CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS URGING ADOPTION OF DRAFT PRESIDENTIAL DECISION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard general statements from 11 countries, most of whom focused on the need to adopt the draft Presidential decision before the Conference in order to end the stalemate and start substantive work.

Colombia informed the Conference that two days ago in New York, it had deposited ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), adding that it was important to deal with other issues in the area of international peace and security, and Colombia had continued to work to these ends. Germany and the Netherlands congratulated Colombia and Malaysia for their ratification of the CTBT.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, said that as a result of discussions, the draft Presidential decision had been submitted, and two other documents suggesting how to deal with themes considered as being of priority importance. This package of proposals had been supported by a majority of Member States, and could be a good foundation to initiate consultations for the adoption of a work programme for this particular session. Syria said the immediate beginning of transparent negotiations was endorsed in order to reach a balanced programme of work. It should be reached by consensus and accommodate everyone’s concerns and interests. This same programme of work should base itself on what had already been achieved. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was at the top of the Conference’s priorities, because of the seriousness and devastating effects of these weapons on humanity at large.

Colombia said the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General and his urgent message to the members of the Conference at the inaugural meeting was important, and the Conference should go back to its roots as he had suggested, and carry out its work as the only multilateral forum on disarmament. Colombia considered that a great deal of time had been spent on repeating the political will to save the Conference from this crisis. The time had come to initiate the work of the Conference. Morocco said Member States should overcome differences and begin genuine discussions on the four core items on the agenda. Progress made in the work of the Conference, through the presentation of the Draft Presidential Declaration and the other documents submitted to the Conference, had provided a glimmer of hope. It was now up to all to work on moving forwards, taking into account the needs and wishes of all.

Mexico said various Member States had given signs in the last few years of great initiative and imagination, with the intention of fulfilling the expectations of the international community and negotiating international agreements. Thanks to those tireless efforts, in ten years of paralysis, the Six Presidents mechanism and the appointment of coordinators had allowed for progress. Indonesia said negotiations should begin with a view to achieving the objectives for which the Conference was established. A number of proposals were on the table - it was up to delegations to show their strong commitment and political will to move forward, striving to make the Conference more productive.

Germany said matters were now on the table to discuss nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and the CTBT should be a universal instrument as soon as possible. Israel said that once the Presidential Declaration and the Agenda had been adopted, any State could raise an issue and bring it to the notice of the forum, and this was what Israel intended to do. China said it had all along worked in its own manner to make its contribution to the progress of nuclear disarmament and hoped this would be reflected in the dynamism of the Conference. China was ready to join others in promoting the Conference and other work-related disarmament, in order to achieve substantial progress at an early date. The Netherlands said that with regards to the CTBT, with these two most recent ratifications, now only nine countries needed to sign before the treaty became operational, which was very comforting.

With regards to the programme of work, the Russian Federation proposed that the President reflect on the possible postponement of the proposed round of negotiations on the prevention of an armed race in outer space to 14 or 15 February, or move up the discussions slated for the third week, shifting all informal negotiations to one week later.

In 2007, the Conference was not able to reach agreement on a programme of work and so was unable to start work on substantive issues. A Presidential Draft Decision (CD/2007/L.1**) was submitted as a basis for an agreement to begin substantive work in the Conference, and successive Presidents conducted intensive consultations with a view to reaching agreement on it. Presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1** calls for the appointment of four Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Complementary Presidential Statement, CD/2007/CRP.5*, reflects an understanding of the Conference on the implementation of the Presidential decision, and the third text CD/2007/CRP.6* is a short decision stating that when the Conference adopts the Presidential decision, it will be guided by the Presidential statement in its implementation.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Samir Labidi of Tunisia, the President of the Conference, said the calendar of activities, as submitted to delegations, should be effective and flexible, allowing the taking into account of the progress made in the work, and the consideration of the priorities of the Conference. The Conference was keen on making progress in its work, and the President would be in touch with delegations and regional groups. In the next few days, the Conference would also be honoured by receiving high-level visitors, coming to address the Conference, reaffirming the importance of its work.

The Conference also decided to invite Jordan to participate in the work of the Conference as an observer, in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Argentina, Syria, Colombia, Morocco, Mexico, Indonesia, Germany, the Russian Federation, Israel, China, and the Netherlands.

The next meeting of the Conference will be on Tuesday, 5 February, when it will be addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom, Des Browne.

Statements

SAMIR LABIDI, President of the Conference, said the calendar of activities, as submitted to delegations, should be effective and flexible, allowing the taking into account of the progress made in the work, and the consideration of the priorities of the Conference. The calendar of activities could be changed in the light of consultations, and could cause changes in the work programme. The Conference was keen on making progress in its work, and the President would be in touch with delegations and regional groups. In the next few days, the Conference would also be honoured by receiving high-level visitors, coming to address the Assembly, reaffirming the importance of its work. The President would keep delegations informed in connection with those visits.

