CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS ON MODALITIES TO IMPLEMENT ITS AGREED PROGRAMME OF WORK
This morning the Conference on Disarmament heard statements from 16 national delegations, as well as from Sweden on behalf of the European Union and from Australian Ambassador Caroline Millar, the outgoing President, in which all commented on the central issue of achieving consensus on a procedural decision on the implementation of a programme of work for 2009.
Pakistan observed that on 10 August it had circulated its proposals relative to draft decision CD/1870/Rev.1 to all members. Pakistan had remained engaged in discussions with the President, as a demonstration of its flexibility, and had agreed on a number of key issues. Nevertheless a number of issues remained.
In her last statement under the Australian Presidency of the Conference, Ms. Millar said they had yet to meet the expectations of world leaders as, regrettably, they had yet to adopt a decision on implementation of the programme of work. That was dispiriting. All understood that important national security interests were at stake. The place to advance and protect them was in the negotiations, not through delaying implementation of a consensus decision (i.e. CD/1864). There should be no doubt: negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would happen; and substantive, meaningful work on other agenda items would happen. The overwhelming majority of States believed it was imperative to address serious disarmament and non-proliferation challenges and to do so now. It was up to all of them to ensure that the Conference’s potential to do that was realized.
Most delegations echoed each other’s profound disappointment and regret that, nearly three months after the adoption of a programme of work, they had failed to accomplish the “simple, straight-forward procedural task of agreeing on a schedule of work”. One delegation borrowed the publicity slogan, “just do it” and several joined the cry. Several delegations also highlighted that the place for consideration of national security interests was not in procedural matters, but in the negotiations and discussions to be held.
Speaking today were representatives of the Netherlands, Morocco, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, the United States, France, Malaysia, Germany, the Russian Federation, Japan, Bangladesh, the United Kingdom, China, Pakistan, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union) and the Republic of Korea.
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, which will be the first under the Presidency of Austria, will be announced by the Conference Secretariat.
Statements
PAUL VAN DEN LISSEL (Netherlands), taking the floor for the first time as Ambassador of the Netherlands to the Conference on Disarmament, noted that, despite impressive personal efforts by the President of the Conference, they had not yet been able to reach consensus on how to implement the programme of work adopted on 29 May. That had not diminished his hope and optimism, or lowered his high ambitions. They should continue and redouble their efforts to translate that programme into meaningful action at the earliest possible date, and the Netherlands stood ready to assist the Presidency in those endeavours. The Netherlands was convinced that the adopted programme of work pointed the right way forward and addressed the issues that they should be dealing with. An early start and conclusion of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would be of immense importance, as a contribution to both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, goals to which the Netherlands subscribed.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said that, since the conclusion of the Convention on Chemical Weapons in November 1992, the Conference had been relegated to the "sidelines" and had been transformed into a '"talk shop". Now, after 13 years of stalemate, on 29 May the Conference had adopted document CD/1863, which set out a programme of work for the Conference. Although that document only specifically envisaged negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), none of its provisions prevented the other Working Groups from beginning negotiations on nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space or negative security assurances. Morocco remained convinced that nuclear disarmament was a strategic priority. A legally binding, verifiable, non-discriminatory treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for military purposes and providing for the conversion of existing stockpiles would be a crucial step on the long road towards complete nuclear disarmament. Other stages would be, of course, an international agreement to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use of nuclear weapons and a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Those last mentioned objectives had been strengthened by the momentum created by initiatives and declarations in the sphere of nuclear disarmament such as the declaration by the new United States Administration to deploy efforts to revitalize negotiation on a verifiable FMCT. Other positive signs were the plan of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the initiative of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and the Russian and Chinese initiative on a treaty to prevent the weaponization of outer space, as well as the positive climate that had prevailed during the work of the Third Preparatory Committee for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in 2010. In that connection, the international community had to implement the decision of the NPT Review Conference of 1995 for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It was also important that all the nuclear installations in the region without exception were subject to the Guarantees System of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Morocco's had spared no effort to work towards disarmament, and Morocco had hosted the launching of the global initiative to fight nuclear terrorism, decided by Presidents Bush and Putin on 15 June in Saint Petersburg, on the margins of the G-8 Summit. Of the 13 founding members in Rabat in October 2006, that initiative now had more than 90 members.
