CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM MINISTER OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF CAMEROON

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held its first plenary under the Presidency of Cameroon and heard a statement by Cameroon’s Minister of External Relations, Henry Eyebe Ayissi. Rezlan Ishar Jenie, Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, also addressed the Conference. The Conference then went on to hear a series of speakers addressing the upcoming high-level meeting on disarmament to be held in New York on 24 September, the stalemate in the Conference and the situation in the Korean Peninsula.

Henry Eyebe Ayissi, Cameroon’s Minister of External Relations, said that Cameroon supported and fully subscribed to the idea of a world free of nuclear weapons. There was a strong demand placed on the Conference, in terms of outstanding historical responsibilities and the hopes placed in it by the international community. It was important for the Conference to step beyond the difficulties it was facing in these current uncertain times. Some questions were inevitable, such as whether the Conference on Disarmament was still enjoying a legitimacy to work on a common security; and were its working methods still suited to the challenges facing the world today? Cameroon commended and paid tribute to the wise decision taken by the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a high-level meeting. It was essential to get out of the current stalemate to allow the Conference on Disarmament to, once again, carry out its noble mission.

Rezlan Ishar Jenie, Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said that Indonesia continued to reaffirm the importance and the relevance of the Conference on Disarmament as the world’s sole multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body. Indonesia urged nuclear-weapons States to undertake concrete disarmament efforts with a view to reducing and eliminating all types of nuclear weapons. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use. Further, as an Annex II country of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Indonesia had chosen, in the past, to withhold ratification of the Treaty, pending ratification by all nuclear-weapon States and other States claiming possession of nuclear weapons. Today, from the vantage point of 2010, the Government of Indonesia believed that it could now enhance its contribution by initiating its own ratification process.

In the general discussion on the high-level meeting, delegations welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General to hold that meeting. South Africa said that the continued bickering about procedural issues had only served to undermine the role of the Conference. Austria said that it was high time for the Conference to act and assume its responsibility as the single permanent negotiating disarmament forum. Croatia said that there should be only two groups represented in the Conference: the group of nuclear weapon States and the group of non-nuclear weapon States. Algeria found it problematic that Ministers or Heads of States could only be accompanied by one person and that the time allocated for them to speak was rather short. Belarus said that the relevancy of the Conference as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum needed to be confirmed at the meeting. Bangladesh said the meeting was an important opportunity to discuss the revitalization of the Conference. Mexico said that it could not believe that multilateral work could circulate around one or five countries; it should protect the interests of the whole of mankind.

Several delegations also spoke in favour of enlarging the membership of the Conference and to allow the participation of civil society. Others called for the convening of the Fourth General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament to review the agenda of the Conference.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he was happy to note that the high-level meeting was unanimously supported and would convey this information to the United Nations Secretary-General.

Speaking about the current stalemate in the Conference, Pakistan reiterated its position concerning the commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Negotiations on a treaty that only banned the future production of fissile material would undermine their security by freezing the asymmetries in stockpiles in their region. Pakistan however remained fully prepared to make progress on all the other issues on the agenda. Sweden said that in treaty negotiations there was a triple veto: blocking the start of negotiations; blocking the approval of any text; and choosing not to ratify the adopted treaty; it pleaded to those blocking the adoption of the programme of work to consider not exercising the first veto opportunity. The United Kingdom said it did not at all recognize the veiled accusations nor the description of the situation set out by Pakistan. India said the Conference was not the right forum for raising bilateral and regional issues; their priority here was to work to advance the multilateral disarmament agenda.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that they were ready to discuss all issues of disarmament. Consistent was also their stance to bring about durable peace and achieve the denuclearization in the Korean peninsula. Confidence-building between them and the United States was the most urgent and master key solution of the problem. It was essential to conclude a peace treaty between both for terminating the state of war on the peninsula. The United States said that the Six Party Talks were the appropriate forum to tackle this issue and not the Conference on Disarmament. The Republic of Korea said that its role was critical in concluding the treaty and as such its participation in the process was a prerequisite.

