DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA ASSUMES PRESIDENCY OF THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea assumed the presidency of the Conference and members bid farewell to the departing ambassadors from Canada and the United Kingdom.

In his initial address to the Conference as president, So Se Pyong of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that he was very much committed to the Conference and during his presidency he welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the body. He was ready to work closely with all members to provide the grounds for strengthening their work. As president, he would be guided by the Rules of Procedure and take into account the position of each delegation to find common ground on substantive issues and procedural matters as well. With their support and cooperation, he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.

In departing comments, Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada said it was easy to dismiss the current paralysis in the Conference on Disarmament as a lack of political will despite the fact that States demonstrated considerable political will at the Security Council Summit, the Nuclear Security Summit and at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May 2010. It was also easy to remind themselves of the Conference on Disarmament’s past disarmament glories, and perhaps they could do it again, but the way forward was not obvious. Mr. Grinius said he would argue that the Conference on Disarmament was on life support because it no longer was the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it was not negotiating anything and had not been for a very long time. He suggested they must do more, by looking at the entire United Nations disarmament machinery and deciding whether this machinery was part of the problem or the victim of political paralysis. The Conference on Disarmament was fast approaching an historic tipping point. They would need all of their collective wisdom, and perhaps some luck, at the General Assembly in the fall when it would decide what to do with the Conference on Disarmament.

In his farewell address, Ambassador John Duncan of the United Kingdom said that many had speculated about why the Conference on Disarmament seemed unable to play its part in the new dynamic in multilateral diplomacy; an increasing number had drawn the conclusion that the Conference on Disarmament was no longer “fit for purpose”. Mr. Duncan’s own view was that while there might be some truth in the argument that the institution itself needed some modernisation, the problem was more profound. There could be little doubt that the concept of a presidency that lasted for a matter of weeks was absurdly labour intensive for any nation compared to the results that could possibly be achieved in such a timescale. If they were starting from a blank page he doubted that anyone would suggest such an idea unless their objective was to ensure that the Conference on Disarmament did not make progress. There was also something rather worrying about an institution whose membership proudly proclaimed that it was the only multilateral negotiating body when that was self evidently not the case, or talked about membership of the institution being ideally suited to disarmament when so many United Nations General Assembly members were kept outside. But these were simply symptoms of a much deeper malaise; an unwillingness to show the necessary leadership without which all the energy and skill of diplomats on the front lines counted for little.

All of the delegations who took the floor welcomed So Se Pyong as the president of the Conference on Disarmament and said that they looked forward to his stewardship and working with him to revitalize and strengthen the Conference. Delegations also bid farewell to Mr. Grinius and Mr. Duncan. The speakers said that they had enjoyed working with the two representatives and they thanked them for all their work on behalf of the Conference on Disarmament and wished them luck in their future endeavours.

Some speakers asked about the work of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament and how it fit into the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Other speakers expressed concern that the public image of the Conference on Disarmament was suffering and they needed to work harder to reverse this trend, lest the Conference become seen as a place of talk but not substantive work and fell into irrelevance.

Speaking this morning were Canada, the United Kingdom, India, China, Nigeria, Portugal, Iran, Myanmar and Algeria.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be during the week of 1 August when the Conference resumes after a month long break.

Statements

SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), said that in taking over the presidency of the Conference he was eager to continue the constructive discussions that had been carried out under his predecessors, which had generated many useful ideas. He planned to devote discussions under his presidency to the revitalization and strengthening of the Conference on Disarmament and he would consult will all interested delegations who had ideas on the programme of work. He believed that the Conference on Disarmament had the capacity to deliver concrete results when political will and concerted efforts were demonstrated by members to negotiate multilateral disarmament treaties. He was very much committed to the Conference and during his presidency he welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament. He was ready to work closely with all members to provide the grounds for strengthening their work. As president, he would be guided by the Rules of Procedure and take into account the position of each delegation to find common ground on substantive issues and procedural matters as well. With their support and cooperation, he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.

