CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES STALEMATE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMME OF WORK AND OTHER ISSUES

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from Chile, Canada, Italy, France and the Austrian Presidency of the Conference on the prevailing stalemate in the implementation of the programme of work. Kazakhstan, Algeria and Russia also spoke on other issues.

Incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Christian Strohal of Austria, said that this year had been an unusual one for the Conference. After more than a decade of stalemate they had been able to adopt a programme of work. But unusual to the eyes of the outside world, three months after its adoption it had not been implemented yet. The Conference had now one month left until the end of this year’s session. He was convinced that progress was still possible, as the remaining issues were of a procedural character. It was difficult to imagine that insurmountable obstacles could still persist. He was looking to everyone to put on his or her running shoes for the home run towards resuming the work of the Conference on Disarmament.

Chile said that although three months had gone by since they had adopted the programme of work, they had not yet been able to reach the necessary consensus to implement it. This was unfortunate. What better way was there to preserve national security, which was so often mentioned in statements made at the Conference, than making this body move forward by consensus? It was unacceptable, when bearing in mind the many current challenges in the world, to keep up such a qualified diplomatic corps, a high-level secretariat and a team of specialized interpreters in such a state of non-productivity.

Canada said that those who could not live with the proposed implementation of the programme of work were calling into question their commitment to the programme of work to which they had themselves agreed. If they could not agree to implement a programme of work now, then the world would draw the appropriate conclusions about the ability of the Conference to undertake substantive work.

Italy said that the consensus rule allowed everyone to safeguard their paramount national interests. But here and now they were not faced with such a situation. A satisfactory Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty for example would not depend on how they sorted out such housekeeping issues. The situation was demeaning to the prestige of the Conference and was jeopardizing its very existence and undermined its relevance within the community of multilateral institutions.

France agreed about how what was currently happening in the Conference on Disarmament was disappointing. A country had killed the hope of the Conference to be able to begin its work. But they still hoped that they would be able to start this year.

The Russian Federation emphasized that they supported a rapid start of substantive work on the basis of the agreed programme of work. On another issue, Russia recalled that the Russian and the Chinese delegations had, on 17 August, jointly provided for official publication in the Conference of an information document called: “Basic issues and comments on the draft agreement to prevent the stockpiling of weapons in space, the use of force or threat of force against objects in space and responses to these issues”. The Russian delegation had now also provided for official publication in the Conference of a renewed proposal by the Russian Federation on the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on measures to ensure transparency and strengthening of confidence in outer-space activities, prepared on the basis of the General Assembly Resolution 6368.

Also speaking on other issues, Algeria said that the Pelindaba Treaty, which made Africa a nuclear weapon’s free zone, had entered into force this July. The Treaty prohibited the development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, possession and use of nuclear weapons throughout the African continent and neighbouring islands. Africa was thus significantly strengthening the concept of a nuclear weapon free zone and was making a significant contribution to the international regime of disarmament.

The new Permanent Representative of Kazakhstan , Ambassador Mukhtar Tileuberdi, said Kazakhstan had become a member of the Conference ten years ago. Upon gaining its independence in 1991, Kazakhstan had been in possession of the world’s fourth largest nuclear arsenal and, according to the decision of the President Nursultan Nazarbayev, this arsenal had been dismantled in 1994. Kazakhstan always stood for substantive negotiations on the disarmament issues.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 August 2009. Further, on Wednesday, 2 September at 10 a.m. the Austrian Foreign Minister will address the Conference.

Statements

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that it was a great honour for Austria to assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament at this stage. He expressed his gratitude to his predecessors for their commitment and leadership and for the excellent cooperation his delegation had enjoyed with the P6 throughout the whole year. He also thanked all the delegations for their engagement and flexibility, which had led to the adoption of the programme of work last May. This year had been an unusual one for the Conference. After more than a decade of stalemate they had been able to adopt a programme of work. But unusual to the eyes of the outside world, three months after its adoption it had not been implemented yet.

Mr. Strohal noted that the Conference had now one month left until the end of this year’s session. He was convinced that progress was still possible, as the remaining issues were of a procedural character. It was difficult to imagine that insurmountable obstacles could still persist. He was looking to everyone to put on his or her running shoes for the home run towards resuming the work of the Conference on Disarmament.

MUKHTAR TILEUBERDI (Kazakhstan) said that the Republic of Kazakhstan had become a member of the Conference ten years ago. Upon gaining its independence in 1991, Kazakhstan had been in possession of the world’s fourth largest nuclear arsenal and, according to the decision of the President Nursultan Nazarbayev, it had been dismantled in 1994. At the same time they had also stopped all nuclear tests and closed the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site. Nowadays, the Government was realizing this region’s rehabilitation plan.

Mr. Tileuberdi also noted that in 2006 the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free-Zone treaty had been signed in Semipalatinsk. It was a legally-binding commitment by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan had also recently proposed to the International Atomic Energy Agency to set up in its territory a Nuclear Fuel Bank. Kazakhstan always stood for substantive negotiations on the disarmament issues.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) congratulated the President on having assumed the responsibility of leading the Conference. He also offered Chile’s cooperation, particularly in drafting the Conference’s Annual Report to the General Assembly. He congratulated all the members of the P6, particularly the Ambassador of Algeria, which had made it possible last May to adopt a programme of work. Turning to the current stalemate in the implementation of the programme of work, Chile underscored that national security did not exist in isolation. They would shortly conclude the 2009 session. Although three months had gone by since they had adopted the programme of work, they had not yet been able to reach the necessary consensus to implement it. This was unfortunate. The Conference was the only multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament and this unique forum had not been negotiating for 12 years.

