CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES VARIOUS AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, DISARMAMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it held a general discussion and also discussed agenda items 5, 6, and 7 concerning new types of weapons of mass destruction, new systems of such weapons, and radiological weapons; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments. Delegations also extended their heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the people and Government of Japan and at the beginning of the meeting they observed a moment of silence for all those who had lost their lives to the earthquake and tsunami in the country.

Akio Suda, Permanent Representative of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament, addressed the issue of the radioactive leakages at two nuclear power plants in Japan, as he said that was of great interest to the delegations present and the international community. When the earthquake occurred last Friday, operations in all three nuclear reactors were automatically shut down and at that point, no nuclear chain reaction occurred in any of them. However, due to the destruction of the cooling system, which was mainly caused by an extremely high tsunami, the temperature inside the reactors started to rise and remained at a relatively high level. In addition, other problems had occurred related to the heating up of the spent fuel pools in some of the reactor buildings. Japanese Self-Defence Forces and police as well as experts and workers were continuing to tackle the cooling of the residual heat of the reactors by pouring sea water into them, and the leaking of radiation remained limited in intensity. This operation was ongoing and with regards to the problems of the spent fuel, authorities were trying to pour water from the ground and the air. Inevitably there had been some radiation leaks. On 12 March, the Government directed people living within a 20 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant and a 10 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ni Nuclear Power Plant to evacuate. Further, on 15 March the Government directed people living within a 20 to 30 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant to stay indoors. These measures were taken to ensure the safety of local citizens just in case the situation worsened. The authorities were making every possible effort to cool down the reactors and spent fuel pools in order to prevent further deterioration. The Government of Japan considered it essential to provide timely and accurate information not only to the people of Japan, but also to the international community. In this respect, they were providing updated information as much as possible through announcements to the media and via diplomatic channels.

During the general discussion speakers said that according to reports the catastrophe in Japan had led to radioactive leakages which were a health hazard. If this was an accident for the peaceful use of energy programmes what about the deliberate use of nuclear weapons? Could they imagine the dimensions of the catastrophe that could take place in case of a conflict in which these weapons were used? The first thing they had to confront in the Conference on Disarmament was the huge nuclear weapons arsenals inherited from the Cold War era that were hazardous. The risk of further radioactive leakages at the Japanese nuclear power plants put the stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament into perspective. How could they prove to people all over the world that they were serious about dealing with the pressing issues pertaining to nuclear disarmament?

A speaker noted that they were sceptical of the Conference on Disarmament’s ability as an institution to deal with disarmament, reflecting the long standing stalemate of the body. They would even claim outright that the Conference on Disarmament was presently “dysfunctional” when it came to delivering on its mandate. The Conference on Disarmament needed to reform itself; the consensus rule should not be applied to procedural issues, membership should be universal, civil society should play an active role, and they should find new ways to foster cross-regional cooperation. In this vein, numerous delegations pointed out that the Conference needed to be flexible and adapt their tools to the present dynamics if they really wanted to move forward, including the programme of work; political will was an exercise in flexibility and creativity. Their security and survival was at stake and no country was safe from the nuclear threat, no matter how large or rich. There seemed to be a certain acceptance of the status quo and this was of great concern. Given the past successes of the Conference and the favourable climate currently enjoyed by disarmament, it was inconceivable that this body continued to remain bogged down.

Regarding agenda items 5, 6 and 7 concerning new types of weapons of mass destruction, new systems of such weapons, and radiological weapons, a comprehensive programme of disarmament, and transparency in armaments, delegations said that in the context of national efforts to prevent the emergence of weapons of mass destruction, international humanitarian law standards must be applied. Regarding transparency in armaments, delegations noted that more transparency would facilitate more trust among States. A precondition for ensuring transparency in arms was effective coordination between States with United Nations structures, particularly those which were responsible for Security Council resolutions on arms embargoes. The increase in military expenditures was alarming and deprived people of better education and standards of living. The need for a universal, legally binding instrument to prohibit the development of weapons of mass destruction had been discussed many times. There was an urgent need to adopt preventive measures to alleviate these concerns for the international community. A legally binding instrument should be elaborated before these new weapons became rampant.