Ambassador Anatole Fabien Marie Nkou of Cameroon, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that with regard to the programme of work, it was his intention to continue consultations with a view to finding agreement on a proposal that would be acceptable to all before the end of this session. With regard to the proposed meeting to discuss the upcoming high-level meeting, he still needed to consult delegations on its format, given the different views among regional groups.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, 7 September at 10 a.m.

Statements

HENRY EYEBE AYISSI, Minister of External Relations of Cameroon, speaking at the first plenary of the Conference on Disarmament under Cameroon’s Presidency, said that he conveyed the warm greetings of the President of the Republic of Cameroon, Paul Biya, who had also expressed the wish that the work of the Conference be crowned with success. He also wanted to place on record the enormous feeling of gratitude that Cameroon had for the other members of the Conference for the trust placed in Cameroon as it was taking on the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. Cameroon warmly congratulated the Conference for its past achievements but also for propagating universal awareness of the issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He expressed the sincere gratitude of his delegation and the admiration of Cameroon for the genuine endeavours of the past Presidents of the Conference to move the process forward, slowly, surely, collaboratively and with mutual respect. Cameroon supported and fully subscribed to the idea of a world free of nuclear weapons. It was in this spirit that they had signed all the instruments that had been negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. These seven multilaterally agreed instruments formed the basis on which lay peace and international security. It was also in this spirit that Cameroon had opted for a peaceful settlement of the differences it had had with Nigeria on the Bakassi Peninsula.

Cameroon was fully aware that States and Governments had to have the necessary military means at their disposal to ensure the security of their people, as well as their sovereignty and independence. Thus, Cameroon had opted for a balance between the promotion, on one hand, of disarmament, and on the other, to guarantee the sovereignty and security of Cameroon. Mr. Eyebe Ayissi said that there was a strong demand placed on the Conference on Disarmament, in terms of outstanding historical responsibilities and the hopes placed in it by the international community. It was important for the Conference to step beyond the difficulties it was facing in these current uncertain times. Some questions were inevitable, such as whether the Conference on Disarmament was still enjoying a legitimacy to work on a common security; and were its working methods still suited to the challenges facing the world today?

Cameroon commended and paid tribute to the wise decision taken by the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a high-level meeting to bring fresh life to the Conference on Disarmament and to promote multilateral negotiations on disarmament, said Mr. Eyebe Ayissi. It was essential to get out of the current stalemate to allow the Conference on Disarmament to, once again, carry out its noble mission. The Conference on Disarmament needed fresh life being brought into it. What was needed today was a Conference that could negotiate multilateral treaties which strengthened the security of all States through the advancement of what United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had called the “rule of law in disarmament.” This was also necessary in their achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

ANATOLE FABIEN MARIE NKOU, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Cameroon), said that he was ready to work with the Conference and thanked it for the trust it had placed in him. With regard to the programme of work, it was his intention to continue consultations with a view to finding agreement on a proposal that would be acceptable to all before the end of this session. With regard to the proposed meeting to discuss the upcoming high-level meeting, he still needed to consult delegations on its format, given the different views among regional groups. While some delegations favoured informal informals, other preferred either a plenary session, or a simple informal session. He hoped that they would be able to hold that discussion later this week.

With respect to the informal meetings that were held between June and July, Mr. Nkou informed the Conference that he had received all reports from the seven Coordinators. A letter would be sent to the United Nations Secretary-General transmitting these reports. Further, the draft report of the 2010 Session of the Conference on Disarmament had been distributed to all delegations. They would begin its consideration early next week.

