CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION, WORKING METHODS AND EXPANSION OF MEMBERSHIP

The Conference on Disarmament today discussed draft proposals on civil society participation and establishment of a working group to review methods of work, and how to proceed on the issue of the Expansion of Membership of the Conference on Disarmament.

In his opening statement, the President of the Conference, Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico), said that the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons had been opened in Nayarit, Mexico on this day one year earlier. It had coincided with the anniversary of the Tlatelolco Treaty, which had established the first populated region free of nuclear weapons.

In the ensuing discussion on the participation of civil society in the Conference on Disarmament, delegations said that civil society had played a very significant role in raising awareness on the issues of nuclear disarmament and that their participation would add value and enrich the work of the Conference. While many expressed their support for the proposals, others suggested that that issue needed to be part of the broader discussion on working methods. The upcoming informal civil society Forum on 19 March could provide the basis on which the methods of participation of civil society would be elaborated.

The President said that the record should reflect that at least one delegation opposed the adoption of the draft proposal CD/WP.585/Rev.1 on the participation of civil society in the Conference on Disarmament.

Indonesia, United States, South Africa, Chile, United Kingdom, Germany, Colombia, France, Brazil, India, the Netherlands, Russia, Italy, New Zealand, Morocco, China, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, Tunisia, and Algeria took floor in the discussion on civil society participation.

The Conference also continued the discussion on the establishment of a working group to review the methods of work of the Conference on Disarmament, in which a speaker stressed that any decision on the establishment of a mechanism to review the working methods should be based on an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the current deadlock in the Conference, including the absence of the political will. Another delegate said that working methods of the Conference should not be set in stone and should not stand in the path of meeting its working objectives. Several delegations suggested changes to the proposed text.

The President stated that the record should reflect that at least one delegation had objected to the adoption of the document CD/WP.586/Rev.1 as orally amended by the President.

Representatives of India, United States, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom and Russia participated in the discussion on the establishment of a working group to review the methods of work.

Concerning the expansion of membership, the President recalled the proposal to appoint a Special Coordinator on the Expansion of the Membership of the Conference on Disarmament to conduct an assessment of the current situation and make recommendations on the way forward. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to find a suitable candidate and the President expressed hope that the effort would be continued during the following Presidency.

Representatives of Portugal, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Turkey and Spain took part in the discussion.

At the end of the meeting today, several delegations took the floor to explain their positions on the issues raised during the first Presidency, thank the President for his valiant efforts to jump-start the work of the Conference and make comments and suggestions on the way forward.

Speaking were Pakistan, United States, Japan, Russia, Chile, Brazil, Algeria, the Netherlands, Cuba, and Switzerland. New representative of Kenya to the Conference on Disarmament took the floor to deliver his introductory statement.

The meeting today concluded Mexico’s Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, and Mr. Lomonaco said, in his concluding statement, that he had been committed to a change in the culture that prevailed at the Conference, which was one of the main factors that enabled the impasse in this body. The four weeks were too short for any presidency to achieve anything meaningful and the presidency was inherently and perhaps purposely weak. Some argued that the paralysis could not be solved through addressing the methods of work but only through the political will; those responsible for lack of political will were only a handful of members. What should the Conference do while waiting for the world’s security environment to change and for political will to appear spontaneously?

The Conference will next meet at 10 a.m. on 17 February, under the Presidency of Mongolia.

Opening remarks

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons had been opened in Nayarit, Mexico on this day one year ago. It had coincided with the anniversary of the Tlatelolco Treaty, which had established the first populated region free of nuclear weapons.

Argentina took the floor as Coordinator in Geneva for the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) and said that nuclear arsenals represented an immediate and most direct threat to all; as long as they existed, people lived under the risk that any explosion, accidental or intentional, would cause irreversible and catastrophic humanitarian and ecological consequences of global proportions. The Treaty of Tlatelolco, signed 48 years earlier, had been a legal instrument without precedent which had served as a model for other regions and which had established the Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Treaty had also established OPANAL and its Member States had maintained the goal of nuclear disarmament as a pending task.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that today the Conference would discuss civil society participation in the Conference on Disarmament, the President’s proposal to establish a working group to review its methods of work and the issue of the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament.

Discussion on the civil society participation

Indonesia commended the President for his competent leadership and the effort in presenting the well-crafted programme of work which unfortunately had not reached the consensus. Indonesia agreed that civil society had played a very significant role in raising awareness on the issues of nuclear disarmament and said that their participation would add value to the Conference. Indonesia was ready to support the draft proposal.

United States said that the issue of civil society participation should be taken up by the working group on the working methods, and needed to be part of the broader working methods discussion.

South Africa commended the President for his efforts in coming up with the proposal on civil society participation which enjoyed the support of South Africa.

Chile expressed support for the participation of civil society because that would enrich public policies on disarmament. The participation should not be limited to disarmament civil society organizations, and should be inclusive.

United Kingdom commended the President and his team and welcomed the inclusion of civil society in the work of the Conference. The draft proposal was not likely to enrich the work of the Conference and the United Kingdom was not ready to support it at this time.