MARIUS GRINIUS, (Canada), in his farewell address to the Conference, said that he had heard many fine speeches over the years in the Conference on Disarmament, and it was easy to dwell on the fact that in the last 13 years the Conference had failed to move forward on its core disarmament responsibilities, including the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. They all knew what the reasons were. It was easy to dismiss the current paralysis as lacking political will despite the fact that States demonstrated considerable political will at the Security Council Summit, the Nuclear Security Summit and at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May 2010. It was also easy to remind themselves of the Conference on Disarmament’s past disarmament glories, and perhaps they could do it again, but the way forward was not obvious. Mr. Grinius argued that the Conference on Disarmament was on life support because it no longer was the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it was not negotiating anything and had not been for a very long time. He would suggest they must do more, by looking at the entire United Nations disarmament machinery and deciding whether this machinery was part of the problem or the victim of political paralysis. The Conference on Disarmament was fast approaching an historic tipping point. The outcome of various deliberations in the General Assembly and other venues had the potential to have a positive impact on their deliberations in August. They would need all of their collective wisdom, and perhaps some luck, at the General Assembly in the fall when it would decide what to do with the Conference on Disarmament.

JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), in his farewell address said that as the wider multilateral diplomatic community geared itself up and got back to work, the Conference on Disarmament appeared to hesitate and then to falter. The brokering of the decision of CD 1864 under the Algerian presidency seemed to herald a new era for the Conference on Disarmament; but this was not to be. Like many other people in the room, Mr. Duncan said that he had wider responsibilities, but it was nevertheless a disappointment that in the area that should have been the core of his work over the past 5 years they had not seen the kind of progress that so many expected and hoped for. In some ways it was surprising since the Conference on Disarmament community did not lack the talent, energy or willingness to embrace new ways of working that had been the precursors to success in other areas of the multilateral diplomatic community. Yet, despite the urging, indeed blandishments, of many senior political figures on the international scene, they had been unable to move forward. Many had speculated about why the Conference on Disarmament seemed unable to play its part in the new dynamic in multilateral diplomacy; an increasing number had drawn the conclusion that the Conference on Disarmament was no longer “fit for purpose”. Mr. Duncan’s own view was that while there might be some truth in the argument that the institution itself needed some modernisation, the problem was more profound. There could be little doubt that the concept of a presidency that lasted for a matter of weeks was absurdly labour intensive for any nation compared to the results that could possibly be achieved in such a timescale. If they were starting from a blank page he doubted that anyone would suggest such an idea unless their objective was to ensure that the Conference on Disarmament did not make progress. There was also something rather worrying about an institution whose membership proudly proclaimed that it was the only multilateral negotiating body when that was self evidently not the case, or talks about membership of the institution being ideally suited to disarmament when so many United Nations General Assembly members were kept outside. But these were simply symptoms of a much deeper malaise; an unwillingness to show the necessary leadership without which all the energy and skill of diplomats on the front lines counted for little. In his personal view, the lesson from the past 5 years was that once the P6 presidency put the decision L.1 on the table it had always been possible to the get the Conference on Disarmament back to work. They simply had not been willing to pay the price for doing so. For his part the journey was over, but Mr. Duncan said he would look back in gratitude for all that he had learned from serving with some of the finest diplomats in the business and he would leave inspired that there was a common humanity that united them all.

HAMID ALI RAO, (India), read a message from the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, delivered to the Global Zero Summit held in London from 21 to 23 June. The message read in part: “India has been steadfast in its support for global, non-discriminatory verifiable nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi presented a visionary Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free and Non-Violent World Order. This Action Plan sets out a roadmap for achieving nuclear disarmament in a time bound, universal, non-discriminatory, phased and verifiable manner. We are glad to note that the Global Zero Action Plan is based on similar principle and that, like India, it has supported the global elimination of nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework. The goal of nuclear disarmament can be achieved by a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework that is global and non-discriminatory. Progressive steps are needed for the de-legitimization of nuclear weapons. Measures to reduce nuclear dangers arising from accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, increasing restraints on the use of nuclear weapons and de-alerting of nuclear weapons are essential steps. There is need for a meaningful dialogue among all states possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence and for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs and security doctrines. This campaign can be taken forward by forging a renewed consensus on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Public awareness and support is vital to generate and sustain an irreversible momentum until we reach our cherished goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Transforming this vision into reality is a task worthy of the distinguished participants of the Global Zero Campaign.”