What better way was there to preserve national security, which was so often mentioned in statements made at the Conference, than making this body move forward by consensus, asked Mr. Portales. It was unacceptable, when bearing in mind the many current challenges in the world, for them to keep such a qualified diplomatic body, a high-level technical secretariat and a team of specialized interpreters to remain unproductive. Chile had not given up on their optimism, and everyone in the Conference should redouble their efforts. If they did not so, it would be truly absurd to explain the situation in their Annual Report to the General Assembly.

GEOFF GARTSHORE (Canada) said that Canada was committed to working with the new Austrian Presidency and the P6 to find a way forward. Canada believed that the Conference on Disarmament should remain faithful to the text of the adopted programme of work. All members had agreed to it this May and it now stood as their collective reference document. The programme of work had not characterised how much progress should be achieved, or how the outcomes among the four core issue areas should be balanced, because progress or outcomes on different issues were by their very nature, unpredictable. In a similar manner, the implementation decision should also not seek to tie their hands to any specific outcomes. Just as progress could not be preordained, neither could outcomes.

Mr. Gartshore said that in deciding to adopt a programme of work, the Conference had also opted not to use the word “principle” anywhere in the text; the document simply referred to the Rules of Procedure of the Conference. Matters of “principle” and their possible interpretation might be different among the many delegations sitting in the Conference. All qualifying words, such as outcomes, progress, balance, principle, did not serve the Conference well when found in a procedural, implementation document. Canada urged the Conference to be mindful of the agreed text and that its members based their efforts on the text in order to implement their work. Those who could not live with the proposed implementation of the programme of work were calling into question their commitment to the programme of work to which they had themselves agreed. If they could not agree to implement a programme of work now, then the world would draw the appropriate conclusions about the ability of the Conference to undertake substantive work.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) congratulated the President on the assumption of his presidency. Italy was extremely disappointed to see the Conference on Disarmament stalled once again and deplored this situation in the strongest terms. The programme of work had been a document of substance, since then they had been unable to agree on minor logistics questions. This was not a proper use of the consensus rule. Consensus rule allowed everyone to safeguard their paramount national interests. But here and now they were not faced with such a situation. A satisfactory Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty for example would not depend on how they sorted out such housekeeping issues. The situation was demeaning to the prestige of the Conference and was jeopardizing its very existence and undermined its relevance within the community of multilateral institutions.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria) said that at a time when the Conference on Disarmament was continuing with its consultation on deciding on the best possible way to tackle its substantive work, the Pelindaba Treaty, which made Africa a nuclear weapon free zone, had entered into force this July. Algeria had been one of the first States of the African Union who had ratified this Treaty in 1997. Algeria welcomed this development, which had taken place 30 years after the opening of the Treaty for signature. The Treaty prohibited the development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, possession, and use of nuclear weapons, throughout the African continent and neighbouring islands. Africa was thus significantly strengthening the concept of a nuclear weapon free zone and was making a significant contribution to the international regime of disarmament and non-nuclear proliferation. An annexed Protocol to the Treaty called on nuclear weapon States not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties of the Treaty. The establishment of nuclear weapon free areas strengthened peace and security. Algeria cherished the hope to see such a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation) said the position of the Russian Federation concerning the situation of the Conference had been set out several days ago. The Russian Federation wished to emphasize once again that they supported a rapid start of substantive work on the basis of the agreed programme of work.

On another issue, Mr. Loschinin said that the Russian and the Chinese delegations had, on 17 August, jointly provided for official publication of the Conference an information document called: “Basic issues and comments on the draft agreement to prevent the stockpiling of weapons in space, the use of force or threat of force against objects in space and responses to these issues”. Unofficial thematic consultations of the Conference had served as the basis of this document. The Russian delegation had also provided for official publication by the Conference of a renewed proposal by the Russian Federation on the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on measures to ensure transparency and strengthening of confidence in outer-space activities, prepared on the basis of the General Assembly Resolution 6368. All delegations were invited to make comments on these two documents, which would provide for a good basis on the working group of item three of the agenda when it started its activities.

ERIC DANON (France) associated France with very specific points made in this morning’s speeches. He agreed with the Italian delegation about how what was currently happening in the Conference on Disarmament was disappointing. A country had killed the hope of the Conference to be able to begin its work. But they still hoped that they would be able to start this year. Chile had talked about the risks of negotiating outside of this forum; this risk did exist. Behind the adoption of the programme of work lay the fact that the five major nuclear countries were ready to negotiate on a verifiable instrument. That political dimension needed to be reflected into something specific. He also agreed with what Canada had said. If the aim had been not do anything, then they did not agree for the Conference to be undermined with a sort of smokescreen. France was also pleased with the entry into force of the Palindaba Treaty. France had also looked carefully on the documents submitted by Russia and China. The issue of space was of paramount importance to them, apart from the nuclear problems.