CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS PLENARY MEETING
The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it discussed the way forward and the annual report to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly.
During the discussion, a speaker reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending this achievement, there was an urgent need for an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The next most logical step was the negotiation of a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Three “expert side events” this year had helped lift the quality of discussion in the Conference on issues relating to such a treaty.
Speakers furthermore said that the exploration and use of outer space and other celestial bodies should be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. All countries bore a responsibility to refrain from activities that could jeopardize the goal of maintaining outer space free from weapons of mass destruction or other forms of weaponization.
Regarding the annual report, it was considered to be important that the document mentioned the reflection exercise on the strengthening of the Conference and its future. A speaker noted that the report did not contain any substantive value added compared to last year’s report, which revealed that the Conference had been unable to fulfil its mandate as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body. Realism imposed limitations, but it might be possible to agree on a wording that was inclusive and would give a political signal of what was happening in the Conference.
Speaking this morning were the United States on behalf of the Permanent Members of the Security Council, India, South Africa, Australia also on behalf of Japan, Canada, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria on behalf of the Group of 21, Algeria, Tunisia, Mongolia, Iran, Republic of Korea, Chile, Argentina, Mexico and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The next meeting of the Conference will be this afternoon at 3 p.m., when it will examine, paragraph by paragraph, the draft report on its 2011 session as contained in document CD/WP.567. The date of the next public meeting of the Conference will be announced.
Statements
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), the President of the Conference on Disarmament, bid farewell to Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao of India, expressing gratitude for his numerous and extremely important contributions to the work and activities of the Conference. He also welcomed Abdul Samad Minty, the new Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
LAURA KENNEDY (United States), speaking on behalf of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (P-5), said that the P-5, following up on their commitment made during the Paris Conference in July, had met in Geneva on 30 August to take stock of developments regarding the Conference on Disarmament. They had discussed how to achieve their shared goals of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes at the earliest possible date in the Conference, expressing their determination to this end. In that context, they looked forward to meeting again with other relevant parties during the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee.
HAMID ALI RAO (India) said that as he prepared to leave Geneva, he wished to share some points of personal reflection. This house had been built over time with patience and foresight. It embodied the idea that disarmament work was important enough to merit a standing, negotiating forum. What were being forged here were treaties – treaties that could stand the test of time, that could be universally accepted. The downside of such lofty ambition was frustration. Frustration that universally acceptable treaties took a long time to forge, frustration that one’s own priorities were not shared by others, and frustration that political will to negotiate seemed to flounder for long periods of time. He too must admit a degree of frustration. The Conference was nowhere close to beginning negotiations on global nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework. To put off nuclear disarmament indefinitely, or seek to park it in bits and pieces in different forums, was not tenable, not for long.
Mr. Rao admitted a degree of personal disappointment – if not frustration – that the Conference had frittered the opportunity offered by the adoption of a programme of work in May 2009 to begin substantive work. Instead, it had poured considerable time and energy into discussions on procedural and institutional reform. The Conference had been called all kinds of names. An innocent bystander had been set upon and berated for an imaginary crime. It was his hope that the Conference would be able to let the wall of this room reflect truly the reality of the collective interest. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with this forum or its rules. As a body that brought together all the militarily significant States to negotiations as equal members, it continued to be relevant today and into the future. If they talked it down, they did so at their own peril. It was their responsibility to make this forum work. It was their responsibility to help decision-makers back home appreciate the significance of collective interest.
ABDUL SAMAD MINTY (South Africa) said that South Africa recognized the efforts of this year’s six presidents of the Conference to end the stalemate that had for too long prevented this body from fulfilling its mandate as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Given these considerable efforts, it was regrettable that the Conference had failed once again this year to commence negotiations on any of the items on its agenda. South Africa, for its part, was a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament, and an ardent supporter of a nuclear weapon-free world. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were inextricably linked, which required continuous and irreversible progress on both fronts. While progress was being made in strengthening non-proliferation measures, similar progress had not yet been realized in the area of nuclear disarmament, despite positive momentum in bilateral arms reduction measures. The threat posed by chemical and biological weapons had long been recognized, but a world free from nuclear weapons remained an unfulfilled promise and an elusive goal. It was clear that the only absolute guarantee against the use of such weapons was their complete elimination and the assurance that they would never be produced again.
The question confronting the Conference was whether it was able to regain its position as a responsive multilateral institution that could contribute to building a new consensus on matters affecting common security. The delegation of South Africa stood ready to contribute towards exploring options to unlock the potential of this institution. The continued impasse was not sustainable and would increasingly affect the relevance and stature of the Conference as a multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. To restore the substantial confidence deficit, it remained the hope of South Africa that compromises could be found that would allow the Conference to resume substantive work. This would require a willingness to move beyond absolutist positions and past approaches that had prevented progress. If its members failed, this institution, which some already believed to be on life support, may not be revived.
PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Japan, said that Australia and Japan had hosted three “experts side events” during the first and second parts of the 2011 session of the Conference to discuss aspects of the proposed treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Ambassador of Japan and he considered that the side events had achieved modest but useful results. Indeed, they had helped lift the quality of discussion in the Conference on issues relating to the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The result had been more substantive interventions during the 2011 session during both formal and informal plenary discussions on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
The side events had shown that the delegations could build confidence and reciprocate trust when they made that choice. A great many delegations had been willing to participate in the side events, to listen and learn, and to share information with open minds and a spirit of collegiality. The side events had helped renew focus on key substantive differences regarding a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty with regards to definitions, verifications mechanisms, scope and institutional issues. In this way, the side events had provided a renewed understanding of the challenges in negotiating the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, as well as an impetus for further elaboration and clarification of national positions by individual Governments. At the same time, some delegations had offered glimpses of how certain differences in national positions could begin to narrow when negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty began.
KELLY ANDERSON (Canada) said that Canada had resumed its participation in the Conference on 22 August after announcing on 11 July that it would boycott the body during the presidency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Canada felt strongly that - in violation of its obligations - the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could not preside over the world’s sole multilateral disarmament body. As that presidency was now over, Canada was resuming its participation. It maintained that the next most logical step was the negotiation of a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
ALICIA ARANGO (Colombia) said that Colombia considered it to be important that the annual report mentioned the reflection exercise, which the Conference had pursued at this session on the strengthening of the Conference and its future. This was a significant reference regarding the Conference and possible actions to be taken in the future. Paragraph 8 should therefore be modified in order to mention this exercise. The report should further mention the 4 August meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, where it had discussed the General Assembly meeting held from 27 and 29 July, as well as other relevant meetings with disarmament-related bodies.
TAMARA KUNANAYAKAM (Sri Lanka) said that as she was beginning her tenure in Geneva she reiterated that Sri Lanka remained fully committed to the work of the Conference, whose role remained both relevant and valid. It was imperative that the Conference members demonstrated the much-needed political will to support the work of this body. Sri Lanka was of the view that a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument was urgently needed to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons. In this context, Sri Lanka reiterated that negotiations must be started on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specific framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Sri Lanka had taken a keen interest in using space-based technologies for peaceful purposes. It was much easier to prevent an arms race from taking place than controlling it or rolling it back once it had begun. In this context, Egypt and Sri Lanka had alternatively been submitting a resolution on the prevention of the arms race in outer space to the General Assembly. Sri Lanka believed that the Russia-China draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, if implemented, would contribute to both preventing the emergence of weapons in space and predict the strategic situation. The delegation of Sri Lanka looked forward to working closely with the President in the adoption of the 2011 report on the Conference and towards the achievement of common objectives.
SYNDOPH P. ENDONI (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on the subject of negative security assurances, said that the Group of 21 reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pending this achievement, the Group of 21 reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The right of non-nuclear-weapon States not to be attacked or threatened by the nuclear weapons States with the use of nuclear weapons must be recognized. The Group of 21 remained deeply concerned at strategic defence doctrines which not only set out rationales for the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, but also maintained unjustifiable concepts on international security.
The Group of 21 welcomed the zones established by the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok, Pelindaba and Simipalatinsk, as well as Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free zones, and reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Such zones were positive steps towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, but the Group of 21 was neither of the view that the declarations made by the nuclear-weapon States were sufficient nor that security assurances should only be granted in the context of nuclear-weapon-free zones. In addition, given their geographical limitation, security assurances guaranteed to States members of nuclear-weapon-free zones could not substitute for universal and legally binding security assurances.
SYNDOPH P. ENDONI (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, said that the exploration and use of outer space and other celestial bodies should be for peaceful purposes and carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. The growing use of outer space increased the need for transparency, confidence-building measures and better information on the part of the international community. All countries bore a responsibility to refrain from activities that could jeopardize the goal of maintaining outer space free from weapons of mass destruction or other forms of weaponization to make sure that its benefits were available to all.
The Group of 21 reaffirmed that the Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiation forum, had the primary role in conducting substantive negotiations on priority questions of disarmament. It was time that the Conference started negotiations on matters related to the “prevention of an arms race in outer space”. In addition, in its resolution 65/44, the General Assembly observed that the Conference on Disarmament had the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement, or agreements, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects. It also noted that the Conference should establish a working group under its agenda item entitled “prevention of an arms race in outer space” as early as possible during its 2011 session.
