CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FIRST PLENARY MEETING UNDER SYRIAN PRESIDENCY

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held its first plenary meeting under the presidency of Syria.

Opening the plenary meeting, Hussam Edin Aala, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, noted that Syria was honoured to preside over the Conference and that during its presidency Syria would be guided by the rules of procedure of the Conference, professionalism and transparency. Syria truly believed in the importance of the Conference on Disarmament and the importance of preserving it as the only negotiating and multilateral forum in the field of disarmament. The Ambassador noted that he intended to engage in consultations with coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, and that he was ready to listen to their evaluation of the discussions.

Several delegations expressed opposition to Syria assuming the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, given what they said was its disregard for international obligations and its use of chemical weapons against its own people. The United States underlined that business as usual could not be allowed while Syria presided over the Conference. The United States would be present in the room to ensure that Syria was not able to advance initiatives that ran counter to the interests of the United States, but it would fundamentally alter the nature of its presence. The United Kingdom reminded that Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons over the course of a seven-year conflict had been well documented, and added that it would not allow Syria to inflict damage on the work of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies. No member of the United Kingdom delegation would meet bilaterally with representatives of a regime that had committed such acts of barbarism and that mocked repeatedly the international system of which the Conference on Disarmament was a part.

Australia, also on behalf of Turkey and Canada, regretted that Syria had assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, reminding that Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons, in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, amounted to a violation of international law and a blatant contravention of the basic principles of humanity. France said that the Syrian regime did not have the moral authority nor political legitimacy to exercise the presidency of a body such as the Conference on Disarmament. Nevertheless, as it was deeply attached to multilateralism, France would continue to comply with the rules of procedure governing the Conference on Disarmament. To mark its disapproval of the current situation, France would not be represented by its Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament at the plenary sessions during the four weeks of the Syrian Presidency, but it would be fully represented in subsidiary bodies.

Stating that it fully supported effective multilateralism and rules-based international order, Bulgaria, on behalf of the European Union, said that it would continue to respect the Conference’s rules of procedure, including rotation of the presidency. The Syrian regime did not have sufficient legitimacy to perform that function. During the Syrian presidency, the European Union would focus its activity on bringing forward substantive work in the five subsidiary bodies; it would continue to fully take part in the work of the subsidiary bodies, and it would resist the misuse of the presidency for any other purpose than technical chairing of plenary meetings. New Zealand noted that Syria’s presidency only reflected the rules of procedure and the monthly rotation among the members of the Conference on Disarmament. It called on Syria to fully meet all the rules of international law, and especially of international humanitarian law.

Israel said that it was disturbing to have a Member State that had deliberately and horrendously gassed its own people preside over the Conference. Such a situation demanded condemnation and reaction. Canada felt strongly that the credibility of the Conference was gravely undermined when a representative of a State that had clearly and repeatedly violated its international disarmament obligations presided over it. Germany called on the Syrian Presidency not to politicize its role and to execute its work according to the high standards that prevailed in the Conference.

Spain said that the exercise of the presidency of the Conference by a country that seriously failed to comply with non-proliferation obligations was a real contradiction that created problems of legitimacy and credibility. Questioning the moral authority and legitimacy of Syria to conduct the presidency of the Conference, the Netherlands stressed that when perpetrators could not be held accountable, impunity would reign. Japan condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it expressed concern about Syria’s violations of its disarmament and non-proliferation obligations as it assumed the presidency of the Conference.

China, on the other hand, expressed confidence that the Syrian Presidency would steer the work of the Conference towards new progress. The practice of the rotation of presidency in the Conference was meant to prevent disputes regarding the selection of a president. The presidency of the Conference was a non-political position. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea noted that any attempt to alter the order of the rotation, or to block assumption of the presidency for political reasons should never be tolerated. Making trouble with technical issues, which were not relevant to substantive discussions, would further exacerbate confrontation in the Conference.

Pakistan stated that it would be most unfortunate and regrettable to allow political views and persuasions regarding a fellow Member State to discredit the office of the president of the Conference. The Conference should not be a victim of politicization and posturing. Algeria expressed confidence that under the Syrian leadership and professionalism the Conference’s work would proceed on the right track, while Venezuela expressed its support and cooperation to Syria in all its undertakings in the Conference in the next four weeks. India said that multilateralism was never easy nor tidy. There were occasions when States did not like what happened, but they had to deal with those situations.

