CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES NEW DRAFT PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed a new proposed programme of work drafted by the President of the Conference.

In an opening address Ambassador Hisham Badr of Egypt, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that following consultations with all Conference members he had drafted a proposed programme of work titled CD/1933. It was a good compromise that aimed to be fair and balanced, and above all would allow substantive work to begin without compromising the national sovereignty of Member States. Not every State would agree with everything, but without unanimous agreement the Conference on Disarmament would never be able to begin substantive work. The road ahead was long and hard, the President said, and today was not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it was, hopefully, the end of the beginning.

During the discussion several States supported the new document CD/1933, which although a compromise, would furnish the basis of substantive work, and gave it full support. Other States said they hoped it could be adopted as soon as possible, but they said they had to refer the document to their capitals before sharing their position with the Conference. One State said they would have preferred a stronger negotiating mandate but understood that the proposal was the end of a very long process to find consensus, while another highlighted the importance of including the issue of stocks and past production under any Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. A State drew the Conference’s attention to some technical points in the document, while another asked for clarification on four points in CD/1933, including definition of the mandate of the proposed working groups and possible imbalance between the four core issues of the Conference on Disarmament. Many States, and the President, made a cordial appeal to all Member States to adopt the document and end the 15 year deadlock in the Conference.

In concluding remarks, the President said he appreciated the support expressed for CD/1933 and noted that there was perhaps an emerging agreement. He also noted requests for clarity from some delegations and gave explanations, and said suggestions for technical amendments would be taken into consideration in the final draft that would be presented on Thursday, 15 March. He also referred to the appointment of chairpersons to the working groups and said he was waiting for consultations and hoped to preserve balance in that regard.

Addressing the Conference today were Argentina, Peru, Switzerland, Brazil, Germany, Ethiopia, Cuba, Pakistan, Ecuador, Italy, Ireland, Russia, Chile, Myanmar, India, Iran, New Zealand and China.


The Conference on Disarmament will next meet in public on Thursday, 15 March at 10 a.m.


Presentation of Draft Programme of Work

HISHAM BADR, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Egypt) said that he had met in private with all members and took seriously the pronouncement of most members that they wished substantial work to resume as soon as possible. Following those consultations he had drafted a proposed programme of work titled CD/1933. It was a good compromise that aimed to be fair and balanced, and above all would allow substantive work to begin without compromising the national sovereignty of Member States. Not every State would agree with everything, but without unanimous agreement the Conference on Disarmament would never be able to begin substantive work. Much needed to be done in order to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, but there was a window, albeit a narrowing one. If there was a will, there was a way, and the President said all he was trying to do was open that way. The road ahead was long and hard. Today was not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it was, hopefully, the end of the beginning.

Statements

Argentina felt that CD/1933 was a very carefully crafted compromise between the various positions of Member States, and used simple and clear language. Argentina hoped that the document would be adopted. Argentina had recently taken on the role of coordinator of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which celebrated its forty-fifth anniversary last month. Through that Agency, the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a populated area was established, along with commitments from States not to manufacture or use nuclear weapons. Peru commended CD/1933 and hoped it could be adopted as soon as possible. It was in the legitimate interest of States to possess weapons so as to uphold their own security, but the destructive clout of nuclear weapons had proliferated to such an extent that the use of such weapons could lead to global disaster and threaten the very survival of mankind. The total elimination of all nuclear arsenals was paramount but agreement on nuclear disarmament would never be found unless the Conference started substantive discussions. Chile commended the different dimensions related to nuclear disarmament in CD/1933. Reference had been made to ‘constructive ambiguity’, and that concept was part of the multilateral culture; there were times when clarification was needed, but other times constructive ambiguity was required. Chile hoped the document would show the scope of consensus in multilateral processes.

Switzerland said CD/1933 was very promising and had its full support. Switzerland would have preferred a stronger negotiating mandate but understood that the proposal was the end of a very long process to find consensus. If such a compromise allowed the Conference to sidestep its current situation then Switzerland could fully back such an approach, and hoped it would be acceptable to all members. Brazil said it was not happy with the document, it would have preferred the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to be an integral part, but it understood that some said such inclusion was not realistic. Brazil did not believe that it was not realistic, but gave its full support to the document in the hope that it could break the deadlock. Cuba said it supported the important new document which would furnish the basis of substantive work, and gave its full support. Ireland referred to addresses by the high-level representative of States who would like to become members of the Conference, and said they had its support. The foundations of the Conference were becoming increasingly fragile, and that fragility would only increase the longer the Conference went without adopting a programme of work. CD/1933 was a compromise and had to be seen on that basis. Ireland saw the proposal as pragmatic and realistic, and offered its support and cooperation.

Germany said it was not unusual in the Conference on Disarmament to hear repetition of well-worn arguments, and sometimes one could even think they were hearing entire statements repeated. Germany would do just that today and reiterate its comment that members could not just sit in their seats like they were trenches and repeat old arguments. Consensus did not mean that one had to say yes to a proposal, but rather that one did not need to say no. There was a considerable gap between those two modes of behaviour. If all States insisted on their own preferences and desired outcomes, multilateralism could not exist at all. All States had a heavy responsibility to make multilateral forums function. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be the next treaty to be negotiated by the Conference, and Germany hoped that any programme of work would lead to that. Ethiopia appealed to all delegations to show flexibility and look carefully at the document. The Conference should not be derailed by technicalities, procedural issues or nominations of chairpersons. Ecuador said the task of Presidency was not an easy one, because of geo-political situations and procedural issues. Ecuador thought that the proposals in CD/1933 were fair and balanced enough to appeal to all delegations, and made a cordial appeal to all States to adopt the document and end the 15 year impasse.