Morocco shared the hope that the Conference would once again take up substantive work and restore multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. It was therefore important to overcome the obstacles to implementing the programme of work of the Conference, in strict compliance with the Rules of Procedure, and to adopt without further delay document CD/1870/Rev.1. Morocco believed that that document met the criteria established by the members of the Conference regarding the equitable geographical distribution of presidents of the Working Groups and the Special Coordinators, as well as the allocation of time for the different agenda items. Finally, Morocco reaffirmed that the consensus rule was the cornerstone of the Conference's work, and said that any attempt to deviate from that sacrosanct principle put the Conference itself in peril.
DANIEL ÁVILA CAMACHO (Colombia) said the Conference could not remain in the current impasse. They had to move forward. Cartagena de Indias would be the headquarters for the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Convention (Ottawa Convention), which would be held from 30 November to 4 December 2009. All information on that Conference, including how to register for it, was available on the website www.cartagenasummit.gov.co. Colombia invited all to attend. It was also announced that the Colombian Vice President would be present at the second preparatory meeting, to be held here in Geneva at the Palais des Nations in September, as a demonstration of Colombia’s unswerving commitment to the Mine Ban Convention.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) believed that the reason they had not been able to adopt a decision allowing the implementation of the programme of work contained in document CD/1864 was that not all Member States were ready to accept the decision on the implementation unless it included a number of “precautions”, which, in the view of many, could put the Conference in a straightjacket and severely limit the prospects of making progress. The programme of work had been adopted as a result not only of great effort, but also in a spirit of compromise. Moreover, that decision had reflected a change in international relations, stemming from a complex combination of events and actions and statements by political leaders. They had a collective responsibility to work to understand and "equate" those problems.
MABEL GÓMEZ-OLIVER (Mexico) said the programme of work adopted by consensus on 29 May reflected a careful balance of interests and concerns of the 65 members of the Conference, as well as the flexibility showed by all in making concessions regarding the way in which the topics should be handled by the Conference. In other forums there were encouraging signs for moving firmly forward towards a safer world, but in this room they were faced with a near–impossibility of adopting a merely procedural decision. Mexico was not trying in any way to evade the question of the national security interests of States. It was assumed that those security interests would permeate the negotiations and discussions to be held, and would be reflected in any future outcomes. The fact that the Conference was being kept from action for procedural reasons was unfortunate and had an impact on the national security of each and every State here. They would have to work intensively to create consensus, for which flexibility and political will would be needed on the part of all States. Mexico's priority was to ensure that the Conference took up its role as a negotiating forum; moreover, what was done here had an impact on other forums.
GAROLD LARSON (United States) said it was profoundly disappointing that, nearly three months after the adoption of a programme of work, they had failed to accomplish the simple, straight-forward procedural task of agreeing on a schedule of work. The United States understood and expected that serious national security concerns would be fully addressed in negotiations on an Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and in their substantive discussions on other issues, as set out in the programme of work. But, “make no mistake”, he said, what they had seen in the past few weeks in the Conference was procedural faultfinding that had cost valuable time and had thwarted the stated goals and aspirations of the international community to pursue in this multilateral forum the central questions of nuclear proliferation, arms control and disarmament. For years they had heard protests of those seeking progress on those issues, had heard the frustrations of those seeking a role for the Conference, and had argued over balance in the programme of work. Those issues had been settled in decision CD/1864. The United States was therefore left wondering as to the motivations of those who had blocked agreement since the Conference reconvened in August.
SOPHIE MOAL-MAKAME (France) was disappointed that since the agreement on a programme of work, no substantive work had been undertaken. The spectre of a new impasse raised real questions about the genuine will to begin negotiations. That could have a permanent impact on the international disarmament climate. Also, it had a direct impact on negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, despite the fact that the programme of work stressed the urgency of that endeavour.
