CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF WORK
The Conference on Disarmament met this morning to discuss a draft programme of work, as proposed by Nigeria, the President of the Conference.
Peters Emuze, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the previous week he had shared a draft proposal of a programme of work for the 2016 session. Over the previous several weeks, he had held extensive consultations with delegates, all with the view of finding a roadmap towards breaking the logjam.
The new Ambassador of Iraq stated that a way had to be found to ensure that nuclear weapons States provided negative security assurances to non-nuclear States. Iraq also supported establishment of nuclear-weapon free zones around the world.
In the discussion on the proposed programme of work, South Africa said that it stood ready to join consensus in the hope that the work of subsidiary bodies would lead to the commencement of negotiations on legally binding effective measures. Ethiopia noted that the Conference members were asked to demonstrate good will and cooperative spirit so that the process could move forward. China believed that the draft proposal of the programme work contained too general and ambiguous wording and could hence be counter-productive. Iran’s first reaction to the proposed programme of work was positive as the four core issues were given attention in a balanced manner. India commented that the President’s draft definitely moved in the right direction, but it required further work. References had to be made in the preamble to the agenda, rules of procedure and “legally binding instruments”.
Switzerland said that it would join the consensus if one were to emerge, but would still prefer to see a more ambitious proposal. Russian Federation would need time to study the draft proposal in further detail and would be ready to meet the President for informal consultations. Pakistan said that the draft proposal built upon on the activities on the schedule of activities over the previous two years; it had been submitted to the capital for detailed considerations. Mexico believed that the draft document was a schedule of activities rather than a programme of work and had the potential to damage the Conference for 2016 and in many years down the road as it did not mention the Conference’s negotiating mandate.
The Conference on Disarmament will next meet in public on Friday, 19 February at 10 a.m, to continue discussions on the proposed programme of work.
General Statements
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the previous week he had shared a draft proposal of a programme of work for the 2016 session. Over the previous several weeks, he had held extensive consultations with delegates, all with the view of finding a roadmap towards breaking the logjam. During the process, various ideas had been received on how the process could move forward. The issue was on how to continue when there was no unanimity, with different groups considering different issues as matters of priority. If everyone projected their national interests over global interests, there would be no progress, stressed Mr. Emuze and noted that the process of treaty making was onerous.
Mr. Emuze welcomed the newly accredited Ambassador of Iraq.
Iraq stated that it attached great importance to the role of the Conference and reiterated its attachment to the values of multilateralism. Iraq sought to be an element of stability in the regional and international environment. It attached great value to the general disarmament, because arms race could only lead to instability, and practical and common solutions ought to be found through negotiations in the sole multilateral forum on disarmament, to which Iraq was ready to contribute. The Conference was at a critical turning point in a difficult era, considering the number of regional crises and various rising threats. For about two decades, the Conference had been unable to reach an agreement on the programme of work, which had to change in 2016, in accordance with the rules of procedure. During its previous presidency of the Conference in 2013, Iraq had attempted to return the Conference to a productive track in sync with its mandate.
The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons ran counter to the international laws of armed conflict. States had to abide in good faith to negotiations on disarmament under strict international monitoring. The destructive nature of nuclear weapons made their total elimination a must which would ensure the continuous existence of humanity. Nonetheless, Iraq underscored the right of States, especially developing States, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A way had to be found to ensure that nuclear weapons States provided negative security assurances to non-nuclear States. Iraq also supported establishment of nuclear-weapon free zones around the world. Production of fissile materials was in contradiction to nuclear disarmament, which was why Iraq supported prohibition of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices. The outer space should only be used for peaceful purposes, stressed Iraq.
Programme of Work
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, explained that the proposed draft programme of work aimed to be balanced, and included just core issues from the Conference’s agenda. Negotiations on the programme of work in the four working groups should last ten days.
South Africa stated that the Conference could not waste another year without reaching consensus on the programme of work. South Africa had always been supportive of all efforts that endeavors to get the Conference back to work and pave the way towards negotiations, as long as they did not undermine its principle policy priority of nuclear disarmament. The primary responsibility of each session was to adopt a programme of work, with a view of commencing substantive work. While South Africa regretted that the operative draft text of the programme of work did not include the word “negotiate”, it stood ready to join consensus in the hope that the work of subsidiary bodies would lead to the commencement of negotiations on legally binding effective measures, particularly on nuclear disarmament.
Ethiopia believed that nuclear weapons posed the gravest danger to humanity and the best assurance was their complete elimination. It was dispiriting to see that no progress had been reached on the programme of work. Various efforts to move ahead in that regard had thus far produced no results. Conference members were asked to demonstrate good will and cooperative spirit so that the process could move forward. It was unfortunate that the Conference had been prevented from commencing its substantive work, and its credibility was clearly at risk. The Conference would thus need to return to negotiations.