The Russian Federation expressed hope that in parallel with thematic discussions, the new Syrian Presidency would pay the necessary attention to seeking optimal ways of developing a comprehensive and balanced programme of work for the Conference. Agreeing upon a programme of work was a common priority, and it required the participation of all delegations. Belarus stressed that accusations of the use of weapons of mass destruction were very serious and they required a very careful and impartial investigation without any political pressure or bias.

Iran highlighted that continued, open and transparent consultations under the Syrian Presidency could pave the way for consensual adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, whereas Iraq reminded that it was a collective responsibility on the shoulders of all States to come up with a programme of work and move away from politicization. Viet Nam looked forward to a fruitful outcome of the remaining discussions, which had already led to narrowing the gaps and mistrust between countries.

The Republic of Korea expressed satisfaction that four out of the five subsidiary bodies had held substantive discussions during the past four weeks. There was a sense of much needed progress to restore the authority of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Argentina stated that it believed in multilateralism and diplomacy, and that therefore it would participate in meetings during the Syrian Presidency. It highlighted the fact that it condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria against civilians, including against children. Cuba reminded that the existence of nuclear weapons was one of the major threats to the survival of humanity. The only guarantee that nuclear weapons could not be used by anyone was their total elimination.

Speaking were United States, Australia also on behalf of Turkey and Canada, Belarus, Bulgaria on behalf of the European Union, New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, China, Russian Federation, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Israel, Pakistan, Canada, Germany, Algeria, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Argentina, Spain, Cuba, India, Netherlands, and Syria.


The next plenary session of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, June 5, at 10 a.m.


Statements

Opening the plenary meeting, HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, paid tribute to the work of the previous presidencies of the Conference on Disarmament, noting that Syria was honoured to preside over that body. The Syrian Presidency would be guided by the rules of procedure of the Conference, as well as by professionalism and transparency that governed the role and requirements of every presidency. The Syrian Presidency would be open and deal with everyone in a positive spirit. Syria truly believed in the importance of the Conference on Disarmament and the importance of preserving it as the only negotiating and multilateral forum in the field of disarmament. Unfortunately, negotiations in the Conference had remained stalled for more than two decades. The Syrian Presidency was aware of the complexities that prevented the Conference from liberating itself from the stalemate, and of the problems that hampered reaching consensus on a programme of work. The Syrian Presidency truly believed that that situation should not prevent it from reaching an agreement on a programme of work with a mandate of negotiations. Any stalemate was not due to the procedures, but to the lack of political will.

The session of 2018 had witnessed serious efforts that had led to achieving encouraging progress, namely the establishment of five subsidiary bodies. The Ambassador noted that he intended to engage in consultations with coordinators of those subsidiary bodies, and that he was ready to listen to their evaluation of the discussions. He added that he intended to start bilateral consultations with Member States in order to reach useful proposals regarding a programme of work that would enjoy consensus. He called on Member States that had specific proposals to contact and communicate with the Presidency. He intended to hold weekly plenary sessions in a way that would allow Member States to express their positions regarding the issues on the agenda, as well as to allow enough time for bilateral consultations in subsidiary bodies.

United States noted that it was a shameful day in the history of the Conference on Disarmament. It was a travesty that the Syrian regime, which continued to slaughter its own people with weapons banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, presided over the Conference on Disarmament. Rather than pretend that there was any legitimacy of the Syrian Presidency, Member States should hold accountable the Syrian regime and those who enabled its barbaric crimes. The United States was outraged by Syria’s actions, its blatant disregard for international obligations, and its temerity in assuming the presidency of a body that worked towards disarmament and non-proliferation. Syria had demonstrated disregard for the work of the Conference through repeated violations of treaty obligations negotiated in the Conference. Syria had neither the credibility nor moral authority to assume the Presidency of the Conference, the very body that had negotiated the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons was well established, and despite sustained diplomatic efforts, had contributed to appalling human suffering since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. The horrendous chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7 had been just another example of the Assad regime’s defiance and utter disrespect for its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The international community needed to use all of its available tools to make clear that it would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere by anyone. Syria’s longstanding non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should also be immediately disqualifying.