AZRIL ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia) said that Malaysia was dismayed that the Conference had yet to start crucial substantive work. They should not allow the Conference to fall back into the quagmire that had beleaguered it during the past 10 years. Malaysia supported draft decision CD/1870/Rev.1, which it believed contained all the elements needed. It provided clarity and encapsulated much of the understanding that many had to enable the Conference to implement the programme of work. Malaysia called on delegations to remain engaged and to demonstrate flexibility so that they could find consensus.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said he had been hopeful that the decade-long deadlock had been broken, and that he had sensed a very broad-based willingness to move forward. He associated himself with the statements made so far, expressing disappointment about the state of affairs and urging them not to become hostage to procedural issues. All were urged to join consensus on a procedural decision which enjoyed wide support.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that, in Russia's view, the provisions in document CD/1870/Rev.1 for implementing the Conference's programme of work reflected a balanced compromise that should be acceptable to all. The Russian Federation supported the solutions proposed by the President, as reflected therein. The sooner the Conference got back to work, the better.
AKIO SUDA (Japan) had to share with other speakers Japan's deep regret and serious disappointment over the prolonged situation in the Conference. The Conference was now close to the edge of the cliff – having to tell the world that it could not implement its own consensus agreement, namely document CD/1864. They had to reach agreement in order to dispel dangerous scepticism about the Conference.
MUHAMMED ENAYET MOWLA (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh looked forward to an early consensus in the Conference for the beginning of substantive work. The Conference must not fail in taking up its role once again as the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations.
JOANNE ADAMSON (United Kingdom) feared that they were in the process of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”. In May they had broken new ground, but now they seemed to be unpicking a consensus achieved through the efforts of many in the Conference, not least the six Presidents. The United Kingdom also joined those who had said that international initiatives on disarmament in other forums showed a collective will to get on in this sphere. They should not give in. They should "just do it".
WANG QUN (China) echoed the United Kingdom's slogan that they should "just do it", so that the Conference could start its substantive work as soon as possible. China would use all efforts to ensure that that happened, and would participate actively in the ensuing work. That position had been clearly stated by the Chinese Foreign Minister in his address to the Conference on 12 August.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that on 10 August Pakistan had circulated its proposals relative to document CD/1870/Rev.1 in order to convey its views to all members. That was a clear demonstration of Pakistan's constructive approach and its commitment, which remained undiminished. That remained Pakistan's official stance. Pakistan had remained engaged in discussions with the President, as a demonstration of its flexibility, and had agreed on a number of key issues. Nevertheless a number of issues remained. Pakistan would remain engaged and hoped that they would be able to reach consensus soon on a programme of work.
MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the profound disappointment expressed in the Conference by the European Union 10 days ago about the current situation remained.
IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said the statement by the Pakistan showed an encouraging mood. Instead of saying "just do it", he would say the countries who had not joined the consensus should just do it before it was too late.
AKIO SUDA (Japan), announced a seminar organized by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in collaboration with the Government of Japan, which would include briefings and lectures by the International Panel on Fissile Materials on fissile material issues. The event would start at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 20 August in the Council Chamber.
CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that today was the last plenary convened under the Australian presidency, which would be passed to Austria thereafter. The Conference on Disarmament had adopted a programme of work on 29 May after many years of failing to do so. That had been acclaimed by world leaders. They had yet to meet their expectations and, regrettably, they had yet to adopt a decision on implementation of the programme of work. That was dispiriting. Successive Conference Presidents had sought to reach agreement on what should have been a straightforward procedural decision on appointments of Chairs and Special Coordinators and a timetable of meetings. It was therefore disappointing that consensus had proved elusive. Still, right to the end of the presidency, Australia had continued to consult on possible adjustments to the text that would enable the Conference to start some substantive work in 2009, however truncated and modest that might be. The door remained open.
All understood that States had important national security interests at stake. The place to advance and protect them was in the negotiations, not through delaying implementation of a consensus decision (i.e. CD/1864). There should be no doubt: negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would happen; and substantive, meaningful work on other agenda items would happen. That was because the overwhelming majority of States believed it was imperative to address serious disarmament and non-proliferation challenges and to do so now. That impetus for progress had been demonstrated on the first day of Australia’s presidency, in the speech by Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans on the work of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. It should give them hope that, once the Conference moved from process to substance, it had the potential to contribute significantly to a more secure world. It was up to all of them to ensure that potential was realized.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC09042E