Germany expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Presidency to bring new life to the Conference and asked for more time to consider the draft proposal on civil society participation.

Colombia acknowledged the work conducted by the President to put the Conference back on the path of progress and found the draft proposal fully appropriate. The participation of civil society should be even more in-depth, suggested Colombia, and said it would support the text.

France thanked the President for the efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the work of the Conference and suggested that the issue of participation of civil society be dealt within the context of the working group on working methods.

Brazil was ready to support the proposal by the President and recognized his efforts towards finding common language.

India continued to share the view that greater clarity was needed on a number of issues concerning the participation of civil society and welcomed further discussions.

The Netherlands was in favour of civil society participation in certain meetings of the Conference and expressed support for the meeting on 19 March. The Netherlands expressed the support for the proposal by the United States to consider this issue within the framework of working methods.

Russia said that civil society participation was an issue of great importance for the Conference and supported, as a pilot project, the joint informal event of 19 March between the Conference and the non-governmental organizations. There was a variety of views on the proposed document, and Russia said that there was a need for a working document on the issue in order to reach common understanding.

Italy reiterated the importance of the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference and said that the text proposed by the President was a very good basis to reach consensus. The participation of the civil society and the discussion on working methods were interlinked, said Italy.

New Zealand recognized the value of the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference and expressed its support for the proposal.

Morocco praised the leadership and commitment of the President in trying to break the deadlock in which the Conference was. Morocco attached great importance to the participation of civil society and expressed the support for the proposal, and added that the question of participation should be considered by the working group on working methods.

China attached great importance to the role of non-governmental organizations and believed that the participation of civil society was closely related to the methodology of the Conference. The final decision should be taken by the working group, and after the event on 19 March.

Ireland said that Ireland would happily have supported the draft proposal and, listening to the comments by the delegations today, looked forward to the inclusion of this issue in the draft of working methods.

Republic of Korea recognized the potential of the contribution of civil society organizations to the work of the Conference.

Austria believed that the Conference needed reinvigoration and said that all would benefit from a stronger input from the civil society. The work in the Conference should be opened to the civil society. Words should be translated into action.

Russia asked how many documents had been received by the Secretariat indicating the demand of the civil society for the participation in the work of the Conference.

Switzerland said that it could have supported a more ambitious text than the one presented today and said that defining the parameters of the participation of the civil society did not require the revision of Rules of Procedure.

Argentina expressed support for the draft proposal on the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference and said that civil society must be given a broad participation on this very important issue. The modality of participation was not an issue that could be pushed aside and ought also to be pursued in other fora.

Australia agreed that the participation of civil society was an issue that could not be pushed aside and said that that this conversation had to continue.

Tunisia expressed the appreciation for the efforts of the President to give an impetus to the work of the Conference and also expressed full support for the proposal. There was a need to make a decision on this issue and avoid further delay in the work of the Conference.

Algeria said that the approach proposed by the President did not seem to enjoy the support by the delegations and, and added that the issue of the participation of civil society should be kept on the agenda of the Conference.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, thanked the delegations for their input and participation. Many views and ideas had been heard. The record should reflect that at least one delegation opposed the adoption of the draft proposal CD/WP.585/Rev.1, said the President, adding that he hoped that the positions expressed today were not just a delaying tactics.

In response to the question concerning the Rule 42, the representative of the Secretariat said that one request had been received in 2013 and two in 2014.

Discussion on the establishment of a working group to review the methods of work of the Conference on Disarmament

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the document CD/WP.586/Rev.1 contained some oral amendments, and opened the floor for discussion.

India suggested several amendments to the draft text.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that some of the proposals made by India completely changed the nature of the text.

United States also proposed several edits to the draft text.

Algeria thanked the President for the proposed text and said that any decision on the establishment of a Working Group or mechanism to review the working methods should be based on an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the current deadlock in the Conference, including the absence of the political will. The current impasse in the Conference was political and due to the differences in views in international circumstances, challenges and priorities. Stating that the methods of work were a factor in a deadlock disguised the reality and could lead to discussions that would not produce any solutions to the root causes. Algeria then suggested changes to the draft text.

Canada had long advocated the revision of working methods of the Conference, which should not be set in stone and should not stand in the path of the work of the Conference. If the tool was not serving its intended purpose, it needed to be revised to best meet working objective.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that many delegations insisted on the need to focus on the revision of the methods of work and said that the debate on this proposal would not be extended endlessly. The proposed changes offered today would be considered, but not if they intended to destroy the essence of the text. The President then proposed oral amendments to the draft text.

United Kingdom supported the principle of the creation of an informal working group on methods of work and asked the President to defer the decision on the draft text.

Russia agreed that the priorities of the Conference should be the adoption of the programme of work and finding the solutions that were acceptable to all. Several delegations had made concrete proposals that had been rejected without any discussion, and it was not clear why the Presidency was not giving those proposals due consideration.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he had heard comments and proposals, but had not heard an objection.

United Kingdom said that the United Kingdom could not support the proposal.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the record should reflect that at least one delegation had objected to the adoption of the document CD/WP.586/Rev.1 as orally amended by the President.

