CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, RUSSIA, SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, FRANCE, SRI LANKA, CHINA AND NEW ZEALAND

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from Australia, Japan, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Canada, France, Sri Lanka, China and New Zealand on Presidential proposal CD/1840 to end the impasse in the Conference and on regional nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.

The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Christina Rocca of the United States, said it was unquestioned that CD/1840 was a compromise, and thus by definition, unable to meet anyone’s goals perfectly, but it was well-suited to advance everyone’s interests and to get the Conference back to work. If it was adopted, all would win much and lose a little. While the United States would continue to focus on CD/1840 as the desired outcome of this year’s activities in the Conference, with the support of the P6, they proposed a series of informal meetings during the third part of the 2008 session of the Conference in late July and in August. The United States had asked the seven Coordinators to resume their roles and to chair the discussions. The full exchange of views in these renewed informal discussions would help refresh all the issues in Members’ minds, would help advance consensus on CD/1840, and would help inform the Conference on its final report.

Australia informed the Conference of an announcement made by the Australian Prime Minister in a speech in Japan on the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. In a joint statement with the Japanese Prime Minister, Australia and Japan had renewed their determination to strengthen the international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regime and to cooperate closely to achieve a successful outcome to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The objective of the Commission was to enhance global efforts to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty by paving the way for a successful Review Conference in 2010.

Japan said that, on 12 June, the Japanese Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia had released a joint statement to reaffirm the particular importance of the Japan-Australia relationship and to strengthen further the comprehensive and strategic partnership between the two countries. Both leaders had renewed their determination to strengthen the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Japan had also welcomed the Australian Prime Minister’s proposal to establish an international commission on nuclear non-proliferation. On CD/1840, Japan believed it was a well-balanced compromise.

The Russian Federation said not everything in CD/1840 suited the Russian Federation and it was sure that all other delegations were not fully satisfied either. The Russian Federation wanted a stronger focus on prevention of an arms race in outer space which was a priority for the country. The Russian Federation was interested in having a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was prepared not to oppose it with the view of ensuring the quickest return of the Conference to work.

South Africa said the consensus rule in the Conference had often been mentioned as the main reason why the Conference had not been able to negotiate anything in the last couple of years. But was it not perhaps the misuse of the consensus rule, rather than the rule itself, that had created the problem. The consensus rule did not apply itself, it was the Members of the Conference that chose when and how to apply it. When it was used to block the commencement, not the finalization, of negotiations, one could perhaps understand why some referred to the “tyranny of consensus”. South Africa did not believe that CD/1840 was perfect. However, it represented that which was possible and practical under the present circumstances. South Africa stood ready to join a consensus on CD/1840.

Canada, speaking also on behalf of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), presented to the Conference the report on a conference entitled: “Security in Space: the Next Generation”, that had taken place earlier this year. The conference had been the latest in a series of annual conferences held by UNIDIR on the issues of space security, the peaceful uses of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

France referred to the statement by the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, on 21 March in Cherbourg proposing an ambitious disarmament plan, saying that these transparency measures were unprecedented for a nuclear weapon State. The President of France proposed to invite international experts to come and witness the dismantling of the fissile material for weapons facilities in Pierrelatte and Marcoule. Today, France renewed this invitation, and a visit to these facilities would be organized on 16 September. All Member States were invited to send representatives.

Sri Lanka said CD/1840 was a good basis for discussion, Sri Lanka had no doubt about that. However, Sri Lanka wished to draw attention to some underlying structural anomalies which had to be addressed if this effort was to be successful. CD/1840 privileged one agenda item over others. This particular item elevated over the others involved certain Member States more than certain others. If those Member States felt that their fundamental national interests were at variance with the spirit of CD/1840, then it was not a question of a handful of holdouts. Those countries concerns had to be seriously engaged with. If it was the perception of these States that their core strategic interests were at stake, then the Conference had to do better. Doing better could mean looking afresh at the other agenda items.

China hoped that the relevant parties would continue to make efforts to further conduct a constructive dialogue and consultations so that they were able to narrow the differences and reach consensus on a programme of work which was acceptable to all. In general, China was ready to make joint efforts with all the relevant delegations to push forward progress in the Conference.

New Zealand supported the President’s comment that moving forward to reach consensus on the basis of CD/1840 was the best basis for advancing the work in the Conference. As far as its national position was concerned, New Zealand would be happy to commence negotiations on any of the core items before the Conference. As a non nuclear weapon State and as a State which had taken strong positions on nuclear weapons, New Zealand particularly wished for the start of negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The reality was that no delegation here was in a position to begin serious negotiations on all the core issues before the Conference. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would contribute to nuclear disarmament. New Zealand would like to see the treaty deal with verification and existing stocks and would argue in the negotiations in favour of including verification and existing stocks.

