EGYPT ASSUMES PRESIDENCY OF THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning, the first under the presidency of Egypt.
In his opening address, Ambassador Hisham Badr of Egypt, the President of the Conference, conveyed Egypt’s total commitment to the Conference and to the cause of creating a world free of nuclear weapons. Mr. Badr said that the Conference had to recognize that every member had to be willing to compromise. No one country or group of countries would achieve their objectives while ignoring the interests and priorities of others. He announced that he would conduct consultations with all regional groups on elements of a possible programme of work, with the idea of establishing working groups on all four core issues, and special coordinators on the other issues on the agenda.
During the morning’s discussion, speakers were in agreement that the most effective way to revitalize the Conference was through adoption of a programme of work. Speakers expressed agreement with the proposals presented by Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Secretary-General of the Conference, last week to establish working groups on the core topics, appoint three special coordinators and hold a high-level plenary session. Some speakers also expressed the view that the Conference should not be a victim of extraneous security issues but rather an instrument to address the common interests of the international community, and achieve a world free from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. One speaker suggested that informal negotiations could be helpful, while another argued that the consensus rule was a virtual veto right, and that consensus did not necessarily mean that everybody was happy with an outcome.
Conference Member States unanimously agreed to accept the Kyrgyz Republic’s request for Observer State status to participate in its 2012 session.
Speaking this morning were Argentina, Russia, Iraq, Germany, Serbia, Cuba, Mexico, Turkey, United States, South Africa, Chile, United Kingdom and Iran.
The next public meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on Thursday, 23rd February, at 3.30p.m. when it will be addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh.
Address by the President of the Conference
HISHAM BADR, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations in Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he was honoured to take over the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The Egyptian Foreign Minister had intended to address the Conference next week, but due to urgent matters, could not do so. Nevertheless he wished to convey Egypt’s total commitment to the Conference on Disarmament and to the cause of creating a world free of nuclear weapons. Egypt had always been in the forefront of disarmament efforts. Egypt had actively participated in negotiating different disarmament treaties, which reflected its national commitment to the multilateralism of disarmament negotiations, a commitment shared by the Non-Aligned Movement which Egypt currently chaired. Reaching a programme of work after 15 years of impasse may seem like a serious challenge. After all, some of the actors had been sitting in their comfort zone for far too long, not willing to move while criticizing the inability of the Conference to break the deadlock. Indeed, the people of Egypt had recently challenged the long-lasting status quo that seemed to be pre-destined. Certainly, if it was possible to change a political system that was entrenched for 30 years, Egypt was cautiously optimistic about reaching a compromise on a programme of work.
The current session of the Conference was truly a seminal one, and there was evidently growing unhappiness with the state of affairs. However, the Conference had worked in the past, and had potential to work in the present and the future. It was not the task of members to break the impasse, but their obligation, and while the President of the Conference was looked upon to set the direction, it was a collective responsibility to work together to achieve the work of the Conference. Egypt did not believe that setting aside substantive issues and concentrating on procedural adjustments would achieve its objective. That was not to say that procedural issues would not need to be dealt with in the future – and nationally Egypt had its own ideas about how and where that should be done. Rather procedural issues were not the priority, and would not help the Conference out of its current predicament. Reaching a programme of work remained the top priority of the Egyptian presidency.
The Conference had to recognize that every member had to be willing to compromise. No one country or group of countries would achieve their objectives while ignoring the interests and priorities of others. Many countries wanted to proceed with substantial work, others wanted negotiations to start, and some excluded negotiations on one issue. Those parameters did not constitute an impossible riddle – in fact, a compromise could be reached that achieved the objectives of all countries. Mr. Badr announced that he would conduct consultations with all regional groups on elements of a possible programme of work, with the idea of establishing working groups on all four core issues, and special coordinators on the other issues on the agenda. Those working groups may serve as venues in which international treaties may be hashed out, concepts and terms clarified, and haggling take place over what to include and what not.
Statements
Argentina said that the existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to international security. No other body could be compared to the Conference on Disarmament in terms of effectiveness of results. Concluding disarmament treaties was a goal for Argentina, but caution and responsibility in evaluation of alternatives was required. As a non-nuclear weapon State Argentina had made all efforts in disarmament, and the time had come for those who possessed such weapons to sit down at the table to achieve reduction and ultimately eradication of their nuclear weapons.
Russia said the international community was justifiably demanding that the Conference overcome its deadlock. Russia was in favour of keeping the Conference as a multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, and was convinced that was the majority view of members. Russia agreed with the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General of the Conference, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, in his speech of last week that members needed to step up efforts to make a political breakthrough. Russia also agreed with Mr. Tokayev’s idea of a high-level meeting on renewing the Conference and establishment of a ‘group of wise men’ to study innovative remedies to the situation. Russia did not object to Mr. Tokayev’s idea of appointing three special coordinators, and also expanding the number of participants in the Conference. It was in Russia’s interest to see rapid resumption of the Conference’s activities. Russia supported attempts to ensure a compromise on the programme of work, and had circulated its own proposal, which remained on the table. Russia’s priority was a treaty to prevent the placement of weapons in outer space.
