PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OUTLINES TIMETABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS

The President of the Conference on Disarmament today outlined the timetable that the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference had agreed upon to ensure focused and structured debates on the agenda items.

Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, the President of the Conference, said the lack of consensus on a programme of work should not prevent the Conference from organizing debates aimed at reaching it. More focused discussions throughout this year should take place in relation to relevant agenda items. He said the timetable was without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work or the establishment of any subsidiary body.

Ambassador Rapacki said the Presidents intended to focus the structured debates, from 27 February to 3 March on nuclear disarmament; from 15 to 18 May on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; from 8 to 15 June on prevention of an arms race in outer space; from 19 to 23 June on new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, including radiological weapons; from 31 July to 4 August on negative security assurances; from 7 to 11 August on a comprehensive programme of disarmament; from 21 to 25 August on transparency in armaments; and from 4 to 15 September on the annual report of the Conference.

China said it was its understanding that the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference (P6) would function as a single unit, and in terms of time allocation, would handle all issues in a balanced manner. This approach would help to note the concerns of all parties and would contribute to creating favourable conditions to reach agreement on a programme of work.

Canada said that in some areas, quite frankly, the timetable seemed to fall far short of the objectives. The President had referred to a focused and structured debate, but on the surface, the timetable was just an agenda-based debate. Canada feared that on first reading, the timetable did not seem to meet the common expectation of a much more intensified and structured debate for 2006.

Japan said the issues listed by his Canadian colleague were related to how the issue of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which for Japan was a priority, would be dealt with.

France associated itself with the questions and view points addressed by Canada and Japan, and the United States said it was its understanding that the rule that the Conference abided to – that any delegation may raise any issue at any time – would not be overruled by the timetable.

On general issues, Cuba said the Conference had a significant role to play in changing the current state of affairs. Cuba was firmly committed to multilateralism and saw the Conference as a vital link within the multilateral system. The prevailing climate in the Conference was unfavourable, however, for the adoption of a programme of work that did not take all members' priorities into account.

Pakistan said it supported the A5 proposal as it presented a package solution to address the four core issues in a comprehensive and balanced manner. The agenda of the Conference was fine as it was. There were suggestions for additions, and this aspect had to be handled carefully so that the agenda did not become cluttered and so that new linkages were not created, thus further complicating the task.

Brazil said it was concerned that bringing new subjects to the Conference to be debated could, even without the purported intentions of their promoters, deviate the Conference from the main task which was to narrow down differences towards the adoption of a programme of work. For Brazil, the pursuit of nuclear disarmament was the fundamental objective of the Conference.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 16 February.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), President of the Conference, said that as consensus on the establishment of any subsidiary body or on a programme of work did not exist, the Conference had to continue efforts to bridge differences aimed at looking for consensus. The agenda was the framework for the activities of the Conference. The lack of consensus on a programme of work should not prevent the Conference from organizing debates aimed at reaching it. More focused discussions throughout this year should take place in relation to relevant agenda items. The Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference shared a few basic assumptions, including that each President would conduct general debates in the form of plenary meetings which would allow for a rolling discussion on all agenda items; the Presidents intended to allow for focused structured debates to allow delegations to prepare and to invite experts; and each President was also encouraged to reserve time for the possibility to report on findings by the Friends of Presidents and to allow for discussion in the Conference on these findings if deemed necessary.

Ambassador Rapacki said the timetable was without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work or the establishment of any subsidiary body. The Presidents intended to focus the structured debates, from 27 February to 3 March, during the Presidency of the Republic of Korea, on nuclear disarmament; from 15 to 18 May, during the Presidency of Romania, on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; from 8 to 15 June, during the Presidency of the Russian Federation, on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and from 19 to 23 June on new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, including radiological weapons; from 31 July to 4 August, under the Presidency of Senegal, on negative security assurances, and from 7 to 11 August on a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and from 21 to 25 August, during the Presidency of Slovakia, on transparency in armaments, and from 4 to 15 September on the annual report of the Conference. The P6 hoped that the announcement of the Presidents’ plan would be a useful tool which would bring positive results for the Conference.


JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), said that the window of opportunity to build a better and safer world that opened in the 1990s had been missed. The end of the Cold War had left the United States of America as the world's pre-eminent military power. At that time it would have been possible to adopt a policy aimed at the consolidation of peace through a solid commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and efforts towards the gradual elimination of other types of weapons and military technologies. The collective security system, based on the respect for international rules and principles and the consolidation of international and social cooperation by pooling material, financial and human resources released by disarmament measures, could have been strengthened. However, not only was that opportunity missed, the Superpower took that opportunity to consolidate its imperial power.

Military doctrines were revised and treaties that were the quintessence of world stability were revoked. The Superpower resorted to threats and the use of force. The United Nations and its precarious system of collective security were weakened and world instability and lack of security had increased, with fatal consequences. While nuclear weapons were powerful enough to destroy the Earth, they had not prevented the proliferation of armed conflicts nor the condemnable terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 that took place in the United States of America. Nor could such weapons prevent other States from taking the logical next step to redress the lack of a balance of power and security through the development or acquisition of weapons. All of this had led to rising world military expenditure -- resources that were diverted from humanitarian causes.

The Conference on Disarmament had a significant role to play in changing the current state of affairs. Cuba was firmly committed to multilateralism and saw the Conference as a vital link within the multilateral system. The prevailing climate in the Conference was unfavourable, however, for the adoption of a programme of work that did not take all members' priorities into account. In the wake of recent failures in the area of disarmament and international security, Cuba concluded that such a climate of mutual distrust demanded immediate, rather than gradual, solutions. Convinced that the only effective solution to the problem of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was their total elimination, Cuba felt that the Conference should establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate on nuclear disarmament. Other priorities for the Conference in 2006 should include the commencement of negotiations on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty that would address both non-proliferation and disarmament, and the launching of an international legal instrument on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) noted that the President of the Conference and the five incoming Presidents had worked hard to kick-start the Conference and he hoped that those initiatives would succeed. Pakistan also hoped that the six friends of Presidents would accomplish their assigned tasks. Now, the most important task before the Conference was to come up with an agreed programme of work. The President’s last report had indicated that there was no consensus yet on the programme of work or the establishment of any Ad Hoc committee or appointment of any Special Coordinator. The Conference must therefore devote its maximum time and energy to securing an agreement on a programme of work. Pakistan suggested that the combined weight of the Presidents of the 2006 session, the Friends of Presidents, the regional coordinators, China and other members be used to persuade the few countries that had reservations on the A5 to come on board. The failure to agree on disarmament and non-proliferation reflected deep divergences amongst United Nations Member States. This was a dangerous trend for peace and security, especially in regions of tension. It was against this backdrop that President Pervez Musharraf in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on 14 September 2005 said that “we must evolve a new consensus to achieve disarmament and non-proliferation”.


Ambassador Khan said that in building such a consensus, the Conference should start from the United Nations Charter’s cardinal principle that security was the right of every State. The four core issues – nuclear disarmament, Fissile Material Treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances – constituted a delicate equilibrium and tinkering with this equilibrium had resulted in an impasse. Pakistan supported the A5 proposal as it presented a package solution to address the four core issues in a comprehensive and balanced manner. The agenda of the Conference was fine as it was. There were suggestions for additions, and this aspect had to be handled carefully so that the agenda did not become cluttered and so that new linkages were not created, thus further complicating the task. The agenda was comprehensive enough to accommodate new ideas if there was agreement on them. However, it must be borne in mind that the Conference was a negotiating, not a deliberative, forum, though negotiation entailed deliberation. The Conference should stick to priorities and not get distracted by issues of secondary and tertiary nature.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said the proposal of planned structured debates based on all items of the agenda was an innovative attempt to create a more receptive atmosphere that could help the Conference Member States adopt a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. Brazil was of the view that the current agenda should allow Member States to arrive at a compromise solution for a programme of work, one that encompassed necessarily the four core issues – nuclear disarmament, fissile material treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances – and, at the same time, eventually allow the inclusion of other themes, provided that they were directly related to a forum devoted exclusively to negotiations on disarmament. In this context, as a demonstration of flexibility, Brazil could participate in an informal exchange of views on critical infrastructures, including seminars and workshops, although it did not think that this specific issue had any direct linkage to the Conference. Brazil believed that the issue of man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) was already being dealt with in the purview of the current Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons.

