CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM 13 STATES DURING PLENARY MEETING
The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements by 13 States offering suggestions on how to end the impasse facing the Conference.
Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador, the President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the Conference needed to have a transparent discussion in order to make headway and achieve fruitful work.
During the discussion speakers spoke of their frustration with the 15-year deadlock of the Conference on Disarmament and noted that the United Nations Secretary-General had given the Conference breathing space of one year in which to begin making actual progress and justify its existence. States produced several proposals for ways in which the Conference could successfully work. Those suggestions included the establishment of open-ended working groups, based in Geneva, on all issues currently blocked for as long as the Conference remained in deadlock, or given its inability to agree on a programme of work, consider moving the Conference forward without one. Many speakers noted that the inclusion of experts from academia and civil society in the work of the Conference would be of great benefit.
One speaker suggested that while the impasse continued, the Conference could at least address other important topics not listed in the draft programme of work, such as the threat posed by transfers of conventional arms to terrorists, by negotiating a meaningful ban on such transfers. Another speaker supported the proposal of a Working Group with a discussion mandate to consider effective assurances for non-nuclear weapon States against the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons. Several States disagreed with the President’s Working Paper proposal CD/1229 that appeared to say that the issue of fissile material be set aside, and said that the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was too important to achieving nuclear disarmament to be dismissed.
The Conference agreed to the request of the following additional States to participate in its 2012 session as observers: Kuwait, Montenegro and Sudan.
Addressing the Conference today were the Russia, Nepal, Austria, Israel, New Zealand, Algeria, Sweden, Australia, Slovakia, United States, Ethiopia, Portugal and Canada.
The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 February 2012.
Statements
The President of the Conference, Ambassador LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA of Ecuador, invited the Conference to adopt a decision on three additional requests for participation in the work of the Conference as observers: Kuwait, Montenegro and Sudan. The Conference adopted the decision and invited those States to participate in its work. The President said the Conference needed to have a transparent discussion in order to make headway and achieve fruitful work.
Russia noted that there had been little progress in the field of multi-lateral disarmament, but one precious instance of success was the Russia-United States treaty on reducing nuclear arms (the START Treaty). Russia was committed to the goal of ridding mankind of nuclear threat, but had some concerns, one of which was outlined by President Medvedev in his statement of 21 November 2011 on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries’ missile defence system in Europe. Other concerns were the increasing imbalance in conventional arms in Europe, plans to develop strategic offensive arms in non-nuclear configuration, risks of proliferation, and Russia’s absolute priority at the Conference, preventing the placement of weapons in space. Russia supported the beginning of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the framework of a balanced programme of work and on the basis of the Shannon mandate. It believed that it was counterproductive to launch any discussions on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty parallel to the Conference, unless they comprised all countries possessing military nuclear arsenals. Russia supported the establishment of a Working Group with a discussion mandate to consider effective assurances for non-nuclear weapon States against the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Russia would welcome a broader involvement of civil society in the work of the Conference.
Nepal said that disarmament was urgent from moral as well as economic perspectives. At a time when hunger and poverty levels were at an all time high and lack of resources threatened failure to meet the Millennium Development Goals for over half of humanity, the world lived with the irony of the highest ever military spending across the globe. Nepal firmly believed that arms were not the solution to any problem, and stood for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Nepal aligned itself with Croatia’s statement on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States calling for expansion of Conference membership. Given the interconnected nature of global security, Nepal believed that a more representative membership would help build international support and advance the disarmament agenda. Finally, Nepal said that as host country to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament for Asia and the Pacific and given the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region, it requested more support for the Centre and the ‘Kathmandu Process’.
Austria said for over a decade the few success stories in multilateral disarmament had happened only outside the Conference on Disarmament. In recent years Austria had launched a number of initiatives, but despite serious efforts by Austria and other States, the 2011 session of the Conference on Disarmament came and went without moving any closer to substantive work. Austria’s proposal was a simple one: if the Conference failed to agree on a programme of work, it proposed open-ended working groups, based in Geneva, on all issues currently blocked for as long as the Conference remained in deadlock. Some delegations perceived that proposal as challenging the disarmament machinery by proposing to deal with disarmament issues within the General Assembly, but the Conference needed to confront the fact that after 15 years of failure to deliver its mandate it was now a defunct forum. Finally, Austria was convinced of the enormous benefit a closer exchange with academia and civil society could bring and appealed to the Conference to open ears and doors and engage in inclusive discussions with all interested stakeholders.
Israel referred to Israel’s 2007 proposal that the Conference on Disarmament take up the issue of the threat posed by transfers of conventional arms to terrorists, by negotiating a meaningful ban on such transfers. While no agreement was to be found on the four core issues the Conference addressed, it would be advisable to turn attention to additional issues which had a substantial impact on States’ and regions’ stability and security. The idea was not to cast aside the four core issues but rather to address other important topics while the impasse persisted, and allow the Conference to engage in real and substantive work on other relevant topics. To use an old cliché, it would be a shame to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’. The Conference and the security challenges facing the world today were too important to casually cast away as unimportant or irrelevant.