Iraq thanked Mr. Tokayev, the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, for his efforts to bring the Conference out of its deadlock, and expressed support for his procedural proposals. Iraq could not forget that the Conference, in the last 13 years, had not reached any agreed conclusion. Nevertheless, the membership of the Conference could change the status quo. Members must be flexible and show the necessary political will to reach solutions.
Germany said that countless statements had been made on the deplorable fact that the Conference had not fulfilled what it was mandated to do for 15 years in a row. Clearly, patience was running out and the clock was ticking. The Conference could not give up on efforts to agree on the programme of work. It was important to remember that consensus did not necessarily mean that everybody was happy with an outcome. More often than not, consensus only meant that one could live with an outcome, and that the pain was shared by all in equal measure. Clearly some of the rules under which the Conference had to operate were anything but ideal for effective work. With his thoughtful words last week, the Secretary-General of the Conference, Mr. Tokayev, put his finger into the wound. The Secretary-General touched upon the question of enlargement: Germany fully supported the positive position the European Union took in that regard. Regarding the Secretary-General’s list of problematic procedural issues, Germany would add the consensus rule, as it had turned into a virtual veto right. Some members would chorus that the body had managed in the past to work successfully with a consensus rule, and what was allegedly really needed was ‘political will’. However, who could deny that without such a de facto veto right it would be impossible for one Member State to prevent 64 Member States from starting a negotiating process?
Serbia said an impartial look at disarmament machinery was needed for the Conference on Disarmament to stand up to the challenges of the twenty-first century. Instruments needed to be attuned to a changed political, ethical, military and economical environment. Serbia welcomed the most inspiring call of Secretary-General Mr. Tokayev to advance membership of the Conference on Disarmament, which ought to be inclusive. However it should not be divorced from efforts needed to advance to core issue; the programme of work. Serbia fully supported the President’s proposal to continue with working groups on core issues, and the Secretary-General’s proposal to appoint special coordinators to work on core issues.
Cuba congratulated the President on his assumption and extended its cooperation with the consultations he announced.
Mexico also congratulated the new President who was very well respected across Geneva, and said if there was one person who had demonstrated an enormous ability to ‘pull a rabbit out of a hat’, it was Mr. Badr – perhaps that was what the Conference needed at this time. Mexico always endorsed any effort that contained an element of imagination, was creative and attempted to look at things from a different angle.
Turkey said that Turkey wished to see immediate resumption of substantive work in the Conference with its present membership, and development of a programme of work. That would pave the way to commencement on negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and other agenda items. The Conference must not lose any more time at such a critical stage. Reaching the intended destination safely became all the more burdensome if one began to journey from the wrong starting point and continued on that path. Turkey believed that the problems facing the Conference were not created by its procedures or internal dynamics. There was a certain malaise throughout disarmament machinery both at international and regional issues, and the stalemate was a reflection of strategic bottlenecks at all levels.
United States noted that the task ahead was of course a collective responsibility, and not that of the President alone. His opening statement contained many key points, and the United States agreed that the Conference should focus its energies on its substantive work, and that it should not be the goal of any of the members to ‘score points’. The United States expressed its willingness to ‘move out of its comfort zone’. As Germany indicated, a compromise would entail pain for all. But in a more positive light, if the Conference reached a constructive and positive way forward then all would equally share in the satisfaction that such an outcome would bring, as indeed would the international community.
South Africa said as a fellow African country and a fellow member of the Non-Aligned Movement they agreed with the President that through cooperation the challenges facing the Conference could be overcome. South Africa agreed with many others that the most effective way to revitalize the body was through adoption of a programme of work. The Conference should not be a victim of extraneous security issues but rather an instrument to address the common interests of the international community, and achieve a world free from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The Conference must work continuously to achieve that goal by adopting legally binding instruments.
Chile said it was time to make a basic agreement – not an all-encompassing agreement – but to open the door to arrive at a political commitment. Chile expressed its thanks to the Secretary-General Mr. Tokayev for his words at the last meeting, and said it valued his line of political support for the Conference, something that was also expressed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York.
United Kingdom said that while working on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations in New York, the United Kingdom had been cheered to see that negotiations were possible. While in New York two new, informal rules of procedure were unveiled: the first being that delegates must gather around a coffee table in the café until they were so exhausted by public scrutiny they must agree; the second being that delegates must huddle in a room that was too hot and too small for them until they agreed for fear of fainting. Perhaps working in a more informal mode here in Geneva would also help delegates to reach agreement. It was time to negotiate. The world was watching, as it watched the Arms Trade Treaty being thrashed out in New York, and it was possible for the Conference to achieve results in the same way.
Iran congratulated the new President and also thanked the previous President, the Ambassador of Ecuador, for his brilliant and progressive ideas.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC12/006E