In his concluding remarks, outgoing Conference on Disarmament President, Ambassador Pedro Oyarce of Chile, said that they had discussed the four core issues in greater depth and they had held exchanges of views on the programme of work and different approaches were discussed, including: using something akin to document CD 18/64 as the basis for their work, adopting a simplified programme of work, or working without a programme of work. In an attempt to be as realistic as possible, they chose an intermediate path with mandates for four working groups that could begin substantive work based on general and substantive discussions. This “constructive ambiguity”, as he termed it, could create difficulties for those who considered CD 18/64 as the basis for any agreement. It was their duty and responsibility to make a serious effort at overcoming their differences to come up with common ground for developing a programme of work. Mr. Oyarce hoped the next presidency would continue making efforts in this area.

Speaking this morning were Japan, Algeria, Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN States, Norway, Colombia, Sri Lanka, China, the Russian Federation, Bangladesh, the United States, Belarus, Iran, Malaysia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Finland, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Germany, India and Syria.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 when China will assume the presidency of the Conference.

Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), expressed the Conference’s solidarity with and condolences for the people and government of Japan and held a moment of silence in memory of those who had perished in these terrible circumstances. He then opened the floor up for general statements.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), thanked his colleagues for their kind words and condolences for his country. As a result of the unprecedented earthquake that struck Japan, hundreds of thousands of evacuated people were now experiencing immense suffering and hardship. Yet, despite the catastrophe Japan did not feel alone. Mr. Suda expressed Japan’s highest appreciation for the many warm words, sincere offers, and assistance from many countries, international organizations and friends. In spite of the enormous loss and continuing difficulties, the Government of Japan was working to the utmost extent to protect the public and to keep damage to a minimum. They were also taking every possible measure for confirming the safety of and providing support to the diplomatic corps and foreign people in Japan, including temporary visitors from overseas.

Mr. Suda then touched on the situation concerning the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants, which should be of great concern to many delegations. When the earthquake occurred last Friday, operations in all three nuclear reactors were automatically shut down and at that point, no nuclear chain reaction occurred in any of them. However, due to the destruction of the cooling system, which was mainly caused by an extremely high tsunami, the temperature inside the reactors started to rise and remained at a relatively high level. In addition, other problems had occurred related to the heating up of the spent fuel pools in some of the reactor buildings. Japanese Self-Defence Forces and police as well as experts and workers were continuing to tackle the cooling of the residual heat of the reactors by pouring sea water into them, and the leaking of radiation remained limited in intensity. This operation was ongoing and with regards to the problems of the spent fuel, authorities were trying to pour water from the ground and the air. Inevitably there had been some radiation leaks. On 12 March, the Government directed people living within a 20 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant and a 10 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ni Nuclear Power Plant to evacuate. Further, on 15 March the Government directed people living within a 20 to 30 kilometre radius of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant to stay indoors. These measures were taken to ensure the safety of local citizens just in case the matter worsened. The authorities were making every possible effort to cool down the reactors and spent fuel pools in order to prevent further deterioration. The Government of Japan considered it essential to provide timely and accurate information not only to the people of Japan, but also to the international community. In this respect, they were providing updated information as much as possible through announcements to the media and via diplomatic channels.

The Japanese Prime Minister said the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear incident were the country’s biggest crises since the Second World War, but Mr. Suda hoped that through the efforts of the Japanese people and the strong assistance of the international community, Japan would overcome this crisis.

