CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS 2009 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning opened its 2009 session, hearing a message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations and general statements on the deadlock in the Conference and on the situation in Gaza from Algeria on behalf of the Group of 21, the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Australia, Belarus on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Egypt, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Algeria in its national capacity, Sri Lanka, Syria, Iran, the Netherlands, as well as the President of the Conference.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, read out the message from Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, saying that one of the Secretary-General’s personal priorities since his first day in office had been to revitalize the international disarmament agenda and to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in this area. He therefore attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The immediate task before the Conference was to convert its discussion on procedure into practical negotiations that would lead to real disarmament. At a time of a global economic and financial crisis, advancing the disarmament agenda could produce a tangible peace dividend when the world needed it most. For two consecutive years, a proposal to begin substantive work on four core issues had been the centre of the deliberations of the Conference and it had come very close to agreeing to this proposal. But discussions could not substitute negotiations. He urged the Conference to overcome the deadlock and to resume substantive work.

Ambassador Le Hoai Trung of Viet Nam, President of the Conference, said that Viet Nam was very honoured to assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and took the task seriously. It was the consistent policy of Viet Nam to strive for peace, prevention of war and promotion of disarmament and international security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The advancement of these issues was of immense importance to the primary objectives of Viet Nam’s foreign policy and was also rooted in the ardent desire for peace of the Vietnamese people, who had been victims of destructive wars imposed on them and still had to deal with the many consequences of war. They were all aware that the Conference on Disarmament had not obtained results over the last decade. Progress in the work of the Conference was essential to the promotion of multilateralism. The ongoing financial crisis and economic recess should only accentuate the pressing need to enhance efforts towards a safer world.

In the general discussion, States said that they attached great importance to the role of the Conference on Disarmament and hoped that it would be able to move beyond its stalemate this year, as significant progress had been made in 2008. However, external policy shifts would be needed to break the deadlock. Signs of such a shift were already visible in Europe and the United States.

Turning to the situation in Gaza, Israel said that the recent conflict in Gaza had underlined clearly that the threat by terrorists was a problem the Conference had to face and they still expected that the proposals they had made in the past on the subject of terrorism would be considered by the Conference on Disarmament. Egypt said the recent Israeli aggression on Gaza had to serve as an acute reminder of the ripple effect such wars had upon regional arms races. Sri Lanka said that Israel had demonstrated on several occasions its capacity of fighting in cities and targeting specific individuals from the air. Therefore, what they had recently witnessed had been completely unnecessary.

Following a brief suspension of the plenary meeting, the Conference adopted its agenda for 2009.

The Conference also approved requests by the following States to participate in the 2009 session of the Conference as observers: Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, the Holy See, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Libya, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nepal, the Philippines, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 January 2009.

Opening Statements

LE HOAI TRUNG, (Viet Nam), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks bid farewell to colleagues who had left the Conference and welcomed new colleagues who had assumed their responsibilities as representatives of their Governments. Viet Nam was very honoured to assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and took the task seriously out of its commitment as a Member State and on the basis of its foreign policy of independence, peace, cooperation and development.

It was the consistent policy of Viet Nam to strive for peace, prevention of war and promotion of disarmament and international security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, Mr. Trung said. The advancement of these issues was of immense importance to the primary objectives of Viet Nam’s foreign policy, namely maintaining a peaceful environment and creating other favourable international conditions for the unfolding cause of reform, socio-economic development and industrialization and modernization in Viet Nam. It was also rooted in the ardent desire for peace of the Vietnamese people, who had been victims of destructive wars imposed on them and still had to deal with the many consequences of war.

Viet Nam’s commitment to peace and disarmament was displayed in its concrete contribution to the efforts of peace, friendship and cooperation in South East Asia, including those, among others, within the framework of the South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Mr. Trung underlined that Viet Nam was a party to all the agreements that had been negotiated by the Conference, it had recently concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency the Additional Protocol to Nuclear Safeguards Agreements and had also scrupulously complied with the agreements to which it was a party.

