CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES SECOND PART OF 2005 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament today observed a minute of silence in honour of victims of last week's terrorist attack in London and heard statements by Bulgaria, Peru, Hungary, the Russian Federation, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom and Pakistan as the President of the Conference before concluding the second part of its 2005 session.

The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan, said the Conference condemned resolutely the terrorist act in London as an attack on humanity itself and offered the Conference’s profound condolences and sympathy to the Government and the people of the United Kingdom and to the families of the victims.

The United Kingdom thanked the Conference for the condolences expressed and spoke about the joint statement on non-proliferation which the G8 leaders had issued.

Ambassador Khan said that if the United Nations was being reformed, then the Conference could also be renewed. The fact that the Conference was not able to deliver on its mandate was a source of frustration for all, but Member States must try to break the impasse. The process of exploration and endeavour must continue.

Ambassador Khan also paid tribute to Ambassador Dimiter Tzantchev of Bulgaria, Ambassador Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez of Peru, and Ambassador Tibor Toth of Hungary who were leaving the Conference. The three Ambassadors provided farewell statements.

The Russian Federation and China spoke about the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Russian Federation informed the Conference about a new open-ended meeting to discuss the new proposals put forward by Russia and China on possible elements of the new legally binding agreement on the placement of weapons of outer space, and the use of force or threat of force against outer space objects. The meeting would be held on 16 August. China spoke about the finalization of the report of the international conference on outer space co-hosted on 21 and 22 March by China, the Russian Federation, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and the Simons Foundation of Canada.

The third and last part of the 2005 session of the Conference will be held from 8 August to 23 September 2005. The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 August.

Statements

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he wished to begin by expressing, on behalf of all the delegations of the Conference on Disarmament, profound shock and indignation at the terrorist attacks in London last Thursday that cost human life and caused injuries and immense human suffering. The Conference condemned resolutely this terrorist act as an attack on humanity itself. He offered the Conference’s profound condolences and sympathy to the Government and the people of the United Kingdom and to the families of the victims. He invited the Conference to observe a minute of silence in honour of the victims of the terrorist attack.

Ambassador Khan said Pakistan assumed the presidency at a time when the Conference was standing still, while going through the motions, an oxymoron but true all the same. Nothing significant had happened at the Conference in the past eight years. Pakistan was assuming the presidency of the Conference for the third time. In 1990 when it had been president for the first time, Pakistan had said that the talks between the two super powers would not substitute for multilateral talks, within the context of the United Nations, where the interests of the smaller countries were protected. In 1996, the second time Pakistan had assumed the presidency, the Conference had expanded with 23 new members and had been working at full speed to conclude the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There had been hope. Today, the Conference and its Member States were living in different times. Terrorist threats were stalking the world attacks abounded and the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation had become more important and urgent. It was the duty of the Conference to work on, among other issues, prevention of an armed race in outer space and negative security assurances.

Despite all initiatives this year, agreement on the programme of work remained elusive. The programme of work was only the beginning of the work of the Conference, not the end. The Conference had developed what could be called a writer’s block. To break this deadlock, the President of the Conference could take initiatives, regional groups could make suggestions, and individual countries could make proposals. All these methods had been tried at certain times. One questioned, among other things, if the Conference was expecting a bolt from the blue to jolt it into action. The impasse in the Conference was political, not procedural. The question was how to fix these political divisions. If there was a will to work, the Conference could function on the basis of the proposals already on the table. The Conference could not be turned into a debating forum. Debate at best could be a prelude and could help create and enabling forum, but the Conference was designed to create treaties.

Ambassador Khan said that if the United Nations was being reformed, then the Conference could also be renewed. The fact that the Conference was not able to deliver on its mandate was a source of frustration for all, but Member States must try to break the impasse. The process of exploration and endeavour must continue. He would continue to build on the efforts of his predecessor. It was the collective responsibility of the Member States to preserve this multilateral forum and to rededicate it to create multilateral treaties. He planned to invite Member States to give their input on the programme of work; to invite representatives of regional groups and China to hold consultations on the programme of work; to hold bilateral consultations with as many delegations as possible; and to continue to consult with the past four Presidents and with his successor on how to progress on the programme of work. He appealed to all Member States to help break the deadlock and to breath new life in the Conference.

In conclusion, Mr. Khan paid homage to three departing colleagues, Ambassador Dimiter Tzantchev of Bulgaria who had represented his country in the Conference with authority and diplomatic skills since 2002; Ambassador Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez of Peru who had represented her Government at the Conference with elegance, authority and diplomatic skills since 2004; and Ambassador Tibor Toth of Hungary who had represented his Government with remarkable authority, diplomatic skills and truly Hungarian thoughtfulness. He wished them much success and happiness for the future.