HAMZA KHEZIF, (Algeria), read a statement on the behalf of Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations at Geneva, Idriss Jazairy, which expressed condolences for the people and the Government of Japan. The statement expressed the support of Algeria to Japan so they could overcome this very difficult trial. According to reports the catastrophe had led to radioactive leakages which were a health hazard. If this was an accident with the peaceful use of energy programs what about the deliberate use of nuclear weapons? Could they imagine the dimensions of the catastrophe that could take place in case of a conflict in which these weapons were used? The first thing they had to confront in the Conference on Disarmament was the huge nuclear weapons arsenals that were hazardous and inherited from the Cold War era. Algeria still believed that that document CD 18/64 was a good basis to start substantive work in the Conference, but Algeria would not impede any other initiative that might gain consensus. They sensed that a majority of delegations supported this document, while there were other delegations that were not opposed to a simplified programme of work. Algeria believed that for any initiative to be successful it should take into account the priorities of all countries, respect the Rules of Procedure, and contribute to the start of negotiations and substantive work based on balances and achievements that were made after arduous discussions. Algeria called on upcoming Conference presidents to continue their efforts to enable the Conference to start substantive work.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI, (Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN States), reiterated Indonesia’s deep concern about the threat posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons, their possible use or threat of use, and the risk of their proliferation. Nuclear disarmament had always been their utmost priority, and they had always been committed to efforts toward the attainment of a world free of nuclear weapons. ASEAN was committed to implementing the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty and its Plan of Action and urged nuclear weapons States to consider their early signing of the SEANWFZ Protocol to further promote Southeast Asia as a nuclear weapons free zone. It was regrettable that the current stalemate had prevented this body from commencing any negotiation on substantive issues in its agenda for over a decade. In this regard, Indonesia recalled the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65/56 on nuclear disarmament which called upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament early in 2011 and to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention.

Indonesia had always been supportive of the work of the Conference on Disarmament. In this regard, they reiterated their full support of past and present P-6 of the Conference and expressed their readiness to continue consultations on any proposal aimed at fostering consensus on the programme of work. In order to help advance the work of the Conference on Disarmament, they believed that a proposal for an appointment of a special coordinator for the expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament was a major step towards achieving this goal, and therefore received their full support. They also valued and welcomed the contributions made by civil society to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Their efforts were important for generating support for nuclear disarmament at the grassroots level, and their wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise enriched the work of the Conference on Disarmament and helped to stimulate substantive discussions.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN, (Norway), expressed Norway’s heartfelt condolences to the people of Japan for the loss of life and said that the horrors of the risk of further radioactive leakages put the stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament into perspective. How could they prove to people all over the world that they were serious about dealing with the pressing issues pertaining to nuclear disarmament? Ms. Angell-Hansen welcomed the substantial discussions that had been introduced under the Canadian and Chilean presidencies. At the same time, they needed to remind themselves that the Conference’s mandate was to negotiate. They should be careful not to duplicate the UN’s First Committee, hence Norway questioned whether this year’s session could be perceived as “acceptable progress” unless it manifested with a programme of work addressing the Conference’s mandate. Norway did not hide the fact that they were sceptical of the Conference on Disarmament’s ability as an institution to deal with disarmament, reflecting the long standing stalemate of the body. They would even claim outright that the Conference on Disarmament was presently “dysfunctional” when it came to delivering on its mandate. The Conference on Disarmament needed to reform itself; the consensus rule should not be applied to procedural issues, membership should be universal, civil society should play an active role, and they should find new ways to foster cross-regional cooperation. Yet they recognized that the Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum. It was obvious that there were countries with legitimate and serious security interests and concerns directly linked to their agenda items. Indeed, they would go further to recognize that there were countries outside of the Conference on Disarmament with legitimate security interests directly linked to their agenda items and they had to depend on the 65 countries inside the Conference to deal with their security interests, which was not fair. They were well aware that most countries maintained that consensus was vital when it came to nuclear disarmament; Norway was not fully convinced. They believed it could be possible to develop norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and even to outlaw them without a consensus decision, and that such norms would eventually be applied globally. They could not leave it to the nuclear weapons States alone when it was time to do away with these weapons. They needed to address this urgently. If the Conference on Disarmament proved unable to deliver on the expectations, they must explore other options to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS, (Colombia), expressed Colombia’s condolences for the people of Japan. She thanked the Chilean President of the Council for his work over the last few weeks in helping to move them forward and in this vein Colombia believed a simplified programme of work would be a good way to move forward on substantive work. They needed to adapt their tools to the present dynamics if they really wanted to move forward, including the programme of work. Political will was an exercise in flexibility and creativity. Their security and survival was at stake and no country was safe from the nuclear threat, no matter how large or rich. There seemed to be a certain acceptance of the status quo and this was of great concern to Colombia. Given the past successes of the Conference and the favourable climate currently enjoyed by disarmament, it was inconceivable that this body continued to remain bogged down. Colombia called for flexibility and openness to different options.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE, (Sri Lanka), offered Sri Lanka’s condolences to Japan. As Sri Lanka had consistently observed, consensus was irrevocable in the attainment of international security and its sustenance. It was also manifest in their rules of procedure. To reach their common objective of witnessing a safer world free of nuclear weapons, it was imperative to engage all States concerned in an equitable manner. Therefore, they needed to recognize the urgency for commencing negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specific timeframe, including a nuclear weapons convention. They needed to continue in earnest their efforts towards achieving this goal.