ERNESTO MARTINEZ GONDRA (Argentina), speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, welcomed the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General who had for the first time addressed the members of the Conference at the inaugural session. The message of the highest authority of the United Nations to the Member States was clear in recognising that the Conference was faced with a unique opportunity to revitalise its work. Given the lack of consensus for more than ten years, which had made it impossible to adopt a work programme, the Member States had seen the need to establish new and innovative mechanisms, which had contributed to positive achievements, both in procedure and in substance, such as the P-6 programme, which had provided continuity and guidance throughout the work of the session, and the appointment of coordinators for the agenda items, which had allowed substantial progress in discussions on those. As a result of discussions, the draft Presidential decision had been submitted, along with two other documents suggesting how to deal with themes considered as being of priority importance. This package of proposals had been supported by a majority of Member States, and could be a good foundation to initiate consultations for the adoption of a work programme for this particular session.

It was indispensable to implement the commitment of the Member States to take account of the proposals and ideas contained in the report to the General Assembly. The Conference should adopt a work programme, and renew its work and responsibilities as a negotiating forum for disarmament. Countries guaranteed that they would cooperate fully in carrying out various tasks. Latin America, with Chile as coordinator, would shoulder the coordination of a key theme - nuclear disarmament. Latin America had laid importance on this issue at a regional level. Nuclear weapons States should renew their commitment to comply with their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Latin America was flexible to providing support to flexible suggestions that would allow reactivation of the Conference’s work, and mechanisms should be identified that would allow dialogue to continue whilst progress was made towards consensus. Initiatives submitted by States on each and every item considered a priority issue would be considered, and would be extremely useful at this time. In the last few years, the constant repetition of the desire to resume negotiations could seem discouraging, however, countries had chosen to keep their trust in the political will of States to consolidate multilateralism and the United Nations as an effective tool to consolidate international peace and security.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria would fully cooperate with all Presidents for 2008, in full sincerity and transparency. Syria associated itself in the statement with that of Sri Lanka, President of the Group of 21, which was delivered on 29 January 2008. The President’s success in selecting new Coordinators for the main seven topics of the Conference was a matter which required thanks and congratulations. This new group of Coordinators had reflected this time the best geographical distribution. The Coordinators were congratulated for the trust placed in them. It was necessary to abide by what was contained in the statement on 29 January on their mandate and the terms of reference. The Conference achieved good results last year. This was thanks to the cooperation of the Six Presidents and the members of the Conference, and the efforts by the representative of the Secretary-General, and those of the Secretariat. The immediate beginning of transparent negotiations was endorsed in order to reach a balanced programme of work, to be reached by consensus and accommodate everyone’s concerns and interests. This same programme of work should base itself on what had already been achieved.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was at the top of the Conference’s priorities, because of the seriousness and devastating effects of these weapons on humanity at large. This necessitated giving the four basic issues equal and balanced importance. The Conference was able, in 1998, to reach a consensus on starting negotiations on two points of the four basic ones, and these were negative security assurances, and the prohibition of the proliferation of fissile material for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Syria reserved the right to come back to discussing once again the programme of work at later sittings.

However, the attention of the Conference should be drawn to the presence of ill-will manifested by one delegation on the 29 January, when it tried to draw the Conference to discuss political questions that were not within its mandate. Politicising the work of the Conference on Disarmament would lead to an increased atmosphere of tension and stress - and the Conference could do without that. Attempting to disrupt the work of the Conference by a State was a member of the Conference which was in possession of hundreds of nuclear heads and secretly worked to bring the efforts of the Conference to failure because it wished to continue to create weapons, and was the only State in the Middle East which refused to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, dumping its nuclear waste in the Occupied Syrian Golan. The world at large knew that it overtly practised State terrorism. These attempts would trigger a state of mutual accusations in the Conference, leading to intransigence and positions which wasted the precious time of sittings. No State which practiced State terror had the right to propel the Conference into failure. All should work to obstruct its attempts to paralyse the Conference, sabotage its work and create an atmosphere of confusion, as this would deprive the Conference of success in attending to its business.

CLEMENCIA FORERA UCROS (Colombia) said the proposed agenda was gratefully received. Colombia would continue to support the measures of the Presidents as they took on their role in the Conference in order to identify means for extricating the Conference from stagnation. The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean would continue to work jointly to make an active contribution to the work of the Conference. The presence of the United Nations Secretary-General and his urgent message to the members of the Conference at the inaugural meeting was important, and the Conference should go back to its roots as he had suggested, and carry out its work as the only multilateral forum on disarmament. Colombia considered that a great deal of time had been spent on repeating the political will to save the Conference from this crisis. The time had come to initiate the work of the Conference. Colombia had played an active role in bringing this possibility closer. The draft Presidential declaration was a step forwards, as was the work of the Coordinators on the seven issues.

