CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES PROPOSAL FOR A PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament today discussed document CD/WP.559, containing a proposed programme of work for the Conference’s 2010 session, which was presented by the President of the Conference at its last meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Mikhail Khvostov of Belarus, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he had presented document CD/WP.559 last Tuesday because as President he had a legal and moral obligation to the Conference in implementing rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure. That rule obliged the President to compile a draft programme of work and to present it to the Conference on Disarmament for its consideration. It was then up to the Conference to decide whether to adopt the draft or not. By doing so, he had also followed a political aim, which stemmed from the need to get the Conference back to substantive work.

Over three dozen country representatives and two representatives of regional groups took the floor in the ensuing debate. A vast majority of the countries speaking expressed support for and welcomed the proposed programme of work, as contained in document CD/WP.559. States said that the draft was a balanced and comprehensive document. It provided a draft on the basis of which the Conference could hold further discussions. It was a realistic compromise. While it was far from being an ideal document it provided them with an ideal tool to address the current situation. Also, any proposed amendment by delegations should enhance the draft so as to move towards consensus.

Other States, however, felt that the draft could be improved. The programme of work should provide for a negotiations mandate on the issue of nuclear disarmament. A fissile material treaty should also cover the issue of stocks and verifications. Any negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, which did not address existing stocks, would be worthless. The fissile material treaty should be transformed into a disarmament treaty.

Several countries also highlighted the statement made by the Group of 21 last February and the important elements contained in that declaration, which covered all their concerns. The President should take the content of those considerations into account, such as the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.

Document CD/WP.559 is a Presidential proposal for a programme of work for the Conference’s 2010 session. It specifically references the programme of work for 2009 (CD/1864), as well as recommendations to the Conference by the General Assembly (which encourage the Conference to begin work on an FMCT). It envisages the establishment of four working groups: on cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, to exchange views and information, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral character; a working group to negotiate an FMCT, on the basis of CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein; a working group to discuss substantively, without limitation, all issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; and a working group on negative security assurances to discuss substantively, without limitation, with a view to elaborating recommendations “... not excluding those related to an internationally legally binding instrument”. It also appoints three coordinators – on new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; on a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and on transparency in armaments – to seek views of members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to those issues. The proposal also sets out or highlights a number of basic principles, including that rotation and equitable geographic representation will apply to the working groups and special coordinators.

Speaking today were Brazil, Spain speaking on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Bulgaria speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Iran, Ukraine, Poland, Ireland, the Russian Federation, Germany, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, India, Sweden, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Hungary, China, South Africa, Syria, Sri Lanka, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, Colombia, Pakistan, Turkey, Australia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Japan, Austria and Belgium.

The time and date of next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament, the first under Belgian presidency, will be announced shortly by the Secretariat.

Statements

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he wanted to revert to the purpose that he had had in mind as President of the Conference when he had presented document CD/WP.559 last Tuesday. As President of the Conference, he had a legal and moral obligation to the Conference in implementing rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure. That rule obliged the President to compile a draft programme of work and to present it to the Conference on Disarmament for its consideration. It was then up to the Conference to decide whether to adopt the draft or not. If delegations whished to improve the document, they were free to do so. If they wished to adopt the document as proposed, they were free to do that as well. And if delegations did not wish to see the document, they could revert to rule 18 of the Rules of Procedure.

He had also followed a political aim by presenting the draft, Mr. Khvostov acknowledged, which stemmed from the need to get the Conference back to substantive work. And in order to begin negotiations, one needed a document in the form of a programme of work. The document he had tabled reflected his views as President and did not reflect the positions of all Member States. It was, however, the result of informal discussions and of decisions that had been adopted last year and, as such, reflected the views of the President and that of several delegations.

LUIZ FELIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) thanked the President for his efforts to adopt a programme of work. Document CD/WP.559 was the result of intensive consultations and he trusted that it enjoyed wide support, short of getting consensus. He had observed that, in the culture of the Conference of Disarmament, absence of consensus was understood as inevitably leading to paralysis. One or more delegations had announced their opposition, and as a result all efforts were suspended. Perhaps it was useful to remind members that, while requiring consensus for the taking of decisions, the Rules of Procedure did not prohibit that further negotiations be conducted in order to circumvent divergences.

JAVIER GIL CATALINA (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union welcomed the fact that the President had provided the Conference with a draft programme of work. It was important to have a document on the table in order to be able to start working towards achieving consensus. The President’s draft was a balanced and comprehensive document, and the European Union was open to an open and transparent debate on it.