REZLAN ISHAR JENIE, Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said that 2010 marked the thirty-second anniversary of the adoption of the Final Document of the First United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament. This had been a landmark document which had strengthened the role and responsibility of the United Nations in the area of disarmament. Indonesia continued to reaffirm the importance and the relevance of the Conference on Disarmament as the world’s sole multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body. However, over the past decade, it was fair to say that progress in nuclear disarmament had been absent. The political atmosphere in New York and Geneva had not permitted much more than the maintenance of existing relevant disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. Nevertheless, this year, they had witnessed some positive developments in the sphere of nuclear disarmament. It was imperative for the Conference to build on the momentum created by these concerted initiatives. Indonesia urged nuclear-weapons States to undertake concrete disarmament efforts with a view of reducing and eliminating all types of nuclear weapons. Total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use. Mere declaratory statements by nuclear-weapon States were neither sufficient nor adequate, thus non-nuclear weapon States had a legitimate interest to receive unequivocal and legally binding security assurances from nuclear weapon States.

With regard to fissile material, Indonesia wished to see a treaty which was non-discriminatory and effectively verifiable; and should cover not only future production, but also existing stockpiles. Further, as an Annex II country of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Indonesia had chosen, in the past, to withhold ratification of the Treaty, pending ratification by all nuclear-weapon States and other States claiming possession of nuclear weapons. Today, from the vantage point of 2010, the Government of Indonesia believed that it could now enhance its contribution by initiating its own ratification process. Indonesia would also make use of its chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations next year to take the lead in resolving pending issues towards the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the region, said Mr. Jenie.

Indonesia supported the continuation of discussions on the upcoming high-level meeting in the plenary and welcomed the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General. Indonesia hoped that the meeting would strengthen efforts towards multilateral negotiations. Thus, it should not initiate parallel negotiation processes, said Mr. Jenie. Also, a five-hour meeting would not guarantee that the current impasses would be resolved. They also hoped that the meeting would generate support the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament. Indonesia supported the enhanced participation of civil society in the Conference, in recognition of its potential to come up with resourceful thinking.

SO SE PYONG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that it was his honour to join today as the new Permanent Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Nuclear disarmament still remained the most pressing issue in ensuring world peace and security. Nuclear disarmament was directly linked to the survival of humankind. His delegation believed that nuclear disarmament was the prime issue to be addressed in the field of disarmament. Disarmament could be said to have attained its goal when the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament was achieved. Therefore, it was urgently required to address the issue of removing all sorts of nuclear threats. Non-proliferation apart from nuclear disarmament was nonsense in guaranteeing world peace and security. The role of the Conference on Disarmament was vital in achieving nuclear disarmament. The international community placed high expectations in the Conference in realizing global zero in the near future.

Mr. So said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was ready to discuss all issues of disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, by adopting a programme of work as soon as possible. The programme of work should be inclusive and balanced and fully reflect the security interests of each nation and be acceptable to all Member States. Consistent was the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s stance to bring about durable peace and achieve the denuclearization on the Korean peninsula. Confidence-building was the priority between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States; the parties chiefly responsible to bring the process of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula back on track. Confidence-building between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States was the most urgent and master key solution of the problem. If confidence was to be built, it was essential to conclude a peace treaty between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States for terminating the state of war on the peninsula. The conclusion of a peace treaty was the only reasonable and realistic way for the denuclearization of the peninsula. The current abnormal situation which included all kinds of military exercises around the Korean peninsula, proved the urgency of the conclusion of the peace treaty.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that earlier this year, he had made a detailed statement explaining Pakistan’s position on the agenda items that constituted the work of the Conference on Disarmament. As they now approached the end of the 2010 Session, it was time to evaluate the developments during this period. The Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum; it was influenced by the various developments in the international arena. Much had been said about the positive developments that had taken place internationally. Nevertheless, they had to agree with those who had argued that the positive developments around the world had not had any impact towards ensuring positive substantive progress in the Conference.

