Conference on Disarmament Continues to Discuss a Non-Paper on a Draft Programme of Work for 2022
The Conference on Disarmament today continued to discuss a non-paper presented by the P-6 on a draft programme of work for 2022.
At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Li Song of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said they would use the time of this plenary to continue discussions on the non-paper submitted by the P-6 on a draft programme of work.
At the end of the meeting, Ambassador Li said his focus was on facilitating a clear and concise programme of work. It was only through this kind of clear and concise approach that the Conference could be able to reach a programme of work for 2022. If they repeated what they did in the past and each just repeated their national priorities and insisted that they be reflected in a programme of work, then this year they would not go far. He hoped that they could agree of a programme of work this year, and then they could use the plenary time to fully express their views on all issues. The P-6 had no intention to impose their requirements on the members of the Conference. China would continue its efforts to reach a clear and concise programme of work. This would require support, as well as compromise and concession. Making these concessions did not mean sacrificing national security interests or principled positions or prejudice any State or group of States. The President would give importance to each suggestion.
Speaking in the plenary were Nigeria, Japan, Zimbabwe, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Venezuela, United States, Iran, Indonesia, United Kingdom, Canada, Pakistan, Cuba, Bulgaria, India and the Netherlands.
The date of the next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced at a later time.
Statements
Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said they would use the time of this plenary to continue discussions on the non-paper submitted by the P-6 on a draft programme of work. After the plenary of last Tuesday, delegates of various countries had approached the President to say that the atmosphere of the meeting was very constructive and fully reflected the common expectation of all parties to see the early resumption of the substantive work of the Conference; they had expressed understanding and support for the President’s approach to work.
Nigeria registered concerns on the prevailing stalemate which had affected the work of the Conference on Disarmament for more than 20 years and hoped that the work this year would come up with concrete proposals that ultimately resulted in the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons. In a world where the development and expansion of nuclear arsenals continued to take priority over human development, the need for everyone’s focus to be redirected could not be overemphasised. Nigeria reaffirmed its concrete support to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Nigeria also reiterated its support for a legally binding instrument on negative security assurances and lent its support to negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. The non-paper represented the President’s willingness and expertise to advance the work of the Conference and Nigeria fully supported this pragmatic and productive approach to take the work of the Conference forward in a comprehensive and balanced manner. Nigeria also commended the President for his approach in solving the issue of participation of observer States.
Japan offered its high appreciation for the efforts of the President in preparing the non-paper in order to enable the Conference to start substantive work. Japan highly valued this non-paper which provided a good basis as a starting point for further discussions in the Conference. Japan highly valued the achievements of the 2018 subsidiary bodies and considered the President’s approach of proposing a draft programme of work, based on the experience in 2018, as constructive at this juncture. However, it was important not to simply repeat the experience of 2018, but to further develop work on it. Japan agreed with the President’s view that the Conference needed a comprehensive and well-balanced programme of work, since its decisions were made by consensus, and supported his approach to pursue compromise by simplifying the wording to increase the flexibility of the programme of work. On the other hand, Japan had been advocating for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference, especially due to its maturity. Japan’s position remained unchanged today. Japan believed that the current preamble paragraph 4 of the non-paper "Recognising that there is no consensus for launching negotiations on any issue at this time" should be worded more positively, appealing for efforts to build consensus. In addition, since the substantive work of the subsidiary bodies should be designed to pave the way toward future negotiations, it was desirable that this objective be reflected in the programme of work.
Zimbabwe supported the President’s non-paper and saw considerable merit in the establishment of subsidiary bodies as a practical and familiar framework within which the Conference might begin its migration towards negotiations. Zimbabwe agreed that the Conference should try to avoid too much detail and focus attention on resuming meaningful engagement on all topics in a comprehensive and balanced manner. It would be a start, and if Member States were able to demonstrate the same degree of good will, flexibility and accommodation which last week enabled the Conference to resolve the hitherto problematic issue of observers, then they could be cautiously optimistic that it was a start which could take the Conference in a more positive direction. Zimbabwe looked forward to receiving a revised version of the non-paper in due course.
Republic of Korea said it considered that the current non-paper provided a good basis for the adoption of a programme of work and appreciated the work of the President. Regarding the proposed programme of work, the Republic of Korea shared the view of previous delegations that PP4 needed to be reformulated. On the subsidiary bodies, the Republic of Korea would like to have a more in-depth and focused debate in them, which would be able to form a foundation for future negotiations. The Republic of Korea was not yet fully assured that this would be the case with the currently formulated mandate. As for the nature of the document to be adopted, the Republic of Korea was quite flexible, whether it was a programme of work, a working paper or a decision.