According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Chile as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; appoint Japan as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations; appoint Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; appoint Senegal as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and would request those Coordinators to present a report to the Conference on the progress of work before the conclusion of the session. The Conference would also decide to request the Coordinators for the agenda items previously appointed by the 2008 Presidents (i.e., new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems for such weapons, radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armament) to continue their work during the current session.

Draft Decision CD/1840 builds on an earlier proposal submitted by the 2007 P-6 (CD/2007/L.1), and its related documents CRP.5 and CRP.6, combining those three texts in a single document.

The Conference on Disarmament will hold a public plenary at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 June, to listen to a statement by Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. This will be the last public plenary of the second part of the 2008 session of the Conference. The third and last part of the 2008 session of the Conference will be held from 28 July to 12 September.

Statements

CHRISTINA ROCCA (United States), Incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, said it was an honour to preside over the Conference. The common sense of purpose shown by all members of the Presidency, their joint aim in getting the Conference back to work, the genuine collegialitiy, was all impressive and gratifiying. It was a demonstration of how harmony could be created from disparate voices, given the will to do so. Some delegations had questioned the need for the differentiation among the key issues shown by CD/1840. It was unquestioned that CD/1840 was a compromise, and thus by definition, unable to meet anyone’s goals perfectly, but it was well-suited to advance everyone’s interests and to get the Conference back to work. If it was adopted, all would win much and lose a little.

As President, the United States intended to continue to work closely with the Six Presidents and to continue to support the direction set through the hard work of the previous presidents this year. The United States would remain open to supporting broad dialogue, would continue consultations and would work to build upon and broaden the already almost unanimous support underlying CD/1840. While the United States would continue to focus on CD/1840 as the desired outcome of this year’s activities in the Conference, with the support of the P6, they proposed a series of informal meetings during the third part of the 2008 session of the Conference in late July and in August. The United States had asked the seven Coordinators to resume their roles and to chair the discussions. The full exchange of views in these renewed informal discussions would help refresh all the issues in members’ minds, would help advance consensus on CD/1840, and would help inform the Conference on its final report. Each agenda item would get equal treatment, a half-day meeting. There was still enough time left this year to return the Conference to substantive work and to restore value to the seemingly empty phrase that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body. The Conference could accomplish substantive work, even late in its session, and the United States encouraged all delegations to show flexibility in the deliberations and enthusiasm in the discussions.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) informed the Conference about an announcement made by the Australian Prime Minister in a speech in Japan on the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. In a joint statement with the Japanese Prime Minister, Australia and Japan had renewed their determination to strengthen the international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regime and to cooperate closely to achieve a successful outcome to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Australia had long taken a leading role on arms control and disarmament. The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament would follow up on the important work that had been undertaken by the Canberra Commission and the Tokyo Forum in the 1990s. The Commission’s findings would be considered by a major international conference of experts in late 2009. The objective of the Commission was to enhance global efforts to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty by paving the way for a successful Review Conference in 2010. It was expected that commissioners would be senior international experts from a range of countries.

Ms. Millar also voiced Australia’s full support for the Presidential Proposal; it built on the excellent work conducted by last year’s presidential platform. The draft represented a balanced and well-considered proposal for commencing their work and did not prejudge any countries’ position on any core issue and it allowed them to commence meaningful work on all four core issues. Australia supported the document and found it difficult to accept the prospect that the Conference would for another year fail to fulfil its mandate. The few States who had not accepted the document yet were urged to reconsider urgently their positions. It was unacceptable that the world’s principal forum for negotiations on arms control and disarmament was still unable to commence substantive work.

SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said that, on 12 June, the Japanese Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia had released a joint statement to reaffirm the particular importance of the Japan-Australia relationship and to strengthen further the comprehensive and strategic partnership between the two countries. Both leaders had renewed their determination to strengthen the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Japan had also welcomed the Australian Prime Minister’s proposal to establish an international commission on nuclear non-proliferation. Both countries were bilaterally consulting on the specific terms of cooperation for this commission and it was hoped that it would contribute to reinforcing the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime in the lead up to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