Last year, Colombia had supported the draft Presidential declaration, which had majority support by the Conference. This year, the Declaration was one of the foundations on which to create consensus and make further progress. Negotiations should begin on fissile materials - the Conference was ready to shoulder this challenge, and should be ready for it. At the same time, progress could be made on the three other issues in the Declaration. Colombia had repeatedly stood up for complete disarmament, and the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons. In New York two days ago, Colombia had deposited ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It was important to deal with other issues in the area of international peace and security, and Colombia had continued to work to these ends. It had valiantly tried to cope with the terrorist threat of armed illegal groups, which required huge numbers of weapons on the black market - the international community needed to tackle the issue of non-State armed actors. Colombia had also made progress in destroying weapons that were in the power of armed groups, and would continue to carry out efforts in this regard.

LAASEL ABDERRAZK (Morocco) said the initiatives taken by the President through exclusive consultations with a view to promoting dialogue between Member States were to be commended. It should be possible to move forward in the work of the Conference, which was the only multilateral negotiating forum. The efforts made by the Presidents of 2007 were also commended. The adoption of an Agenda for the 2008 session augured well for work to begin in depth. There was growing interest by the international community for disarmament issues. In his introductory statement to the Conference, the United Nations Secretary-General noted that it needed to move forward - coordinated disarmament would halt the arms race, making it possible to free resources for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Member States should overcome differences and begin genuine discussions on the four items on the agenda. Progress made in the work of the Conference, through the presentation of the draft Presidential declaration and the other documents submitted to the Conference had provided a glimmer of hope. It was now up to all to work on moving forwards, taking into account the needs and wishes of all. Each Member State had been able to submit an issue which they considered essential to the work of the Conference. Work should begin, without further delay, on issues which had arisen over the last ten years. The Conference needed to work together in this regard.

Morocco placed particular importance on the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the universality thereof. The failure of the Review Conference of 2005 had dashed all hopes for a world free of nuclear weapons. There were aggravated tensions in the world, threatened by terrorism and all forms of extremism. Stability in all regions, in particular the Middle East, would help ensure non-proliferation. Morocco called for an agreement on this issue to be reached rapidly, and was committed to combating all forms of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, it remained convinced that the effectiveness of the struggle required it to be universal - the central role of the International Atomic Agency needed to be reaffirmed. There should be serious, transparent negotiations for the drawing up of a multilateral, international and non-discriminatory instrument to forbid the creation of fissile materials for military purposes.

MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico) said Mexico was grateful to Tunisia for its commitments to the objectives of the Conference. Mexico fully endorsed the statement made earlier by Argentina, and supported the P-6 for the calendar of activities, and the appointment of the six Coordinators who would be guiding deliberations. Various Member States had given signs in the last few years of great initiative and imagination, with the intention of fulfilling the expectations of the international community and negotiating international agreements. Thanks to those tireless efforts, in ten years of paralysis, the Six Presidents mechanism and the appointment of Coordinators had allowed for progress. The glories of the Conference probably belonged to the past, but Mexico hoped that the message given by the Secretary-General would prick the Conference’s conscience, and create a trigger, allowing not only for adoption of the work programme, but true advances, justifying the Conference’s existence as the only multilateral forum for negotiating disarmament.

Last year, a small number of delegations had prevented the Conference from taking an important step forward by adopting its work programme. The Presidential Proposal had received the support of Mexico - it was a realistic formula and good foundation to build consensus towards the real priority of the Conference, namely to broaden and strengthen the disarmament regime. This historical opportunity should not be lost again - the Conference could make the most of this opportunity through the Presidential Proposal. Considering it would not mean that the Conference was not taking into account innovative solutions and proposals to overcome difficulties - however, these latter should not replace the spirit of compromise, which required further strengthening. The Conference should retrieve its crucial role, and should not allow a spirit contrary to the objectives in the Charter to emerge.

