CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON THE CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND PREVENTING NUCLEAR WAR
The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it discussed agenda items 1 and 2, the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters. The Conference also discussed the way forward on a programme of work.
Delegations spent a great deal of time discussing the two indicative timetables that had been proposed by the President of the Conference last week. Ambassador Wang Qun of China had proposed two possible timetables for his presidency, both based on timetables used by previous presidents of the Conference on Disarmament. Many delegations had asked for additional time to review the documents and consult with their capitals before making a decision on the way forward for the next several weeks. Many issues were raised during the discussion on how to structure their work, including whether it was better to hold discussions in formal or informal meetings, the content of such discussions and the discussion of the four core agenda items.
The key issue for one delegation was the quality of discourse that would allow them to achieve a meaningful outcome. Side events, such as the one hosted by Japan and Australia on fissile material, deepened their discussion in a constructive and structured way, and this was why they supported such events. If the Conference on Disarmament did something similar perhaps they could make progress. The speaker felt they were falling short of what the General Assembly expected of them, and they wanted meaningful, structured discussion, not an exchange of views, leading to a meaningful outcome to which the General Assembly attached importance.
Many delegations said they supported any timetable that would allow them to move forward with substantive discussions and substantive work. One delegation pointed out that the resources of the Conference had been exhausted by this absurd procedural debate. They were sitting there with permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Security Council and of the G8 and the G20 and there were revolutions going on in the world and here they were bogged down in a procedural debate. Members were invited to think about the importance of seeking alternatives to nuclear disarmament and arms control to contribute to peace and security in the world.
During the discussion on agenda items 1 and 2, speakers said that in the final analysis they needed to stop production of the materials used to make nuclear weapons; this was one of the reasons the Conference on Disarmament had been established in the first place. The nuclear disaster in Japan was an important reminder of the serious consequences awaiting them in case of a nuclear war or the accidental use of such weapons. It was high time for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities in this respect and to speed up the progress related to nuclear disarmament; any shirking of these obligations or steps backward was fraught with danger. Speakers reiterated the importance of adopting a programme of work without delay to establish a sub-committee on an ad hoc basis to deal with nuclear disarmament.
It was noted that mutually assured destruction had been replaced by a less stabile multi-polar world. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not meant to ensure a permanent divide between nuclear weapons States and non-nuclear weapons States, yet what they saw today was the nuclear weapons States thinking that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a licence for their indefinite possession of nuclear weapons. Negotiations for nuclear disarmament were the litmus test for the Conference on Disarmament’s success, not negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
Speaking this morning were the United Kingdom, Germany, Algeria, Japan, United States, Brazil, France, Russian Federation, Mexico, Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa, Chile, Egypt and Nigeria.
The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 March 2011.
Statements
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that today’s interventions would focus on agenda items 1 and 2, the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.
JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), said that they welcomed the active engagement of the Chinese presidency and they were grateful for the time they had been given to reflect on his proposed indicative timetables, but they were puzzled by some of the reports that went to regional groups on this document. The United Kingdom had expressed support for those groups who wanted more time to review the documents and after consulting with their capital, they thought that CD/WP.565 might form a basis for practical work. Mr. Duncan asked that the presidency allow more time for the consideration of the document so that they could best determine how to structure their work for the next three weeks.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said he was puzzled and surprised. On Monday evening they received a draft indicative timetable that listed informal meetings. The next morning the document was on the table in the form of document CD/WP.565, but some delegations requested more time to consult on this and this request was turned down. Then the Chinese President presented an alternative indicative timetable with formal meetings and another request for more time was again turned down. Mr. Hoffmann remembered the President saying he would proceed using the second timetable, so they were surprised that the matter was brought up again. If there was an indication that progress could be made on any issue they should be flexible and adapt their work very quickly.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), speaking on a point of order, agreed with the speaker from the United Kingdom that any member of the Conference could, under article 30, speak on any issue pertaining to the work of the Conference, but they should use the list of speakers and if they needed to discuss another issue they should do so under a separate agenda item. Article 30 should not be used to circumvent the speaker’s list.
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that he preferred to get this issue out of the way before coming back to the list of speakers, without prejudice to article 30.
JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), said that he had prefaced his remarks by apologizing to the list of speakers and he disagreed with the Ambassador from Algeria’s interpretation of Article 30, which he then read out for the benefit of the Conference.
SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that it was the President’s prerogative to give the floor to Member States outside the list of speakers and he could do so either before or after the list of speakers had been exhausted.
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that he would reserve his opinions on this point of procedure for a later date. The point of today’s discussion was to find common ground.
AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said he was not opposed to CD/WP.565, he had just asked for more time to consider it. He reiterated his desire to know the views of other members on holding informal versus formal meetings on agenda items. Was it more useful to have informal instead of formal meetings?
LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), welcomed the Chinese Presidency and said the United States was looking forward to working with him. The United States was happy to discuss all of the agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament and to engage on them substantively in formal and informal meetings. In terms of document CD/WP.565 they would have preferred a more detailed version indicating coordinators and written reports. The United States supported efforts to find a sensible way to use their time, but they felt that any programme of work needed to include a negotiating mandate on fissile material under the Shannon Mandate. This was the one thing that commanded the greatest and near universal support.
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said he had listened with great care to the statements made by Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. While he tried not to fling accusations at anyone, he lamented the fact that he was compelled to move to other formulas at the behest of just one delegation. Though other colleagues said they just needed time to review the documents, one delegation disputed the holding of discussions in informal meetings. Mr. Wang said that the Japanese delegation did not understand why they were regressing to what they had done last year in terms of moving from informal to formal meetings and Mr. Suda had expressed doubts as to the format of the informal meetings that the President had laid out. It was his understanding that based on inputs from Japan there was no consensus at this stage on document CD/WP.565. Given that, he would not proceed on that basis.
AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said he did not think it was productive to continue this kind of dialogue between the President and some delegations, but he said that he wanted to reiterate his previous statements that he needed more time to go over the proposals because he had some questions and the President had still not answered those questions. He could not accept this kind of unilateral interpretation of his statement, but he did not think this line of conversation was productive.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), said he felt forced to intercede because it seemed that the President was having a conversation with a group of countries. One group had difficulties with document CD/WP.565, which was odd because last year the same type of proposal was accepted by the whole Conference on Disarmament, pushed through by the very group that was now opposing it. The speaker reiterated the support of Brazil.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), said that document CD/WP.565 was reminiscent of the document used under the Belgian presidency and if document CD/WP.565 allowed them to get on with business Algeria was fine with that. They should continue to discuss this outside the Conference on Disarmament and when they reconvened next week he was sure they could come to some agreement.
ERIC DANON, (France), said their discussion demonstrated that they needed to go back to a spirit of compromise. He supported the proposal of Algeria, namely that additional consultations would allow them to come up with a solution acceptable to everyone.
JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), assured the Brazilian Ambassador that there were no groups blocking things and they had a cross regional discussion on Tuesday. The key issue was the quality of discourse that would allow them to achieve a meaningful outcome. Side events, such as the one hosted by Japan and Australia on fissile material, deepened their discussion in a constructive and structured way, and this was why the United Kingdom supported them. If the Conference on Disarmament did something similar perhaps they could make progress. He felt they were falling short of what the General Assembly expected of them. The United Kingdom wanted meaningful, structured discussion, not an exchange of views, leading to a meaningful outcome to which the General Assembly attached importance.
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said when they moved to document CD/WP.566 the status for document CD/WP.565 was already clear. Thus, he proposed that they continue on the basis of document CD/WP.566 unless there were objections.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said for the record that document CD/WP.565 was incomplete when it was handed out on Tuesday, and some delegations, including Germany, had asked for more time to review it. He was surprised that the President already had an alternative prepared in the form of CD/WP.566. The President ruled that he would adopt the alternative approach without consultation and there was no need for that haste and Mr. Wang did not seem interested in a solution acceptable to all, arrived at through informal consultations. It was like he preferred to go with the second option because he refused to hold discussions on any other alternatives.
VICTOR VASILIEV, (Russian Federation), said for the record that as far as the Russian delegation was concerned, they were happy to support documents CD/WP.565 and CD/WP.566. There did not seem to be a consensus so maybe the best way to proceed was to have informal meetings and reach consensus that way. Perhaps they should move on to the list of speakers and reconvene later in an informal session.