Seven years had passed since the International Atomic Energy Agency Board had found that Syria was in non-compliance with the Safeguards Agreement for its clandestine construction of an undeclared plutonium reactor. Rather than address those issues constructively, Syria had sought to actively obstruct the investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to discredit the Agency’s well founded technical assessments. Such behaviour was not befitting of a State serving as the President of the Conference on Disarmament. Business as usual could not be allowed while Syria presided over the Conference. The United States’ presence did not signify any support or endorsement of Syria’s credentials or credibility in the role of president. The United States would be present in the room to ensure that Syria was not able to advance initiatives that ran counter to the interests of the United States, but it would fundamentally alter the nature of its presence. It would not attend any informal meetings convened by the Syrian Presidency, nor any subsidiary bodies’ discussions during Syria’s presidency. The United States called on others to join it in expressing outrage and objection to the Syrian regime presiding over the Conference on Disarmament.

Australia, speaking also on behalf of Turkey and Canada, regretted that Syria had assumed presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, noting that the credibility of the Conference was undermined when a representative of a State, which had clearly violated its international disarmament and non-proliferation obligations, presided over it. Independent international investigations had concluded that Syria had continued to use chemical weapons. Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons, in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, amounted to a violation of international law and a blatant contravention of the basic principles of humanity. Australia, Turkey and Canada wished to record their principled objection to Syria’s past and continuing actions related to chemical weapons use, and hoped that the Conference would work constructively during the upcoming period.

Belarus expressed support for the Syrian Presidency and positively assessed the outcomes of the initial work of the subsidiary bodies. It was very important that the interests of States as a whole coincided with the programme of action of the Secretariat of the United Nations, which had been expressed by Secretary-General Guterres recently. The active involvement of all States, in particular of developing countries, in political discussions would contribute to more effective and sustainable work and outcomes in all areas of maintaining peace and security. Belarus condemned any unlawful use of weapons of mass destruction. Such actions were a threat to international peace and security. Accusations of the use of weapons of mass destruction were very serious and they required a very careful and impartial investigation. It was necessary to preserve the authority and impartiality of the existing international mechanisms to investigate the use of weapons of mass destruction without any political pressure or bias, which could be created by fake news. The Conference on Disarmament was not a judicial body; it did not have the authority to carry out investigations. Its mandate was to develop effective measures in the area of international disarmament and non-proliferation. Given the current momentum in the Conference, it was necessary to agree on a programme of work.

Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, stated that it fully supported effective multilateralism and a rules-based international order, with the United Nations at its core. While a country that did not comply with its non-proliferation obligations should not be in a position to preside over the Conference on Disarmament, the European Union would not allow that situation to inflict damage on the work of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies. Recalling the rules of procedure of the Conference, the European Union noted that the presidency rotated among its members in the alphabetical order. The European Union would continue to respect those rules of procedure. The Syrian regime bore overwhelming responsibility for prolonging the Syrian conflict, which had entered its eighth year. The conflict continued to take civilian lives every day and the Syrian regime was responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation and the suffering of the Syrian people. There could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. Only a political solution, in line with United Nations Security Council resolution 2254, could bring peace to Syria and its people. The European Union reiterated its strongest condemnation of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces in at least four cases, as confirmed by the joint investigative mechanism of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations. It also condemned the use of chemical weapons by Da’esh in at least two cases. It was concerned about reports of continued use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in Eastern Ghouta and other areas of Syria in recent months, including the devastating chemical attack in Douma, which was an affront to human decency.

It was deeply shocking that the international community was still confronted with the use of chemical weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention was a key convention for disarmament, and its integrity and full implementation had to be guaranteed. In that respect, the European Union firmly supported the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) fact-finding mission to continue investigating reports of chemical weapons use. It would continue working towards the re-establishment of an international attribution mechanism to ensure accountability for perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks. The European Union also remained concerned about Syria’s non-compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguard Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Against that deplorable backdrop, it was regrettable that Syria had assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, even for one month. The Syrian regime did not have sufficient legitimacy to perform that function. During the Syrian presidency, the European Union would focus its activity on bringing forward substantive work in the five subsidiary bodies; it would continue to fully take part in the work of the subsidiary bodies, and it would resist the misuse of the presidency for any other purpose than technical chairing of plenary meetings.