Brazil was concerned that bringing new subjects to the Conference to be debated could, even without the purported intentions of their promoters, deviate the Conference from the main task which was to narrow down differences towards the adoption of a programme of work. For Brazil, the pursuit of nuclear disarmament was the fundamental objective of the Conference, which was a negotiating body. The pursuit of nuclear disarmament was the fundamental tool in addressing the international community’s deep concern about proliferation. The expeditious negotiation by the Conference of a fissile material treaty was also a necessity.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said the delegation of China had listened with attention to the President’s introduction of the timetable. China expressed its appreciated to the President and the P6 for their efforts to promote progress. It was China’s understanding that the P6 would function as a single unit, and in terms of time allocation, would handle all issues in a balanced manner. This approach would help to note the concerns of all parties and would contribute to creating favourable conditions to reach agreement on a programme of work.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said he wished to comment on the President’s statement and the timetable announced. First, he wished to acknowledge that he knew that a great effort had been put in the elaboration of the timetable and Canada felt that the continuity presented by the P6 was an enhancement to the way the P6 approached their work. Canada had expectations that this year would mark a new and qualitatively different year for the Conference, one that provided a coherent, sustained and structured discussion of the issues and a far better use of time allocated to the Conference. In this regard, while appreciating the timetable, he wished to pose some questions for clarification.


In some areas, quite frankly, the timetable seemed to fall far short of the objectives. The President had referred to a focused and structured debate, but on the surface, the timetable was just an agenda-based debate. Canada had hoped that the Conference would be able to build on work already done, not just repeat it. Canada had hoped that better use of the time of the Conference would be made. However, major issues like the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty or nuclear disarmament were only being allocated one week of discussion out of the entire year. Did this represent the intensified labour that the delegations had been expecting. What would the Presidents do with the rest of their time, and how would they get beyond the general debate and start working on substance. The Conference had had enough of the general debate. It needed specific topics identified in advance to allow delegations to prepare for them and to get instructions from their capitals. He did not see this fulfilled by the timetable. Also he wondered what the President planned to do during Poland’s last two weeks as President of the Conference. Canada feared that on first reading, the timetable did not seem to meet the common expectation of a much more intensified and structured debate for 2006.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), President of the Conference, said he wanted to answer Ambassador Meyer. On the substance of the debates, it was the understanding of the President that the debates would be based on proposals by Member States. The length and intensity of the debate would depend on the Member States, so it was up to all delegations to contribute to the substance and content of the deliberations, not only to the President. The Presidents also could not exclude that more time would be dedicated to some items of the agenda if there was consensus. Finally, he wished to note that Poland’s term as President would end next week .

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said a few days ago, the delegation of Japan had emphasized that it considered that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) was a priority and it had just referred to this item out of other items. What his Canadian colleague had just raised was related to how this matter would be dealt with. As Japan understood it, and from the timetable which the President had read out, the Conference would look at the issue of an FMCT and other issues, for example nuclear disarmament, in the first cluster, or the first topic and time allocated under the Presidency of the Republic of Korea. And that would also be the case under the Presidency of Romania.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said he associated himself with the questions and view points addressed by Canada and Japan.

THOMAS CYNKIN (United States) said he wanted to add, in the spirit of the general discussion, that he was sure that the rule that the Conference abided to – that any delegation may raise any issue at any time – would not be overruled by the timetable.


* *** *

For use of information media; not an official record

dc0607e