CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM BRAZIL AND NIGERIA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard from Brazil and Nigeria, setting out their positions on the current stalemate in the Conference regarding the adoption of a programme of work for 2010. The President of the Conference also made a brief statement to outline the state of play with regard to consultations towards a work programme.

Brazil said a number of arguments had been raised to prevent the Conference from heeding the repeated calls for the negotiations on fissile material. However, specific geopolitical situations could not justify disregard for the principles and norms of international law and civilized international relations. Moreover, the elimination of nuclear weapons was an essential element for the reduction of the democracy deficit that persisted in international relations.

Nigeria said that its position had always been that the most effective and credible guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons lay in their total elimination. In the struggle to achieve a nuclear free world, however, one should not underestimate the value of incremental success.

Mikhail Khvostov, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that there was still no consensus on a programme of work for 2010. He had started the process of compiling a draft programme of work, based on the Conference’s consensus decision on a programme of work for 2009 (CD/1864), two consensus General Assembly resolutions containing a number of recommendations to the Conference, and proposals he had received from Conference Members – not one of which for the time being was able to bring the Conference to consensus. He intended to discuss the draft with the regional groups next week.

Also at today's meeting, at the request of its Government, Jordan was invited to join the work of the Conference for its 2010 session as an Observer.

Next week, the Conference is scheduled to hear a number of addresses by high dignitaries. At the next plenary meeting, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 March, Hyun Cho, Deputy Minister for Multilateral and Global Affairs of the Republic of Korea, will address the Conference, and at 3 p.m. the same day, Micheál Martin, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland will make a statement. Also scheduled to speak later in the week are Bogdan Aurescu, Secretary of State of Romania; Chinami Nishimura, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan; and Kanat Saudabayev, Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan.

Statements

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices was one of the most widely supported and long-standing objectives in the sphere of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. The General Assembly had already called for the cessation of such production in a 1957 resolution. The need to begin immediate negotiations on a multilateral, non-discriminatory treaty banning fissile material production that was internationally and effectively verifiable had been part of the final package of decisions agreed by consensus at the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. The General Assembly last January had also once again urged the Conference to immediately commence negotiations on such a treaty.

A number of arguments had been raised to prevent the Conference from heeding the repeated calls for the negotiations on fissile material. One objection was based on the idea that the ultimate goal and first priority was nuclear disarmament. No one denied that. However, many years of discussions had made clear that the way to reach that goal required a gradual approach. Also, the existence of this item and others on the Conference’s agenda could not serve as a base for the refusal to deal with fissile material. National security needs had also been invoked. But States that neither possessed nuclear weapons nor were parties to military alliances nor enjoyed assurances of nuclear weapons protection suffered from an acute asymmetry in terms of national security, Mr. Macedo Soares underlined. Specific geopolitical situations could not justify the disregard for the principles and norms of international law and the conduct of civilized international relations. The principles of equal security for all pointed to a collective goal. No instrument of international law was ever cost free to any State. Disarmament affairs were not the sole domain of those States that possessed or intended to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the elimination of nuclear weapons was an essential element for the reduction of the democracy deficit that persisted in international relations.

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said that Nigeria, as a non-nuclear weapon State, had not only renounced the nuclear option but took its obligations under the NPT seriously. Nigeria’s position had always been that as long as nuclear weapons existed, they constituted a threat to humanity. The most effective and credible guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons lay in their total elimination. In the struggle to achieve a nuclear-free world, however, one should not underestimate the value of incremental success.

Mr. Uhomoibhi said that Nigeria had been saddened by the seeming reversal of fortunes in the Conference, after the promise of last year. The hope among many delegations had been that the 2010 session would build on the success achieved in 2009. That the Conference had yet to capitalize on the promise of last year to get back to serious work was as worrisome as it was frustrating. He appealed to delegations to see the continuing stalemate both as an opportunity and a challenge to listen to one another more intensely so as to capture the legitimate fears and concerns of all delegations as they sought to extricate themselves from the quagmire that continued to paralyse the work in the Conference on Disarmament.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, informing the Conference about the progress in the consultations for a proposal for the programme of work, said that there was still no consensus on it. Following many consultations he was now getting a view on how the Chair would have to move in order to allow the Conference to carry out its mandate.

Mr. Khvostov said that, in developing its programme of work, the Conference should take into account recommendations of the General Assembly, proposals submitted by Member States and decisions taken by the Conference itself. He had thus started the process of compiling a draft programme of work, based on the Conference’s official consensus decision on the programme of work for 2009 (CD/1864), two General Assembly resolutions that were adopted by consensus and containing a number of recommendations to the Conference, and proposals he had received from the Conference Members – not one of which for the time being was able to bring the Conference to consensus. He intended to discuss this draft with the regional groups next week. He hoped that process might constitute a basis for the development of the Conference’s programme of work.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/010E