CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, today read out the message of António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, to the Conference on Disarmament, in which he said that more must be done to overcome deep divisions that contributed to, among other things, the paralysis that had crippled the Conference for the past two decades.

In his message, the Secretary-General said the world entered 2020 with uncertainty and insecurity all around. One of the most significant drivers of this unease was, to put it bluntly, the atrophying state of the disarmament instruments, institutions and aspirations. Landmark arms control instruments that maintained stability and created the conditions for reduced reliance on nuclear weapons had been abandoned. A new arms competition was quickly filling the void. In the absence of strengthened regimes for building trust and confidence, dangerous flashpoints were emerging. Meanwhile, new weapons technologies were moving forward with unclear or possibly destabilizing applications. All these troubling developments undermined peace and were among the driving factors behind his decision two years ago to launch “Securing our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”.

Since then, the Secretary-General said United Nations entities had worked to advance this agenda and forge new partnerships. A number of Member States had stepped forward to champion or support specific actions. Yet it was clear that much more must be done to overcome deep divisions that contributed to, among other things, the paralysis that had crippled the Conference for the past two decades. That was why he was actively exploring what more the United Nations could do to contribute to a new vision for disarmament. The Secretary-General said he looked forward to engaging with the Conference in this endeavour in the months ahead. Such an approach could lay the groundwork for a new consensus on collectively improving the international situation. It would also make a practical contribution to a long overdue revitalization of the Conference and its agenda.

The Conference also heard statements by the Russian Federation, Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt, Belgium, Sri Lanka, Finland, Switzerland, United States, Venezuela, Germany, Mexico, Sweden, India, France, Turkey and Iran.

Several delegations regretted Turkey’s objection last week to the request of Cyprus to participate in the 2020 session of the Conference as an observer, and urged it to reconsider it.

Turkey said that it clearly needed to underline its position once again regarding the non-approval for a certain request for observer status in the Conference. Delegates would recall the opening of the 2019 session as how the request of Palestine for observer status was blocked by a few members. Their basis argument was that they did not recognise Palestine as a State. Turkey did not recognize Greek-Cypriot administration which did not represent the entire island. When it was to deal about observer status, Palestine and the Greek-Cypriot administration had the same status before the Conference. Turkey could not accept any double standards.

The Conference approved requests by Afghanistan and Costa Rica to participate in the 2020 session of the Conference as observers.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 4 February 2020.

Statements

TATIANA VALOVAYA, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, read out the statement of ANTÓNIO GUTERRES, United Nations Secretary-General, saying that the world entered 2020 with uncertainty and insecurity all around. One of the most significant drivers of this unease was, to put it bluntly, the atrophying state of the disarmament instruments, institutions and aspirations. Landmark arms control instruments that maintained stability and created the conditions for reduced reliance on nuclear weapons had been abandoned. A new arms competition was quickly filling the void. In the absence of strengthened regimes for building trust and confidence, dangerous flashpoints were emerging. Meanwhile, new weapons technologies were moving forward with unclear or possibly destabilizing applications. All these troubling developments undermined peace and were among the driving factors behind his decision two years ago to launch “Securing our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”.

Since then, the Secretary-General said United Nations entities had worked to advance this agenda and forge new partnerships. A number of Member States had stepped forward to champion or support specific actions. Yet it was clear that much more must be done to overcome deep divisions that contributed to, among other things, the paralysis that had crippled this body for the past two decades. That was why he was actively exploring what more the United Nations could do to contribute to a new vision for disarmament. The Secretary-General said he looked forward to engaging with the Conference on this endeavour in the months ahead. Such an approach could lay the groundwork for a new consensus on collectively improving the international situation. It would also make a practical contribution to a long overdue revitalization of the Conference and its agenda. There was not a moment to lose, said the Secretary-General. In recent times, they had seen the demise of the Treaty on Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, the precarious state of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the New START Treaty. The world simply could not afford to lose pillars of the international disarmament and arms control architecture without viable alternatives.

The Conference on Disarmament was established to serve as the premier international negotiating body for solving hard questions of arms and security. The delegations assembled here represented some of the best expertise in international security and disarmament. It was only natural that the Conference should be at the forefront of the strategic dialogue that the world needed to secure the common future. The Secretary-General said he was encouraged by the increasing partnership and collaboration amongst the Presidents of the Conference. He hoped their active leadership would bring the Conference back to its original purpose in 2020.

Russia noted the worsening current situation of international security. Tensions and unpredictability were growing, existing threats were exacerbated, and there were new threats and challenges. This undermined global stability. This was taking place against the backdrop of the erosion of the existing system of agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. In light of this, the role played by United Nations’ disarmament mechanisms, and its key component, the Conference on Disarmament, was increasing in its importance, as it allowed taking into account the positions of all countries, with strict compliance with the principles of multilateralism and ensuring equal security for all countries. Last week, the agenda of the Conference was adopted. Russia recognized the difficulties that the Conference must overcome but hoped the Conference would soon resume its substantive work related to negotiations.

