CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT: NEW DELAY ON DECISION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS PROGRAMME OF WORK FOR 2009

The President of the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Caroline Millar of Australia, this morning informed members – who had hoped to adopt a decision on the implementation of their programme of work as contained in document CD/1870/Rev.1 – that the Pakistani Government had asked for that text to be reopened.

Responding to a question from Brazil, who had asked about the exact nature of the difficulties with the document, Ms. Millar said the problems raised by Pakistan related mainly to the language of the chapeau and not to the appointment of the office holders. It had also been suggested that the weeks devoted to the consideration of the report be deleted from the programme of work. However, as the rules of procedure required the inclusion of all the agenda items in the programme of work, and the consideration of the report was on the agenda, this appeared to be problematic.

Ms. Millar appealed to all, if they did not want to look like the same old Conference on Disarmament that they would agree on this document. If they could come to an agreement in a couple of days they could pretty much keep to the timetable as it was, with just some minor tweeking.

Pakistan said it was unfortunate that it was the only delegation that had a point of view that many felt was obstructing progress. That was not how Pakistan looked at it. Everyone, on the basis of consensus, had to work on behalf of their own national security interests. It was hoped that, given the situation, they could proceed as fast as they could. It was not Pakistan's intention to hold up work in the Conference on Disarmament till the end of the year.

Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said they had all thought that the period of procedural manoeuvres to prevent progress on substance was over. The present situation was hard to understand and even harder to explain to their political leaders. Japan observed that the Conference was in the unusual situation of being unable to implement its own consensus decision, which endangered the Conference principle of consensus itself. The United Kingdom underscored that this was not a case of obstructing progress on a policy issue – it was obstructing progress on a practical issue. Issues of a policy nature were important, and world leaders had supported the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. That policy decision had been a long time in coming.

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 held on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 at 10 a.m., when the Chinese Minster for Foreign Affairs, Yang Jiechi, is scheduled to address the Conference.

Statements

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said they had hoped to adopt a decision on the implementation of their programme of work today as contained in document CD/1870/Rev.1 on the appointment of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators, as well as on a balanced timetable for the work of the Conference for the remainder of 2009. She had also circulated a draft complementary presidential statement. Those documents were the results of prolonged and intensive consultations. She had thought that agreement had been achieved. However, she had been advised by Pakistan this morning that the instructions from the Government had been to reopen the text.

Ms. Millar said she was slightly at a loss because some of the things the Government of Pakistan was asking to have reopened were issues she had thought had been worked out with all delegations in extensive consultations. She was concerned that the delicate compromises put in place would be placed in jeopardy. She appealed to all, if they were interested in moving forward and did not want to look like the same old Conference on Disarmament that they would agree on this document. If they could come to an agreement in a couple of days they could pretty much keep to the timetable as it was, with just some minor tweeking. If not, the timetable would have to be revisited.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed profound disappointment over the latest developments, or rather lack of them, in the Conference. The programme of work in CD/1864 was an important breakthrough after more than a decade of stalemate in the Conference. World leaders had welcomed the results of their efforts, based on the assumption that the Conference would begin implementing the agreed programme of work without any further delay. The Conference was returning to serious work and negotiations based on promoting and protecting national security interests. The period of procedural manoeuvres to prevent progress on substance was over. Or so they had all thought. But since 29 May, the Conference had again been bogged down in endless consultations over mainly practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the programme of work. Despite enormous efforts, nothing had begun: no office holders had been confirmed and no meetings had been held. That was hard to understand and even harder to explain to their political leaders. For its part, the European Union and its Member States stood ready, and had been ready for a long time.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) said in Japan they had been observing the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the President of the General Assembly had renewed calls for an end to nuclear weapons and the destruction they caused. It was particularly regrettable at this time to have to report back to the President and people of Japan the present unusual situation in the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference worked on consensus, but now it was in the unusual situation of being unable to implement its own consensus decision. Their consensus on document CD/1864 had been to begin work before the end of the 2009. This unusual situation was endangering the Conference’s principle of consensus itself. It did not seem that it was respecting the meaning of consensus but was acting against that principle. If this situation continued for several weeks, this would send a signal to the outside world that they could not function by themselves. The Conference was in a serious contradiction. That was troubling when the world was expecting – for many good reasons – long-awaited progress in the Conference, in particular in view of the upcoming Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would be starting in 10 months.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), responding to the President's comments, wished to clarify that throughout this process he had always conveyed to the President that the final position of Pakistan would be taken by the Ministry. He might have his own views, but he did not have a personal agenda. He was a professional. He had communicated positions faithfully to the Pakistan Government. It was unfortunate that Pakistan was the only delegation that had a point of view that many felt was obstructing progress. That was not how Pakistan looked at it. Everyone, on the basis of consensus, had to work on behalf of their own national security interests. It was hoped that, given the situation, they could proceed as fast as they could. It was not Pakistan's intention to hold up work in the Conference on Disarmament till the end of the year.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) endorsed the statement made on behalf of the European Union, as well as the apposite comments and historic references made by Japan. The United Kingdom wished to underscore that this was not a case of obstructing progress on a policy issue. It was obstructing progress on a practical issue. Issues of a policy nature were important, and world leaders had supported the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. That policy decision had been a long time in coming. It was therefore a profound disappointment that they would not be able to implement the practical modalities to implement that consensus.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) asked for clarification on the situation, in particular regarding the difficulties raised by Pakistan (on CD/1870/Rev.1) and exactly what those were. It was important for all delegations to have an idea from the President on what difficulties remained to be solved. Then they would be able to propose solutions.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the problems raised by Pakistan related mainly to the language of the chapeau and not to the appointment of the office holders. It had also been suggested that the weeks devoted to the consideration of the report be deleted from the programme of work. However, as the rules of procedure required the inclusion of all the agenda items in the programme of work, and the consideration of the report was on the agenda, this appeared to be problematic.

Ms. Millar understood that all delegations acted on instructions. The Conference was a political body that acted in areas touching on national security concerns. She had hoped that States had weighed up those political decisions before adopting the programme of work in May.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09039E