CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM THE CHAIRMAN-DESIGNATE OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a meeting in which it heard from Karel von Oosterom, Chairman-designate of the First Committee, as well as the representatives of Cuba, Russian Federation, China, United States, Finland, United Kingdom, India, Syria and Egypt.

Karel von Oosterom, Chairman-designate of the First Committee, explained that his task as the Chair would be to navigate the work of the First Committee in a neutral, inclusive and transparent manner. He underlined that there was a direct link between the work of the Conference on Disarmament and the First Committee, and it was important to reinforce the existing connections and develop new connections between the two.

Cuba stressed that there could be no higher priority for the Conference than to secure the total prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

Russian Federation presented their written response by the Russian Federation and China to the comments made by the United States on the draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects, which had been submitted to the Conference in 2014.

China said that the scope of the draft treaty, in China’s view, was preventative and aimed at the use of weapons in space and not the weapons themselves. The draft did not ban directly anti-satellite, land or sea based weapons.

The United States was particularly concerned about advanced testing of anti-satellite weapons by certain States. It would study the submitted comments in detail.

Finland believed that the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should be negotiated and adopted as the first priority, as most delegations agreed.

The United Kingdom was not opposed to the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons, but believed that every arrangement should be based on the agreement of all States in the region.

India shared the disappointment that the Conference had once again been prevented from commencing negotiations, but appreciated the work on the four core agenda items.

Syrian Arab Republic said that the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East would not go by the same mechanisms guiding other zones.

Egypt said that blocking the documents of the non-proliferation treaty outcome had not been only linked to the Middle East nuclear free zone but was blocking the entire process of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Conference will hold the next public meeting on Thursday, 17 September at 10 a.m., when the annual report should be adopted before the third and last part of the 2015 session is closed.

Statements

DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand), President of the Conference, thanked the four coordinators under the Schedule of Activities, who had presented their reports during an informal session the previous day. All Members should have by now received the amendments to the draft report of the Conference. Amendments to the draft report would be discussed in the informal session later in the day.

KAREL VON OOSTEROM, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations in New York and Chairman-designate of the First Committee of the General Assembly, said that the Netherlands was a firm supporter of multilateral diplomacy. His task as the Chair would be to navigate the work of the First Committee in a neutral, inclusive and transparent manner. There was a direct link between the work of the Conference on Disarmament and the First Committee, and it was important to reinforce the existing and develop new connections between the two.

The Conference on Disarmament was an important part of the disarmament machinery. Mr. von Oosterom stressed that any draft resolutions to be discussed in the First Committee should be submitted before the deadline on 20 October. Ways of enhancing procedural communication would be looked into. There seemed to be a lot of support for the proposed working methods, especially the strict time management. He would do his utmost to safeguard the interests of all speakers, but also of the First Committee as a whole, so that the work would be completed by 6 November at the latest. Mr. von Oosterom counted on all participants to make the work of the First Committee as constructive as possible. He expressed hope that with good collaboration and strong personal connections the October session of the First Committee would be successful.

Cuba stated that it was unacceptable that 70 years after the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the international community continued to be threatened by the existence of nuclear weapons. Their total elimination and prohibition was a matter of survival of humanity and the highest priority in the field of disarmament. The defence doctrines based on the so-called “nuclear deterrence” were unacceptable. The paralysis in the Conference was due to the lack of political will of some States to make real progress, particularly on nuclear disarmament. Cuba would continue to advocate for the adoption of concrete actions to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons at the multilateral level. Until the total elimination of nuclear weapons had been achieved, it was urgent to agree on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to offer assurances to non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Cuba reminded that in January 2014, at a summit in Havana, the entire Latin America and the Caribbean region had been proclaimed as a zone of peace.

Cuba reaffirmed the importance of multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations on disarmament. Cuba thus called the Conference to adopt a comprehensive and balanced programme of work which would take into account the real priorities on nuclear disarmament and overcame the status quo of inaction that benefited only a few. The Conference on Disarmament was ready to negotiate multiple issues simultaneously.

