CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS WORKING PAPER OUTLINING ORGANIZATION OF INFORMAL MEETINGS

The Conference on Disarmament today adopted a working paper prepared by the President of the Conference setting out the organization of the Conference’s informal meetings for the second part of the 2010 Session.

The working paper CD/WP.560 contains a list of the informal meetings to be held on the agenda items, adding that the list was without prejudice to any future decision the Conference might take on its Programme of Work. The informal meetings will start on Tuesday, 8 June. The paper includes a schedule for the meetings and names the countries which will coordinate the informal discussions under each agenda item, namely: Sweden for the first four meetings under agenda item 1 and 2 and Algeria for the last four meetings; Brazil for agenda item 3; Bangladesh for agenda item 4; Belarus for agenda item 5; Indonesia for agenda item 6 and Finland for agenda item 7.

Alex Van Meeuwen, President of the Conference on Disarmament, had sent a letter on 4 June containing a similar schedule for the informal meetings, but the Group of 21 told the Conference today that the President’s proposal had to be tabled before the Conference as an official working paper and be accepted by consensus, before those meetings could take place.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, took the floor today, as did the delegations of Egypt, on behalf of the Group of 21, China, Algeria, Egypt in its national capacity, Pakistan, the United States, Brazil, Iran and Italy.

The President of the Conference also informed the Conference that Chris Sanders, former representative of the Netherlands to the Conference from 1999 to 2005 had passed away last Tuesday at the age of 63.

The next public plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Friday, 11 June, at which the Ukrainian Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the Conference.

Statements

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that, in order to accommodate some delegations which, during the last plenary, had expressed the wish to see all items of the agenda addressed during the open-ended informal meetings, as well as their request for rotation in the treatment of the seven items, he had sent out, in consultation with the next presidency, a letter on 4 June containing a new schedule of activities for the coming weeks,

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said that the Group of 21 had met this morning to discuss the letter circulated by the President. They would send an answer reiterating their position of 3 June to the President. They had come up with eight points, reflecting their position. In those, they welcomed the responsiveness of the President to take into account the positions of all delegations. However, the proposal contained in the letter should be submitted as an official draft proposal to the Conference on Disarmament. It was the Conference on Disarmament which should then respond to that proposal. This official proposal should include the name of coordinators. It should also reflect a balanced and equal allotment of time for all issues. Further, many organizational issues still had to be addressed before this afternoon’s meeting. They hoped that these issue would be settled by then. Lastly, the priority should remain the adoption of a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament.

