CONFERENCE DISCUSSES PROPOSAL BY THE UNITED KINGDOM TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP AND AN ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME OF WORK
The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed a proposal by the United Kingdom to establish a working group and an associated programme of work to identify, elaborate and make recommendations on effective measures for disarmament.
The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Steffen Kongstad of Norway, said that the deadlock in the Conference could be attributed to many causes, ranging from the large troubled global security environment to the small rules of procedure of the Conference. Efforts made so far in 2016, including the proposal put forward by Nigeria and one just tabled by the United Kingdom, indicated that efforts were still being made to find a way around the impasse. Good will and the rebuilding of trust would be needed. This was not something that the President alone could bring about. During the coming week, Norway intended to undertake various consultations based on the two draft proposals for a programme of work before it, those by Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom said the proposal would establish a working group and an associated programme of work to identify, elaborate and make recommendations on effective measures for disarmament.
Speaking on the proposal by the United Kingdom and on other issues, including the work of the open-ended working group created by the General Assembly to substantively address concrete effective legal measures, legal provisions and norms that would need to be concluded to attain and maintain a world without nuclear weapons, were India, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Cuba, Italy, Egypt, Mexico, Poland, Ecuador, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Bulgaria, Finland, Russian Federation and Brazil.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 11 a.m. on Monday, 29 February to start the three-day High-Level Segment of the Conference during which 17 dignitaries will take the floor.
Statements
Ambassador STEFFEN KONGSTAD of Norway, incoming President of the Conference, said that the deadlock in the Conference could be attributed to many causes, ranging from the large troubled global security environment to the small rules of procedure of the Conference. Efforts made so far in 2016, including the proposal put forward by Nigeria and one just tabled by the United Kingdom, indicated that efforts were still being made to find a way around the impasse. Good will and the rebuilding of trust would be needed. This was not something that the President alone could bring about. The Norwegian Presidency stood ready to foster any efforts in the kind of confidence building that would be needed to underpin serious negotiations on core issues. In Norway’s consultations, it would be seeking negotiating flexibility and recognition of alternative points of view. The future of the Conference depended on whether the proposals were seen by all as offering viable and sustainable means of getting negotiations underway. This would be clearly measured by the progress they made in resuming the Conference’s mission on the basis of an agreed programme of work. Any success depended on the collective will of the Conference. During the coming week, Norway intended to undertake various consultations based on the proposals on the table. All colleagues had received a copy of the letter from the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament transmitting a draft decision for the Conference to establish a formal working group and an associated programme of work for the duration of the 2016 session. This meant that the Conference currently had two draft proposals for a programme of work before it, those by Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom said that the proposal that the United Kingdom had submitted and that was circulated in English by the Secretariat yesterday had the potential to bring back a shared sense of purpose to this Conference. The United Kingdom had consulted a majority of States and not one had indicated that they could not accept the proposal. It was not the intention with this proposal to re-write the Conference’s agenda or to assert that any agenda item was subsidiary to another. The proposal would establish a working group and an associated programme of work to identify, elaborate and make recommendations on effective measures for disarmament. The United Kingdom proposed to hold as many sessions as possible of the working group in plenary, and the group would negotiate a report containing recommendations that would need to be agreed by all members of the Conference. In practice, the United Kingdom proposed dividing the time available to the working group into three phases devoted to identification, elaboration, and agreement of recommendations. They would not further sub-divide the resulting programme of work by agenda items or specific topics.
The United Kingdom said that the initial phrase would be an opportunity to map proposals from participating States according to the categories identified in the mandate: legal provisions or other arrangements for the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons and legal provisions or other arrangements for the maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. The structure of the second phase would be dependent on how the first phase proceeded. The third phase would be a negotiation of the report and recommendations based on a Chair’s draft. States that were not members of the Conference were encouraged to participate in the work of the working group, and the United Kingdom was proposing that they schedule in at least one day in each of the three phases for civil society to sit in the chamber, address the working group and engage in interactive debate.