In Pakistan’s opinion there was three reasons for the impasse in the Conference on Disarmament, said Mr. Akram. The first was that the noble words that had been uttered at the highest levels about arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament had not been translated into deeds. There had been no action in the Conference to implement this commitment by the major nuclear powers. The second reason was the pursuit of discriminatory policies by some States in the field of nuclear collaboration, in flagrant violation of the international non-proliferation regime and their own international commitments, to the detriment of the security interests of affected States. The third factor was the refusal of some States to recognize the reality that arms control and disarmament measures could only be concluded by taking into account the security interests of all States and on the basis of the principle of undiminished and equal security for all. It was the combination of these three factors that had prevented the adoption of a programme of work. As long as these negative factors persisted, substantive progress in the Conference remained elusive. It was indeed ironic that those Member States that had been the most vociferous in their attempt to apportion blame for the stalemate in the Conference were the ones who were most responsible for the current state of affairs, due to their acts of omission and commission. While they had spoken most eloquently about their commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament within the Conference, their policies outside it could only be described as cynical and hypocritical.

Mr. Akram said that, in the statement he had delivered earlier this year, he had outlined Pakistan’s position with cogent reasons that negotiations on a treaty that only banned the future production of fissile material would undermine their security by freezing the asymmetries in stockpiles in their region. The discriminatory nuclear cooperation arrangements in their region concluded over the recent past would further widen these asymmetries and accentuate their security concerns. The informal discussions that had taken place in the Conference during the course of this year had clearly underscored the preference of a large number of Member States for a fissile material treaty that not only banned the future production of fissile material but also sought a reduction in existing stocks of fissile material. Only such a treaty could be a true disarmament measure.

Mr. Akram said that what was most remarkable was the fact that the positions of most of the nuclear weapon States on various aspects of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty were nearly identical. Consequently, there was the danger that a flawed and unfair treaty could be pushed through by these nuclear powers which would only protect their interests. It was also obvious that the special dispensation given to some outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty had reduced the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to a farce. It seemed that if the price was right, all rules could be broken. It was therefore not through choice but necessity that Pakistan was opposed to negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Pakistan however remained fully prepared to make progress on all the other issues on the agenda of the Conference and the Conference should not be kept hostage to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty issue; the Conference had a broad agenda and a comprehensive purpose, bigger and broader than the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Pakistan had joined the Group of 21 in its unanimous position on commencing work on nuclear disarmament. They were also ready for negotiations on negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space. If some Members had genuine and legitimate reasons to block the Conference’s work on these issues, they should say so clearly and unambiguously with reasons. The Conference should make progress and engage in substantive work on those issues on which there was consensus. Mr. Akram said that some delegations had argued that the programme of work was a package deal and could not be implemented without negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. It was worth recalling that in the past, these same delegations had strongly argued against any linkages between issues on the agenda. The principle of consensus was the central pillar of the Conference as it protected the interests of all. Pakistan also remained firmly committed to the Conference on Disarmament as the sole negotiating body for disarmament and as such, would not be able to join any endeavour to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty outside the Conference.

Turning to the upcoming high-level meeting, Mr. Akram said that the merit of holding a meeting in which high level participants would be allowed only a few minutes to speak was doubtful at best. Such a high-level meeting should have been better planned and prepared to ensure a truly substantive outcome. The outcome of the meeting should be based on the following key considerations: the work of the Conference could proceed only on the basis of ensuring the security of all States; all issues on the agenda of the Conference needed to be treated in an equal and balanced manner; lack of progress on one issue due to security concerns of States should not lead to an impasse in the Conference; the impasse was not due to its rules of procedure or working methods but due to the security concerns of States and these needed to be addressed; any attempt to amend the rules of procedure would gravely harm the global disarmament machinery; and efforts to revitalize the Conference would be better served by convening a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament.

MAGNUS HELLGREN (Sweden), in a farewell statement, said that like many colleagues he would leave the Conference with mixed feelings: sadness over the inability of the Conference to make any substantial contribution to international peace and security for more than a decade; frustration that all the efforts they had all put into breaking the deadlock had not made any tangible difference; anger that human and financial resources had been deliberately wasted; but most of all conviction that the multilateral work that the Conference was supposed to do was more important than ever. The world was eagerly waiting for the Conference to start delivering. Preserving outer space so that the current and future generations could reap the full benefits of its potential for peaceful technological advances was crucial. The Conference, which included all major space faring nations, would be an excellent forum for such work. But if nothing happened here, he was convinced that other avenues to get things moving would be explored.