The Conference had before it the updated Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the use of force or the threat of the use of force against space objects, and also elements of a possible convention to combat acts of chemical and biological terrorism. Both issues required heightened attention by the Conference and were ripe for negotiations. Russia favoured negotiations on all items on the agenda. Russia supported the P6 initiative to ensure continuity in the session. Russia regretted the position of Turkey on Cyprus and hoped that Turkey would review its decision.

Morocco said that a clear and frank assessment of the Conference on Disarmament was necessary to identify the appropriate responses to resolve the deadlock in the Conference and its inability to adopt a programme of work. The Secretary-General’s disarmament agenda could constitute an important lever to respond to the deterioration in the international security situation. This comprehensive initiative covered various facets and addressed disarmament issues relating to the work of the Conference. All must work to ensure that they could achieve a safer world. Member States must have imagination and political will to ensure this in the Conference. It was vital for the Conference to adopt a programme of work and to negotiate on all items on its agenda. It order to do this, they needed to be pragmatic and deal with the challenges facing the international community such as proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, and new generation weapons. Despite its deadlock, the Conference on Disarmament had proven to be a resistant body and it was indispensable to address the necessary security subjects.

Pakistan said it attached very high importance to the Conference on Disarmament and remained committed to its effective functioning. In the South Asia region, one country continued to pursue a policy of establishing its hegemony. The unquestioned pursuit of a policy of domination, when combined with an acquired sense of impunity, had unleashed unprecedented dangers in South Asia. The obvious victims were the eight million occupied people of Jammu and Kashmir, who had been kept in the world’s largest open prison for over five months by over 800,000 security forces. Pakistan yearned for peace and desired strategic stability. However, Pakistan could not remain oblivious to the evolving security dynamics in its immediate neighbourhood and had been compelled to take the necessary measures for ensuring its security and to credibly deter all forms of aggression. Its conduct continued to be defined by restraint, responsibility and the avoidance of an arms race. Pakistan remained firmly committed to the goal of a nuclear weapons free world that was achieved in a universal, verifiable and non-discriminatory manner. Pakistan also supported the immediate start of negotiations in the Conference to conclude treaties on negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which were the most ripe for commencing negotiations.

As for fissile material, Pakistan believed that a treaty that ignored the asymmetries in fissile material stocks would be detrimental to international and regional stability and adversely affect Pakistan’s national security. Pakistan supported a Fissile Material Treaty that covered existing stocks. As there was no consensus on the commencement of negotiations on any issue on the agenda, they could productively use the Conference for structured discussions on all agenda items in a balanced and comprehensive manner. Pakistan thanked the President for the draft programme of work and would examine it.

Egypt said the beginning of the 2020 session of the Conference on Disarmament took place in an extremely fragile, if not deteriorating global security environment, under which progress on disarmament in all its aspects was more urgent than ever. The Conference on Disarmament was at the centre of the disarmament machinery and its prolonged stalemate should not persist and should not restrain Member States from exerting their utmost efforts to achieve a substantive breakthrough this year. Egypt attached utmost importance to the negotiation of a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention in the Conference, which should ultimately aim at the realization of the complete irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific timeframe and under effective international verification and control. Any programme of work must include the establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference should also start negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable legally binding instrument banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. This could never be done properly if fissile material stocks were excluded from its scope.

The Conference on Disarmament must live up to its mandate and commence negotiations on legally binding instruments on its four core agenda items. The persistence of the Conference’s deadlock further eroded its mandate and could progressively lead to its demise. Egypt deeply regretted that Turkey had rejected the request of Cyprus to participate as an observer, and hoped to avoid the politicization of the Conference.

Belgium shared the Secretary-General’s concerns about the geopolitical tensions on the international scene and echoed his appeal for the revitalisation of the Conference. It was important that the Conference resumed without further delay its function as the motor of disarmament, and that all redouble efforts this year to ensure that the Conference adopted a programme of work. Belgium deeply regretted that Turkey had blocked the request of Cyprus to be an observer to the 2020 session of the Conference on disarmament and urged Turkey to reconsider its decision. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of the nuclear weapons policies and represented an irreplaceable bulwark in the face of nuclear proliferation. It was necessary to preserve and strengthen it. All shared responsibility of ensuring that it functioned properly and renewed political commitment to the treaty was important. It was also important to strengthen mutual trust. Negative security assurances represented an important role in this regard. The Conference had a vital role to play in this.