South Africa joined other States in reaffirming the importance of the work entrusted to the Conference on Disarmament. For South Africa, it would have been preferrable for the President to table a draft programme of work that would include negotiations on one or more items of the agenda of the Conference. Nevertheless, in the absence of a proposal or a consensus of such a programme of work, this decision, with the creation of these subsidiary bodies, may well be the only proposal that stood a chance of being adopted. As a first step, they needed to ensure clarity on what was before the Conference through the change of the title to “decision on the work of the Conference”, and not to refer to a programme of work in the title. South Africa believed that repetitive activities and discussion had not brought the Conference closer to agreement on a programme of work. They needed to guard against diluting the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament and the adoption of this decision should not be used to create a false impression that the Conference was now engaged in substantive work. South Africa was also concerned about the language of PP4. South Africa did not want to institutionalise subsidiary bodies that only met in informal settings. In order for the Conference to build on previous work toward negotiations, they needed to ensure that records were kept. South Africa asked if the meetings of the subsidiary bodies would be conducted in informal or formal sessions.
Venezuela said it was in favour of overcoming the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and urged everyone to work toward the adoption of a programme of work for 2022 that was balanced and comprehensive. The discussions had given continuity to the work of the Conference. The Conference should adopt a balanced and comprehensive programme of work on the basis of its agenda, taking in account the security interests of all countries. It was important to preserve the negotiating mandate of the Conference, with the understanding that it was not only a body to have discussions. Venezuela took a positive view of the President’s proposal and believed it was a very good foundation to help the Conference achieve practical results. States parties should show pragmatism. In light of the current state of politicisation of the Conference and the Security Council, the establishment of subsidiary bodies on the main agenda items could help the Conference move step by step to overcome the stalemate.
United States welcomed the President’s non-paper on a draft programme of work. The United States was ready for formal, and/or informal debates on all the agenda items and was happy to support a programme of work that established subsidiary bodies. A fix of the language of OP2 was likely necessary to address the concerns expressed about the lack of specificity of a mandate for the subsidiary bodies. The United States welcomed the establishment of the subsidiary bodies as a step in the right direction. It agreed with many delegations that the draft did not adequately recognise priority issues like a fissile material cut-off treaty. The United States and almost the entire international community was ready to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. There were answers to all these issues if all in the Conference wished to see a programme of work move forward. The United States was ready to consider any reasonable path to get there.
Iran said the non-paper was a good and constructive document for the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Iran had sent it to its capital and was waiting for instructions. Upholding the nature and role of the Conference and its negotiating mandate was of utmost importance. For the sake of consensus, simplicity and being concise could help the Conference move on. However, the simplicity should not undermine the mandate of the Conference. PP4 could have a forward-looking approach. OP2 could be modified to reflect the mandate of the subsidiary bodies. As for the title of the subsidiary bodies, like many others, Iran considered nuclear disarmament as a top priority for any negotiations. Iran was flexible on a programme of work.
Indonesia said a simplified and concise programme of work as presented could protect the Conference from contentious issues and bring them to consensus. The draft was a good basis and provided sufficient elements for the Conference to make progress. There was a need to improve PP4 to make it more positive, and OP2 also required some improvement, especially with regard to the mandate of the future subsidiary bodies. It was urgent for the Conference to execute its mandate. The work of the subsidiary bodies would be instrumental in this.
United Kingdom said it was very encouraged by the constructive atmosphere in the work of the Conference and hoped it would continue. The United Kingdom supported the President’s approach as set out in the non-paper. The 2018 subsidiary bodies had been an encouraging return to substantive discussions and it was unfortunate that the Conference had not been able to continue on that in the three subsequent years. The United Kingdom agreed that the Conference needed to continue making the net rather than just longing for the fish. They simply risked deferring procedural arguments and wasting the time allocated to the subsidiary bodies if they did not give some guidance on the mandate and the reporting mechanism upfront in the decision. In terms of the substance, the United Kingdom was disappointed by the lack of a more specific reference to the fissile material cut-off treaty which was the one item on the agenda of the Conference that was ready for immediate negotiations. If the subsidiary bodies could not be concluded quickly, the United Kingdom supported the adoption of a simplified programme of work that allocated agenda items to the remaining weeks of the calendar.
Canada said the non-paper was perhaps somewhat vague and left some of the difficult issues unresolved, such as giving specific mandates to the subsidiary bodies. Canada would like to see the commencement of negotiations on a treaty on fissile materials. It would also welcome a change to PP4 and it preferred to look forward to a time when the Conference would agree to negotiate. Canada viewed the proposal as an overall good basis for the work of the Conference.