Turning to the issue of the Presidential Draft Decision CD/1840, Japan commended the efforts of the six Presidents. Japan supported the President’s approach of continuing consultations with the Member States that still had concerns over the draft decision. The draft was seen as a well-balanced compromise. With regard to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, no delegations had expressed opposition to negotiations on the prohibition of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, notwithstanding differences over the modality and the scope of such negotiations. While stating the clear objective of negotiating such a ban the draft decision in no way prejudged the outcome of negotiations without preconditions. Thus, the draft decision allowed each Member State to freely pursue their respective positions and priorities as for what should constitute the modality and the scope of negotiations. For advancement in disarmament, the discussions in each field should progress independently and on its own merit. Japan also felt that it was inappropriate to hold back potential progress in one area just because of slower progress in others. CD/1840 allowed substantive discussions on the other three core agenda items and therefore they failed to find a reason against accepting it. It was indisputable that the Conference would contribute to the improvement of international security by fulfilling its role. By continuing the deadlock in the Conference, they were perpetuating the ongoing crisis in the international security environment that had been created by their own failure to act. Japan implored all Members to act now with the outmost urgency.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation) believed that during the winter session this year the Conference had carried out useful work and the result had been draft decision CD/1840 by the P6. This was the result of major work, numerous consultations and the logical conclusion of all efforts over the last period to normalize the situation in the Conference on Disarmament. Of course not everything in CD/1840 suited the Russian Federation and it was sure that all other delegations were not fully satisfied either. The Russian Federation wanted a stronger focus on prevention of an arms race in outer space which was a priority for the country. The Russian Federation was interested in having a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was prepared not to oppose it with the view of ensuring the quickest return of the Conference to work. It was only by steps towards each other could the Conference achieve consensus.

The Russian Federation was interested in seeing the consultations the President would hold with Member States and regional groups and hoped that they would be constructive and productive. The Russian Federation also believed that seeking a consensus on the programme of work would also be facilitated by in-depth thematic discussions on all the issues which would bring the Conference closer to a consensus. The Russian Federation supported the proposal of the President to organize a concluding round of informal discussions for this year’s session. The Russian Federation was convinced that the discussions planned for 5 August on prevention of an arms race in outer space would enable the Conference to continue the topical discussion started this spring. However, half a day would not be enough to discuss all the different aspects of the draft treaty, so in this connection, the Russian Federation and China suggested that the informal discussions be continued on 6 August, with the participation of experts from capitals. Experts from the Russian Federation would be available to respond to questions and comments.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said since the tabling of document CD/1840 during March of this year, the delegation of South Africa had heard many delegations lament the inability to agree on a programme of work and the stalemate or impasse that existed in the Conference. However, if one looked at the Conference on Disarmament, one could not claim that the structure of the Conference did not allow negotiations to take place. Similarily, the rules of procedure were often said to be in need of a revision. But the rules of procedure did not prohibit negotiations. The consensus rule in the Conference had often been mentioned as the main reason why the Conference had not been able to negotiate anything in the last couple of years. But was it not perhaps the misuse of the consensus rule, rather than the rule itself, that had created the problem. The consensus rule did not apply itself, it was the Members of the Conference that chose when and how to apply it. When it was used to block the commencement, not the finalization, of negotiations, one could perhaps understand why some referred to the “tyranny of consensus”.

In his closing remarks as President of the last week, the Ambassador of the United Kingdom reminded delegations that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good. South Africa would go even further by saying that if the Conference waited for the perfect programme of work, it would wait for a very long time. South Africa did not believe that CD/1840 was perfect. However, whilst not perfect, it believed that CD/21840 represented that which was possible and practical under the present circumstances. All Member States obviously had priorities, but different priorities need not necessarily be mutually exclusive. South Africa stood ready to join a consensus on CD/1840.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that Canada had the honour to table in the Conference on Disarmament, on behalf of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), the report on a conference entitled: “Security in Space: the Next Generation”, that had taken place earlier this year. The conference had been the latest in a series of annual conferences held by UNIDIR on the issues of space security, the peaceful uses of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. This initiative had been one of the few opportunities to bring together members of the Conference on Disarmament with academics, experts, non-governmental organizations, scientists and the private sector to discuss the challenges in space and to stimulate their thinking on how to address these issues. As a first-time participant at the conference, he had found it highly educational.