DIMITER TZANTCHEV (Bulgaria) said that as he was leaving Switzerland for another assignment, he would like to once again put on the record Bulgaria's position on the programme of work of the Conference. Bulgaria would support any initiative that might become a basis for consensus within the Conference on its programme of work. The delegation of Bulgaria had worked accordingly over the years, having the sincere desire to bring the Conference back to its substantive work. These efforts would be continued by the new Ambassador as it was the hope of Bulgaria that the Conference, which was an important forum for negotiating multilateral agreements related to international peace and security, would find its way out of the present situation.

ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru) thanked the President of the Conference on Disarmament for his kind words. Despite the fact that her time at the Conference had been brief and at times frustrating, she had been able to perceive the major importance of the role that the Conference had played in the past and the enormous potential that it still had. She had witnessed the extensive knowledge of the Member States on disarmament issues and determined efforts by the President to achieve real progress in the work of the Conference. Peru, at the end of August, would be assuming the presidency of this important multilateral forum. It was possible that despite all efforts being made, when the Conference adopted its final report in September, it might mark the ninth session during which the Conference had been unable to agree on a programme of work. True political will on the part of all the Member States of the Conference was the main issue. Flexibility by all those involved was necessary. Individual and collective proposals made over the years had made relevant contributions which would help to achieve agreement on a programme of work.

Peru had noted with concern some recent developments concerning the multilateral disarmament process which had not been encouraging. A combination of inertia, resentment and obstacle-placing strategies was blocking multilateral disarmament agreements and jeopardizing all the inhabitants of the planet. The growth in military expenditure by six percent annually over the past three years was disturbing. Peru also wished to underline that while the international situation had changed, the three fundamental pillars of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remained on the agenda of the entire international community. The traditional main items on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament remained valid and could not be discarded. It was also clear that the Conference could not shirk its responsibilities towards other new issues. The Conference should commence as soon as possible a process to improve its organization of work. The performance of the Conference needed to be strengthened by, among other things, extending the period of the rotating presidency held by each country.

TIBOR TOTH (Hungary) said he wished to thank the President for his kind words. He would not be pronouncing a statement in the proper sense, but would only be making a few personal words. He felt uneasy about “wishing you all the best” statements. It was in their inherent nature that they were better to pronounce, rather than to be at the receiving end. Also, he was not really leaving the arms control field and colleagues might bump into him again in New York in autumn. He wanted to thank all colleagues and friends, and wished only to say see you later.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said that as the discussions at the official plenary of the Conference on 30 June had clearly indicated, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and above all the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, was for many States, including Russia, an important and unalienable item of the agenda and the programme of work of the Conference. He thanked the delegations which had highly appreciated the proposals put forward by Russia and China in CD/1679 on possible elements of the new legally binding agreement on the placement of weapons in outer space, and the use of force or threat of force against outer space objects. Three special thematic non-papers on legal loopholes in the existing international law on outer space, on verification aspects and on definition issues pertaining to the new treaty proposed had also been prepared.

The Russian Federation intended to hold a new open-ended meeting to review and discuss document CD/1679 and the three non-papers. The meeting would begin at 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 in the Council Chamber and delegations of all Member States and observer countries at the Conference were invited to attend. The prime objective of the meeting was to conduct an in-depth exchange of views on three subject matters, namely: review of the existing international outer space law and its loopholes from a viewpoint of the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and justification of the need for the new legally binding instrument in this field; verification issues of the proposed new treaty; and key terms and definitions.

PAULINO FRANCO DE CARVALHO NETO (Brazil), delivering a statement on behalf of Ambassador CARLOS DA ROCHA PARANHOS, said Ambassador Sergio Duarte, a senior and very experienced Brazilian diplomat, had held the chairmanship of the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which took place in New York last May. He read out a letter that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had addressed to Ambassador Duarte in which he had expressed appreciation for the Ambassador's outstanding commitment in presiding over the meeting and the extensive consultations he had undertaken around the globe leading to the Conference.

HU XIAODI (China) said on 21 and 22 March, China, the Russian Federation, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and the Simons Foundation of Canada had jointly hosted an international conference on "safeguarding space security: prevention of an arms race in outer space" at the Council Chamber of the Palais des Nations. This had been the first time that China had ever hosted an international conference on the issue of outer space with relevant sides in the United Nations Office at Geneva since China had joined the Conference on Disarmament in 1980. Thanks to the hard work carried out by UNIDIR, the conference report, had been finished. The report captured and distilled the discussion on the main issues, and contained the key points of the opening and closing remarks made by relevant representatives. This report would help deepen understanding on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, enhance awareness of preserving outer space security and prevent an arms race in outer space through political and legal means.

FIONA PATERSON (United Kingdom) said a barbaric terrorism attack on London on 7 July had coincided with the opening of the G8 Summit in Gleneagles where leaders had been meeting to address some of the most urgent and difficult international problems, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means which, with international terrorism, were the pre-eminent threats to international peace and security. The G8 leaders had made a joint statement on non-proliferation and had acknowledged the role of the Conference in advancing both non-proliferation and disarmament objectives, calling on it resume its substantive work. She thanked her colleagues who had expressed their condolences personally or in writing concerning the tragic events which took place in London last week.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC05027E