Pakistan said it had expressed its willingness to work with the President’s clear and concise approach. Pakistan had strong national priorities on what the Conference ought to pursue and its position was well known. The singular and highest priority for the Conference remained nuclear disarmament. The President’s clear and concise formula may be far from perfect, but it was a plausible option to move the Conference forward, given the decades-long impasse. On PP4, it was important to recognise the decades-long impasse and reflect it in the preambular paragraphs. On the mandate of the proposed subsidiary bodies, the ultimate objective should be to develop and reach understandings that could eventually pave the way for negotiations. However, it was important to approach it with a touch of pragmatic realism. Pakistan remained flexible on the mode of the subsidiary bodies and supported the view on holding them in formal meetings. As for the messianic zeal of some to try to portray the so-called fissile material cut-off treaty as ripe, it their most innocuous form, these calls were just self-serving and a deliberate attempt to block the work of the Conference. The idea of the retention of thousands of tonnes of stockpiles of fissile material did not promote strategic stability. The rationale of these countries for their opposition to incorporate these fissile material stocks into the sphere of a treaty had yet to be heard. An issue such as negative security assurances was beyond overripe and should certainly be considered as an option.
Cuba was very optimistic about the non-paper which was pragmatic and a simple approach. If they focused on points of difference, they would not be able to achieve success. Cuba was trying to help reach a consensus. If PP4 was deleted, then the question was resolved. Concerning a specific mandate for the subsidiary bodies, if in OP1 they replaced rule number 23 with rule number 19, then that was a simple solution as rule 19 gave the Conference the opportunity to establish any form of working that it agreed to. There were differences but with these changes, perhaps this could help delegations agree.
Bulgaria considered the simple approach proposed by the President, not as a lack of ambition but rather to be able to accommodate the broadest scale of security of all. Once they started their work in the framework of subsidiary bodies, every State could elaborate on its positions and view and breach differences. Agreeing now on a way forward in broader terms did not prejudge any outcome of any discussion. Bulgaria was ready to be flexible and was open to consider any constructive proposal.
India said that in its view, a fissile material cut-off treaty was the most mature subject for commencement of negotiations at the Conference. It hoped that a revised draft for a programme of work would consider India’s views. As said at the last plenary, creative drafting could not help much, what was required was political will, clear and simple, and that would get the Conference moving.
Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that at this moment, the Conference on Disarmament did need good luck so that they could smoothly initiate work this year. This morning, they had continued to have a very good discussion on the non-paper proposed by the P-6 and many colleagues, including Pakistan had contributed concrete ideas. Many supported a concise and clear approach to deal with the work in the Conference this year. It was indeed an innovative contribution to the programme of work by the P-6. He had listened attentively to many colleagues, who had expressed in-depth views. He hoped that all delegations could make good use of the meetings of the Conference on Disarmament and the meetings of the subsidiary bodies to express their views throughout this year. For the moment, China’s focus was on facilitating a clear and concise programme of work. In China’s view, it was only through this kind of clear and concise approach that the Conference would be able to reach a programme of work for 2022. If they repeated what they did in the past and each just repeated their national priorities and insisted that they be reflected in a programme of work, then this year they would not go far. He hoped that they could agree of a programme of work this year, and then they could use the plenary time to fully express their views on all issues. The President called on all parties to take a concise and clear approach to reach consensus on a fair basis for work on all the agenda items.
There were two plans. Plan A was for the Conference to be able to agree on a clear and concise programme of work and hold meetings of subsidiary bodies in plenaries. If they failed to reach agreement on the programme of work and wasted time discussing a programme of work, then they could only use the rest of the time to focus on plenary meetings for thematic discussions. The P-6 had no intention to impose their requirements on the members of the Conference. China would continue its efforts to reach a clear and concise programme of work. This would require support, as well as compromise and concession. Making these concessions did not mean sacrificing national security interests or principled positions or prejudice any State or group of States. The President would give importance to each suggestion. In the second draft, China wondered how to reflect all views in a comprehensive and balanced way, as well as in a concise way. After this plenary, the experts of the P-6 would intensify and continue their work. He hoped that they would be able to reach agreement on a programme of work by next week, before next Thursday, which was the last plenary to be presided over by China.
Netherlands believed that the President was proposing to have an informal meeting. Was this the intention of the President and if so, what were the modalities of such a meeting?
Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he did not intend to hold an informal plenary this afternoon. What he was trying to say was that after this meeting, the experts of the P-6 would meet to further discuss the proposals made at the meeting. He invited those delegates who made specific proposals at the meeting today to participate if they were interested. If they continued the drafting process in an informal plenary, perhaps they would not get very far. He elaborated that the timetable for the subsidiary bodies would not affect the future plenaries of the Conference.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
DC22.007E