SUNEETA MILLIGAN (Canada) said that Canada was pleased that the Conference on Disarmament had a draft programme of work before it. Her delegation could support the document. The text was the best possible compromise that the Conference had at hand. It also identified the item which was the ripest for negotiations, namely a treaty banning the production of fissile material.

ARTURO BASANE (Mexico) said document CD/WP.559 would help bring all positions together and bring the Conference to finally start working. Mexico fully shared Brazil’s vision and believed that the rule of consensus was not a right to veto for any delegations. When there was an immense majority ready to work, then the Conference needed to make every effort to reach the desired consensus. The Rules of Procedure imposed consensus only for taking decisions, but not for holding negotiations. Mexico was prepared to listen to those who had issues with the current proposal. Mexico was also ready to work towards a draft document for the reduction of fissile material, as a disarmament measure. The Conference could not continue to stay in its current paralysis.

MARIELA FOGANTE (Argentina) said that it was important to reflect on the consensus that had been achieved when adopting last year’s programme of work. The President’s draft contained the same elements that had been included in last year’s programme of work. Argentina had listened to the concerns expressed by delegations and the various national positions. Argentina hoped that those views could be included in the programme work. Document CD/WP.559 was not ideal, but it was a document which had the support of the majority of Member States.

GANCHO GANEV (Bulgaria) speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, said that they were pleased to see a programme of work being tabled before the Conference. The moment was appropriate to start an open and transparent debate on such a draft. The Eastern European Group welcomed the President’s efforts. The draft document had been the result of long and difficult consultations. While it was far from being an ideal document, it provided them with an ideal tool to address the current situation. The Conference should be able to build on the past year’s achievements for the 2010 session to move forward.

Speaking in his national capacity, Mr. Ganev said that, as one of the six Presidents for 2010, Bulgaria was concerned about the Conference’s difficulties in achieving a programme of work for this year. It was important to safeguard the Conference as the sole multilateral disarmament forum. Document CD/WP.559 was broad enough to address all concerns that had been expressed by States.

MOHAMMAD TAGHI HOSSEINI (Iran) expressed appreciation for the President’s efforts to achieve a draft programme of work. Iran would consider the draft. It could, however, be improved, according to the comments and views of members. In Iran’s view a comprehensive and balanced programme of work could best serve the purposes of the Conference, as well as the security and safety of the world. Nuclear disarmament remained a priority for Iran. As such, the programme of work should provide for a negotiations mandate on that issue. A fissile material treaty should also cover the issue of stocks and verification. Such a treaty would be a first step towards nuclear disarmament. Past production, existing stocks and future material had to be covered under the scope of the treaty. Any negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty that would not address existing stocks would be worthless. The items on negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space should also be dealt with accordingly in the 2010 programme of work. The President should continue to hold consultations towards a programme of work which would take those issues into account.

MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine) said that Ukraine fully supported the efforts of the President. The delegation of Ukraine did not have any problems with the document he had presented and gave its full support to the draft.

CESARY LUSINSKI (Poland) voiced Poland’s appreciation for document CD/WP.559. In Poland’s view, it provided them with a basis to start negotiations.

GERARD CORR (Ireland) expressed Ireland’s appreciation to the President for having presented a draft programme of work, in line with the Rules of Procedure of the Conference. The draft was an excellent document to reach consensus. It was of course only a proposal. While the document was not as Ireland would have written it, they also recognized the difficulty of getting the agreement of all delegations. Thus Ireland would not propose any amendments to the document and any proposed amendment should enhance the draft so as to move towards consensus.

VICTOR VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation supported the proposed working document. He expressed deep gratitude to the six Presidents (P-6) and to the President for the work done to take into account the interests of all States parties. As document CD/WP.559 did not currently enjoy consensus, consultations should continue on the basis of that document in order to reach a compromise to adopt a programme of work for this year’s session. That could, however, become a lengthy exercise, as delegations would need to communicate with their capitals.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said that the Conference should work as a negotiating body but that it had been prevented from working on the issues within its mandate for well over a decade now. It was not clear whether the wider public had any idea of what was happening in this Chamber. Many would be flabbergasted to learn that since the last successful negotiations on the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, more than 10 years ago, the Conference had only been talking about what it should do next. That observation should be a reason to strengthen the role of non-governmental organizations in the forum.