JEAN-FRANCOIS DOBELLE (France) said with regard to the programme of work of the Conference and proposal CD/1840, France supported the statement made by the Slovenian presidency of the European Union on 15 May. The President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, in a statement on 21 March in Cherbourg, proposed an ambitious disarmament plan and decided on transparency measures unprecedented for a nuclear weapon State. France was firmly determined to move forward on this path. At Cherbourg, the President of France proposed to invite international experts to come and witness the dismantling of the fissile material for weapons facilities in Pierrelatte and Marcoule. Today, France renewed this invitation, and a visit to these facilities would be organized on 16 September. All Member States were invited to send representatives, and in the coming weeks, France would be providing all the necessary practical information. France was using transparency to strengthen confidence, and the invitation today showed this. Confidence, transparency and reciprocity were the foundation for collective security and disarmament. France called on the international community to join in the realization of the action plan proposed by the President of France.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) said he wished to make two different notes. One was a note of optimism. Looking at the global political horizon today, it was possible to discern a prospect to change which could enable the international community to make the idea of a comprehensive and general disarmament a possibility. This feeling of optimism had last been seen in Rekyavik in 1996. Sri Lanka wished to share this optimism with the Conference and hoped that the Conference would be able to make serious progress in the near future. The second note he wished to make was one of realism. Sri Lanka had long been associated with disarmament; because of its location, Sri Lanka had a stake in this issue. However, Sri Lanka believed the Conference had to be more realistic than it had been so far. CD/1840 was a good basis for discussion; Sri Lanka had no doubt about that. However, Sri Lanka wished to draw attention to some underlying structural anomalies which had to be addressed if this effort was to be successful. CD/1840 privileged one agenda item over others. There may be a firm logic behind that. However, this particular item elevated over the others involved certain Member States more than certain others. If those Member States felt that their fundamental national interests were at variance with the spirit of CD/1840, then it was not a question of a handful of holdouts. Those countries concerns had to be seriously engaged with. If it was the perception of these States that their core strategic interests were at stake, then the Conference had to do better. Doing better could mean looking afresh at the other agenda items. For certain States, there were underlying linkages between certain agenda items. Depending on how serious the Conference was, even in this prioritization, it might be necessary to revisit and upgrade the status of some of the other agenda items. Sri Lanka just wished to share these thoughts with the Conference. Sri Lanka believed that CD/1840 was definitely a basis for serious negotiations and it should not be rejected out of hand by anyone.

WANG QUN (China) said China took note of the President’s remarks, especially when she made clear her wishes and hopes that the Conference could reach a consensus on the work programme, even though it would be a bit late. China also noted that during the second part of the session, relevant delegations had expressed various views on the work of the Conference, including concerns. China hoped that the relevant parties would continue to make efforts to further conduct a constructive dialogue and consultations so that they were able to narrow the differences and reach consensus on a programme of work which was acceptable to all. China also noted that Ambassador Rocca had proposed that the Conference, in late July and August, would conduct informal discussions on the work of the Conference, and that this might a way to help reach consensus on the programme of work.

China noted that the Ambassador of Russia had put forward specific proposals on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space. China fully supported these proposals. In general, China was ready to make joint efforts with all the relevant delegations to push forward progress in the Conference.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said New Zealand wished to take up a few points which had been raised during the morning discussion on a range of issues. New Zealand thanked the President for her proposal to recommence the informal discussions on the core issues in front of the Conference. New Zealand would be very happy to see this happen as anything that helped refresh the issues in minds of Member States could only be positive, and if it helped advance consensus on CD/1840, it would be invaluable. It was also important as noted by the President to keep their minds on their final report to be presented to the General Assembly on their work during the year. New Zealand noted the proposal made by the Russian Federation and supported by China on the event of a spill over of the informal discussion on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and believed that it was a good idea.

A number of colleagues had referred to CD/1840. New Zealand supported the President’s comment that moving forward to reach consensus on the basis of CD/1840 was the best basis for advancing the work in the Conference. It was never too late to agree on a work programme. As far as its national position was concerned, New Zealand would be happy to commence negotiations on any of the core items before the Conference. As a non nuclear weapon State and as a State which had taken strong positions on nuclear weapons, New Zealand particularly wished for the start of negotiations on nuclear disarmament. But they had to acknowledge that the Conference had to start somewhere. The reality was that no delegation here was in a position to begin serious negotiations on all the core issues before the Conference. It was simply not a practical position. It was clear from comments made this year and in previous years that the item that offered the greatest prospect of forward movement was a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) as identified in CD/1840. Sometimes, they looked at FMCT in isolation. As a State, New Zealand wanted to see progress on nuclear disarmament. An FMCT would contribute to nuclear disarmament. The more comprehensive an FMCT was, the more it would contribute. New Zealand would like to see the treaty deal with verification and existing stocks, but it did not expect everyone to agree in advance on the contents of the draft FMCT. New Zealand would argue in the negotiations in favour of including verification and existing stocks.

The third point that New Zealand wished to make was on the statements made by Australia and Japan on the initiative on a new international commission on nuclear proliferation and disarmament. New Zealand very much welcomed this, and it saw considerable prospects for a commission of this sort. New Zealand also welcomed the announcement from the French delegation on transparency and confidence building measures that the French Government was taking and the invitation to participate in them. Transparency and confidence building measures could play a big role concerning nuclear disarmament.


For use of the information media; not an official record


DC08035E