They were all aware that the Conference on Disarmament had not obtained results over the last decade. They were also all aware that the Conference needed to be able to play its important role. Progress in the work of the Conference was essential to the promotion of multilateralism, underscored Mr. Trung. The ongoing financial crisis and economic recess should only accentuate the pressing need to enhance efforts towards a safer world. His delegation had conducted extensive consultations in preparation of the 2009 session and the most pronounced message that they had gotten from these consultations was the enormous importance that all members attached to the work of the Conference and there was general agreement about the items on the agenda for the 2009 session.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, read out the message of BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations. In the message, the Secretary-General said that it was a pleasure to send greetings to the Conference on Disarmament. One of his personal priorities since his first day in office had been to revitalize the international disarmament agenda and to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in this area. He therefore attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament and the wide-ranging efforts of Governments, citizens’ groups and activists throughout the world in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. From conventional weapons and small arms weapons of mass destruction, the risks were clear. He remained committed to using every opportunity, in his meetings with governmental leaders and his outreach to civil society, to forge partnerships and mobilize action.

The immediate task before the Conference was to convert its discussion on procedure into practical negotiations that would lead to real disarmament, said the Secretary-General in his message. At a time of global economic and financial crisis, advancing the disarmament agenda could produce a tangible peace dividend when the world needed it most. The United Nations Charter called for “the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources.” If they had to deliver on the Millennium Development Goals in a deteriorating economic climate, all United Nations Member States had to be mindful of this solemn responsibility, said Mr. Ban Ki-Moon in his message.

There had been promising signs in recent months, including important initiatives by several countries. Last October Secretary-General Ban said he had issued a five-point proposal to revitalize the international disarmament agenda, including several specific contributions that could be made by the Conference, with respect to nuclear disarmament and fissile material. For two consecutive years, a proposal to begin substantive work on four core issues had been the centre of the deliberations of the Conference and it had come very close to agreeing to this proposal. But discussions could not substitute negotiations, stressed Mr. Ban. He urged the Conference to overcome the deadlock and to resume substantive work.

General Statements

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, assured the presidency of their support and co-operation in their endeavours to move the Conference forward. The Group of 21 looked forward to a fruitful 2009 session of the Conference. The Group of 21 commended the presidency for the efforts they had made in the past months to meet a large number of the Member States with the aim of exploring common ground on the programme of work and bridging the gaps on the important issues pertaining to the Conference’s work.

The Group of 21 attached great importance to the Conference, said Mr. Jazairy, and its unique role should always be preserved. It was their sincere hope that the Conference would start its substantial negotiations as soon as possible and regain its active role. They believed in multilateralism and that through mutual respect and good will, the Members would be able to reach the needed consensus.

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, assured the President and other P-6 Presidents chairing the Conference on Disarmament during 2009 of the Czech Republic’s full personal support, as well as that of the European Union, in their efforts to guide the work of the Conference. The European Union had strongly valued the system of work of the P-6 presidencies during the last three years. The system had considerably contributed to a progress in the work of the Conference. The European Union also welcomed the fact that this model of close continuous coordination among the Presidents of the annual session with consultations as broad as possible was a common acquis by now. They were convinced that the 2008 session had marked a degree of progress. The six Presidents in 2008 had steered the work in a very competent way. In March 2008, the P-6 had proposed the adoption of the programme of work, as contained in CD/1840, which represented an important attempt to move forward in a concrete manner the work of the Conference.

Mr. Husak further underlined the importance the European Union attached to the Conference on Disarmament. The European Union had been working consistently on the adoption of a programme of work and had come up with concrete proposals in this regard. They had proposed a clear direction by presenting the United Nations General Assembly at its current session with concrete and realistic disarmament initiatives, namely: the universal ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the completion of its verification regime and the dismantling as soon as possible of all nuclear testing facilities in a manner that was transparent and open to the international community; the opening without delay of negotiations for a treaty banning the production of fissile material; the establishment of transparency and confidence-building measures by the nuclear powers; further progress in the current discussion between the United States and the Russian Federation on the development of a legally-binding post-START arrangement; the inclusion of tactical nuclear weapons , by those States which had them, in their general arms control and disarmament processes; the start of consultations on a treaty banning short and intermediated range ground-to-ground missiles; the adherence to an implementation by all of the Hague Code of Conduct and the mobilisation in all other areas of disarmament.

Several of these initiatives were relevant to the Conference, said Mr. Husak. The European Union attached a clear priority to the negotiation, without preconditions, in the Conference, of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The European Union was also ready to engage in substantial discussion on the other items included in CD/1840. This document constituted a balanced compromise that they believed took into account the views of all.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) congratulated the President for the assumption of the Presidency. As one of the upcoming Presidents of the Conference for 2009, Australia looked forward to working constructively and collegially with Viet Nam and all P-6 colleagues to make this year as productive as possible. At the beginning of each year, Australia strongly urged the Conference to agree on its programme of work and start substantive negotiations. Australia supported the draft decision CD/1840, which set out a good basis to move forward. They remained supportive of this proposal.