IDRISS JAZZAIRY (Algeria) said that he shared the point of view expressed by those who were in favour of expanding the membership of the Conference and to strengthen the role of civil society organizations. Despite intensive debates on the agenda, work programme and working methods, the Conference had been unable to achieve consensus on the work programme. It had rather gone back to its habitual paralysis which, unfortunately, did not seem to be remediable in the short term. This ran the risk of undermining the survival of the Conference. It must be admitted that the deadlock was caused by a lack of political will rather than purely procedural matters. However, any instruments that could be reached if they tried to negotiate on the four main items outside of the Conference would not meet the expected goals as the outcome would lack legal authority. Like-minded groups would also face the same weaknesses, in addition to eroding the multilateral framework. A continued deadlock undermined the credibility of the Conference. Joint efforts were needed to preserve the Conference as the only multilateral disarmament negotiation body, but for this to be achieved Member States must face the challenge collectively. They must find real and collective security and move forward with real disarmament and not only non-proliferation. The main priority was to eliminate nuclear weapons.
MONCEF BAATI (Tunisia) said that the Conference was in a rather delicate phase. As the world was going through extraordinary changes, this body was seemingly dropping its essential vocation. This underlined the need to get to work with pragmatism and to move to greater success. The diagnosis had already been described by many Member States; there was both a political and a structural problem, making it very difficult to achieve agreement on even minimal issues. Tunisia welcomed the appeals to move the Conference on to a frank discussion on its future and a method of achieving agreement. The status quo had never been inevitable and Member States must do everything to ensure that the Conference could move forward into a phase of negotiations. Tunisia believed that the international community was called upon to redouble its efforts to ensure a more stable world without weapons of mass destruction. The Conference on Disarmament must play the role entrusted to it by its founding fathers.
LUVSANTSEREN ORGIL (Mongolia) said that Mongolia had long supported the view that assuring non-nuclear-weapon-states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons strengthened the nuclear non-proliferation regime. As efforts were being made towards a world without nuclear weapons, negative security assurances could serve as an important, though ultimately interim, measure in promoting non-proliferation and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in today’s world. However, the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of such weapons. The Mongolian delegation therefore urged continued action by nuclear-weapon States to honour the unequivocal undertaking they had made regarding the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status, declared almost 20 years ago, not only enhanced its international security, it also contributed to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and regional and international security. As such, it promoted what nuclear-weapon-free-zones sought to promote. However, Mongolia believed that it was important to further consolidate and strengthen this status by defining it internationally. To this end, Mongolia was currently consulting with the States concerned and thereby made its own practical contribution to disarmament and non-proliferation. In this respect, Mongolia expressed its appreciation to the delegations of Russia and the United States for their readiness to continue to work with Mongolia in strengthening the status. On another note, Mongolia wished to see the Conference on Disarmament take up the substantive work on negative security assurances as indicated in decision CD/1864.
MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI (Iran) said that Iran was of the view that the report to the General Assembly should be factual, procedural and only reflect the activities and work within the Conference on Disarmament.
KWON HAERYONG (Republic of Korea) said that it was a pity that another year had passed during which the Conference had failed to adopt a programme of work. There had been some revitalization efforts, but these had not moved the Conference forward. It might therefore be useful to establish a group of eminent persons tasked with finding solutions to the current impasse.
PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said that the draft report did not contain any substantive value added compared to last year’s report, revealing that the Conference had been unable to fulfil its mandate as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body. This would probably lead to the submission of a report which was merely factual, but the factual side should not be interpreted as a way of escaping what had actually happened. Chile understood that realism imposed limitations, but it might be possible to agree on a wording that was inclusive, supported by everyone and would give a political signal of what was happening in the Conference. Chile was flexible about moving paragraphs 8 and 9 of the draft report, but it did feel that they should refer to the topics and concerns focused on in this session.
MARIELA FOGANTE (Argentina) said that the draft report should mention the debates had been held in other bodies and between these bodies and the Conference on Disarmament. The draft report should further mention the official meetings the Conference had held in July during which it had diagnosed its current situation and the means to tackle the current state.
MARIA ANTONIETA JAQUEZ HUACUJA (Mexico) said that Mexico agreed with the statements delivered by Colombia, Chile and Argentina which suggested that the report reflect the debate of the Conference on Disarmament on its own revitalization.
RI JANG GON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that his delegation was compelled to respond to the provocative and confrontational remarks made by Canada. Canada’s action was not simply ill-minded regarding one country, but vis-à-vis the entire Conference, and it was for that reason that nobody had joined Canada. The work of the Conference had proceeded very well during the presidency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. However, hearing the remarks of Canada today, he had doubts whether the members could move the work of the Conference forward. Many were waiting at the door of this Conference and Canada might well be exchanged with another country - the Conference would be very comfortable without Canada.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC11/043E