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said it was his impression that there was no support for document CD/WP.565. The delegation from Egypt interjected to say it was not clear what Mr. Wang was saying in terms of which document had support and which one did not. Mr. Wang said if they agreed with one of the documents they could start discussion on the four core issues next week.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), said he did not think there was a lot of difference between Members on how they should proceed and there didn’t seem to be any fundamental differences. Mr. Jazairy did not feel it would be productive to press the issue now and perhaps the President should meet with coordinators and delegations outside the chamber in quiet diplomacy and in this way they could probably come to an agreement. Since some delegations needed to consult with their capitals it would probably be best not to press the issue now.
ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), pointed out that the resources of the Conference had been exhausted by this absurd procedural debate. They were sitting there with permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Security Council and of the G8 and the G20 and there were revolutions going on in the world and here they were bogged down in a procedural debate. Mexico invited members to think about the importance of seeking alternatives to nuclear disarmament, arms control and other areas under their purview to contribute to peace and security in the world.
EVAN P. GARCIA, (Philippines), on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, thanked Mr. Wang for the commitment he expressed to the Presidency of the Conference during his intervention on Tuesday and he also thanked his two predecessors. Mr. Evans also took the opportunity to thank the Russian Federation for expressing the view that the prestige of the Conference could be enhanced by the expansion of membership and for proposing that a plenary session be held devoted to the issue of membership expansion. The Informal Group of Observer States reiterated that its call for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur was merely to commence a serious discussion on the issue, not to prejudge or presume any particular outcome. They expressed gratitude to the numerous delegations that had spoken in favour of examining this issue in the Conference. The Chinese presidency and the rest of the P-6 could count on the Informal Group of Observer States’ full support for the Conference on Disarmament to begin its substantive work as soon as possible.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), affirmed the importance Algeria attached to nuclear disarmament. In the final analysis they needed to stop production of materials used to make nuclear weapons and the Conference on Disarmament had been established to deal with this and other disarmament issues. It was vital to work together to rid mankind of the danger of genocide that threatened the very survival of humankind. The nuclear disaster in Japan was an important reminder of the serious consequences awaiting them in case of a nuclear war or the accidental use of such weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons continued to represent a danger to international peace and security. It was high time for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities in this respect and to speed up the progress in steps related to nuclear disarmament; any shirking of these obligations or steps backward was fraught with danger. Algeria reiterated the importance of adopting a programme of work without delay to establish a sub-committee on an ad hoc basis to deal with nuclear disarmament.
SHAFQAT ALI KHAN, (Pakistan), said Pakistan had clearly stated its position on nuclear disarmament, which was the fundamental issue around which all other issues revolved. The elimination of all nuclear weapons was the only way to assure their non-use. Mutually assured destruction had been replaced by a less stabile multi-polar world. Was it not wiser to seize the opportunity to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons? Non-proliferation was not to meant ensure that nuclear weapons States held on to their nuclear weapons indefinitely, yet what they saw today was the nuclear weapons States thinking that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a licence for their indefinite possession of nuclear weapons. Negotiations for nuclear disarmament were the litmus test for the Conference on Disarmament’s success, not negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), said that the possession of nuclear weapons under any pretext was illegal. The sole function of nuclear weapons was the indiscriminate annihilation of human beings and environmental damage. The tragic tsunami in Japan showed how vulnerable they were; imagine in the case of deliberate use of nuclear weapons, accidental use of nuclear weapons or damage to the storage of nuclear weapons during natural disasters. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not provide the right for nuclear weapons States to keep their nuclear arsenals indefinitely. It was regrettable that long after the Cold War, nuclear umbrellas still existed as well as the deployment of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear weapons States. It was high time the Conference on Disarmament established an Ad Hoc Committee to start negotiations on a convention that included banning the production, development, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; renouncing the deterrence value of all nuclear weapons in national military doctrines; banning production of all fissile material for military purposes; declaring all stocks of weapons grade fissile material and their elimination in an irreversible manner in an agreed timeframe; and the elimination of nuclear warheads in a phased manner in a specified timeframe.
JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), responded to some of the comments made today because they were relevant to a programme of work. He agreed with his colleague from Mexico that they must move forward. Turning to the comments of Pakistan, the vast majority of the Conference on Disarmament membership was indeed members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a legally binding obligation to disarm. There had been progress made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in order for them to make more they needed to have a commitment from all to disarm, not to test and not to produce. He did not agree with Algeria that they were stepping backward and after the May 2010 Review Conference they had agreed on an action plan on all three pillars for the first time. The P-5 accepted the obligations in the action plan and they were moving forward to put them in effect. What did the non-nuclear weapons States intend to do to carry out their obligations?