WANG QUN, (China), expressed China’s condolences to the people of Japan. The Conference on Disarmament was at a crossroads facing opportunities and challenges. On one hand, in recent years they had seen a renaissance in international arms control and disarmament. On the other hand, they were confronted with the formidable task of bringing the Conference on Disarmament out of its doldrums so that it could return to substantive work as early as possible. In China’s view, the Conference on Disarmament was a good body because treaties that the Conference concluded were the most universal under the current circumstances, even with their imperfections. Mr. Wang said that in his view, the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament was attributable to first and foremost political factors and its work was like a barometer of the evolving international security situation. Differing security concerns would inevitably lead to different opinions, even conflicting views, on the part of Conference members about the focus and priority of the Conference’s work.

According to some people, the Conference on Disarmament had been in a state of complete paralysis with no progress registered whatsoever in recent years. While it was true that since 1998 the Conference on Disarmament had not concluded any new disarmament treaties, its achievements and failures should be viewed from a historical perspective. The Conference on Disarmament’s work was a process of gradual accumulation, with quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes. Qualitative changes could not be completed overnight; they required accumulations both at the political and technical levels. It took 15 years for the Chemical Weapons Convention to be concluded and 16 years for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to be concluded. To break the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament, good working methods and right perceptions were needed. They should work to identify and zero in on the crux of the problem, seek common ground and detect any evolving consensus, and engage in open, transparent processes in their endeavour to move the Conference forward. They should not belittle what may be seen as insignificant and they should also focus on actual effects and objectives. Political will and wisdom was required to break the ice.

VALERY LOSHCHININ, (Russian Federation), extended Russia’s heartfelt condolences to the people of Japan. There was particular concern about the situation at the nuclear power stations that were affected by this disaster and he hoped that the Government of Japan and experts could keep the situation under control. Russia appreciated the President’s efforts to find consensus on a programme of work. They did not view the situation in the Conference on Disarmament as impossible and they just needed to keep working, bearing in mind that there was no alternative to the Conference on Disarmament. Field meetings could not and should not replace the work of the Conference. The membership of the forum could be expanded to enhance their work in addition to more cooperation with civil society.

MOHAMED ADBUL HANNAN, (Bangladesh), expressed Bangladesh’s condolences for the people of Japan. The leakages from the nuclear power plants underscored the urgency of their work in the Conference. Mr. Hannan thanked the President for his excellent stewardship of the Conference and welcomed China as the next president of the Conference. Bangladesh believed it was a propitious time to deliver on their mandate and pledged their support to moving the work of the Conference forward.

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), then turned to the discussion of agenda items 5, 6 and 7: new types of weapons of mass destruction, new systems of such weapons, and radiological weapons; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments. He gave the floor to the United States.

LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), said that she had circulated a written intervention on two aspects of agenda item 7, transparency in armaments, which were of real importance to the United States: the UN Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures and the UN Register for Conventional Arms. They could discuss this in greater depth at a later date. She reiterated the laudatory assessment of Mr. Oyarce’s presidency made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was a challenging job and he had met it admirably. His efforts to arrange a high level segment attracted a record number of global actors to the Conference and he had done a great deal to galvanize this body into action. They looked forward to the Chinese presidency. The extent of this disaster in Japan had stunned them all, but the greatest resource Japan had was its people and the United States knew they would rise above this challenge.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV, (Belarus), expressed their heartfelt condolences for the people of Japan. Twenty five years ago the Chernobyl tragedy shook the world and Belarus was the first to experience its most devastating consequences. They were convinced that Japan, with the assistance of the international community, would not allow the situation to develop in a negative way. Mr. Khvostov applauded Mr. Oyarce’s presidency and thanked him for his work. In terms of agenda item 5, Belarus had already given some views in February on how to prevent the emergence of new forms of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for such weapons. Belarus felt that prevention was the best approach. Today they wanted to point out that in the context of national efforts to prevent the emergence of weapons of mass destruction, international humanitarian law standards must be applied. Regarding transparency in armaments, more transparency would facilitate more trust among States. Since 1993 Belarus had annually submitted data to the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms. A precondition for ensuring transparency in arms was effective coordination between States with United Nations structures, particularly those which were responsible for Security Council resolutions on arms embargoes. However, such cooperation was not always observed and recently they had seen situations in which false information was circulated. This was a flagrant and inadmissible act and United Nations structures needed to be as responsible as possible in disseminating information to the media.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), expressed their heartfelt condolences and sympathy for the people of Japan. The devastation was indeed shocking. He thanked Mr. Oyarce for his diligence during his presidency and his transparent and inclusive manner. Turning to the agenda items under discussion, Mr. Daryaei said that Iran recognized the negative consequences the illicit arms trade had on innocent people. Iran recognized States’ rights to conventional weapons for their protection and any arrangement for the regulation of conventional arms should be done within the principles of the UN Charter. In Iran’s view, the international community needed to fully implement the Plan of Action rather making new instruments. The increase in military expenditures was alarming and deprived people of better education and standards of living. The need for a universal, legally binding instrument to prohibit the development of weapons of mass destruction had been discussed many times. There was an urgent need to adopt preventive measures to alleviate these concerns for the international community. A legally binding instrument should be elaborated before these new weapons became rampant.

Concluding Remarks

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), in his final comments as President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the high level segment had been a positive experience during which they had received clear messages of appreciation for the Conference, but also the message that current challenges needed to be overcome so that the Conference could play its negotiating role. They discussed the four core issues in greater depth and they held exchanges of views on the programme of work and different approaches were discussed, including: using something akin to document CD 18/64 as the basis for their work, adopting a simplified programme of work, or working without a programme of work. In an attempt to be as realistic as possible, they chose an intermediate path with mandates for four working groups who could begin substantive work based on general and substantive discussions. This “constructive ambiguity”, as he termed it, could create difficulties for those who considered CD 18/64 as the basis for any agreement. It was their duty and responsibility to make at serious effort at overcoming their differences to come up with common ground for developing a programme of work. Mr. Oyarce hoped the next presidency would continue making efforts in this area.

They needed to recognize the inherent problem in the Conference, which was whether political will could be forged within the Conference or had to be developed outside of the Conference. The central point was not to fear negotiation. They should also engage on the future of this forum before outside institutions did it for them. They needed to use the momentum they had outside and inside the Conference on Disarmament to continue their work despite recognized limitations. They needed to seek a practical modality to allow interaction between the Conference on Disarmament and the Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Disarmament concerned with revitalizing the Conference on Disarmament. They also needed to evaluate how to increase the effectiveness of the Conference’s work. Global, national and human securities were all interrelated. Mr. Oyarce extended his thanks to everyone for supporting his presidency, as well as their advice and professionalism.

ADNIN SITIHAJJAR, (Malaysia on behalf of the Group of 21), expressed profound condolences and sympathies for the people of Japan. The Group of 21 took pride in seeing a fellow member of G-21 presiding over the Conference. The Group of 21 expressed their sincere appreciation for the exemplary manner in which Mr. Oyarce and his delegation had led the Conference. Mr. Oyarce was thanked for his dedication and tireless efforts in conducting informal consultations with Member States to seek common ground in order to bring the Conference back to substantive work. The Group of 21 was confident that his hard work would pave the way for further positive developments in the Conference. The Group of 21 was fully committed to extending its cooperation to the new presidency and all 2011 presidents during their respective presidencies.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS, (Colombia), thanked Chile and Mr. Oyarce for his hard work and congratulated him on his clear and concise conclusions which they should all bear in mind. Colombia expressed its full support for the upcoming Chinese presidency.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), expressed his country’s condolences for the people of Japan. He also expressed their appreciation for Mr. Oyarce and his work on moving the Conference forward in a transparent and inclusive manner.