But despite widespread support for work along these lines, despite the identification of much common ground and despite constructive detailed and useful discussions on many issues, agreement, even to begin negotiations, had proved elusive, said Ms. Millar. While disappointing, this was not necessarily surprising: attitudes towards negotiations reflected the diverse national security interests. External policy shifts would be needed to break the deadlock.

Over the past few years, the nuclear disarmament debate had become more dynamic and they were increasingly seeing signs of movement by key current and incoming policy makers, said Ms. Millar. Australia welcomed the European Union’s proposal on nuclear disarmament and was particularly encouraged by statements by the US Secretary of State Designated Clinton. They hoped that these shifts would break the deadlock and get the Conference back to work, said Ms. Millar.

ANDREI SAVINYKH (Belarus), speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, assured the President of the confidence the Eastern European Group had in the leadership of the President and this year’s P-6 group. The address to the Conference by the Secretary-General had been of particular significance: it had emphasized the unique role of the Conference on Disarmament. Now opening the new session, they were hoping that it could move forward. The Group was convinced that in 2009 they should use all of last year’s positive and constructive initiatives, such as those contained in document CD/1840. The Eastern European Group continued to believe this was a document where all delegations could come together. They also believed that the effective leadership of the P-6, coupled with a responsible response of the Member States would allow them to end the stalemate. It was up to them to face the challenge.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) assured the Conference’s President of Egypt’s continued readiness to fully support all serious efforts that aimed to reactivate the work of the Conference. Egypt remained determined to provide a constructive contribution in order to help foster a positive outcome for this year’s session. The need for an active and effective Conference on Disarmament was not a luxury, but a necessity through which international peace and security could be effectively enhanced. It was important to highlight that nuclear disarmament had to remain the top priority of the Conference. The urgency for effective disarmament and arms control measures was felt clearly in the Middle East. The importance of working effectively towards creating a Middle East that was free from nuclear weapons, in order to mitigate against the risk of seeing regional conflicts becoming global calamities, had therefore to remain, until fulfilled, a matter of utmost international importance.

The recent Israeli aggression on Gaza had to serve as an acute reminder of the ripple effect such wars had upon regional arms races, especially when combined with the fact that the aggressor State was the only one in the region that was as yet not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The destabilizing influences of such actions were far reaching and should serve as a strong impetus to achieve positive results in the Conference on Disarmament, particularly with regards to nuclear disarmament, said Mr. Badr.

It was Egypt’s firm belief that the continued stagnation of the Conference could be attributed to the deficit in the political will of certain States. Egypt fully supported adopting a programme of work by consensus that would establish ad hoc committees for the four core issues. For the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the mandate for negotiations had to adhere to progress already achieved. While informal discussions could have their benefits, their outcome was in no way binding, nor could they serve as an official basis for future work, said Mr. Badr.

Mr. Badr underlined that 2009 was a crucial year. The third preparatory committee of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference would soon meet and the outcome of that meeting would be pivotal in determining the continued credibility of the Treaty. The success in the Conference could help set the stage for a positive review conference. They could no longer allow the Conference to sit idly as global events and double standards risked to destabilize the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. Complete and total nuclear disarmament was a necessity and the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons was unacceptable.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation was pleased to see the current President from Viet Nam, a friend of Russia. The efforts of the P6 were appreciated. Today, they were beginning their work in a period far from simple, the international community was facing acute problems, terrorist threats, growing risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and a stagnation in the Conference on Disarmament; these were all threats to international stability. They had to continue to work to overcome the deadlock in order to preserve stability and to strengthen the international basis for disarmament and non-proliferation and for the observation of already existing principles.

The Conference on Disarmament’s role was to promote international stability. This was an area where the world faced a number of acute threats. An example was the current situation in the Middle East, said Mr. Loshchinin. The General Assembly had recently adopted a resolution in favour of an urgent untangling of the situation in Gaza, confirming the Security Council’s position. Russia also welcomed the ceasefire declared by Israel and Hamas. This truce would be an important factor in the settlement of the current crisis. Russia would continue to do everything in its power in order to force a shift towards a political settlement.