Belgium was firmly attached to a world without nuclear weapons that must be provided gradually. Belgium called for a start of negotiations in the Conference without delay of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear arms. The relevance of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty had become clear against the backdrop of nuclear tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. A legally binding norm as well as verification instruments were important and it was necessary for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty to enter into force. Belgium supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that must be preserved. Work must be continued to ensure its full implementation. Belgium regretted the withdrawal of the United States and called on Iran to come back to the path of conformity.

Sri Lanka said the year 2020 was a challenge as well as an opportunity for all to change their course and allow the Conference to get down to its actual substantive task of addressing challenges through the negotiation of disarmament treaties. This was the year of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference, which should get the right signal through the convergence of political will and flexibility on matters that had kept the Conference away from initiating negotiations within the Conference. Sri Lanka stood for comprehensive disarmament, realised through a step-by-step approach, underpinned by the adoption of legally binding frameworks and also addressing legal gaps that may exist. Sri Lanka attached priority to full compliance with, and effective promotion of, the implementation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty without further delay, and respect for its three pillars and the delicate balance built into the structure of the treaty in favour of achieving nuclear disarmament. It also supported the preservation of all existing disarmament architecture and the positive gains realised. Sri Lanka remained committed to achieving a legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Conference needed to seriously attempt negotiating a programme of work and find a way forward that could facilitate or create momentum for work on all core issues.

Finland said that in spite of the increasingly unpredictable and worrying global context, Finland hoped that something positive could be achieved at the Conference on Disarmament this year. Depending from the eye of the one observing, the glass could be half empty, or it could be half full. Equally, it could also be seen as being just too big. This applied to the Conference’s programme of work. By streamlining and simplifying the programme of work, they could end up with a text that could finally be agreed upon by all. As the United Nations approached its seventy-fifth anniversary, there was a need to be ready to revitalise the role of disarmament and the Conference as a vital part of multilateralism. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference was only three months away, and there should be a vital link between the Conference and the Review Conference. Finland deplored the position taken by Turkey last week on the participation of Cyprus at the Conference as an observer and reiterated the position of the European Union urging Turkey to reconsider its position in this matter.

Switzerland said the Conference was beginning its 2020 session against a backdrop of growing international security challenges. Enabling the Conference to overcome the deadlock that had stricken it for such a long time in order to response to these challenges was increasingly important. Switzerland welcomed the initiative taken by Member States of the Conference who would successively take the presidency of the Conference this year to strengthen their collaboration. Switzerland also welcomed the tone of various statements delivered last week and today inviting the Conference to explore different options in order to enable it to get down to work once again. Switzerland believed that there were other approaches available to the Conference on Disarmament to ensure that it overcome the deadlock, if the Conference was unable to agree on a programme of work, including a negotiating mandate, at the beginning of the year. In 2018 the Conference established subsidiary bodies to enable it to agree on substantive elements for the first time in 20 years. Last year, they were encouraged by the working document introduced by the Netherlands inviting Member States to review the way in which the Conference had tackled the programme of work since the 1990s. This document had reminded that the adoption of a programme of work and one or several negotiating mandates were not necessarily linked and that dissociating the two elements could enable the Conference to move forward.

The information document on how the P6 addressed its programme of work had enabled Switzerland to think about this in greater depth, including the flexibility that Member States had shown at various stages in order to promote progress. In the 1990s, it was decided that negotiations would continue without even formally adopting a programme of work. This also applied to the organizational themes such as the expansion of the Conference or the improvement and effectiveness of the functioning of the Conference. Switzerland had received the President’s non-paper on the draft programme of work circulated yesterday and had been sent to the capital. The draft proposal seemed to base itself on the various reflections that Switzerland had just mentioned. Switzerland regretted that a State that had long participated in its work as an observer had seen its request rejected. This State like others had asked to be admitted as a Member to the Conference for many years without a response. The last expansion of the Conference dated back to 1999, and since then they had never addressed the composition of the Conference. This issue could perhaps be considered during this session.

United States thanked the President for sharing his initial draft programme of work last night. Given some of the glaring omissions in the draft, and some of the references already made on it today, the United States was compelled to put on record its position, particularly before they went too far down the road on the draft that the United States found to be completely incomplete and insufficient in many ways. The United States had absolutely requested repeatedly that there be a structured and formal discussion on how the Conference conducted its business. Before they went further on having discussions on a programme of work, this very valid and repeated concern had to be addressed.