New Zealand noted that Syria’s Presidency only reflected the rules of procedure and the monthly rotation among the members of the Conference on Disarmament. New Zealand’s support for multilateral rules of procedure was part and parcel of its support for global rules and norms. It condemned those who flouted them. New Zealand called on Syria to fully meet all the rules of international law, and especially of international humanitarian law. It condemned in the strongest terms the gross and systematic violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, including the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian conflict continued to be characterized by total disregard for civilian lives and New Zealand called for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and full compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. New Zealand would be the first to support any change to the rules of procedure of the Conference on Disarmament, which would enable it to move on with its work in accordance with its mandate. But no change to the rules was currently considered. Accordingly, as part of its strong support for multilateralism, New Zealand would continue to fully respect the current rules of procedure, including the monthly rotation of the presidency in the Conference.

United Kingdom reminded that Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons over the course of the seven-year conflict had been well documented. The joint investigative mechanism of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations had confirmed that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons on at least four occasions. The United Kingdom condemned Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons against its own people, including the latest barbaric attack in Douma. That flagrant disregard for international commitments was mirrored in Syria’s record in nuclear proliferation. The technical assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the Deir ez-Zor facility clearly and comprehensively detailed Syria’s non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Repeated calls by the International Atomic Energy Agency for cooperation remained unanswered. The erosion of global norms, particularly with respect to chemical disarmament, was a deeply worrying trend that threatened every State, nation and people. It was, therefore, a travesty that Syria had assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The United Kingdom would not allow Syria to inflict damage on the work of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies. The work of the Conference was too important for global stability for the international community to allow Syria to pursue its own agenda. The United Kingdom would work tirelessly to hold those responsible for breaches of international norms and agreements to account, and to uphold and defend the global consensus that chemical weapons should not be used. No member of the United Kingdom delegation would meet bilaterally with representatives of a regime that had committed such acts of barbarism and that mocked repeatedly the international system of which the Conference on Disarmament was a part.

France said that the Conference on Disarmament was facing a particular situation, reminding that the Syrian regime had repeatedly violated international law since the start of the Syrian conflict, including many violations of arms control instruments, particularly of the Chemical Weapons Convention. None of it could be denied. The Syrian regime did not have the moral authority nor political legitimacy to exercise the presidency of a body such as the Conference on Disarmament. That view was shared by many delegations. Despite the deplorable nature of the situation, France was deeply attached to multilateralism and to the smooth operation of international institutions. France would continue to comply with the rules of procedure governing the Conference on Disarmament. To mark its disapproval of the current situation, France would not be represented by its Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament at the plenary sessions during the four weeks of the Syrian Presidency. However, France would be fully represented in subsidiary bodies. France would be very vigilant in ensuring that the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament continued to be exercised with necessary neutrality, rigour and impartiality required by such a function. It would particularly pay attention that the presidency was not politically manipulated.

China expressed confidence that the Syrian Presidency would steer the work of the Conference towards new progress. China regretted that in recent years Syria had gone through prolonged challenges of social unrest, the scourge of terrorism, and suffering by civilians. Syria’s fight against terrorism had made important headway, and the corresponding political process was also moving forward. China would like to work with other members of the international community to actively support the current inclusive political process towards peace and stability. It expressed hope that the Syrian people would soon start leading normal life, reconstructing their country. China had always worked for the democratization of international relations and for the maintenance of a rules-based international order. Historically, the practice of the rotation of presidency in the Conference on Disarmament was meant to prevent disputes regarding the selection of the president. It was a wise and practical decision, which had stood the test of time. In China’s view, the presidency of the Conference was a non-political position, no matter which country occupied it. The President of the Conference should be accorded the same amount of respect and support from all delegations. Turning to the question of chemical weapons, China firmly opposed its use by anyone for any purpose and under any circumstance. As for the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, China was fully in favour of conducting comprehensive, impartial and objective investigations, which should be based on firm evidence obtained through scientific methods, and which could stand the test of time. Before that, no country should prejudge the investigation, or draw its own conclusions. Finally, China expressed confidence that discussions in the subsidiary bodies would yield progress under the Syrian Presidency.

Russian Federation expressed hope that thorough and detailed discussions would progress on all items of the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament in order to expand areas of converging interests. It also expressed hope that in parallel with thematic discussions, the new Syrian Presidency would pay the necessary attention to seeking optimal ways of developing a comprehensive and balanced programme of work for the Conference. Agreeing upon a programme of work was a common priority, and it required the participation of all delegations. The Russian Federation expressed hope that the current president would refer to some of the previous ideas for advancing the work of the Conference tabled by the Russian delegation. The Russian Federation called on all delegations to refrain from turning the Conference into a forum for politicized approach to acute and regional issues, which did not directly have to do with the Conference’s agenda. Such steps did not contribute to the productive functioning of the Conference.

