CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS LAST PLENARY MEETING UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning, which was the last under the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In closing remarks, So Se Pyong, outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he had conducted bilateral consultations with nearly all delegations in an open, inclusive and transparent manner, even in the inter-sessional period. The focus of his consultations and discussions with the delegations had been on how to revitalize the Conference and what kind of useful work they should do in the absence of a consensus programme of work. He also made no exception to holding informal meetings with the Informal Group of Observer States to exchange views on common concerns regarding enlarging the Conference on Disarmament. During the course of consultations and discussions, he perceived the gaps between delegations as being wide enough that they could not be bridged at this time, due to a divergence of views on substantive issues. He also perceived that there were a lot of misunderstandings between delegations and between groups on each other’s positions with regard to a possible programme of work.
Their efforts notwithstanding, they had yielded no concrete results. This was due to a lack of political will on the part of Member States rather than inherent inefficiency of the Conference. He believed that the Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, was capable of producing multilateral agreements should the Member States fully demonstrate the political will and had a mandate to do so.
Many of the delegations thanked Mr. So for his work as president of the Conference on Disarmament and the inclusive manner in which he had conducted their meetings.
During the day’s discussion, speakers also bid farewell to departing ambassadors from Switzerland and Brazil, read a statement regarding the enlargement of the Conference on Disarmament and discussed a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
Speaking this morning were Switzerland, Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21, Portugal, Brazil, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Germany, Algeria, Nigeria, Poland, France, India, China and Cuba.
The next public plenary will be on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 when Cuba will assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba will address the Conference.
Statements
SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the meeting by welcoming the delegation of the Nagasaki Peace Messengers. They visited the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva every year to tell the story of the people of Nagasaki and the tragedy they faced 66 years ago and the physical and mental hardships that followed. The President also bid a belated farewell to the ambassador of Brazil and wished him luck in his new assignment.
JÜRG LAUBER, (Switzerland), in a farewell statement before the Conference, welcomed the delegation from the Nagasaki Peace Messengers and said they should serve as an inspiration to them all. All forms of weapons had significant repercussions on all aspects of human life, including on human rights, human security, economic development, the environment and many other sectors. The feeling of security connected to the possession of weapons was often a false sense of security and the world needed progress in the field of disarmament and arms control; thus, it was time to rethink disarmament and nuclear deterrence and to adapt to current challenges. He shared many of his colleague’s concerns, but they should not fall victim to exaggerated pessimism that could lead to gridlock. He urged his colleagues in the Conference on Disarmament to redouble their efforts. Mr. Lauber remained convinced that they had an excellent basis for future success on a massive scale. There was an unprecedented concentration of disarmament experts in Geneva and this pool of expertise needed to be utilized. The Conference on Disarmament was currently under fire; in the past it had proved that it was an important and vital part of the disarmament mechanism and in order to maintain that position it had to revitalize itself and take into consideration the global and regional issues of arms control and human security. They were facing a key moment in time and he believed that this was an opportunity which required deep seated reflection and a new approach devoted to finding solutions for the future.
ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), on behalf of the Group of 21, emphasized that progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, in all its aspects, was essential to strengthening international peace and security. The Group reaffirmed that efforts toward nuclear disarmament, global and regional approaches and confidence building measures complement each other and should, whenever possible, be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security. Mr. Akram expressed the group’s concern about strategic defence doctrines of nuclear weapons States and a group of States which set out rationales for the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and in this regard there was a genuine and urgent need to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their elimination. The Group reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending the achievement of the complete elimination of such weapons, the Group reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Group reaffirmed the absolute validity of multilateral diplomacy in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, and expressed its determination to promote multilateralism as the core principle of negotiations in these areas.
GRACA ANDRESEN GUIMARAES, (Portugal), on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, thanked the President for the inclusive way he had performed his duties, taking into account the views of Observer States. It was clear that a vast majority of UN Member States considered it was high time to open a debate on the subject of enlargement of the Conference on Disarmament; the Conference should not ignore this call. As they were all aware, the Informal Group of Observer States had proposed the nomination of a Special Rapporteur to look into the matter of enlargement in a timely and organized fashion. The Informal Group of Observer States took this opportunity to reiterate their proposal, which did not prejudge any particular outcome. They should move from the stalemate in this body to a proactive and future oriented path. They believed both the Observer and Member States shared this ambition.
NEIL BENEVIDES, (Brazil), thanked the President of the Conference for his kind words to the outgoing ambassador of Brazil who had already departed Geneva to return to Rio de Janeiro where he was now retired. The ambassador sent his regards and his thanks to all of his colleagues. Mr. Benevides reiterated Brazil’s commitment to the Conference.
AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that he was puzzled by the statement of Pakistan delivered on behalf of the Group of 21 because it mentioned a wide range of things such as negative security assurances and other agenda items, but it failed to mention a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Why did the G21 as a group make such a statement without mentioning one of the most important issues of nuclear disarmament, fissile material, at all?
ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), said that the fact of the matter was that the G21 operated on the basis of consensus and the statement he read out earlier was one of consensus. The ambassador of Japan could draw whatever conclusions he wished to from that fact.
MICHIEL JOHANNES COMBRINK, (South Africa), drew the Japanese ambassador’s attention to paragraph 17 of the G21 statement which referred to the work of the Conference on Disarmament, including the three core pillars. Perhaps this could be a helpful explanation to the comments read out by Pakistan.
MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY, (Egypt), said that he did not speak on behalf of the G21, but he wanted to add that the G21 had presented the idea of starting negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, which would deal with fissile material.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said he shared the Japanese ambassador’s point of view and it would have been good to have the phrase fissile material mentioned in such a statement. He realized it was a consensus document, but did every statement contained in the document apply to every member of the Group of 21?
HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said in view of the pertinent observation by the Japanese ambassador, they associated themselves with the statements made by Pakistan, Egypt and South Africa. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was an important matter for Algeria and they had fully presented their opinions on this topic, and given that it was a consensus document there might be some statements absent from the statement.
SYNDOOPH PAEBI ENDONI, (Nigeria), said the issue of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was dear to the Group of 21 and he assured the ambassador of Japan that such a treaty was part of their concerns. He referred them to paragraph 8 of the text as an example of their goal of the elimination of all nuclear weapons, including issues relating to fissile material.
CEZARY LUSINSKI, (Poland) delivered a message as coordinator of the Western European Group. He said they used their meetings for frank and open discussion without the goal of producing joint statements and he was glad to see them engaged in substantive debate.
ERIC DANON, (France), said that when a group speaks by consensus the resulting document or the outcome inevitably boiled down to the least expressive elements. For example, the statement of the Group of 21 did not explicitly refer to a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, but it was contained in the document nevertheless via other references.
ALI RAO, (India), said that they should focus on issues that united them and helped them to move the disarmament agenda forward.
Concluding Remarks
SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in closing remarks, said that he wanted to offer a few observations since the Presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was coming to a close. He had conducted bilateral consultations with nearly all delegations in an open, inclusive and transparent manner, even in the inter-sessional period. The focus of his consultations and discussions with the delegations had been on how to revitalize the Conference and what kind of useful work they should do in the absence of a consensus programme of work. He also made no exception to holding informal meetings with the Informal Group of Observer States to exchange views on common concern regarding enlargement of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament. During the course of consultations and discussions, he perceived the gaps between delegations as being wide enough that they could not be bridged at this time, due to a divergence of views on substantive issues. He also perceived that there were a lot of misunderstandings between delegations and between groups on each other’s positions with regard to a possible programme of work.
Their efforts notwithstanding, they had yielded no concrete results. This was due to a lack of political will on the part of Member States rather than inherent inefficiency of the Conference. He believed that the Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, was capable of producing multilateral agreements should the Member States fully demonstrate the political will and had a mandate to do so.
He was grateful to Colombia for its proposal to create a working group within the Conference on Disarmament, the main thrust of which was to consider possible actions to strengthen the work of the Conference. Regarding the idea of doing work outside the Conference on Disarmament, they must look at the real effects and consequences of this development. Would it help to achieve the objective of revitalizing the work of the Conference? How could it be more effective? They must rely on a Member driven approach, listen to the opinions of delegations, respect and uphold the Rules of Procedure and give equal weight to the legitimate security concerns of all countries. He believed there was no alternative to the Conference on Disarmament at this stage, and he sincerely believed that multilateral diplomacy was the best vehicle to advance the work of the Conference on Disarmament, which could play a fundamental role in security. Therefore, they should work together in a positive atmosphere to strengthen its work and role as the sole multilateral negotiating body in the field of disarmament.
In conclusion, Mr. So thanked all the delegations for their support and cooperation as well as their contributions. He also thanked the Director-General, the secretariat of the Conference and the interpreters and he welcomed the incoming Conference President, Rodolfo Reyes Rodrigues of Cuba.
WANG QUN, (China), expressed his delegation’s appreciation for the work of Mr. So as president and hoped that all parties would continue to work toward the objective of beginning negotiations. They also welcomed the incoming president from Cuba.
YUSNIER ROMERO PUENTES, (Cuba), conveyed the sincere apologies of his ambassador, who was unable to take part in today’s meeting because he had to attend to business in the capital. However, he conveyed his thanks and congratulations for the work Mr. So had done and he said this work would continue under Cuba’s presidency.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC11/040E