India said that during the plenary on 26 January, India had set out its expectations for the programme of work and requested the President to take into account relevant General Assembly resolutions which merited attention and follow-up by the Conference. The Conference should seek to preserve the gains of past decisions while making progress on agenda items to achieve consensus on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work that would allow the commencement of substantive work. In case a programme of work was not possible, the Conference could consider points contained in paragraph six of CD20/23, the report of the informal working group of last year, taking forward structured informal discussion on agenda items. India had taken careful note of the proposal just made by the United Kingdom and would give it serious consideration. India welcomed the President’s intention to conduct consultations on various proposals on the table. India would be happy to take part in the consultations.
India was not participating in the open-ended working group established pursuant to General Assembly resolution70/33, which commenced its work in Geneva on 22 February. Explaining India’s reasons for not attending the meetings of the open-ended working group, India said it abstained on resolution 70/73 with an explanation of vote. Nuclear disarmament continued to be on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament. India supported the commencement of negotiations in the Conference on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention and a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. The open-ended working group did not include all representative groups of States, in particular States whose interests were particularly affected. Those participating were all non-nuclear weapon States, parties to a particular treaty, some protected by nuclear weapons, and many which were not. The substantive limitations of the open-ended working group’s process were self-evident. India believed that the open-ended working group, established outside the Conference on Disarmament with an unclear mandate and with the General Assembly rules of procedure, may not lead to an inclusive process or produce outcomes that would advance prospects for global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.
Australia said it wanted to make a brief remark on the proposal submitted by the United Kingdom. Australia was participating in the open-ended working group and saw that process as a useful opportunity for States to explore and develop agreement on a way forward to progress nuclear disarmament. Australia had always maintained that that process would be much more effective with the involvement on nuclear weapon States and also States possessing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, their participation was not occurring in the open-ended working group. Australia saw this alternative proposal from the United Kingdom as a useful means for all to continue the engagement process on a range of issues relating to progressing nuclear disarmament. Australia supported this proposal and encouraged all delegations to give it serious consideration.
Japan said it was committed to moving the work of the Conference on Disarmament forward to promote practical and effective measures on nuclear disarmament. Japan welcomed the proposal of the United Kingdom and also previous efforts trying to revitalize the activities of the Conference. Japan was examining carefully the United Kingdom’s proposal and was curious about views of other Member States, but basically, Japan was considering this draft proposal in a positive manner.
Sweden said the United Kingdom’s proposal was very interesting and Sweden could support it. Nuclear disarmament was very important for the Government of Sweden and there were many issues to be discussed on the nuclear disarmament agenda. Sweden supported that nuclear disarmament be discussed in as many complementary fora as possible, including the open-ended working group, which was an inclusive forum open to all countries, including all nuclear weapon States. The open-ended working group had a very broad mandate. Sweden hoped that countries currently not participating in the working group would re-consider their participation.
Cuba said it had listened closely to the delegation of the United Kingdom and had received through the secretariat the proposals by the United Kingdom and Nigeria and it would study them carefully. At the moment, they needed to have transparency and inclusivity. Everyone had been talking about the open-ended working group, but when it came to the Conference, it was equally important to take into account the criteria of all members of the Conference. I
Italy said that as Italy had said at the opening of the Conference’s session, for Italy, the Conference remained the cornerstone of multilateral disarmament machinery. Preserving its mandate and overcoming its current deadlock remained paramount. Italy appreciated any efforts to find common grounds on how to overcome the current situation. Italy welcomed the proposal by the United Kingdom, with its innovative approach by providing a more flexible structure in which every Conference Member could present their ideas. Italy shared the emphasis put by the United Kingdom on nuclear disarmament. Italy was ready to engage actively on all agenda items of the Conference, but the commencement of negotiations on an FMT remained its primary focus as the next logical step in the path towards nuclear disarmament.
Egypt thanked the United Kingdom for submitting the proposal, which was under consideration by the capital. Initially speaking, Egypt perceived no major difference in the mandate of the open-ended working group, which started its substantive work yesterday, and the kind of mandate provided by the United Kingdom’s proposal. Egypt was encouraged by the plethora of proposals submitted by Member States of the Conference and believed that the work of the open-ended working group could positively contribute to the work of the Conference.
Mexico said that as regards the draft proposals submitted to the Conference, Mexico had already set out its position on the draft submitted by Nigeria. Mexico thanked the United Kingdom for the new proposal and it was closely looking at it. During the President’s consultations, Mexico would come forward with proposed amendments.