Japan condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it expressed concern about Syria’s violations of its disarmament and non-proliferation obligations as it assumed the presidency of the Conference. Japan reminded that all Member States of the Conference had a duty and responsibility to concretely advance nuclear disarmament negotiations. In order to move the Conference on Disarmament forward, it was important to agree on a programme of work. For that purpose, Japan highlighted the current discussions in the subsidiary bodies, noting that Member States should proceed constructively and transparently with those discussions in accordance with the rules of procedure. Japan expected Syria to perform the role of presidency in a fair and constructive manner. Japan would participate in thediscussions accordingly.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea voiced confidence that the Syrian Presidency would successfully guide current discussions in the Conference, and noted that it expected the Syrian Presidency to come up with a balanced programme of work. Following the declaration by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in April 2018 to discontinue its nuclear tests, on May 24 it had dismantled nuclear test sites to ensure the transparency of its commitment. The whole process had been conducted with a high level of transparency. Discontinuation of nuclear tests was an important process towards global nuclear disarmament. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to make efforts to contribute to the building of a nuclear-free peaceful world. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was of the firm view that the Syrian Presidency was fully in line with the rules of procedure of the Conference. Any attempt to alter the order of the rotation, or to block assumption of the presidency for political reasons should never be tolerated. Making trouble with technical issues, which were not relevant to substantive discussions, would further exacerbate confrontation in the Conference, where there were already conflicting views among Member States. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea opposed attempts by some countries to politicize the Conference for their egoistic interests. Those countries should look at their own behaviour, which diverted the Conference’s focus from discussions on global disarmament.

Iran highlighted the decision to establish five subsidiary bodies as a turning point in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, and a result of compromise among Member States. Iran reaffirmed its position that nuclear disarmament remained a high priority for it. Accordingly, continued, open and transparent consultations under the Syrian Presidency could pave the way for consensual adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work. Any proposal that addressed the four core agenda items in a very balanced manner would be carefully examined by the Iranian delegation. Iran further stated that it would fully support the Syrian Presidency in its upcoming work.

Iraq expressed hope that Syria would be able to carry out its mandate. The Conference on Disarmament had not been able to carry out its mandate as a negotiating body for many years. Despite the many challenges faced by the international community, which had a negative impact on the principles of multilateralism, and the principles on which the Conference was based, there was only one goal – achieving peace and completely eliminating weapons of mass destruction. Iraq supported the Presidency in its effort to achieve a comprehensive and balanced programme of work, which met the demands of Member States. The Conference on Disarmament was not working in a void; it was very closely linked with the international security environment and with international security challenges. It was a collective responsibility on the shoulders of all States to come up with a programme of work and move away from politicization.

Republic of Korea expressed satisfaction that four out of the five subsidiary bodies had held substantive discussions during the past four weeks. The presentations by the experts had enhanced and helped the identification of differences and commonalities on issues under consideration. There was a sense of much needed progress to restore the authority of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Turning to Syria, the Republic of Korea joined previously expressed concerns with regard to the repeated use of chemical weapons, in particular by the Syrian armed forces as investigated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations. As a State party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Republic of Korea condemned any use of chemical weapons anywhere, at any time, and by anyone. Those responsible for their use should be held accountable. Otherwise, the repetitive and unaccounted use of chemical weapons would cast a long shadow on the normative value of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Republic of Korea emphasised the importance of the universal adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention and it urged all those States that were not yet party to it, to join it.