New Zealand said they understood the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, in his message to the Conference last week, to be putting the Conference on notice. The Conference had been given the breathing space of one year in which to begin making actual progress. New Zealand believed that the core Conference issues, including a fissile material treaty and nuclear disarmament, were being held hostage to each other and needed to be de-linked in order to move forward. It was unrealistic to urge the overwhelming majority of Member States to the Conference to abandon the priority attached to negotiating a treaty on fissile material. But equally members should concede that, given the consensus requirement, those negotiations were unrealistic. While it remained the strong desire of New Zealand to negotiate within the Conference, there were limits to the amount of time and resources a small delegation such as New Zealand’s could commit at a time when the political climate would not allow progress. If the Conference was indeed going to be able to justify its existence to the General Assembly, the time in which to do so was short.
Algeria said that his colleagues from New Zealand had already expressed the concerns on the deadlock in a very eloquent way, but Algeria continued to believe that an agreement based on common sense was vital for the Conference to move forward. Given its inability to agree on a programme of work, perhaps the Conference should consider moving forward without one. To quote a Swahili proverb: ‘Since we have no control over the wind we have to know how to use it’. Even without a programme of work substantive discussions could be held on all items on the agenda, including fissile materials. Alternatively, the Conference could return to the simplified version of the programme of work which was used in the 1980s, which would not preclude setting up subsidiary organs or holding negotiations. Otherwise it must be considered that the entire United Nations Disarmament mechanisms be put on hold.
Sweden said the question of a test ban treaty was one of the oldest issues in the realm of nuclear arms control, but the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty had yet to take legal effect, despite being negotiated in 1996. The entry into force of the treaty would greatly benefit international and regional security. Sweden, together with Mexico, had taken on a special role in promoting the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and urged all States who had not yet done so to sign and ratify the treaty without delay. In that context Sweden warmly commended Ghana, Guinea, Guatemala and Indonesia on their decisions to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The issue of fissile material was the foremost to Sweden, who believed that there was a need for a legal cap on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes as well as to deal appropriately with previously produced stocks.
Australia said that the Conference’s chronic lack of ability endangered the world, and quoted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who said that the Conference on Disarmament “risked being washed away by history”. Meeting for 24 weeks per year without achieving any result served neither the institution nor its constituents. From Australia’s perspective a proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty had the potential to deliver substantial benefits; furthering the twin goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as tightening controls on production of fissile material. Those genuinely interested in a treaty on fissile material should carefully reflect whether the Shannon agreement needed to be overturned. If it was concluded that the Conference on Disarmament needed to free itself of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in order to free itself, the bottom line was that nobody could question the necessity of controlling fissile material in order to achieve disarmament. In 2012, Australia did not intend to be passive – it was open to creative solutions and intended to contribute towards them.
Slovakia said that Slovakia disagreed with those who wanted to use the consensus rule to create procedural hurdles to the work of the Conference, and said that the Conference could not overlook aspirations to open disarmament negotiations in other fora. The history of the negotiations in the Conference showed that the body had a potential to deliver. The body must be resuscitated, and its potential revived. Slovakia continued to support the immediate commencement of the negotiation on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and indeed considered such a treaty as an indispensible and logical step towards achieving the final goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.
United States said the tremendous progress achieved between the United States and Russia in reducing their nuclear arsenals in a step by step process required further measures to continue. The reduction of weapons naturally reduced the production of fissile materials, which meant that negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was a logical next step. The United States was concerned about proposals to shorten the Conference sessions or even to put it on standby, and said that such measures would be difficult to reverse as once resources were redeployed they were often impossible to regain. To set aside a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would be tantamount to the Conference declaring its failure as a negotiating body, and the United States was not prepared to admit defeat.
Ethiopia said that as a member of the G-21, Ethiopia believed that the Conference on Disarmament remained relevant and that negotiation on a complete and general elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, including the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, should be given priority in the programme of work. In the coming plenary sessions Ethiopia suggested that the main focus be honest and frank discussions on ideas that could add value to the negotiations on breaking the impasse in the Conference. Transparent engagement on real issues could better enlighten the General Assembly on possible political guidance to support the Conference. As Ethiopia prepared itself to preside over the Conference, it would like to work closely with delegations to come up with an agreed programme of work so the Conference could maintain its mandate.
Portugal congratulated the President on his assumption to the important position of President of the Conference on Disarmament and said that the delegation of Portugal stood ready to support him and contribute to joint efforts to overcome the current impasse in coming weeks.
Canada said Canada believed that the chronic lack of productivity endangered the Conference, and like Australia, Canada, the United States and others was concerned that the Working Paper appeared to say that the issue of fissile material be set aside. Commitments to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should not easily be set aside, and a ban on production of fissile material was a key step in disarmament.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC12/003E