The events in the Caucasus last year had also demonstrated the lack of existing mechanisms for security and transparency in arms transfers and had revived the idea for a new treaty for security in the European region, said Mr. Loshchinin. The adoption of such a system was much needed. Russia’s main objective was to codify the indivisibility of security. The treaty could include elements for the development of instruments for the practical implementation of security principles in the Euro-Atlantic region. Russia was open to discuss the elements of such a future treaty with other delegations. Russia was committed to multilateralism to resolve issues of arms control, confidence building, non-proliferation and disarmament.

They all believed that they had to make a better use of the Conference on Disarmament. The Non-Proliferation Treaty had to be made more effective and made universal. In their view the importance of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was to ensure the continuing viability of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Russia was taking several steps to step up the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. They were also fully committed to a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty said Mr. Loshchinin.

Mr. Loshchinin underlined that today was a red-letter day for the American people and expressed the hope that they would conduct a thorough review of their foreign policy. The intentions of the previous administration to develop an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe and the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was capable of destructing the balance of forces in the world. President Medvedev, in a recent telephone conference with President Obama, had underlined the special responsibility of both countries to ensure international peace and stability.

Ensuring security in space was also a priority for Russia. A year ago, Russia with China had officially submitted a draft treaty for the prevention of weapons in space and against the use of force against space objects. All delegations had demonstrated great interest in the draft. In order to anchor the progress made, they had decided with China to reflect the work that had been made on the draft in a new document. This draft document would be soon sent to the Secretariat for further consideration by the Conference on Disarmament, said Mr. Loshchinin. Russia was also supportive of a treaty on fissile material. The elaboration of such a treaty would be yet another unilateral measure and a real contribution strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. But their paramount goal was to achieve consensus on the programme of work, acceptable to all members and for the Conference to go back to substantive work. A fundamental step would be to agree on the programme of work, as proposed in document CD/1840.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said that Turkey welcomed the message of the Secretary-General. They also considered that the Conference on Disarmament had a leading role to play. In recent years a considerable momentum had grown in the Conference on Disarmament, but it had still been unable to agree to go back to substantive work. Collective efforts had to be made. The Conference on Disarmament could play a significant role on several topics and it could start work on a fissile material treaty. Further, each Member had a special responsibility in the preparation of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. In the meantime, they had to continue to seek ways to achieve the long awaited consensus. Located in a region with particular concerns over proliferation, Turkey was taking part in several initiatives to control this rising trend.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) said that Israel appreciated the role Egypt had played to achieve the current ceasefire. They hoped that this ceasefire would prevail but remained ready to act if it was broken. The recent conflict in Gaza had underlined clearly that the threat by terrorists was a problem the Conference had to face and they still expected that the proposals they had made in the past on the subject of terrorism would be considered by the Conference on Disarmament. Israel also shared the eventual establishment of a nuclear free zone in Middle East, but this vision could not be established through divorce with reality; and this as long as there was an ongoing threat by some States, which continued to disregard United Nations resolutions. Also, for several years the Conference on Disarmament had been mute to the suffering of Israelis in the south of Israel and to the nuclear proliferation in the region. What more had to happen for the Conference to react on this situation?

I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that, as a fellow member of ASEAN, they were pleased to see Viet Nam presiding over the Conference and assured the President of Indonesia’s full support. Last year had been another year similar to the past ones, since the stalemate had been enduring in the Conference on Disarmament. The responsibility of this forum had to move forward and they had to make progress in the programme of work. The progress in the Conference on Disarmament would undoubtedly contribute to the noble cause of peace and security in the world. It would be in everyone’s interests. If they did not embrace ending the threat of nuclear weapons, they would go towards the possibility that they could be used again, with catastrophic consequences.

All nuclear weapons States had to demonstrate their commitment towards curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their total elimination. Peace was created without nuclear weapons, not the other way around. The participation of non-governmental organizations could be a way of finding a way out of the stalemate. Turning to the situation in the Gaza Strip, Indonesia believed that the disproportionate use of force deserved their attention.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) speaking in Algeria’s national capacity, said that he had been shocked by the statements by Israel. Was the problem of arms transfer to terrorists the only main lesson learned from the current conflict? What was the real reason for this conflict, which had started after an enduring occupation and 18 months of a blockade and using the most modern weapons which had resulted in some 1,400 deaths of innocent civilians and wounded thousands of others?