Poland said that it perceived the United Kingdom’s proposal as very promising and hoped all could use this opportunity to make real progress.
Ecuador said that the existence of nuclear weapons was a serious threat, and it was vital to take legal and effective measures to ensure that the world was free of nuclear weapons. Until this was achieved, the international community must urgently adopt, in parallel fashion, inter alia, to negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in a verifiable fashion; to effectively stop nuclear testing of any kind; to cancel all plans to modernize or perfect nuclear weapons; to ensure universalization of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and strict compliance with it; and to create new nuclear weapon free zones, among others. The proposal by the United Kingdom was, a priori, a creative proposal and Ecuador would carefully look at it.
Netherlands was grateful for the proposal presented by the United Kingdom and would see how it would further develop. The Netherlands would support it in principle and welcomed the preparedness of the United Kingdom to chair this working group. A lot of remarks had been made today on the open-ended working group that opened its work yesterday and the Conference. There was a very clear distinction in the Conference, which had negotiated fundamental treaties; it remained the cornerstone of disarmament machinery. However, there had been too little progress in the Conference and maybe the open-ended working group would help. The Netherlands had abstained on resolution 70/33, which established this open-ended working group, because of unresolved differences on the mandate and the rules of procedure. The open-ended working group would have profited from the participation of States possessing nuclear weapons. Although the Netherlands abstained in the vote on the resolution, it still considered it important to participate actively in the open-ended working group.
Belgium said the revitalization of the Conference on Disarmament was a priority for Belgium and it actively supported all efforts to overcome the present stalemate. The Conference should start its work immediately on the basis of a substantive and balanced programme of work, ideally with a commencement of negotiations on an FMCT. Belgium was however ready to consider favourable other proposals on the table. Belgium fully welcomed the proposal by the United Kingdom, which was concrete and realistic. Belgium did not view this proposal as being in competition with the open-ended working group, and it did not preclude Belgium’s participation in the open-ended working group. Belgium was ready to support the proposal of the United Kingdom.
Spain said that the Conference had heard very constructive proposals this session, and now there was another proposal by the United Kingdom, which was functional and was suited to what the Conference had to do, which was negotiate. The proposal by the United Kingdom was a good alternative, trying to single out and identify and propose recommendations realistically, as regards what could be achieved. What was being done in the open-ended working group was also going to work constructively and they hoped it would achieve through consensus a nuclear free world. Spain was participating in the work of the open-ended working group and hoped there would be consensus-based conclusions in that working group. In the Conference on Disarmament, they had the presence of nuclear weapon States which meant they had a richer and more effective debate because of that.
Bulgaria, in preliminary remarks on the proposal by the United Kingdom for a programme of work, said that Bulgaria had always sought to play a constructive role in the Conference and was ready to support every reasonable initiative aimed at overcoming the longstanding deadlock in the Conference. Bulgaria saw significant merit in the proposal by the United Kingdom and hoped it would have the capacity to command consensus among Member States and would provide a good basis for the Conference to resume substantial work.
Finland said that it supported the proposal put forward by the United Kingdom, but stressed that Finland had already been prepared to support the earlier proposals by the United States and Nigeria. Finland was extremely willing to support any effort put forward that would allow the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiations.
Russian Federation said Moscow was very seriously examining the Nigerian proposal. The United Kingdom’s proposal would be sent to Moscow, also to be examined in the most serious manner. Russia would be constructive in its cooperation with all interested delegations.
Brazil said the open-ended working group started its work yesterday and with that had established a new dynamic in the framework of trying to negotiate nuclear disarmament. It started its work very well, providing the Conference with important input in the sense that they had seen a number of new initiatives in the Conference trying to break the paralysis that had marked this body for so long. Brazil had recognized the initiatives by the United States and Nigeria. The introduction of the United Kingdom’s proposal also presented a contribution to move the Conference forward; it was also welcome and would be considered positively. The proposal lacked a clear mandate on the negotiating aspect, and that was important. Perhaps the consultations would consider that aspect. Brazil regretted that not all Member of the Conference were participating in the open-ended working group.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC16/007E