Russian Federation referred to the text of the draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects, which had been submitted to the Conference by the Russian Federation and China in 2014. Today, the Russian Federation and China were submitting their written comments to the comments made by the United States; the submitted feedback should be regarded as an official document. Answers to many, if not all, questions posed by Parties, could be found in the document. All Parties were asked to study it in the intersessional period and take an active party in the discussions on the treaty in 2016.

China had always stressed the significance of the security of the Outer Space, which had highlighted the necessity of early negotiations. To that end, China and the Russian Federation had submitted a draft which should represent a substantive basis for discussions. In 2014, the United States had made its specific comments on the draft. The feedback could help improve the draft and propel further discussions. The scope of the treaty, in China’s view, was preventative and aimed at actions rather than weapons themselves. The draft did not ban directly anti-satellite weapons based on the land or the sea. Inspections were not a necessary condition for the effectiveness of the treaty; a specific protocol on inspections could be reached subsequently. China believed that putting forward the comments at this time would give Parties sufficient time to study it before the Conference reconvened in 2016. It was a solid foundation for the Conference to conduct negotiations on the issue.

United States looked forward with great interest to studying the comments submitted by China and the Russian Federation. The United States was particularly concerned about advanced testing of anti-satellite weapons by certain States, which presented a threat to satellites and various services they provided, the consequences of which could last for decades. There was indeed no integral verification regime, but the United States could not support negotiations on verifications only through additional, subsequent protocols. The United States would respond in more detail subsequently.

Finland placed great importance on disarmament and arms control treaties. Finland had invested quite heavily in the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons, and was disappointed by the lack of the outcome at the non-proliferation conference. Nonetheless, the Non-Proliferation Treaty remained one of the key tenets of the international security and would be subject of discussions at the First Committee. Many goals still remained to be fulfilled. Finland believed that the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should be negotiated and adopted as the first priority, as most delegations agreed. The Arms Trade Treaty, which had entered into force in 2014, was a great achievement for the international community. The agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme was, naturally, fully backed by Finland, and it was now important to support the International Atomic Energy Agency in helping secure its implementation.

United Kingdom said that it could not have joined the consensus in May on the Middle East as the zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom was not opposed to the establishment of such a zone, but it stood by the principles of 2010 that every arrangement should be based on the free-willed agreement of all States in the region. When that was the case, the United Kingdom would join the consensus.

India shared the disappointment that the Conference had once again been prevented from commencing negotiations. However, the work on the four core agenda items had been a notable development this year. India appreciated the work of the four coordinators for their diligent work and reports prepared in their personal capacity, which were without prejudice to national positions. India regretted that the Conference could not take forward proposals on the comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. On the centenary of the First World War, it was worth thinking that as many as 74,000 Indian soldiers had never returned home. On that subject, the Indian delegation had donated a number of books to the Library of the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Cuba reminded that the attempt to achieve the Middle East as a zone free of weapons of mass destruction had been part of the initial package in 1995. The international community was frustrated that the nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East was taking too long to establish. The inability of the Conference to achieve its mandate, and negotiate nuclear disarmament, was due to the lack of the political will of certain countries to reach an agreement.

Syrian Arab Republic said that the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East would not go by the same mechanisms guiding other zones. The difference was twofold: creation of such a zone would include other, and not only nuclear, weapons; and the zone was not covered by the principles of the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Russian Federation, as a depository State, had respected its duties and made constructive proposals, which had made it easier to overcome difficulties encountered by the representatives of Finland.

United States stated that few countries had worked as hard as the United States to bring about the conference on the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons. All countries should have felt part of the process and not be singled out. The United States would continue to try to build a consensus-based process, but imposing decisions on countries in the region would not bring about a solution.

Egypt said that blocking the documents of the non-proliferation treaty outcome had not been only linked to the Middle East nuclear free zone but was blocking the entire process of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. By blocking the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, other documents in the conference had also been blocked.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/044E