In the area of nuclear weapons, the lack of multilateral legally binding negative security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States that were respecting their part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain remained an unfulfilled commitment, said Mr. Hellgren. Progress on this issue in the Conference would require both doctrinal changes in major nuclear weapon States, and innovative ways of dealing with the non-Non-Proliferation Treaty States. The continued production of fissile material for weapons purposes was, in his view, incompatible with the commitment to achieving a nuclear weapon free world. There was a wider international consensus on the need to put a legal cap on such production, as well as to deal appropriately with previously produced stocks. Admittedly, this might not be the most important stepping stone on the way to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, but it clearly would be a significant and necessary contribution. He could understand why one of the nuclear weapon possessors, which was still producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, might perceive that its short term national security interests could be threatened by joining such a treaty, but it puzzled him when he heard from some non-nuclear weapons States that discarded a fissile material cut-off treaty as a “western priority”. Since when had this become anything else than a global cause?

Mr. Hellgren said he wanted to bring up the interpretation that had developed over the years in the conference of the so-called consensus rule; not as a commitment to work to find acceptable solutions that all could live with, but as an absolute and immediate veto right in all matters, substantial or procedural. In treaty negotiations there was a triple veto: blocking the start of negotiations; blocking the approval of any text; and choosing not to ratify the adopted treaty. His urgent plea to those blocking the adoption of the programme of work was thus to consider not exercising the first veto opportunity, since national security interests could be protected, if needed by the two others. The situation in the Conference had reached a breaking point; something would have to give. Another unproductive session in 2011 would seriously undermine the chances of the Conference in retaining its role.

MICHIEL COMBRINK (South Africa) said that as Africa had limited representation in the Conference on Disarmament it was a pleasure to see a fellow African chairing the Conference. His delegation also aligned itself with the views expressed by other delegations that the Conference, as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, carried a responsibility. It had not made any progress on substantive issues, primarily due to a procedural debate. After many years of stalemate, 2010 had been another disappointing year. This could not go on. South Africa remained committed to the multilateral system. The continued bickering about procedural issues had only served to undermine its role. The process for the adoption of a programme of work should not be an obstacle to progress. South Africa welcomed the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General for holding a high-level meeting aimed at revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament. They hoped that all delegations would seize this opportunity. South Africa also looked for further engagement between the Conference on Disarmament Member States and the other United Nations Members States, as well as with civil society to address the current issues.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said that Austria had always been a strong supporter of disarmament and non-proliferation. They had been encouraged by the outcome of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. It was high time for the Conference on Disarmament to act and assume its responsibility as the sole permanent negotiating disarmament forum. Over the years the Conference on Disarmament had been permanent but had not been negotiating. Austria thus wholeheartedly welcomed the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General for calling a high-level meeting to revitalize the work of the Conference.

Turning to the participation of civil society in the Conference’s work, Mr. Strohal said Austria would welcome a discussion on the participation of non-governmental organizations in the Conference on Disarmament. Responding to last week’s statement by the Informal Group of Observer States, Austria was also of the view that disarmament was the business of everyone. By excluding States and the civil society, they were preventing the Conference from getting important input.

