CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT BEGINS PRESIDENCY OF COLOMBIA
The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it welcomed the new president of the Conference, Alicia Victoria Arango Olmos of Colombia.
In her first address as president of the Conference, Ms. Arango Olmos said she wanted the presidency of Colombia to be characterized by efficiency, inclusion, flexibility and a respect for the Rules of Procedure. She recognized the enormous efforts displayed by her predecessors, and the debates on the themes of the agenda that were held under the presidencies of Canada, Chile and China were interesting and had allowed delegations to reiterate their national positions on the matters that concerned them. Unfortunately, no substantive advances had been made. Despite this, the Colombian presidency wanted to maintain and build on the efforts made thus far. As she mentioned in her statement last week, the international community had its attention focused on the Conference on Disarmament, attentive to its development and its ability to get out of stagnation. The messages that were coming from various parts were that patience was being exhausted, the status quo was unsustainable and the need to make alternative arrangements should be a warning to them. The world had changed and tolerance of unproductive stalemates was not an option.
Ms. Arango Olmos went on to say they attached the utmost importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral negotiating forum on the subject and wished to see a dynamic Conference fulfil its mandate. However, the Conference on Disarmament was just one piece in the disarmament machinery and like each piece if it didn’t work it must be repaired or modified to get it working again. Their ultimate goal, their reason for being, should be more important than the mechanism. They must not forget that their responsibility was to disarm and to contribute to international security and the safety of all their citizens. For this reason, the Colombian presidency wanted to focus on a frank and constructive dialogue on the momentum within the Conference and the actions they could take to strengthen it. The task in this endeavour was to insist on discussion of the agenda.
All the delegations who took the floor welcomed the new president and said her talents and abilities would surely help move the Conference forward in its work. Delegations also thanked the outgoing president, Wang Qun of China, for all his hard work on behalf of the Conference.
Speakers said that the Rules of Procedure could not be used as an excuse to denature the Conference on Disarmament and undermine its raison d’être. Each day the deadlock in the Conference turned into something that was unsustainable and unjustifiable. If people could see what happened in the Conference on Disarmament they would be shocked. The Conference on Disarmament should be strengthened and reinvigorated and it should have the public represented in the room, not only as observers but as full members.
Other speakers noted that if they wanted the Conference on Disarmament to remain the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament they had to intensify their efforts to protect the pivotal role of the Conference. The main duty of any State was to protect its citizens, but this security must not be founded on the preservation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore the credibility of any programme of work depended on the trust of all States that it would address their concerns. This trust could not be built on the security of some while ignoring the security of others so they had to take this into account and balance the security priorities of all States. It was an absence of political will that blocked their work, therefore using mechanisms outside the Conference would not make matters better; in fact they could make matters worse as any instrument negotiated in such an outside body might not include the participation of all the relevant parties and would not be as strong as an instrument negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament.
Speaking this morning were Brazil, Italy, Pakistan, Ecuador, China, Algeria, Mexico, the United States, Iran, Cuba, Germany, Japan, India, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Netherlands.
The next public plenary of the Conference will be on Thursday, 9 June 2011 at 10 a.m.
Statements
ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Colombia), began by expressing the pride of her delegation and her country at assuming the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference could count on her carrying out her responsibilities and obligations with total transparency. She wanted the presidency of Colombia to be characterized by efficiency, inclusion, flexibility and a respect for the Rules of Procedure. Ms. Arango Olmos wanted to recognize the enormous efforts displayed by her predecessors; the debates on the themes of the agenda that were held under the presidencies of Canada, Chile and China were interesting and had allowed delegations to reiterate their national positions on the matters that concerned them. Unfortunately, no substantive advances had been made. Despite this, the Colombian Presidency wanted to respect and maintain the efforts made thus far and build on those efforts. As she mentioned in her statement last week, the international community had its attention focused on the Conference on Disarmament, attentive to its development and its ability to get out of stagnation. The messages that were coming from various parts were that patience was being exhausted, the status quo was unsustainable and the need to make alternative arrangements should be a warning to them. The world had changed and tolerance of unproductive stalemates was not an option.