The programme of work that had been adopted last year had contained a very elaborate and differentiated approach to many of the issues on the Conference’s agenda, and had left many options open for the future. It was not only a programme of work for negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Germany belonged to those who found that the other items on the agenda were also very important items to work on. It had taken the Conference well over half a year to understand why not all delegations could support the 2009 approach to the programme of work any longer, Mr. Hoffmann said. Germany thus appreciated that Pakistan had laid out its views this February. They could now see much better what the problems were. However, it was highly problematic to use the consensus rule to prevent the international community from starting working. The approach of document CD/WP.559 was the right one and it had been right to present it to the Conference. It was important to have a basis on which to work. By looking at the paper closely, one could see that it was not only about starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Germany could accept the draft as it stood, but it was also important to get everybody else on board. Germany could also no longer accept backroom negotiations, without the world knowing what the situation was. Such nineteenth century diplomacy should not be the order of the day anymore.

ELISABETH QUANQUIN (France) said the proposal contained in document CD/WP.559 met France’s desire to have a draft on the basis of which the Conference could hold further discussions. The document should benefit from the support of all the six Presidents and a consensus should be sought on it, so as to allow the Conference to adopt and start substantive work, as soon as possible.

GAROLD LARSON (United States) added his delegation’s endorsement for the draft programme of work. The paper encapsulated the prevailing view of the vast majority of the Conference Members. Certain delegations had cited perceived deficiencies in that text. In a spirit of compromise, last year, the United States had agreed to accept the programme of work as drafted, as they had recognized that every delegation had had to make some compromises. Others were urged to demonstrate the flexibility and compromise needed to move the process forward this year. Document CD/WP.559 was setting no limits and no prejudgments on any negotiations under any item. The document had a broad scope; it was a way forward for all. The United States would engage substantively and in good faith on all issues.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom supported the President’s proposal. The current phase of the Conference’s efforts to agree on a programme of work had been ongoing for the last four years. They had hoped that consensus, not unanimity would be possible. The Conference had to play its part towards a world without nuclear weapons. No one could credibly describe the emergence of consensus as take it or leave it. It was regrettable that the Conference had not yet achieved the breakthrough it was seeking. They did not need Rules of Procedure to know that at the start of any negotiations, all issues would be on the table. It was important not to forget that the Conference was accountable to the wider community of nation States.

JUERG LAUBER (Switzerland) said the exchange in the room this morning confirmed the importance of having a draft document to work on. He refused to give up hope that the Conference would soon move to substantive work. Switzerland was ready to accept the document as it was. It would also be ready to discuss other proposals and the wording of the current proposal. It was important for the Conference to move to substantive work as soon as possible. The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was an essential pillar to the existing nuclear treaty framework. Any proposals for the current draft should not only reflect national positions but should try to lead the Conference towards consensus.

DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand) thanked the President for his leadership; New Zealand was pleased that he had circulated document CD/WP.559. It had been entirely appropriate to use last year’s programme of work to form the basis of this year’s proposal. It was also imperative to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. All issues should be raised within the framework of those negotiations. One should not prejudge the outcome of such negotiations. New Zealand hoped for an early adoption of the programme of work.

PAUL VAN DEN IJSSEL (Netherlands) said the Netherlands welcomed the submission of the President’s working paper CD/WP.559. It was good to have a proposal on the table. The Netherlands could fully support the proposal. It was an adequate reflection of the views of the majority of States in the Conference, as well as those of the global international community. The Netherlands was also ready to look at proposals for any changes to the current draft, as long as those sought consensus. So far, they had not heard of any such proposal. The Conference could not afford to spend a whole year discussing what it had to do; it had to turn towards substantive work as soon as possible.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) said that India supported the President’s initiative to table the CD/WP.559. India attached great importance to the Conference. Its work should be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and in accordance with the rule of consensus. India supported a programme of work that took into account the interests of all States and which was comprehensive and balanced. India also fully shared the view that the priority was for nuclear disarmament. India would not stand in the way – if there were an emerging consensus – of the adoption of a programme of work, based on CD/WP.559, if such a decision would facilitate the early commencement of substantive work in the Conference. However, if no consensus existed, the President had to continue working towards building it.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden) expressed Sweden’s appreciation for the President’s efforts to achieve a programme of work. In order to have a very constructive discussion, they needed to have a proposal on the table. With regard to the interpretation of the rule of consensus, Sweden shared the view of Mexico; Conference membership gave States certain rights but mainly responsibilities. The working paper CD/WP.559 was a realistic compromise. It was a practical tool that enabled the Conference to start its substantive work; it did not close any doors. Sweden currently saw no other proposal that would improve the working document, but would welcome any delegations that wished to do so.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) said that Italy considered CD/WP.559 already as acceptable; it was flexible and balanced. They were ready to further discuss the document in depth, but would not wish to see its structure disrupted. The current draft would provide for the start of negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; that was an essential element. Further, no one could predict the outcome of those negotiations before they started.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea considered the draft as carefully balanced and supported it. They looked forward to its early adoption.

