CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS PLENARY MEETING

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it discussed the way forward on the work of the Conference.

During the discussion, one speaker said that the Conference was not a money-consuming discussion forum, but supposedly the sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament treaties. The dysfunction of this body was now seriously affecting not just the Conference on Disarmament’s credibility, but the entire process of multilateral nuclear disarmament, a situation which many of them could not stand anymore. The delegate raised three questions for the Conference: were they willing to work together to make progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons? If so, could they achieve this goal in a short time and by an almighty treaty? If not, then should they immediately start negotiations on a possible step forward and at the same time conduct substantive discussions on other important, but more difficult issues, without excluding future negotiations? If yes, then why could they not agree to immediately start substantive work on the basis of document CD/1864?

Another speaker said that they continued to support the early commencement of negotiations, within the Conference on Disarmament, on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This convention would prohibit the possession, development, production, stockpiling transfer and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate destruction. They believed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed further that non-nuclear weapons States should be effectively assured by nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Other issues that were raised included the establishment of a working group for the revitalization of the Conference, enlarging the membership of the Conference on Disarmament and the increased involvement of civil society organizations in the work of the Conference.

Speaking this morning were Japan, Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21, the Russian Federation on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Slovakia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be on Thursday, 18 August 2011.

Statements

SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the meeting by bidding a belated farewell to the ambassador of South Africa.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that this month marked the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Japan, these days were observed by remembering the tragedies that befell these two cities and renewing their determination to build a world free of nuclear weapons. Sixty-six years was a long time and over the years, the atomic bomb survivors and their friends and supporters had been doing everything possible to communicate to the world the devastating effects of the atomic bombings. However, they were aging and an increasing number of them were passing away. These days should not just be for remembrance, but also for taking stock and assessing what progress had been made in their endeavours to reach the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. However, aside from the US-Russia New START Treaty and some unilateral moves, they had seen very little concrete progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in the past two years. Who was responsible for such inactivity which had betrayed the high expectations of the international community, including those gathered at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorations? Mr. Suda said that all the members of the Conference on Disarmament had to share a significant part of that responsibility. They all knew what they should do in order to assume their responsibility to multilateral disarmament when they adopted, by consensus, CD/1864 in May 2009. But immediately they became lost in a forest of mischievous arguments over the strict consensus rule, the overriding interests of an individual State, the lack of political will, and other issues.

This august chamber was not a money-consuming discussion forum, but the supposed sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament treaties. The dysfunction of this body was now seriously affecting not just the Conference on Disarmament’s credibility, but the entire process of multilateral nuclear disarmament, a situation which many of them could not stand anymore. Mr. Suda had three simple questions for the Conference: were they willing to work together to make progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons? If so, could they achieve this goal in a short time and by an almighty treaty? If not, then should they immediately start negotiations on a possible step forward and at the same time conduct substantive discussions on other important, but more difficult issues, without excluding future negotiations? If yes, then why could they not agree immediately to start substantive work on the basis of document CD/1864?

If the Conference on Disarmament could not give a simple answer to these simple questions before the end of this session, Japan believed, as did so many others, that they should seek other ways to start substantive work on nuclear disarmament, including negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), on behalf of the Group of 21, said that while the group reaffirmed the importance of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, it expressed disappointment that the Conference had not been able to undertake substantive work on its agenda. The Group therefore reiterated its call to adopt and implement a balanced and comprehensive programme of work on the basis of its agenda and dealing with core issues in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and by taking into consideration the security concerns of all States. The Group also called on all members of the Conference on Disarmament to demonstrate flexibility to enable the body to resume its work. The Group continued to support the early commencement of negotiations, within the Conference on Disarmament, on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This convention would prohibit the possession, development, production, stockpiling transfer and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate destruction. The Group believed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed further that non-nuclear weapons States should be effectively assured by nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the Group reaffirmed the need for the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to the non-nuclear weapons States as a matter of high priority. It expressed concern that despite a long standing request by non-nuclear weapons States to receive such legally binding assurances, no tangible progress had been achieved in this regard. The Group further stressed the significance and positive security implications of the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances.

Mr. Akram went on to say that the Group of 21 believed in the importance of examining the possibility of the expansion of Conference on Disarmament membership, supported strengthening interaction with civil society and creating a suitable political environment for promoting the work of the disarmament machinery, while taking into consideration the security interests of all States rather than changing the Rules of Procedure. The Group of 21 recognized that there were challenges to the effectiveness of the disarmament machinery, but at the same time it was important to recall the achievement arrived at by the international community through the United Nations disarmament machinery. In this regard, the Group, while expressing its deep concern over the persistent lack of consensus on the multilateral disarmament agenda and machinery, reaffirmed its support for an early convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament. Finally, the Group believed that any possible follow-up should be inclusive, Member State driven and should strengthen the role and work of the Conference on Disarmament as mandated by the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament and efforts aimed at achieving nuclear disarmament. The Group remained committed to advancing the work of the Conference and it would deliver another statement on the issue of nuclear disarmament at the next plenary meeting.

VICTOR VASILIEV, (Russian Federation), on behalf of the Eastern European Group, said that the Group attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament and supported efforts to revitalize the Conference. In this vein, they supported Colombia’s proposal to establish a working group to consider revitalization of the work of the Conference.

FEDOR ROSOCHA, (Slovakia), said that Slovakia supported the immediate commencement of the negotiation on a treaty which would address the issue of a fissile material ban. Indeed, they considered such a treaty an indispensible step towards achieving their final goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. However, in building their future global security environment, they needed to look beyond individual steps and focus on the final goal. Slovakia believed that they could achieve this goal through a framework of mutually reinforcing and guaranteed instruments. They needed an open mind and approach, which would underline and stress the ultimate goal. The Conference on Disarmament had the responsibility of conducting multilateral disarmament negotiations. Slovakia stood ready to work with all delegations as well as civil society with a view to bringing the Conference on Disarmament deadlock to an end and taking multilateral disarmament negotiations forward.

RI JANG GON, (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), said that they associated themselves fully with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21. They believed now was the time to renew the necessary political will of Member States to accomplish the ultimate goals of this body. They had the primary responsibility of negotiating and concluding multilateral treaties banning all threats from nuclear weapons and the work of the Conference on Disarmament was a key to negotiating these multilateral treaties for collective security. Their ultimate goal would only be achieved with the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Their delegation favoured starting substantive work as early as possible and they were ready to work with all members in this regard.

KASSYM-JOMART TOKAYEV, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, informed the Conference on Disarmament of the decision of the Secretary-General to enforce limits of 10,700 words for reports not originating in the secretariat. This was due to increasing financial constraints and the strain on translation services. Mr. Tokayev asked Member States to please comply with these word limits.

Concluding Remarks

SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that next plenary session would be held on Thursday, 18 August 2011.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/039E