Caroline Millar had made every effort to circulate any suggestions Pakistan had made to all members of the Conference.
WANG QUN (China), reiterating his statement at a previous plenary, said they had to be clear what the problems were, what the objectives were, and what were the means through which they would resolve those problems. However, now, after recent statements he was confused. In his statement, Ambassador Akram had said that certain documents had not been circulated to all members of the Conference. Former Conference President Caroline Millar of Australia had then assured them that all documents given to her by Pakistan had been circulated. Now, what he would like to know was whether all delegations had received this amendment proposal or not? China had not seen it.
Secondly, at least from what had been seen today, it seemed that delegations accepted that amendment. From the reading out of the proposal today, in his opinion, this was an effort to resolve the problem. It seemed a solution was close at hand. China was willing to play a constructive role in this process, and to start substantive work right now.
JERZY ZALESKI, Secretary of the Conference, confirmed that the document referred to by Ambassador Akram of Pakistan had been received by the Conference Secretariat on Friday, 21 August, with a request that it be distributed to all delegations. That document had been processed on an expedited basis, prepared in all languages, and distributed to delegations on Tuesday, 25 August at 10 a.m.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that Brazil had not received the document mentioned. For its part, Brazil would have to send the text to its capital to review the exact changes in that proposal. However, that amendment should be given very objective and detailed attention so that they could come to a decision on it in plenary as soon as possible, as China had suggested.
MD. ABDUL HANNAN (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh was hopeful that consensus on the implementation of the programme of work would be achieved at an early date. It was Bangladesh's understanding that further consultations had brought them closer. Failure was not an option.
JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said they had heard this morning about collective ownership and ambition. Their collective ambition was to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and the Conference on Disarmament was an important part of taking forward those nuclear weapon States who had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to a commitment to disarm. But while the Conference was a multilateral negotiation forum for disarmament, they should beware of jargon – it was not the sole one. It was the right of any State to remove itself from consensus. However, it was not particularly helpful to make references to procedural manoeuvres or veiled criticisms of the work of Presidencies.
CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria), President of the Conference on Disarmament, agreed with all who had said the Conference had reached a critical moment. One of the critical elements was that they were fast approaching the end of the 2009 session. It was for that reason that the Presidency had continued intensive consultations with a view to allowing for consensus on the implementation of the programme of work. Those consultations had continued right up to this morning. He had encountered flexibility and a constructive spirit from all delegations in those consultations. But he was not of the view that they were ready to come to a consensus.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC09045E