WANG QUN (China) said that China supported the statement by the Group of 21 and the eight points reflected in their statement. China appreciated the leading role played by Egypt in the Group of 21, as well as the efforts made by Algeria to propose concrete and feasible suggestions. In China’s view, the positions of the various parties were really close and were approaching an agreement. The parties should seize this momentum, so that the informal discussions could start this afternoon. It was important to respect the Rules of Procedures of the Conference; these were indispensable to any multilateral negotiations. Without them, the Conference would fall into chaos. The Rules were not just mere words on a paper and should be effectively followed. China wished to see the early commencement of the Conference’s work and also supported the holding of informal discussions, pending the agreement on a programme of work. Further, all parties should respect each party’s security concerns.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he wanted to meet the concerns of all, including those of the Group of 21. While he was waiting to receive the Group’s letter, he would be more than happy to submit to the Conference the contents of his letter as an official working paper. His intention was to still proceed with this week’s planned informal meetings.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) thanked the President for his efforts. He noted that the Group of 21 had proposed to the President to submit his letter as an official working document, but the President had not indicated when the Conference would be able to adopt this document. Only the official adoption of this document would permit the Conference to proceed with this afternoon’s planned informal consultations. In his opinion, there were two sorts of informal consultations. There were those held by the President on a bilateral manner to reach an agreement on the programme of work. The President had the power to call for such meetings. But when considering substantive issues, this needed to be approved by the Conference. Things could not be envisaged differently.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said Egypt wanted to know when the document would be presented to the Conference. It had to be accepted by the Conference, before they moved into this afternoon’s informal meeting.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that all members were playing a mature role in trying to save the Conference on Disarmament. On the issue of informal meetings, they had expressed their views since March. To move forward, they requested that the schedule of informal meetings included equal allocation of time for all agenda items without giving priority to one. It should also include the parameters under which these meetings should take place and include the names of the coordinators. If the plan was to hold the first consultation this afternoon he noted that they still had not seen names of the coordinators. Since the coordinators had been appointed by the President himself, the coordinators should have no role, nor status; their reports would have no status and since the meetings would be held under informal meetings, coordinators could not push a particular issue on which there was no consensus.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that they were at an important moment in their approach of the Conference on Disarmament’s work. The United States completely agreed that they should all be attached to the primary importance of adopting a Programme of Work. It also believed that it was important that the President was able to hold informal consultations, in order to help each delegation in their further understanding of disarmament issues. Informal discussions were what they were, these were not formal discussions and would not prejudge any future decision by the Conference on Disarmament.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that there was perhaps an ambiguity in the understanding of the Rule of Procedures among delegations. It was however clear from them that the Conference on Disarmament could, under Rule 23, establish subsidiary bodies that were open to all member of the Conference, unless decided otherwise. Further, he did not want to see the introduction of grey areas and new categories of meetings, such as “informal discussions” or “open-ended meetings”. The Conference should be able to hold informal meetings, such as those that had been held in past years.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, welcomed the Group of 21’s statement. It included a number of provisions and those were not contradictory to the President’s proposal. The President’s proposal included a balanced allocation of time. The proposal was a repetition of what had already been done in the Conference in past years. He also saw no contradictions between the proposals of the Group of 21 and Algeria’s proposal. To see the Conference on Disarmament moving on, he would propose to continue consultations on the programme of work in parallel to the informal meetings. No time would be lost while doing both. The meetings proposed by the President were also balanced. The Conference on Disarmament had to have substantive discussions.

HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran) said that Iran appreciated the efforts of the President. There was no contradiction between the Group of 21’s proposal and the President’s proposal. They had to expedite the work of the Conference and start informal meetings this afternoon. This should be done no later than 3 p.m. when a short public plenary should be held for the Conference to adopt the document. The informal meeting could then be held right afterwards.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) said that Italy gave preference to the adoption of the programme of work. However, while they were waiting for the official working paper to be submitted by the President as an official Secretariat document, the Conference on Disarmament should hold informal meeting this afternoon. This had been a constant practice for the past years.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he was willing to turn the contents of his letter into an official working paper document. He hoped that this would happen as soon possible and that the Conference would agree to move forward. In the meantime he would hold the informal meeting this afternoon, as scheduled.

WANG QUN (China) said that in China’s belief the opinions of the Conference’s Member States were converging. China believed the President’s official document would be sent out very soon. In the meantime China was also willing to participate in any informal meetings.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) re-emphasized that their preference was for a short public plenary meeting to be held this afternoon, before the planned informal meeting, in order for the Conference to adopt the official schedule.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said that he was of the same opinion. They should have a short public plenary this afternoon at which the President’s document should be presented to the Conference and the Conference would then adopt it. This would then be in respect to the Conference’s Rules of Procedures.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that they would issue the official proposal as a working paper as soon as possible.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that as expected this morning, his letter had been turned into a working document and been distributed to the Conference. Four informal meetings would be held for under each agenda item and this would be without prejudice to any future decision the Conference might take on its Programme of Work. The Presidency had held further consultations since this morning on the working paper and each regional group had also held meetings to discuss the working paper and all had agreed on the coordinators for each item. His understanding was that there was an agreement. The working paper was thus adopted.

For use of information media; not an official record

DC10/023E