MICHAEL COMBRINK, (South Africa), said they were at an important juncture in the Conference on Disarmament given the deadlock and sterile debate that had blocked their progress over many years. This deadlock had not only prevented them from contributing to a more peaceful world, it had also undermined international confidence in this multilateral disarmament forum. Commitments at a rhetorical level were meaningless, and they were yet to see these commitments translated into concrete actions that resulted in irreversibility and verifiability.
LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), said that nuclear disarmament was a goal the United States firmly endorsed as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as part of the goals of the Obama administration and she was happy to say that the new START Treaty was a significant step forward. They looked forward to the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and they were delighted to hear the statements made in support of nuclear disarmament from the representative from Pakistan. They did not see how they could achieve a world without nuclear weapons without halting the production of fissile material; this was an essential step toward a world without nuclear weapons.
LUCIANO PARODI, (Chile), reiterated Chile’s concern about the threat of nuclear weapons and the idea was to find practical actions to halt proliferation. It was important to stress concrete actions such as the effective prohibition of tests and production of new nuclear weapons, the elimination of nuclear weapons from military doctrines, and an unconditional, legally binding instrument that gave a guarantee to non-nuclear weapons States that they would not be the victims of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Monitoring and verification would also be important.
MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY, (Egypt), said that they were encouraged by the reference to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty final document and Action Plan and the upcoming meeting by the P-5 to discuss what was contained in the Action Plan and translating that into concrete measures for disarmament. It was true that one could not have nuclear weapons without fissile material. The Action Plan was not only about the three core issues, but there was also a fourth part on the Middle East and they were looking forward to the timely implementation on that area too.
ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), appreciated the statements made today and all these measures encouraged them about making headway in disarmament. The unilateral and bilateral measures mentioned earlier reminded them that the Conference on Disarmament was not the only negotiating forum in Geneva. Mexico supported nuclear weapons free zones as well, but none of these measures replaced the need for a multilateral, legally binding instrument. Mexico wondered if they all agreed on this multilateral instrument. How would they be able to overcome the procedural obstacles to achieve this? How could they turn their political determination into reality?
HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), said that Algeria, being a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as a non-nuclear weapons State, was fully committed to their obligations and subject to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They were encouraged by the reaffirmed commitments to nuclear disarmament from nuclear weapons States. Other matters of great importance were the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to deal with nuclear disarmament and changing military doctrines and policies that placed great value on nuclear weapons. The vital interests of States would not go away, so how did they find other formulas to guarantee peace and security for countries that relied on nuclear weapons to safeguard their vital interests and peace?
MICHAEL COMBRINK, (South Africa), responding to comments made by other delegations, agreed that a world without nuclear weapons could not be achieved without a ban on fissile material. However, there were other issues that needed to be addressed including the production, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. These were all matters that needed to be addressed and this was why the South African delegation felt the Conference on Disarmament could not just focus on one issue.
ERIC DANON, (France), said he was interested in the fact that Pakistan was using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to make its arguments. The commitments taken by all parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were strong ones and they could be reaffirmed. The real issue was that they needed a roadmap to live up to their obligations because they couldn’t do everything overnight. Now, thanks to the 2010 Review Conference, they had an action plan or roadmap and they should try to follow it as much as possible. It was up to the entire international community to live up to its obligations, each one encouraging the others to do better to ensure peace and security.
KAYODE LARO, (Nigeria), was pleased at the proposed indicative timetables and Nigeria would study them and agree to the most appropriate one. Nigeria’s commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons was well documented, however, when the United Nations body responsible for negotiations on nuclear disarmament got bogged down in procedural matters it left them in doubt as to where they were going and what they could achieve. Nigeria’s point was not to question the Conference on Disarmament, but rather to call on members to get back to substantive work. Nigeria reaffirmed its commitment to the Conference on Disarmament and helping to return it to substantive work.
Concluding Remarks
WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that he was encouraged by the support of delegations for the indicative timetables that he had proposed. Based on this understanding, he proposed an open ended informal consultation open to all members, the purpose of which was to hear the advice of Member States on the way forward and the four core issues. The next plenary meeting would be 29 March at 10 a.m.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC11/023E