Discussion on the appointment of a special coordinators on the issue of the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, recalled a strong call from the Membership and non-Members to conduct a review of the membership of the Conference on the basis of Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure, which said that the membership of the Conference would be reviewed at regular intervals. It was proposed to appoint a Special Coordinator on the Expansion of the Membership of the Conference on Disarmament to conduct an assessment of the current situation and make recommendations on the way forward. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to find a suitable candidate and the President expressed hope that this effort would continue during the next Presidency.

Portugal thanked the President for his role in launching this process and said that unfortunately it had not been feasible to achieve a tangible result until today, but this should not mean the end of efforts in this matter.

Indonesia said that it was time to make the work of the Conference more inclusive, not only by inclusion of civil society but by revision of its membership. The appointment of a special coordination on the issue of the expansion would signal the openness of the Conference and revival of its work, and enjoyed Indonesian support.

The Netherlands said that this work was long overdue and expressed its support.

Turkey did not share the President’s Interpretation of the Rule 2 and could be argued that the review that article 2 called for had taken place on Tuesday.

Spain believed that expansion would certainly have a knock-on effect on the improvement of the work of the Conference.

Other Statements

Pakistan expressed appreciation for the valiant efforts of the President to jump-start the work of the Conference and his draft programme of work. Pakistan could accept all elements of this programme of work and start the negotiation, with the exception of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) with the Shannon mandate. It was well known that several other delegations were not ready to accept the draft programme of work. The discussion today also exposed the divergence that existed in the Conference, including on the procedural issues. Pakistan called on all delegations to explain their positions for not accepting the start of negotiations. FMCT was not ripe for negotiations, said Pakistan, and added that the States which supported this negotiation continued with their discriminatory policies which contributed to regional instabilities. Pakistan would continue to oppose negotiations that would only encompass new production of fissile materials and leave aside the issue of the existing fissile materials and stock. This issue, and the security of states, had to be addressed in order to reach an agreement on the FMCT. Pakistan stressed that the issue which was most ripe for negotiations was that of negative security assurances.

Kenya said that the engagement and participation of Kenya in the Conference was to ultimately see a world free of nuclear weapons through the cessation of the production of all types of nuclear weapons and the reduction of their stockpiles. The inability of the Conference to undertake any substantive work and therefore not reach any agreement posed a great threat to non-nuclear countries like Kenya. It was not the rules of procedure or the methods of work, but political will as well as competing nationals interests that were at the core of the stagnation.

United States said that the President would have been more successful in his mandate if he had engaged in more frequent consultations with the membership. The “take it or leave it” approach did not work well in this forum.

Japan was dedicated to the work of the Conference and made some suggestions on the way forward, including the continuation of the work on the issue of methods of work. The open-ended and inclusive working group on the programme of work, as suggested, might present a way forward. The schedule of activities should be established for 2015 as well, and it could contribute to maintaining of momentum in the Conference.

Russia agreed that the work of the President should be consistent and follow up on the work of predecessor. There was also a need to be closer to the people, especially if new initiatives were introduced without enough consultations. Russia hoped that the next presidency would draw valuable lessons from this experience.

Chile thanked the President for all his efforts and suggested that the General Assembly look into the failure of the Conference on Disarmament. Concerning the comment on consultations, Chile stressed that in the absence of political will, it was hard to have successful consultations.

Brazil rejected some of the comments expressed today particularly on consultations and said that consultations indeed did take place. It was not the function of this body to give lessons the Presidency on how to proceed.

Algeria said that unfortunately the initiatives by the President had not been given enough time and the Conference was not ready to view them positively. The proposal constituted a good basis for future consultations on the programme of work, but new ways of discussing various agenda items would have to be found it the Conference would be unable to adopt programme of work.

The Netherlands expressed the appreciation for the ambition of the President and hoped that others would maintain it. The President had given a good boost to the proposals on the table and considered that the discussions on the proposal on civil society should continue.

Cuba acknowledged the very active role of the President and asked whether the documents on the table would be kept and would be considered by the delegations.

JORGE LOMONACO (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the programme of work was an official document of the Conference and at disposal of future Presidents. The other two proposals were working papers, in public domain and at disposal of the Conference.

Switzerland thanked the President and his team for the commitment and the elements for discussion placed before the delegates. Switzerland thanked the President for his way of working, and for a series of plenary meetings that had taken place and the intense consultations of public nature.

Concluding Statement

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in his concluding statement thanked the delegations for their comments and constructive criticism and said that he had been committed to a change in the culture that prevailed at the Conference on Disarmament, which was one of the main factors that enabled the impasse in this body. The four weeks were too short for any presidency to achieve anything meaningful and the presidency was inherently and perhaps purposely weak. Some argued that the paralysis could not be solved through addressing the methods of work but only through the political will; those responsible for lack of political will were only a handful of members. What should the Conference do while waiting for the world’s security environment to change and for political will to appear spontaneously? Many argued that the only way to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons was through a step by step approach and that the Conference was the sole disarmament negotiating forum; considering that the Conference had been paralyzed for 18 years, could we conclude that the step by step approach also stopped working almost two decades ago?


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/009E