HANNU HIMANEN, (Finland), expressed profound condolences and sympathies for the people of Japan. He thanked Mr. Oyarce for his close and excellent cooperation as well as his hard work and efforts on behalf of the Conference. The Conference on Disarmament must get back to substantive work before it was too late and members of the Conference must shoulder their responsibility and launch real negotiations. In this vein, he had paid close attention to the non-paper circulated by Mr. Oyarce containing ideas on how they could best get back to substantive work.

LUIS FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), said Japanese and Brazilian societies were intertwined, with Brazilians living in Japan and many thousands of people of Japanese heritage living in Brazil. Thinking of the risk the world faced as a consequence of this catastrophe, they could not help but think of the threat posed by nuclear weapons stockpiles. He applauded the work of Mr. Oyarce as President and said if they wanted to advance they needed to listen to each other as well as speak.

MAURICIO MONTALVO, (Ecuador), expressed solidarity for the people and Government of Japan. Ecuador had expressed the hope that the Conference on Disarmament would be a strengthened forum to address the needs of the twenty-first century and in accordance with this they had supported the development of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work. The deadlock was unjustifiable and the consensus rule had been abused in this forum. Ecuador was grateful to Mr. Oyarce for his constructive ambiguity which was sufficiently flexible to guide the Conference on Disarmament along the correct track back to the resumption of substantive work. This non-paper should be discussed and analyzed at the next plenary meeting and Ecuador hoped the next president would address this at the next meeting. The road to peace was based on the disarmament of conscience; that sort of disarmament led to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, equality, development, and non-aggression prevailed.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), expressed his country’s condolences for the people of Japan. The nuclear incident in Fukushima could serve as a lesson for them. There were fears that radiation would have serious effects on the lives and health of the people of Japan and impact the world food chain. Having said that, they should think about what would happen if nuclear energy were used for military, criminal or terrorist purposes and the consequences of those circumstances.

HELLMUT HOFFMAN, (Germany), joined colleagues in expressing condolences, sympathy and support for the people of Japan. In the first seven weeks of the session, he regretted to say that in regards to their real task, negotiating instruments of non-proliferation, they had not made any progress and they seemed to be moving further away on achieving consensus on what they wanted to do. They did not have a programme of work. So what had they achieved? They had heard many statements under the core issues which had been on their agenda for decades. By Mr. Hoffman’s count they had heard 277 statements in 16 meetings over 7 weeks and this did not include today’s statements; for people who had been involved with the Conference for a long time it was a lot of déjà-vu. The side event that was held had sparked a lot of interesting discussions and he hoped that events like this could build confidence and mutual trust so that they could start their real work. But they had to be honest with themselves; was this really going to happen? It was practically impossible to come to an agreement on a programme of work, so he thanked Mr. Oyarce for making a committed effort and the way in which he had conducted his presidency and he called on the incoming president to continue to work on this.

NINA S. DJAJAPRAWIRA, (Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN States), thanked and congratulated Mr. Oyarce for his efforts to move the Conference on Disarmament forward, including his non-paper and the high level segment. ASEAN wished the incoming President success in his endeavours. They reiterated their full support to P-6 efforts on fostering consensus on a programme of work.

HAMID ALI RAO, (India), conveyed India’s deepest condolences to the people and government of Japan. India stood in full solidarity with the people of Japan and their resources were at Japan’s disposal. He expressed India’s sincere appreciation for the manner in which Mr. Oyarce had discharged his duties as president and he applauded his efforts at trying to bring the Conference on Disarmament closer to consensus. They looked forward to working with the incoming president from China.

ABDULMAOLA AL NUQARI, (Syria), expressed heartfelt sorrow and sadness for the people of Japan. He thanked Mr. Oyarce for his efforts to take the Conference out of its stalemate.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), thanked all the delegations for their condolences and Mr. Oyarce for the discharge of his duties as President. He agreed with Mr. Oyarce that global, national and human security were all intertwined and Japan looked forward to working with the presidency of China.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/021E