Pakistan noted that CD/1933 was based on some of the ideas shared with the Conference during the first week of the presidency. However, some phrases, especially in paragraph two, were new additions which had a substantive impact on the language. Nevertheless, the proposal had been forwarded to Islamabad. Pakistan asked for some clarifications to allow it to take a position on the proposals. First, Pakistan was not sure what the proposed mandate for the respective working groups on nuclear disarmament and on a treaty banning production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons actually meant – did it refer to negotiations or discussions? In that regard, Pakistan drew the Conference’s attention to the rules of procedure which required a definition of the mandate of any new group: the definition of a mandate could not be left to the discretion of the working groups or be allowed to evolve during the course of their work; it must be decided by the Conference. Second, the proposed working group on nuclear disarmament only dealt with that issue, while the working group on fissile materials dealt with elements of a multilateral treaty. Therefore the proposed mandates for those two working groups were different, and it was worthwhile reflecting how that imbalance could be addressed. Third, could the same mandate not be used for the working groups on negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space, to ensure true balance on all four core working issues? Finally, there was a reference to CD/1299 of 25 March 1995, the so-called ‘Shannon mandate’ using the phrase ‘while dealing with all related matters’. Did that phrase mean that the issue of reduction of nuclear weapons stocks was also included in the work of the working groups? Pakistan, in a number of past statements, has clearly articulated its position on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and could not accept negotiations on such a treaty that did not included reducing existing stocks of nuclear weapons. The so-called ‘constructive ambiguity’ on the question of stocks as contained in the Shannon mandate was not adequate to address security concerns that had increased over the past year. Pakistan looked forward to clarification on the issues it had raised.

Italy looked forward to the Conference restarting substantive work, especially on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. CD/1933 was the result of a long period of consultation with all members and was a document of compromise. A compromise never completely satisfied everyone, Italy was aware, but by Thursday Italy would be able to give its position on CD/1933. Myanmar said it was true that the proposed programme of work would not be satisfactory to all delegations, including Myanmar. However a satisfactory document was not feasible. Myanmar hoped that the proposal would make all delegations equally unhappy, including itself. The proposal’s merit was clear and CD/1933 contained basic provisions that all delegations could work with, and would allow substantive work to begin without compromising any State’s interests. CD/1933 was a step in the right direction in efforts to bring the Conference back to substantive work; Myanmar supported it, and said its capital would consider it positively. India thanked the President for proposing CD/1933 and said it would refer it to its capital. India wished to see substantive work, including negotiations, restart as soon as possible within the rules of procedure. China said it was carefully examining CD/1933 and hoped that the President would continue to listen to all parties concerned so as to reach agreement on a programme of work. China would, as always, support his work in order to make progress in the Conference.

Iran said that it had always insisted on balance among the four core issues as main criteria for adoption of a programme of work. It wanted to see early commencement of negotiations, including a Convention on Nuclear Weapons to prohibit possession, production, stockpiling and transfer of nuclear weapons, ultimately leading to the destruction of all stockpiles. Regarding the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, it had been said many times that the issue of stocks and past production should be covered under the scope of the treaty. Any treaty that did not include those issues would be fruitless. Iran hoped to soon have the views of its capital on the proposal, so it would be able to contribute to a positive consideration of it. New Zealand said it thought that CD/1933, as a compromise, offered an excellent way forward, and reflected the language of a past action plan supported by New Zealand. As a country strongly committed to nuclear disarmament, New Zealand had long sought process on the issue of fissile material and welcomed the inclusion of it.

Russia noted the process of consultation engaged in by the President and said it considered CD/1933 as a compromise document set out at during a difficult phase for the Conference. Resolute decisions needed to be taken to move the Conference out of its deadlock. Russia was prepared to view the document from a favourable point of view and support it in that spirit. Russia drew the Conference’s attention to two technical points on numbering, and a date related to an agenda item, which may need amending.


Concluding Remarks

HISHAM BADR, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he appreciated support for CD/1933 and noted that there was perhaps an emerging agreement. He also noted requests for clarity from some delegations, and would attempt to provide that, in order for those delegations to return to capital so the document could be presented on Thursday for adoption, while keeping the flexibility required in the programme of work. Answering the requests for clarity, the President said that the mandate of the working group was clear; it was to deal with the subject matter. The President said he would not like to be pushed further on what ‘to deal with’ meant, but if pushed further, he would say that ‘to deal with’ meant to ‘work substantively on the issue and advance the substantive work in accordance with the working group and the rules of procedure’. Obviously the word ‘deal’ would have the same meaning wherever it was applied in the text. Regarding the issue of scope, the scope was indeed part of any possible work on a treaty that may also be discussed. The suggestions for technical amendments would be taken into consideration in the final draft that would be presented on Thursday. Regarding the appointment of chairpersons to the working groups, the President said he was waiting for consultations and hoped to preserve balance in that regard.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC12/012E