JOSE TAVARES (Indonesia) said Indonesia associated itself with the statement made by Sri Lanka on behalf of the group of 21 on 29 January. Indonesia had always shown its strong commitment and support to efforts geared towards total and complete disarmament, and had contributed to the development of a nuclear weapons-free zone in its region. In order to give more significance to the Treaty, Indonesia had introduced, at the General Assembly last year, a draft resolution, which had been adopted. It was crucial to undertake similar efforts for nuclear-free zone treaties in other regions. Although the Conference had not succeeded last year, progress had been made, and a balanced and comprehensive approach was necessary - all issues were interconnected. Progress could best be achieved through the consideration of the concerns of all, and a strenuous process of formal and informal meetings, and a spirit of conciliation and flexibility would allow for progress. Negotiations should begin with a view to achieving the objectives for which the Conference was established. A number of proposals were on the table - it was up to delegations to show their strong commitment and political will to move forward, striving to make the Conference more productive.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said he wished to congratulate Colombia and Malaysia for joining the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Matters were now on the table to discuss nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. This should be a universal instrument as soon as possible. The statement made by Argentina was welcome - Germany could have subscribed to every word, and was grateful for it, as it was precise and unambiguous, and thus was more relevant than more general statements that had been made at other times. With regards to the statement made by Syria, Germany had some questions, but did not expect them to be answered at this meeting. Germany respected and appreciated the efforts by the Syrian delegation last year with regards to the report of the Conference. In the introduction to the statement, with regard to the Coordinators, it had been said that there was good geographical distribution this time, and this implied that this was not the case last year. This issue could be discussed further. Syria had also said that the Conference should build on what had been achieved last year, and that all four items should be treated with equal importance, and this was in contradiction with what it had said last year. When the agenda was adopted last year and last Friday, it was said that any issue that any delegation considered to be ripe could be discussed. The speaker did not understand all of the remarks of Syria, and considered that some of them were inappropriate, as they politicised the discussion in the room. Germany wished to take the floor to clarify that it did not agree with this, and to make it clear that this kind of statement could not be made without any reaction.

VALERY SEMIN (Russian Federation) said with regards to the organization of the session, the proposed timetable that had been issued on Tuesday, the distinguished representative of Germany had already made comments to the effect that informal discussions on item three of the agenda, prevention of an armed race in outer space, had been slated for 7 February, and that this could be postponed to a later date, once the draft treaty on the prevention of an armed race in outer space had been submitted on 12 February. This made a lot of sense, and the first round of discussions on this issue, coming after the submission of the draft treaty would have an added value. In this connection, Russia proposed that the President reflect on the possible postponement of the proposed round of negotiations to 14 or 15 February, or move up the discussions slated for the third week, shifting all informal negotiations to one week later. This matter had been discussed among the coordinators on item three.

SAMIR LABIDI, President of the Conference, said the presidency was open to all proposals, and would study them.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said he would have liked to have been able to make a general statement today on the activities of the Conference, its achievements over the past year, and to have spoken about what remained to be done this year. Nevertheless, he was surprised by the statement by the representative of Israel on Tuesday, who set himself up as judge, making accusations against particular States of terrorism, accusing another State referring to a resolution of the Security Council in 2006. This was a total deviation, moving away from the aims of the Conference. 122 States had been unable to date to define the concept of terrorism, and the representative of Germany knew this very well. If there was a State which practiced State terrorism, it did not have the right to accuse others of the same. The Conference was not here to discuss Security Council resolutions, it was here to discuss disarmament, and this should be the focus of all its efforts.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) said the Conference was moving away from what it was about. Israel was not surprised that Syria and another delegation had chosen to take the floor to refer to Israel’s statement. Israel did not recall that it mentioned any State by name therein. That those States had decided to take the floor and react begged the question as to why they had reacted to a simple fact that had been presented, not just in the Conference, but world-wide. It would have been better if they had kept quiet, and not demanded other States keep quiet when they had serious security concerns. Once the draft Presidential declaration and the agenda had been adopted, any State could raise an issue and bring it to the notice of the forum, and this was what Israel intended to do.

QUN WANG (China) said the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treat (CTBT), like the Conference, touched upon all the important work, all of which were important components of the international regime for preventing the arms race and promoting the disarmament regime. It was hoped that progress could be made in all these regions. For China, as had been said before, the work of the Conference on Disarmament was appreciated, and China had adopted a conciliatory attitude, hoping that substantive work would start as soon as possible. With regards to CTBT, China adopted a constructive position, although, as far as the Parliament was concerned, it was still in the process of reviewing the final ratification of CTBT. And yet, the speaker could say, in a positive tone, that China, with regards to the framework, and certified stations and other areas, had made substantial progress. At this stage, China was working, and had already exceeded the requirements as stipulated in the CTBT, fully showing its constructive commitment. China had all along worked in its own manner to make its contribution to the progress of nuclear disarmament and hoped this would be reflected in the dynamism of the Conference, and was ready to join others in promoting the Conference and other work-related disarmament, in order to achieve substantial progress at an early date.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said the important news of the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by Colombia was welcomed. This followed the important ratification by Malaysia, which meant that only two of the most important signatory powers in the Asian region had not yet signed, and therefore the statement by China was very welcome. With these two most recent ratifications, now only nine countries needed to sign before the treaty became operational, which was very comforting. With regards to the number of copies circulated, as mentioned during the previous session, a questionnaire had been circulated, and all delegations were urged to fill this in.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08007E