However, they knew that even at this point there were differences in perceptions among Members of the Conference. They attached the utmost importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral negotiating forum on the subject and wished to see a dynamic conference fulfil its mandate. However, the Conference on Disarmament was just one piece in the machinery of disarmament and like each piece if it didn’t work it must be repaired or modified to get the machinery working again. Their ultimate goal, their reason for being, should be more important than the mechanism. They must not forget that their responsibility was to disarm and to contribute to international security and the safety of all their citizens. For this reason, the Colombian presidency wanted to focus on a frank and constructive dialogue on the momentum within the Conference and the actions they could take to strengthen it. The task in this endeavour was to insist on discussion of the agenda.
In connection with the programme of work, it was evident that the dissenting views would continue in 2011 and they had not been able to overcome the impasse. However, even with regard to the central differences on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty there were questions on the degree of dissent that actually existed, as had been seen in the debates of recent weeks, particularly on the issue of existing stocks. It was also evident from the discussions held thus far this year that the issues of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances had levels of maturity and consensus. Turning to political will, this was understood as having flexibility and creativity. The problem was not the language of the mandates, but the shortcomings in the commitments. Finally, a third aspect they had referred to was the problem in the methodology they had followed so far with the intention of adopting the program of work.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that the Conference on Disarmament was presently living a special moment in the history of this more than 30-year-old forum. Many difficulties had been faced and overcome in the past and yet, maybe for the first time, the very existence of the Conference was being questioned by a number of Member States. It was not so much the institution itself but the platform for dealing multilaterally with disarmament that Brazil was worried about. After two thirds of a century, the international community had not reached the goal set by the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. What Member States could do here was to work to avoid the sad commemoration, not so far away in time, of the first centennial of nuclear weapons. If it succeeded in starting negotiations on a really comprehensive instrument on fissile material, the Conference would make truly important and concrete progress in the direction of disarmament. The proper venue for this was the Conference on Disarmament in which a negotiating mandate was vested. A parallel expeditious process could not ensure the participation of all States necessary for an instrument on nuclear disarmament. A long, complex negotiation would notably require an institutional structure, the assistance of a technical and necessarily impartial secretariat, and dedicated delegations. This could not be assured by a group of well-intended, like-minded people meeting on the margin of the General Assembly or another organ, unless the real intention was a make-believe devoid of substantive contents.
GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) said that in accordance with the decisions taken in the Conference and outlined in document CD/1907, he had chaired two informal sessions that took place on 17 and 18 May 2011 on items 1 and 2 of the agenda with a general focus on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The debate focused on two general aspects of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, namely structure and definitions. Numerous references were made to the Shannon Report and the Shannon Mandate as outlined in document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995 whose continued validity was not put into question. In general, international treaties could be divided into two main categories: treaties with a single text and treaties with a main text accompanied by attachments such optional protocols and addenda. Reference was also made to a Brazilian proposal contained in document CD/1888 of 14 June 2010 which included scopes, definitions and final clauses in a main body accompanied by two protocols. There were also measures for verification and it would allow a gradual approach. One of the drawbacks of this approach was that if accession to the two optional protocols was not mandatory it could make for a very weak Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty solution was also considered with a concise main text with a system of verifications based on IAEA safeguards and various protocols. The disadvantage of this was that if some measures were put off to a later date one ran the risk of not having them dealt with at all. There were other examples that were put forward on which a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could be modelled, and they all had their advantages and disadvantages. All delegations agreed that a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty should ban the production of material used to make nuclear weapons while at the same time safeguarding the right to use such materials for peaceful purposes; consequently definitions should take into account this requirement. Delegations said that definitions should also be easily modified to be able to take into account technological advancements. The debate also brought out the opinion that the implementation of verification mechanisms could be entrusted to the IAEA with the understanding that its human and financial resources would have to be strengthened. Many delegations agreed that structure and definitions should be inspired as much as possible by article 20 in the IAEA statute or the principle of direct use held therein.