LEVENTE SZEKELY (Hungary) said that Hungary was not ready to give up hope and that it welcomed the submission of the draft programme of work, as contained in CD/WP.559. Just like last year’s programme of work, Hungary saw it as a comprehensive and balanced text. It was the best possible compromise and accurately reflected the views of the majority of the Member States. The Conference should not waste this opportunity to build a new consensus. The draft was a good basis for deliberations. Hungary was ready to hear from delegations about proposals that would bring the Conference nearer to consensus. The Conference should act responsibly to ensure its credibility.

WANG QUN (China) commended the efforts of the President to advance the work of the Conference. China had carefully listened to the President’s presentation of his draft programme of work last Tuesday, as well as the comments he had made this morning. China shared the common perception of Russia and the United States that there were still differences on this working paper. India had also emphasized the need to continue consultations to seek consensus. Switzerland had talked about the need to conduct open and transparent negotiations. That would help them bridge differences and address the concerns of each country. China hoped that the Conference would soon arrive at a programme of work that would see the support of all delegations. China was ready to work towards that objective.

MICHAEL COMBRINK (South Africa) said that, for the last decade, the Conference had been blocked in procedural issues, which had prevented it from fulfilling its work. That should make the Conference critically reflect on its approach to a programme of work. The Conference had a negotiating mandate and any issue on its agenda was open for negotiation. Negotiations did not necessarily mean the conclusion of a legally binding instrument.

ABDULMAOLA AL NUQARI (Syria) said that Syria was convinced that the President’s clear determination would enable the Conference to make progress in its work. Syria would further encourage the President in stepping up his efforts in coordination and cooperation with the six Presidents (P-6), as well as with other groups, in an attempt to reach a programme of work that would be acceptable to all and which would meet the concerns and expectations of all States. He also highlighted the statement made by the Group of 21 last February and the important elements contained in that declaration, which covered all their concerns. The President should take the content of those considerations into account.

U. L. M. JAUHAR (Sri Lanka) wished that the Conference could move forward and fulfil the purpose of its existence, while taking into consideration the concerns of all its members. The Group of 21 had made a statement in which it had laid out its position on the issue of nuclear disarmament. Cognizance should be taken of that position and it should be reflected in the programme of work. Sri Lanka encouraged the continuation of negotiations to reach consensus on a programme of work.

RI JANG GON (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) also highlighted the statement made by the Group of 21 last February. Any document, whether official or non-official, should reflect the elements contained therein. Any security issues of members should be duly reflected in the programme of work.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said that Egypt welcomed all constructive efforts aimed at reaching consensus. As such, Egypt had supported last year’s programme of work. As President of the Non-Aligned Movement, Egypt wished to recall the Group of 21’s position, as outlined in the statement made on behalf of the Group last February. In it, the Group had reaffirmed the importance of the Conference as the sole multilateral negotiating body in the filed of disarmament and had reiterated the call to agree on a balanced programme of work. The establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as soon as possible was the highest priority. Negotiations on a treaty on fissile material had to address existing stocks; it had to advance non-proliferation and the disarmament objective at the same time. Egypt would wish to see that position reflected in the programme of work.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) thanked the President for his proposal; it was a good basis on which to continue consultations on a programme of work. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 21, nuclear disarmament had always been Indonesia’s priority. A fissile material treaty should include the issue of existing stockpiles and that of verification. It was quite shameful that three months into this year’s session the Conference had not been able to adopt a programme of work.

DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia) said Colombia could accept the proposal made in document CD/WP.559. It was a sound basis to move forward with the Conference’s work. The document was far from being perfect. Colombia would wish to see other issues reflected in it. A fissile material treaty should be a disarmament treaty, and not only a non-proliferation one. The document did not enjoy consensus, but the six Presidents could count on Colombia’s full collaboration. All efforts should be focused on the adoption of a programme of work.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that during the last plenary he had expressed Pakistan’s views with regard to the draft programme of work and the reasons for his delegation’s reservations on it. Notwithstanding that, he wished to express deep appreciation for the President’s hard work. With regard to arguments that negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty were ripe to start, he had not heard any reasons given for that ripeness. His conclusion was that such a treaty, which only called for the cutting-off of further production of fissile material, would be cost-free for the nuclear weapon States – which had already piled up thousands of weapons. Because of that, those States did not really require any additional fissile material. The same had happened with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Nuclear weapon States had conducted so many tests that they did not need any additional ones and so had been ready to adopt the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That was virtue by necessity.