Was the problem the fact that rockets had killed four or five civilians in Israel, asked Mr. Jazairy. It was true that every life had a value, but the work of the Conference was not just to prevent the trading of a few weapons, but also to protect the lives of half-a-million civilians in Gaza, civilians which, when they resisted occupation, were called terrorists. A free nuclear weapon zone in the region was an important step to take and not the condemnation of a nuclear State, which was a member of Non-Proliferation Treaty, by a country, which was not a member of the treaty.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) said that Viet Nam was a symbol for the people in his region and congratulated the President. Turning to the remarks on terrorism and disarmament made on Gaza, he said that Sri Lanka had friendly relations with Israel and that they had also collaboration in the military field. Notwithstanding this, the bodies of children taken out of rubble and the use of white phosphorous brought him to critique the statement made today by Israel.

The terrorist enemy that Sri Lanka had been fighting had been called the most lethal and totalitarian terrorist organisation in Asia. Sri Lanka had been fighting and defeating its enemy and they had never complained that the Conference on Disarmament had not spoken up. They also knew that it was not necessary to use white phosphorous and that kind of force like Israel had done, which kept hitting schools, mosques and warehouses. This was not the way to resist terrorism. What was most cynical was that he knew that Israel had the power to fight in a populated area in a surgical manner, said Mr. Jayatilleka.

Israel had demonstrated on several occasions its capacity of fighting in cities and targeting specific individuals from the air. Therefore, what they had recently witnessed had been completely unnecessary. This had not aided peace and security in the Middle East. Mr. Jayatilleka concluded by reaffirming the point made by Algeria. The Conference on Disarmament had to take a fresh look at the Middle East.

ABDULMAOLA AL NUQUARI (Syria) said that Syria hoped that 2009 would bring the Conference on Disarmament out of the stalemate it had been facing. Syria also wanted to comment on the Israeli terrorism, which had afflicted the whole region. The depth of the wounds was not only inflicted to the people in Gaza, but it had shaken all people in the world. Many people had been unable to see what had been happening, the inflicting of such torture on human bodies made them feel that they were facing a brutal murder. The only thing Israel had not used yet was nuclear weapons. Some people had been shot while being handcuffed. 400 of the dead had been children. What kind of terrorism was Israel they talking about? Of course they could not provide terrorists with weapons. But what had happened in Gaza was horrific. It looked like arms dealers wanted to try all kind of new weapons in Gaza. What they had seen was genocide and ethnic cleansing. The blockade they had seen before the attack had heavily affected the population. There was no food and medication; in this situation even a light injury could be fatal. Even United Nations buildings had been hit; it was not new that Israel was targeting the United Nations. All should be felt ashamed of the presence of the Israeli representative in this room. There was a flagrant disregard of humanity by the international community at large. Humanity was being violated in Gaza. What had happened was genocide and ethnic cleansing. The most vicious violations of human rights had happened in Gaza.

ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said that Iran attached great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. He wanted to speak on what had happened in Gaza. It was so horrific that it could not be described by any words. Innocent people had been killed. The indiscriminate attacks and the abhorrent crimes perpetrated by the Zionists had led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Civilian houses had been totally demolished from air, land and sea attacks. The Israelis had had no mercy against civilians and humanitarian workers. What had happened was a clear example of crimes against humanity and genocide. This was unprecedented in history. This event had to remind the Conference that the rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the Israelis was threatening the security in the region and in the whole world.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that this was the first time in over seven months that he was taking the floor. This very afternoon marked the end of a period of transition in Washington, at the same time, the Conference on Disarmament was entering a period of transition of its own, and he hoped that it would be as short. He hoped to see a change in the work of the Conference on Disarmament before he would leave the Dutch Foreign Services this June, after 37 years of service. There were several indicators that the Conference on Disarmament would soon move forward. Many senior European representatives had recently spoken up for a world without nuclear weapons. There was a revival of interest for a “global zero” approach. The danger was that when the time came, that the Conference on Disarmament would no longer be considered as the place to work on these issues. The impasse in the Conference on Disarmament was because of divergences of national security interests, at the highest level of decisions makers of Member States. It was not the Conference on Disarmament itself that was to be blamed. They had to act before they would all fall asleep and this body with them. All should put up a special effort with willingness for compromise. They had to be ready and prepared to give credibility to those who still believed that this body had a role to play. He still had some hope left for the Conference on Disarmament.

LE HOAI TRUNG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in concluding remarks, said that over the last months Viet Nam had had consultations with more than 60 delegations and he had personally met 20 of them. All delegates had expressed their firm support for the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The job of the diplomats was to make the impossible possible.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09002E