China appreciated the efforts of the President to break the stalemate of the Conference. China believed that the negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty had to be based on the Shannon Report, or otherwise the Conference could become disoriented. The draft proposal of the programme work contained too general and ambiguous wording and could hence be counter-productive. It was necessary to conclude an international legal instrument on the prohibition of arms race in the outer space, which was why the working group ought to be given a negotiating mandate. The Conference should promote all items on its agenda in a balanced manner. Discussions on new types of weapons of mass destruction were also needed. China noted that more and more countries sought to participate in the work of the Conference as observers, for which a subsidiary body on the issue of expansion should be established.
Iran paid tribute to the best efforts of the President to see the adoption of the programme of work for 2016, which manifested good intentions on his part to give the Conference a needed momentum. Iran’s first reaction to the proposed programme of work was positive as the four core issues were given attention in a balanced manner. Iran believed the proposal was a pragmatic programme of work, which would allow the Conference to commence substantive work on any of the four core areas in 2016.
India noted the consultations conducted by the President of the Conference, and saw the proposal as taking the Conference forward in the right direction. The Conference’s core responsibility of negotiating legally binding instruments ought to be emphasized. The next best way forward would be the approach suggested by the informal working group chaired by Finland in 2015. A positive feature of the draft proposal under discussion was to focus on the four core agenda items. While all items on the agenda were important, some had greater feasibility than others. In line with the positions of Group 21 and the Non-Aligned Movement, India gave priority to nuclear disarmament. India always maintained that the Conference should commence negotiations on the prohibition of the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, which did not meet the consensus of the entire Conference. The President’s draft definitely moved in the right direction, but it required further work. References had to be made in the preamble to the agenda and the rules of procedure. The mention of “legally binding instruments” also ought to be included in the preamble. India would like that the idea of the rotation of coordinators of different working groups be further explored. India was still studying the full proposed text and reserved the right to revert later.
Switzerland noted that the previous year had seen a nuclear deal with Iran, further work in the area of autonomous nuclear weapons and an arms trade treaty. Recent developments on the Korean peninsula were a matter of grave concern, and Switzerland was convinced that the outcome to the nuclear issue there could only be found through a negotiated process and stood ready to contribute to that process. The Conference had to overcome the stalemate affecting it for over 20 years, otherwise if could become completely marginalized. In that regard, Switzerland appreciated efforts by the President to move the Conference forward. The draft covering four main topics on the Conference’s agenda, however, did not include a reference to the Conference’s negotiating mandate. If the programme of work were to be adopted, Switzerland would join the consensus, but it would still prefer to see a more ambitious proposal. The Conference should not be satisfied merely by repeating the exercises conducted over the previous years, which did not allow to move forward on substantive matters. The Conference should include a proposal of establishing an open-ended working group, moving forward multilateral negotiations on nuclear weapons. The issue of the broadening of the Conference emerged every year, and progress was also needed vis-à-vis the participation of the civil society.
Russian Federation said that no prior informal consultations on the draft had been held with it or the Eastern European Group. Russian Federation was happy to discuss the draft with the President. Mentioning of the mandate of discussions was reminiscent of the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation over the previous years. Russian Federation would need time to study the draft proposal in further detail.
Pakistan appreciated the President’s proactive approach to advance the agenda of the Conference. The draft proposal built upon on the activities on the schedule of activities over the previous two years. The proposal had been submitted to the capital for detailed considerations. It was hoped that any decision would be made with consensus, taking into consideration concerns of all members of the Conference.
Mexico stated that all were aware of the urgency to recommence negotiations. Moving forward and fulfilling the mandate of the Conference required compromises by everyone. There was no need to redefine its clear mandate. The Conference was a negotiating disarmament body, reminded Mexico. The draft proposal had the potential to damage the Conference for 2016 and in many years down the road. No mention of the negotiating mandate would undermine even more the credibility of the Conference as the negotiating forum. The real challenge was to restart negotiations on the items on the Conference’s agenda. The draft proposal was a schedule of activities rather than a programme of work. Mexico stressed that the only way in which the Conference would recover its reputation was by restarting negotiations.
PETERS EMUZE, Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria and President of the Conference on Disarmament, stated that he understood that there was no consensus on the proposed programme of work, as some delegations were still awaiting for instructions from their capitals. The President was available for further discussions with delegations and regional groups. The Conference would next meet in public on Friday, 19 February at 10 a.m.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC16/005E