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that he took the floor to comment on a recent article by the United Nations Secretary-General, entitled “Dysfunctional Disarmament”. Pakistan fully concurred with the Secretary-General’s acknowledgement that “the Conference on Disarmament has failed to make any substantive progress for 15 years”. It was time to face the facts and recognise why the Conference had been “dysfunctional”. First, it did not function in a vacuum, as its work and output depended on prevailing political realities. Second, progress in negotiations depended upon meeting or addressing the security concerns of all Member States. No treaty could be negotiated in the Conference if it was contrary to the security interest of any Member State. Third, it would be wrong to attribute the lack of progress to the rules of procedures. The Conference had successfully negotiated landmark instruments with the same rules of procedures. And lastly, the history of the Conference clearly demonstrated a regular pattern of negotiating only those agreements that did not undermine or compromise the security interests of States. The same was the case with the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Pakistan could not agree to negotiations on such a treaty in the Conference due to the discriminatory policies on nuclear cooperation, pursued by some major powers which were accentuating the asymmetry in fissile materials stockpiles in Pakistan’s region, to the detriment of Pakistan’s security interests. Only when the issue of asymmetry in stockpiles was addressed through reductions could there be a level playing field. Pakistan was therefore in favour of a Fissile Material Treaty rather than a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, which would be a genuine disarmament instrument and not just a quasi-non-proliferation measure.
MAURICIO MONTALVO (Ecuador) said that in 2001 Ecuador expressed the wish that a stop be put to the paralysis that afflicted the Conference; little did they know that 10 years later the situation would be the same. They had turned themselves into accomplices of a discouraging situation that was affecting the noblest interests of humankind, namely the objective of peaceful coexistence. Ecuador noted that since they had been members of the Conference they had never seen a single negotiation in this forum. The Rules of Procedure could not be use as an excuse to denature the CD and undermine its raison d’être; the Rules of Procedure were just used as an excuse because there were other reasons for the deadlock. Each day the deadlock turned into something that was unsustainable and unjustifiable. If people could see what happened in the Conference on Disarmament they would be shocked. However, hope sprung eternal and Ecuador still had the mindset of a novice and they hoped that under the Colombian presidency they would be able to adopt a programme of work and get back to substantive work. The Conference on Disarmament should be strengthened and reinvigorated and it should have the public represented in the room, not only as observers but as full members.
WANG QUN (China) said that the Conference on Disarmament was at a critical juncture. All parties had displayed their will to break the stalemate. China had noted with appreciation that the Colombian presidency wished to continue to guide the work of the Conference towards a programme of work. As China had expressed its views on the programme of work during its presidency, it would not repeat them. China was convinced that the Conference would be able to progress in its work if all Member States continued to strengthen their mutual trust and adopt the right philosophical approach. China, for its part, was ready to work closely with others in the joint endeavour to promote the work of the Conference.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) assured the president of his delegation’s support for her and he called on delegations to rally around her and extend to her all the assistance she might need. In terms of the program of work, Mr. Jazairy said that today the Conference on Disarmament found itself at a crossroads which he would describe as engulfed in fog. The impasse was a real source of concern. The international community found it difficult to understand why they were dithering in the same place for 15 years while the challenges the Conference faced were mounting day after day. The Conference was in a unique situation and other UN disarmament mechanisms were not facing the same obstacles. If they wanted the Conference on Disarmament to remain the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament then they had to intensify their efforts to protect the pivotal role of the Conference on Disarmament. They could all agree on the need for a programme of work that would allow the Conference to discharge its mandate and duties. The programme of work was not an end in and of itself, but rather a tool that would allow them to get on with their work. The main duty of any State was to protect its citizens, but this security must not be founded on the preservation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore the credibility of any programme of work depended on the trust of all States that it would address their concerns. This trust could not be built on the security of some while ignoring the security of others so they had to take into account and balance the security priorities of all States. It was an absence of political will that blocked their work so Mr. Jazairy did not believe that using mechanisms outside the Conference would make matters better; in fact it could make matters worse as any instrument negotiated in such a body might not include the participation of all the relevant parties and would not be as strong as an instrument negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament.
JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said while Mexico’s position was well known and did not need repetition, he would like to make some comments. First, it was extremely difficult to rationalise 15 years of deadlock. One could try to justify and provide reasons, but the effort would run against a crude and sad reality. Mexico could not find a way to justify the 15 years of deadlock and had serious doubts that the Conference was able to carry out its noble function. Second, it had often been said that the stalemate was not caused by the institution itself but by the complex context. However, the complex environment applied to all fields. The difference was that the Conference on Disarmament had mechanisms that inhibited achievements, including the rules of procedure. Either the Conference would be equipped to fulfil its goals or Mexico was perfectly ready to go and do this elsewhere. Third, Mexico could not disagree more that it was pointless to negotiate without the involvement of the key players. If that were the case there would be neither international law nor a Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons today.
LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that they welcomed the opportunity to examine their work under the leadership of Ms. Arango Olmos as they were at a critical juncture. Her delegation would enthusiastically endorse any programme of work along the lines of CD/1864 which would incorporate negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in keeping with the Shannon Mandate. They would enthusiastically support her efforts as president and she welcomed the new Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, and also thanked the Mr. Wang Qun for his efforts as the previous president of the Conference.
MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI (Iran) said that the Conference on Disarmament had been established as the single multilateral body on disarmament. As such, its mandate was clearly to negotiate legally binding disarmament instruments. Within the rules of procedure, the main task to start its work was for the Conference to adopt a programme of work. Iran called on all Member States to adopt and implement a balanced programme of work which dealt with core issues in accordance with the rules of procedure. Iran had always insisted that decisions be based on the rule of consensus. For Iran, the top priority was nuclear disarmament and the discussions in the last plenary had shown that this was also a priority for other Member States. The programme of work should therefore provide a negotiation mandate on nuclear weapons and an Ad-hoc Committee should be created pending the abolition of nuclear weapons. Also, a Fissile Material Treaty should be a clear and meaningful step for disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. Any negotiation on a Fissile Material Treaty which excluded either the stock or the key players was devoid of content and thus fruitless. This must be reflected clearly in the programme of work.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that they trusted the Colombian president’s ability to lead their work. What they faced was not a problem of leadership. The position of Cuba was clear and the real topic at issue was how to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. If anyone had any doubts after the numerous accidents in civilian nuclear power plants it should be very clear that a nuclear accident would not stay in some sort of controlled or contained area and nuclear arms were a permanent danger for everyone. Cuba was objective in its assessments; what was happening in the Conference on Disarmament was nothing more than a reflection of what happened in the outside world, such as the lack of balance. Mr. Reyes Rodriguez wouldn’t say there was no progress at all in the last 15 years, in fact there had been no progress since the Second World War since nuclear weapons were still with them. There could be an agreement outside the multilateral forum, but this was no guarantee States would give up their nuclear weapons so they were at a crossroads and had to make some decisions. Cuba would never stand in the way of progress in the Conference on Disarmament and they needed to find a pragmatic approach and be realistic and objective. They needed to convene meetings when they had a clear objective to discuss and they needed to be more efficient and effective in their meetings.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) noted that parts of the speech of Ambassador Akram of Pakistan reflected a dangerous line of reasoning which devalued existing arms control agreements by suggesting they were not worth much and unnecessary. Also, it was certainly true that agreements had been achieved in the Conference on Disarmament with the same rules of procedure, but how had the rules been used? A situation where a few States employed the consensus rule as a veto instrument created a very different situation. Also, if Pakistan was not against the negotiation of a Fissile Material Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament, why was it fundamentally opposed to opening the process? To what extent did the programme of work really need to reflect whether the negotiations would be on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty or simply on a Fissile Material Treaty?