Israel valued that the Conference on Disarmament, like the Security Council, had the capacity to contribute to global security and stability, in the face of the growing armed challenges. Israel attached great importance to compliance with the existing arms control and non-proliferation mechanisms. While recognizing the Conference’s rules of procedure, Israel noted that the president of any international body had to have required moral bearings. Having a Member State as president of such a body, which had deliberately and horrendously gassed its own people, was disturbing and ran counter to the objectives and principles of the Conference. Such a situation demanded condemnation and reaction. The absurd reality in which such a Member State was now presiding over the Conference on Disarmament was unacceptable and should not be permitted to pass without implications. Business was not usual. Member States had an obligation to speak out when absurdities were happening. Given the actions of the Syrian Government and its destructive influence on the regional and global peace and stability, accepting Syria as the President of the Conference negatively reflected on all Member States. It undermined the credibility and integrity of both the disarmament framework and of the United Nations. Therefore, Israel joined others in sending a clear message to the Conference on Disarmament and to the international community that the four weeks of the Syrian Presidency would not and could not be accepted. Israel took its commitments to the Conference on Disarmament seriously and it would thus continue to appear in the chamber. However, its seat would remain vacant, and its level of representation would be lowered. Israel would not be involved in any substantive discussion under the deplorable Syrian Presidency, and its engagement would be a selective one.

Pakistan thanked the President for reaching out to regional groups and individual delegations for informal consultations. Pakistan would engage constructively with the presidency in advancing the work of the Conference, and it expressed hope that all delegations would do the same. Pakistan also expressed hope that the seamless cooperation between the six presidents would remain business as usual, and that it would remained unaffected despite the recently made statements. It would be most unfortunate and regrettable to allow political views and persuasions regarding a fellow Member State to discredit the office of the president of the Conference. In accordance with the rules of procedure, the presidency was a rotating one and Member States were not at liberty to choose presidents in accordance with their likes and dislikes. Challenging the presidency and its authority would set a bad precedent. Extending due courtesy was essential for a congenial working environment in the Conference. Pakistan hoped that the Conference would continue its normal and routine functioning in a productive manner. The Conference should not be a victim of politicization and posturing.

Canada expressed profound regret that Syria had assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, given its consistent and flagrant disregard for international non-proliferation and disarmament norms and agreements. The Assad regime had used chemical weapons against its own people. Syria had no legitimacy to sit in the chair and preside over the Conference. Canada felt strongly that the credibility of that body was gravely undermined when a representative of a State that had clearly and repeatedly violated its international disarmament obligations presided over it. That Syria presided over it only confirmed that serious reform of the Conference on Disarmament was required. The Chemical Weapons Convention was one of the signature achievements of the Conference – yet the Syrian Government was repeatedly challenging its integrity.

In its last report, the joint investigation mechanism of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations had concluded that in April 2017 the Syrian Government forces had employed sarin gas with atrocious consequences for hundreds of civilians. Failure to disclose the possession of chemical weapons created a second violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Syria. Syria’s refusal to destroy it chemical weapons and to cooperate with relevant international bodies was proof of a conscious intention to flaunt the ban against the use of chemical weapons, and it constituted a war crime for which perpetrators must be held accountable. Syria had turned its back on the very principles on which the Conference on Disarmament was founded. Therefore, Syria was unsuited to preside over it. The Permanent Representative of Canada would not participate in any plenary meetings during the Syrian Presidency. Syria’s violations of international law were protected by Russia, which had 12 times vetoed resolutions in the Security Council, including the resolution that would renew the mandate of the joint investigation mechanism of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations. That protection bred impunity.

Germany said that the international security environment was undergoing dramatic changes and challenges. In such difficult times, it was necessary to enhance trust and confidence. The Conference on Disarmament was of exceptional relevance in that regard. It was against that backdrop that Germany regretted that the vital task of presiding over the Conference had fallen upon Syria, a State that was not in compliance with its non-proliferation obligations, a State that bore the overwhelming responsibility for heinous violations of human rights, and international humanitarian law, a State that had repeatedly used chemical weapons against its own people. Germany, however, would not allow the current situation to stop the substantial work of the Conference. It called on the Presidency not to politicize its role and to execute its work according to the high standards that prevailed in the Conference. Any attempt to politicize the role of the presidency other than for technical chairing would be rejected by Germany and other States.

Algeria congratulated Syria on assuming the presidency of the Conference and expressed confidence that under its leadership and professionalism the Conference’s work would proceed on the right track. Algeria reaffirmed its attachment to working with other Member States of the Conference to ensure that the Conference went back to the prime task, namely to negotiate disarmament treaties. It was vital to encourage cooperation and dialogue in the Conference in order to bring about a favourable environment. Syria’s Presidency had come at a very crucial time, when discussions of substance had already been started in the subsidiary bodies. Those discussions were an opportunity to restate the respective positions of Member States and Algeria hoped that the conclusions of those discussions would be negotiated, concluded and recorded in reports. That would allow the Conference to resume its role in negotiating questions of substance.

HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, informed that there was a mistake in translation. He said that he had not thanked the representative of Germany for his statement, but for his threats. He said that he would take his threats into account.

Venezuela congratulated Syria on its assumption of the presidency of the Conference, and expressed its support and cooperation in all its undertakings in the next four weeks. Reaching the objective of non-proliferation was vital for international peace and security. Venezuela restated its principle for general disarmament as a guiding principle. Venezuela was committed to working with all people to progress the substantive work of the Conference in a transparent and participatory manner. The Conference on Disarmament needed to go back to its mission and adopt a broad and balanced programme of work that really took into account disarmament priorities. The world was at a complicated time that required real and joint efforts to guarantee security and peace. The Conference could not continue postponing substantive work. It needed to start with an agreement on the programme of work. Member States had a collective responsibility to negotiate agreements and do away with weapons of mass destruction. Member States could not be indifferent given the risks posed by those weapons, which were a real threat to humanity. Venezuela restated the validity of international diplomacy and its desire to promote multilateralism as a key principle to negotiating non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The Conference should not get embroiled in political manipulation or double standards.

Viet Nam congratulated Syria on assuming the presidency of the Conference and welcomed the initial discussions in the subsidiary bodies under the outgoing presidency. Viet Nam looked forward to a fruitful outcome of the remaining discussions, which had already led to narrowing the gaps and mistrust between countries. The discussions should focus on nuclear issues. The most important task of humankind was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. Viet Nam strongly supported international efforts towards that noble goal.

Argentina stated that it believed in multilateralism and diplomacy, and that therefore it would participate in meetings during the Syrian Presidency. It highlighted the fact that it condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria against civilians, including against children. The use of chemical weapons was a war crime. Argentina called on all parties, including those with influence, to find a political solution for the Syrian conflict. Argentina believed that the most recent chemical attack in Syria needed to be investigated and those responsible held accountable. Under the principle of international solidarity, the international community had to severely condemn the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances.

Spain said that it supported the international order, which was based on principles, norms and values. The universal prohibition of the use of chemical weapons was one of the key principles of international law. The exercise of the presidency of the Conference by a country that seriously failed to comply with its non-proliferation obligations was a real contradiction that created problems of legitimacy and credibility. The fact was that the Syrian armed forces had used chemical weapons on at least four occasions. Nevertheless, the rotating presidency should be respected.

Cuba extending a welcome to the Ambassador of Syria as the President of the Conference. The existence of nuclear weapons was one of the major threats to the survival of humanity. The only guarantee that nuclear weapons could not be used by anyone was their total elimination. The overwhelming support for the adoption of the Treaty of Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons was a landmark in the history of the United Nations, and Cuba had become the fifth country to ratify that treaty. It urged all States to show their real commitment and political will to nuclear disarmament by signing and ratifying that treaty. Cuba was proud to be in one of the only regions without nuclear weapons. It hoped that the high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament would be held as soon as possible, and that it would be supported by all those countries committed to peace and disarmament, the goal being to have a step-by-step programme to completely eliminate nuclear weapons. The Conference on Disarmament needed to adopt a balanced programme of work, and to start negotiations as soon as possible. The absence of political will was the only obstacle to starting that work. All Member States had a responsibility to adopt a programme of work. Cuba was ready to start negotiations on a comprehensive convention in the area of nuclear weapons, a treaty that prohibited the arms race in outer space, and a treaty on the production of fissile material. Finally, Cuba said that the Conference needed to stay away from any political manipulation and double standards.

India attached a great importance to the Conference on Disarmament and noted that it was important that the excellent work done by previous presidents was carried forward in the most effective manner. Multilateralism was never easy nor tidy. There were occasions when States did not like what happened, but they had to deal with those situations. India hoped that States would continue to deal with an imperfect world and imperfect tools and methodologies at their disposal. Referring to the use of chemical weapons, India noted that their use was forbidden and perpetrators must be brought to account. There should be no impunity for the use of chemical weapons. The international community had to investigate their use and establish the facts in accordance with international law, and in particular with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The focus of the Conference had to be on the deepening of the discussions in the subsidiary bodies. The President of the Conference had an obligation to strive for the adoption of a programme of work.