Mr. Akram said that Pakistan aligned itself with those delegations that had called for the reduction of fissile material and to transform the fissile material treaty into a disarmament treaty. He also wondered why, when Pakistan was told that the issue of stockpiles would be and could be addressed during the negotiations, that could not be said up front, before starting the whole process? On negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, those were issues very close to the Group of 21, which was the largest group in the Conference. It was regretted that that position had not been reflected in the working paper.

Mr. Akram said that the powerful of this world had themselves acknowledged an agenda for nuclear disarmament but at the same time, it was difficult for these same powers to start addressing this very issue in the forum that was tasked with it. If these commitments were true, they should have no problems starting negotiations on nuclear disarmament in the Conference. The majority of people in the world would support negotiations on nuclear disarmament in this room, instead of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which was an esoteric issue that not many outside this room would even understand.

Turning to Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure, which said that the Conference had to take into account the recommendations made by the General Assembly, Mr. Akram wondered why the Conference should be selective on them. The General Assembly had also called for negotiations on treaties for nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Why would the Conference only take into account the requirement for a fissile material treaty? As for the consensus rule, he knew well enough the difference between consensus and unanimity. It had been the major powers themselves that had insisted, during the drafting of the Rules of Procedure, that the requirement of consensus should both apply to the substantive and procedural work of the Conference. One could not play with the idea of consensus; it was the right of every delegation in this room and Pakistan would make use of it. While they had differences over the proposed draft CD/WP.559, Pakistan remained engaged to working towards a programme of work, on the basis of consensus.

VOLKAN OSKIPER (Turkey) said that Turkey wished to see progress in the Conference as early as possible. The draft programme of work contained in CD/WP.559 formed a good basis for negotiations. Turkey also thought that the issue of stockpiles, while not named in the draft, would be addressed during negations on a fissile material treaty.

PHILIP KIMPTON (Australia) said the draft reflected the best option to move forward. It made clear that the current document was without prejudice to any past, present or future positions. It was balanced and comprehensive. A programme of work could never reflect all priorities.

ABDUL AZIZ AZRIL (Malaysia) said that nuclear disarmament remained Malaysia’s highest priority and highly commended the draft proposition. It was a sound basis on which to continue consultations. Malaysia was ready to work forward to reach consensus. After a decade of deadlock they could not search for perfection. His delegation hoped that those delegations that could not join consensus at this stage would put forward constructive proposals.

TRAN CHI THANH (Viet Nam) said the draft programme of work, contained in CD/WP.559 was a good basis for discussion. They had heard broad support for it today, but also some concerns and worries. It was clear that the draft had been carefully prepared. As it was based on last year’s programme of work he wondered what fundamental changes there had been since May 2009.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) said the document CD/WP.559 was based on the concept of last year’s programme of work. Japan supported the approach the President had taken and believed that the proposal was balanced and comprehensive. Nuclear disarmament could not be achieved overnight with a single peace of paper or a declaration; it required a cumulative process of practical steps and effective disarmament measures. The first clear step was the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was therefore the next logical disarmament step. Japan believed that every effort should be made to maximize the extent of disarmament aspect of such a treaty. That issue had reached a level of sufficient maturity to start formal negotiations.

STEPHANIE KARNER (Austria) said that Austria believed that the programme of work contained in document CD/WP.559 was a good basis for swift resumption to substantive work. She expressed Austria’s full support to the President and the six Presidents.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he was pleased with today’s discussion. It had been an important one and it had happened in an open atmosphere, without any confrontation. His delegation would make use of the elements of today’s discussion while working further on the draft. He also understood that the Conference was ready to take CD/WP.559 as a document on which further work could be pursued. He was convinced that only political will would lead to the result everyone expected. The issues at hand were vital to humankind.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium) warmly thanked his predecessor in the presidency. As of next week, he would take up the torch to complete the task, bearing in mind what had been said today. Belgium would spare no efforts towards achieving that aim.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in some final remarks, thanked all delegations for their constructive cooperation during the course of his presidency. He also expressed thanks to the Secretary-General of the Conference for his professionalism and the Secretariat team. Expert knowledge in the Secretariat had been of inestimable value in his work as President. As President and in his national capacity he also wished to thank the Ambassador of Pakistan for his openness and his professionalism, as well as his desire to provide detailed explanations of his country’s position.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/017E