AKIO SUDA (Japan) said that Japan had been standing firm for many decades in its call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, but this required a cumulative process of practical measures and could not be accomplished overnight. However, he didn’t feel that the start of these negotiations should be the total elimination of nuclear weapons, but rather the elimination of the material used to make them, i.e. fissile material. Document CD/1864 could be used as the basis of their work, so why had they not been able to move forward since May 2009? It was clear and simple that a State party opposed to the implementation of that programme of work for reasons of national security was an issue. Japan could not support waiting to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty while they worked on other agenda items. If the Conference on Disarmament remained dysfunctional it would be understandable if States sought to work outside the body on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and other issues.
HAMID ALI RAO (India) said that India had always upheld the importance of the Conference as the single multilateral forum on disarmament and India welcomed efforts to uphold this invaluable and inclusive forum. The first order of priority of the Conference should be to adopt a programme of work and begin substantive work at the earliest. India would not stand in the way of such endeavours, without prejudice to the priority attached to nuclear disarmament. India had been consistent in its support to complete and verifiable disarmament. In India’s view, nuclear disarmament could be achieved by a step-by-step process underwritten by an agreed multilateral framework for achieving global nuclear disarmament. There was an agreement between all nuclear states to increase trust and confidence.
KWON HAERYONG (Republic of Korea) said that he understood that different security environments often called for different positions on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Taking this reality into account, he supported practical steps for systemic and progressive efforts. He suggested that it might be more effective to narrow the discussion and perhaps during the Colombian presidency they should focus on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and if they had time they could discuss other issues such as the prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances. This approach would help build trust and aid in the formal process.
SO SE PYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the role of disarmament was increasingly important in international efforts for world peace and security. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea attached importance to this Conference as the sole multilateral body on disarmament and it was from this point of view that it looked forward to substantive work of the Conference. In particular, the Conference should enhance its role in nuclear disarmament.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) took the floor a second time to respond to comments made by Germany. Regarding the idea about agreements that had been concluded being cost-free, it was his experience that on the Chemical Weapons Convention States were ready to conclude an agreement when they realized that eliminating such weapons would not undermine their security interests. Of the three weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, it was unnecessary to have the first two if one had nuclear weapons so States that had those weapons were ready to give up these other means of mass destruction because they were redundant. Regarding testing and existing fissile material stocks, they were all aware that the major nuclear weapons States had conducted hundreds of nuclear tests so further nuclear testing for them was unnecessary. Such was also the case with fissile material stocks of which nuclear weapons States had quite a bit and thus they had already declared a moratorium on the production of such material. Therefore, signing a treaty that included such a moratorium was also not a problem for them. The fact remained that the rule of consensus had been used time and again to protect one’s national security interests in the Conference on Disarmament. This had been seen in the case of negative security assurances and nuclear disarmament. Why oppose the opening of the process on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty when the issue of existing stockpiles could be finessed? From Pakistan’s perspective, a simple ban on future production did not address their concerns; in fact it accentuated their security concerns. What they really wanted to see was that they would be negotiating a treaty that not only banned future production of fissile material, but also one that would deal with existing stocks. This needed to be established before negotiations began.
PAUL VAN DEN IJSEEL (Netherlands) said that the Netherlands had always been very flexible regarding the programme of work. While the Netherlands was open to any modified versions, a “light” version of the programme was not the right way in its view. Also, many delegations had raised the issue of the existence of this body, and the Netherlands shared the view of those who were in favour of the Conference. But it was exactly for that reason that one should be critical of its functioning. The fact that progress had been achieved with the existing rules of procedure was no reason to declare these sacrosanct after 15 years of deadlock.
HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) took the floor for a second time to clarify some of the points made earlier by Algeria, which were quite general and not directed at any particular delegation. It was the right of any government to defend its citizens, but that security should not be based on the possession of weapons of mass destruction. This had always been the position of Algeria and any approach toward any instruments that were adopted should be based on security for all.
Concluding Remarks
ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Colombia), said that the ambassador of Cuba would not be able to carry out the duties of the fifth presidency of the Conference, but the ambassador of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was prepared to swap his presidency with Cuba. There was no precedent for this, but after consultations with regional mechanisms there appeared to be no objections to this swap. The next plenary meeting would be on Thursday, 9 June at 10 a.m.
For use of information media; not an official record
CD11/034E