Netherlands said that the Conference on Disarmament had negotiated landmark treaties that had sought to prevent the use of chemical weapons. The Conference was now faced with the presidency held by a regime that used chemical weapons. Everyone in the Conference was there to realize the important goals of disarmament. Dialogue was crucial in that respect. The Syrian regime did not have the moral authority nor legitimacy to conduct the presidency of the Conference as it had consistently and repeatedly violated international humanitarian law, disarmament norms, and human rights. If perpetrators could not be held accountable, impunity would reign.

HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, asked speakers to use proper diplomatic language when addressing each other and not to create precedents that might hamper discussions in the Conference.

Germany, in a right of reply to the remarks made by the President of the Conference, noted that nothing in its statement should be considered as a threat against the presidency. It reiterated that Germany would not allow the situation to impact the substantial role of the Conference. It would not allow politicization. Germany noted that that making cynical remarks did not serve the purpose of the Conference.

HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, in a right of reply, thanked the representative of Germany for his remarks, noting that respecting professionalism should be observed by all, and not just the President.

HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, speaking in Syria’s national capacity, regretted that the United States continued to raise issues outside the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament as part of sensational propaganda and behaving in a way that ran against the rules of procedure. It was known that such countries falsely attempted to cast politically motivated positions at the expense of their obligations under the rules of procedure of the Conference. Such behaviour was characterized by double standards and immoral selectivity in their dealing with international and regional security matters. What was also paradoxical was that some States tried to give lessons on the compliance with conventions and treaties on weapons of mass destruction, while refusing to abide by those very legal instruments. Bearing in mind that they were the only parties that possessed weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemical or biological, their allegations were not consistent. Those States continued to pre-empt the investigation outcomes every time, in the absence of proof. They took it as a pretext to actions amounting to the crime of aggression in every country before carrying out impartial and independent investigations. Preserving international and regional security would not be achieved by such behaviour and by the determination to derail the work of the Conference.

Syria reiterated its commitment to lead the Conference in a professional and objective manner, and to be guided by the rules of the procedure of the Conference. Syria called on countries to fully respect those rules and to refrain from harmful practices and undiplomatic speech that would only lead to poisoning the atmosphere when constructivism was most needed. The negative approach adopted by some countries raised questions of their commitment to multilateralism and to the credibility and importance of the Conference. Syria had heard judgments by some States over the intentions of Syria, in a phobia that accused Syria of politicizing the conference. The Ambassador of Syria had in no way stated anything that threatened the interests of the United States or other countries.

United States noted it was heartening to hear the condemnation of the Syrian regime. Let there be no doubt that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own people was not in question. The lies coming from the regime fooled absolutely no one. Regarding the poisoning of the atmosphere of the Conference, the United States was more concerned about the poisoning of the Syrian people. As for the inappropriateness of discussing the issue of chemical weapons, the United States reminded that the Chemical Weapons Convention had been adopted in this very chamber.

United Kingdom said that the words of Syria were empty and that they proved the lack of credibility of the Syrian Presidency. The use of chemical weapons by Syria in contravention of its legal obligations could have no credibility. Nor did Syria have any position to question the commitment of others.

Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted that the European Union had usually been very prudent in exercising its right of reply, but it could not remain silent. Its remarks were not just accusations or allegations. At least in four cases, the joint investigation mechanism of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations had confirmed the use of chemical weapons. Member States of the European Union had repeatedly condemned the use of chemical weapons by all parties. Given all that, the European Union rejected any attempt to misuse of the Conference on Disarmament.

France, reacting to the statements by the President of the Conference, noted that the office of the presidency had been abused because the President had made his remarks in national capacity. France called on the presidency to abide by the principles of impartiality, neutrality and professionalism.

HUSSAM EDIN AALA, Permanent Representative of Syria and President of the Conference, replied that the presidency was completely impartial and had been led professionally. Syria reiterated its right to make remarks in its national capacity. The remarks of France had no legal justifications.

Pakistan stated that it respected all points of view and opinions, but it could not agree with denying the President the right to speak in his national capacity. Unlike other treaty bodies, where the President was represented separately in the room, in the Conference on Disarmament, the President was the presiding officer but at the same time represented his or her own country. The denial of the right to speak to the President would be the usurpation of the democratic and sovereign right of any country occupying the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament.

Iran said it had examined the rules of procedure and informed that it had not found such a procedure forbidding the presidency to speak in his national capacity.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18/027E