WANG QUN, (China), welcomed the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and thanked the Ambassadors of Canada and the United Kingdom for all their hard work on behalf of the Conference on Disarmament. He hoped they could break the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament and China stood ready to contribute to these efforts.

KAYODE LARO, (Nigeria), said the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would have the full support of the Nigerian delegation. The Secretary-General had described the Conference on Disarmament as the undisputed home of nuclear non-proliferation negotiations. Despite difficult political times the Conference on Disarmament had been able to achieve so much, so why now that the Cold War was over was the Conference on Disarmament going around in circles, paralyzed and unable to move forward on even the most basic of items such as the programme of work? The Nigerian delegation found this upsetting and disappointing and if they continued with business as usual they worried the very relevance of the Conference on Disarmament would be called into question. They ran the risk of having the public perceive the Conference as a talking shop where nothing of substance was achieved. They must respond to the increasingly negative image of the Conference on Disarmament among the general public and the time to act was now.

GRACA ANDRESEN-GUIMARAES, (Portugal) on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, said that they were looking forward to the General Assembly debate in New York on the revitalization of the Conference on Disarmament and would contribute their thoughts on that. They were also looking forward to working with Mr. Pyong in the coming weeks under the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), said that the United Nations Secretary-General had indicated that he would ask his Advisory Board to undertake a thorough review of the Conference on Disarmament and he would take action based on the Board’s suggestions. What were the consequences of mixing secretariat and member driven approaches? Would a meeting with the Advisory Board blur the borders between these approaches? Was there a precedent for convening such a meeting between the Advisory Board and the Conference on Disarmament? They were ready to cooperate with the Advisory Board and appreciated efforts to convene such bilateral meetings.

HTIN LYNN, (Myanmar), said that it was incumbent on all of them to work to revitalize the Conference and interaction with the Advisory Board could be a useful step in this direction. They did have questions, however such as the modalities of this interaction, among others. These concerns notwithstanding, they saw this interaction as an opportunity. It could contribute to the way forward and ideas as to what they should do next year if the Conference was still unable to move forward.

JARMO SAREVA, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Secretary-General had expressed concern about the continued lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament and nuclear disarmament was one of his key priorities and would continue to be in his second term. The Secretary-General and the secretariat realized the Conference on Disarmament worked based on its own Rules of Procedure and was the master of its own fate. Nevertheless, the Advisory Board on Disarmament was part of the disarmament architecture and the Secretary-General had asked the board to do was provide advice, indeed to advise, on the way forward. As far as the blurring of secretariat and member driven processes, the Conference on Disarmament was ultimately the master of its own procedure and he believed there was no misunderstanding on anyone’s part and their presence here was broadly welcomed and appreciated. Their recommendations would have their own role, but that was just one part of the architecture. In order to get the full view or full picture of the progress in the Conference on Disarmament, the members of the Advisory Board would benefit from attending a meeting of the Conference on Disarmament where all members would have the chance to speak. By doing this the Conference could add value to the deliberations of the Board.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), asked whether their meeting with the Advisory Board would allow members to express their views on the work of the Conference and if that was the case Algeria would be delighted to participate in such an exercise.

Concluding Remarks

SO SE PYONG, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), said that the next public meeting of the Conference would be during the first week of August when the Conference resumes work after a month long break. The informal meeting with the Advisory Board would be held on Thursday, 30 June.


For use of information media; not an official record

DC11/037E