DANIJELA ZUNEC BRANDT (Croatia) said that Croatia was looking forward to continue the discussion on the high-level meeting in whatever form the Conference could agree on. Croatia was widely interested in the success of the Conference on Disarmament and the whole disarmament machinery. Thus they welcomed the initiative by the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a high-level meeting to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Also, greater inclusiveness and openness from part of the Conference would lead to greater effectiveness and accountability. They supported the statement made by the Informal Group of Observer States. They should also consider the dismantling of regional groups in the Conference on Disarmament. There should be only two groups that should be represented in the Conference: the group of nuclear weapon States and the group of non-nuclear weapon States. Croatia called on all delegates to imagine a year 2011 in which the Conference on Disarmament would function with an enlarged membership, negotiating on all core issues. This would be a welcome change.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom), responding to the comments made by Pakistan, said that the explanations set out in that statement were helpful to learn more on the position of countries on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. As a nuclear weapon State, signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United Kingdom completely understood that nuclear disarmament was a delicate issue, a process which had nonetheless led to the reduction by 70 per cent of the United Kingdom’s stockpile. The point however was that last year a consensus had emerged and it was with profound regret that during the last 20 months they had observed a move backward. The spirit of compromise had evaporated too rapidly. Further, the United Kingdom did not at all recognize the veiled accusations nor the description of the situation set out by his Pakistani colleague.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that she had noted the comments of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. However, she wished to highlight the fact that the Six Party Talks were the appropriate forum to tackle this issue and not the Conference on Disarmament. Turning to the statement made by Pakistan, she said that said that the United States’ commitments in non-proliferation had indeed been accompanied by deeds, which they had shared with the Conference. These included the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the downsizing of their stockpiles, the Nuclear Security Summit, the Non-Proliferation Treaty Action Plan, their actions on nuclear-weapon-free zones and their new space policy. The United States had also participated in each informal meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. They were eager to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The United States further fully believed that each member could negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty on the basis of undiminished security.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said that the Conference on Disarmament was at a critical stage and that there were many scenarios about its possible future. Turning to the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, he said that it had been rather encouraging and he was looking forward to collaborate with the North Korean delegation. However, as indicated by the United States, there was an ongoing process, the Six-Party Talks, to move the process towards a peace agreement forward. Joint efforts were needed to create an environment in which the momentum could be materialized. The role of the Republic of Korea was critical in concluding the treaty and as such the Republic of Korea’s participation in the process was a prerequisite. In response to the positions expressed by the Ambassador of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, he quoted parts of a speech made by the President of the Republic of Korea on the sixty-fifth anniversary of the liberation. This speech encapsulated the position of the Republic of Korea on the issue, including unification. The President in his speech had said that Korean negotiations needed a new paradigm. The two Koreas needed to overcome the current state of division and proceed with the goal of peaceful reunification. The two Koreas needed to form a peace community that ensured peace and stability. Among the most important points was the denuclearization of the peninsula.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the Conference on Disarmament should not stay back looking at its own navel or to a past that was gone. Two views had been expressed about the predicament they were in today; some had put the focus on the fact that something was wrong with the Conference on Disarmament and that this needed to be fixed. Others had said that the problem was not inherent to the forum itself but to issues linked to the field of international relations in which some imbalances had been created. The Conference on Disarmament should look at both these issues and be aware that the diagnosis differed amongst its members. Whatever the problem, there was a problem.

Turning to the high-level meeting, Mr. Jazairy said Algeria strongly supported the spirit of the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a high-level meeting. They had however some issues about the time allocated for the Heads of States and ministers coming from the all around the world. Also, the fact that Ministers or Heads of States could only be accompanied by one person was problematic and that this limit was going to be the source of embarrassment. As the meeting would take place in New York, he would not want to step on the toes of his colleague there, but he still had the impression that the Geneva delegations could bring some added-value. He had also been pleased to hear echoes today on a possible outcome calling for a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament. This would be the best opportunity to put everything on the table. As far as the role of the Conference on Disarmament in this process, two views had been expressed since last week as to whether they should pursue this discussion on the high-level meeting in an informal context or in a plenary. The question was rather about how much time they could have. Holding this discussion in the plenary also helped them to have an outcome ready rather than having to draft this outcome themselves. He also expressed agreement with Austria and Croatia, that the Conference should not consider itself as an exclusive club and that the expansion of its membership could be positive. He would also welcome any follow-up on the initiative his delegation had taken up last year with regard to the participation of non-governmental organizations. He was also struck by the attitude of some delegations which were spearheading the participation of civil society in the Human Rights Council but were reluctant to do this inside the Conference on Disarmament.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking on the forthcoming high-level meeting, said that Belarus saw this as a necessary step to resume multilateral negotiations on the issue of disarmament. As they saw it, the current Presidency of the Conference was going to hold a central role in the process leading up to the high-level meeting. The Presidential statement at the high-level meeting would have to be a balanced one and be based on the report of the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly. The relevancy of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum needed to be confirmed. The Conference had the necessary expertise to negotiate disarmament issues. An agreement on the programme of work of the Conference needed to be given priority. The Agenda of the Conference on Disarmament should be considered by the Fourth General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament. The Conference was not carrying out its function because of an imbalance in interests of States. Thus, seeking international consensus would require time and substantiate efforts by the five Permanent members of the Security Council. The expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament should also be discussed. The involvement of the civil society and giving non-governmental organizations permanent observer status would also help to enhance the work done in the Conference.