Venezuela said that as mentioned in the Secretary-General’s statement the world was full of upheavals that threatened international peace and security and this had an impact on disarmament instruments. Venezuela shared the concerns and expectations expressed in the statement of the Secretary-General. The current security situation was hampering progress in the Conference on Disarmament, with growing tensions between the east and the west. In the last several weeks, Venezuela had seen the readiness of Member States to find a robust solution and ensure the future of the Conference. Venezuela believed that in order to reach a world without nuclear weapons, it was necessary to unequivocally ban these weapons. Venezuela was ready to progressively move forward to reach that goal. Venezuela thanked the President for his non-paper on the draft proposal on the programme of work for 2020 and believed it was a very good foundation to reach consensus and hoped to discuss it in the near future. The Conference needed to focus on the negotiation of legally binding instruments. Venezuela took great interest in the proposal made by China and Russia to prevent an arms race in outer space.

Germany said it was astonished over the decision by Turkey to reject Cyprus as an observer State in the Conference. This constituted a negative precedent which might compound their work at a time when the Conference was already facing a toxic mix of substantial challenges. Germany strongly asked Turkey to reconsider its position.

Mexico said that this year they once again had an opportunity to renew the raison d’etre of the Conference that was created 42 years ago. Mexico had mixed feelings. It was a very good sign that Algeria was heading their work, just like in 2009 when the Conference last agreed on a programme of work. The challenge was not simple as the Conference had not been able to conduct substantial work for a long time and 2019 had been yet another year of paralysis. The paralysis was deepening with the growing politicization that they had witnessed last year. Any actions that contributed to the politicization of the discussions in the Conference must be avoided, for example opposition of the participation of non-members in the work of the Conference as observers. Mexico asked the country to reconsider that position. Mexico was still reviewing the draft programme of work distributed by the President. All Member States needed to be more flexible and creative to ensure that they overcame the stalemate in the Conference. Mexico had not been able to reach agreement to start negotiations in the past 20 years. Mexico would not support any attempts to make it look like the Conference was doing something, especially in light of the financial crisis in the United Nations that forced all to use in a productive manner the resources that they had.

Sweden said it subscribed to the statement by the European Union last week. Sweden was encouraged by the constructive approach by the P6. It was studying their proposals with interest and trusted that the deadlock in the Conference could be broken soon. Sweden regretted that consensus was prevented on the request by Cyprus to participate in the work of the Conference as an observer. This did not contribute to the spirit of cooperation so needed in the Conference. Sweden urged Turkey to reconsider its position on this matter.

India, speaking in a right of reply in response to Pakistan, said that Pakistan had attempted to present baseless fabrications and to resurrect some of the old and discredited ideas and proposals. This was not new as Pakistan made it a habit of abusing every single forum. The world saw through Pakistan’s lies and deceit. India had always approached its security concerns in a global context. Pakistan had also made baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against India, including in relation to the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which did not even deserve a response. India strictly abided by its obligations under international treaties and needed no lessons from a country that had no credibility. India had been looking forward to a new start in the Conference in 2020. The statement by Pakistan could only be viewed as unhelpful. Pakistan had blocked the negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty on several occasions.

France said its statement last week outlined the general position of France on its priorities for the Conference. Today France joined numerous delegations, and followed the European Union lead, in urging Turkey to review its position related to granting observer status to Cyprus.

Turkey, in a right of replay in response to interventions, said Turkey clearly needed to underline its position once again regarding the non-approval for a certain request for observer status in the Conference. Delegates would recall the opening of the 2019 session and how the request of Palestine for observer status was blocked by a few members. Their basic argument had been that they did not recognise Palestine as a State. Turkey did not recognize the Greek-Cypriot administration, which did not represent the entire island. In the past Turkey had not rejected the request but instead registered its position in a letter or a note verbale. It was surprising to see that those European States and the European Union, which were silent last year, preferred to intervene this year on this particular situation. Turkey did not see any difference between the request of Palestine and others in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Conference. When it was to deal about observer status, Palestine and the Greek-Cypriot administration had the same status before the Conference. Therefore, Turkey had been compelled to change its position. Turkey could not accept any double standards. The negative precedence was made last year and not this year as Germany had stated.

Pakistan, responding to the comments made by India, said the references to India in the statement earlier today were all based on facts on the ground and other recent developments. These facts might be uncomfortable for India but they were solid and irrefutable facts. India’s quest for strategic and military dominance, among others, presented a clear and present danger, not just to Pakistan but to regional and international peace and security. India’s recent illegitimate actions in Jammu and Kashmir in blatant disregard of Security Council resolutions had compounded the regional security situation.

Iran said it was looking carefully at the President’s draft programme of work. Iran firmly believed in the relevance and the crucial role of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole negotiating forum on nuclear disarmament and this status needed to be preserved. There was a need to focus on the four core items on the agenda of the Conference and avoid any unhealthy distractions.


For use of the information media; not an official record



DC20.02E