CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS BY SEVERAL STATES IN SUPPORT OF NEW DRAFT PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from Brazil, the Czech Republic, on behalf of the European Union, Tunisia, Indonesia, Poland, Pakistan, South Africa and Peru in favour of adoption of the new proposed draft programme of work CD/1863, submitted by the President to the Conference on behalf of the six Presidents (P6) last Tuesday. Israel spoke to express its concern that it had not had a chance to consult with the President directly on the proposal.

Idriss Jazaïry, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks said that the Conference was now moving to a new stage after the submission of document CD/1863 by the P6. The Presidents were now proceeding to hold meetings with the regional groups to try to ascertain their response to the draft proposal. They had not reached consensus yet; it was too early for that. No one would expect that, on the first day after the presentation of a document, any regional group would announce their support.

States speaking in support of the new proposal recognized that it was a “product of compromise”. In order to gain consensus, a proposal should not reflect the exact wishes of everyone but should be included within certain boundaries, it was said. Delegations called the document “finely balanced”; a “realistic” proposal; and “a good package”, and it was noted that it seemed to include all necessary elements to start serious negotiations. Others observed that the time was ripe for the Conference to move forward, and urged members to do so now on the basis of the proposal before them. The statement delivered by the Secretary-General to the Conference on Tuesday had had a clear message, they said: the time to act was now.

By draft decision CD/1863, on the establishment of a programme of work for the 2009 session, the Conference on Disarmament would establish several Working Groups. Under agenda item 1, cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, it would establish a Working Group to exchange views and information on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral character. A second Working Group under this agenda item would negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, on the basis of the document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995 and the mandate contained therein (also known as the Shannon Mandate). It would also establish Working Groups on prevention of an arms race in outer space and on negative security assurances. The Conference would appoint Special Coordinators on the other agenda items, including weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments; to seek the views of its members on the most appropriate way to deal with those issues.


The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place at 10 a.m. on Tuesday 26 May 2009.


Statements

Idriss JazaÏry, President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks, said that last Tuesday they had had a full house for the resumption of their work, and especially because of the presence of the Secretary-General, the Swiss Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister of Algeria who had come to express their support for the Conference’s work. The Conference was now moving to a new stage after the submission of document CD/1863 by the P6. The Presidents were now proceeding to hold meetings with the regional groups to try to ascertain their response to the draft proposal. The rotation of informal and formal meetings was useful in order to take on board at the informal meetings the positions that were expressed at the formal sessions and to move towards a consensus.

Mr. Jazaïry said that they had not reached consensus yet; it was too early for that. No one would expect that, on the first day after the presentation of a document, any regional group would announce their support. He also did not anticipate a time limit for this to happen, as this exercise had already been ongoing for 12 years.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) thanked the President for his efforts, which had led to the presentation of the new draft programme of work. Brazil offered its support for its adoption. Not much explanation was needed to explain Brazil’s position as the proposal followed a series of long debates that had been carried out in the Conference. In order to gain consensus a proposal should not reflect the exact wishes of everyone, but should be included within certain boundaries. Brazil considered the issue of negative security assurances as ripe for negotiations and also favoured negotiations for a treaty banning the placement of weapons in outer space. The current proposal did not include those factors, but Brazil would still pursue those aims in the subsidiary bodies.

For Brazil, it was important that the Conference on Disarmament resumed its substantial negotiations, in order to maintain peace and security. The current atmosphere was conducive for progress and understanding, Mr. Soares underlined. If the Conference on Disarmament failed to keep in tune with the current changes it would fail to participate to the creation of a better world.

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked all P6 members for the submission of document CD/1863. The statement delivered by the Secretary-General on Tuesday had been a clear message: the time to act was now. The European Union hoped that all Conference on Disarmament Members would respond positively to the President’s proposal and hoped that that would bring the Conference back to substantive work.

MOHAMED BEL KEFI (Tunisia) expressed appreciation for all the efforts the President had undertaken for the advancement of the Conference’s work, which had led to Document CD/1863. Tunisia gave its full support to that document and it was hoped that the Conference would reach full consensus for its adoption.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) said that the time had come to step up their common endeavours to start the Conference’s substantive work. The third session of the Preparatory Committee to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference (2010) had ended its work last week in New York in a positive atmosphere, which was also a positive impetus for the Conference on Disarmament’s work. It was important that efforts aimed at non-proliferation came together with disarmament efforts. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the threat of proliferation remained. The existence of those weapons was also an invitation to States that did not have them for the moment to seek to get them. The longer those weapons existed, the longer the world exposed itself to their use, their accidental uses or their use by terrorists.

Indonesia supported the draft programme of work, and considered it a good package. It appealed to all Members to support the document in order for them to commence their substantive work and to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was time to move away from frustration.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that despite more than 10 years of hibernation, the Conference on Disarmament was a unique forum and thus still had its role to play. Poland felt strongly committed to and responsible for the success of the new proposal and welcomed it. Poland firmly believed that it constituted a balanced document, which would allow the restarting of substantive discussions. It was high time to take this important step.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that Pakistan welcomed the efforts of the President and the P6. The new document was finely balanced and Pakistan formally announced that it could support the initiation of work on its basis.

JOAHANN KELLERMAN (South Africa) expressed South Africa’s appreciation for the work done by the P6. In the view of South Africa, the current proposed document was purely a logical follow-up to the presidential non-paper that had been circulated earlier this year. The proposed draft resolution sought to focus on the four main core issues that had been identified by the Conference in the past. As such, South Africa viewed the document as a product of compromise.

It was fair to say that some delegations might have ideally wished the proposal to be strengthened in certain areas, but it still represented a delicate compromise that deserved the support of all Members, Mr. Kellerman said. All members should show a spirit of flexibility and commitment in order for the Conference on Disarmament to live up to its expectations. It was time to act decisively and the time to act was right now. Members of the Conference should not work against each other, but with each other. South Africa thus stood ready to accept the proposed programme of work.

BABACAR CARLOS MBAYE (Senegal) thanked the President and his P6 colleagues for their efforts. The document was a balanced and realistic proposal; it seemed to include all necessary elements to start serious negotiations without prejudice to the proposals that had been made in the past.

With regard to nuclear disarmament, Senegal welcomed the fact that the proposed document would allow the exchange of views on practical measures to reduce the amount of existing weapons, with a view of complete eliminating them. Mr. Baye said that the Conference should take this opportunity to find a way out of its impasse in order to implement its raison d’être. He also encouraged the President to continue consultations in order to come to the adoption of the proposal.

ELMER SCHIALER (Peru) thanked the members of the P6 for the excellent efforts they had made in the consultations that had led to document CD/1863. Although the proposal did not cover the full ambitions Peru had had for it, it still represented a balanced basis to start substantive work. Peru formally announced its support for the document.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) said that on 25 March Israel had requested a meeting with the President to be consulted on the proposed draft programme of work and had not received any reply to that request until now.

Idriss JAZAÏRY, President of the Conference on Disarmament said that there was apparently a difference of perception. The P6 was sharing the task of consultations with member States among them and had agreed that, for this year, Australia would be entrusted with the task of consulting the group of States among which Israel found itself.

Mr. Jazaïry said that if he had, as President, decided to respond to the request to meet with the Ambassador of Israel, he would have had had to have had similar meetings with all the other members of the Conference that had been consulted by the other P6 members. He further added that the P6 was a collegial group and there was no chief among them.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC09024E