RI JANG GON (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that he wanted to say some words to the Ambassadors of the United States and of South Korea. As it was well known, the Six Party Talks remained in a deadlock because of distrust. It was also a hard fact that South Korea nowadays frequently staged joint military exercises in league with the United States. This situation proved the urgency of concluding the peace treaty between the concerned parties. The conclusion of a peace treaty would help terminate the hostile relations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States and possibly promote the denuclearization of the Peninsula.

ABDUL HANNAN (Bangladesh) said that Bangladesh was happy that the President of the Conference on Disarmament would address the high-level meeting. This meeting was an important opportunity to discuss the revitalization of the Conference on Disarmament and Bangladesh believed that progress was needed for the Conference to achieve its role.

MARIA ANTONIETA JAQUEZ HUACUJA (Mexico) said that she wished to reaffirm the great opportunity Mexico saw in the high-level meeting. Mexico favoured the multilateral path in reaching mutually agreed agreements. Mexico could not believe that multilateral work could circulate around one or five countries; it should protect the interests of the whole of mankind.

AFTAB KHOKHER (Pakistan) said that he would convey the remarks of the United Kingdom and the United States to his Ambassador. Also, one should not look at the last 20 months, but at the past years. They should thus also not look only at the next 20 months but at the years ahead. Concerning the statement that would be made by the President of the Conference on Disarmament at the high-level meeting, Pakistan was looking forward to seeing a draft of it, so that the Conference could finalize it before the meeting.

AMANDEEP SINGH GILL (India) said that the Conference was looking forward to an opportunity where they could discuss further the high-level meeting. They would like to go into details at the next available opportunity. The President had several possibilities to call for such a discussion. India rejected the assumptions and allusions contained in statements today. Further, the Conference on Disarmament was not the right forum for raising bilateral and regional issues. He would thus not go into details of India’s position on these issues. Their priority here was to work to advance the multilateral disarmament agenda.

KAM WOON-AN (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea would not want to turn this multilateral forum into a forum on bilateral issues, but they still wanted to react to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s statement. The joint military exercise had been caused by the threat of North Korea and its annual exercises. Before talking about the peace agreement between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States, they should first denuclearize and resume the Six Party Talks.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations office at Geneva, said that he had appealed to delegations several times to keep regional conflicts outside of the Conference on Disarmament and to discuss them in the relevant fora. They should not engage in discussions about who was right or wrong but rather concentrate on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament; this would serve the good of the Conference on Disarmament.

Turning to the organization of the high-level meeting and the question by Pakistan on whether the summary would be a binding document, Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that if a delegation at the General Assembly made a proposal for that summary to be binding, and if it was supported by the majority of Member States, it could become a binding document. Concerning the speech of the President of the Conference on Disarmament at the high-level meeting, it would not be made by the Permanent Representative of Cameroon in Geneva but by the President of Cameroon itself. He was also happy to note that the high-level meeting was unanimously supported and would convey this information to the United Nations Secretary-General.

RI JANG GON (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), responding to the statement made by South Korea, said that his delegation rejected the allegations made by them. What the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had said was based on facts. He also used this opportunity to urge the South Korean delegation not to follow blindly the policies of others.

AFTAB KHOKHER (Pakistan) said that they did not think that they needed to convey to the Secretary-General that that the Conference on Disarmament was supporting the high-level meeting. The countries could do so separately.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/039E