CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT BY CHINA ON ANNIVERSARY OF WAR WITH JAPAN, FAREWELL SPEECH BY PAKISTAN

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon heard a statement by China on the commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the victory of the Chinese people’s war of resistance and a farewell statement by Ambassador Zamir Akram of Pakistan.

China said that on 3 September, the Chinese Government had held a solemn gathering in Beijing “in commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the victory of the Chinese people’s war of resistance against Japanese aggression and the world anti-fascist war”. In his speech, President Xi Jinping pointed out that the experience of war made people value peace all the more. In the interest of peace, the world needed to foster a keen sense of a global community of shared future. Prejudice, discrimination, hatred and war could only cause disaster and suffering, while mutual respect, equality, peaceful development and common prosperity represented the right path to take. In the interest of peace, China would remain committed to peaceful development. In his speech, President Xi Jinping announced that China would cut its military personnel by 300,000. This round of reduction of armed forces would be completed before the end of 2017. This would be the eleventh time that China voluntarily and unilaterally reduced its armed forces since the founding of People’s Republic. It fully demonstrated China’s sincere desire to work closely with other nations for peace, common development and shared prosperity. Together with the international community, China would make unremitting efforts for the achievement of the grand vision of comprehensive and universal disarmament and lasting peace in the world.

Ambassador Zamir Akram of Pakistan, giving his farewell speech, said he had no words of wisdom to break the deadlock that the Conference was facing. The seven years he had spent at the Conference on Disarmament, and the three years he had spent there in the1980s, had given him a sense of perspective that he would like to share today. The first obvious reality was that they had to acknowledge in the Conference on Disarmament that the nineteen-year deadlock was a consequence of strategic realities, as the Conference did not operate in a vacuum and the national security interests of States were supreme and guided their positions. He did not agree with those who felt that changing the rules of procedure would somehow break this deadlock.

The key to progress in the Conference actually lay outside it and raised the question whether the Conference was destined to remain deadlocked forever. Ambassador Akram said that the Conference had two options. As long as the current strategic environment prevailed, it could begin negotiations on items on the agenda that did not undermine the security of any member of the Conference. Issues in Pakistan’s view that fell in this category included first and most obviously negotiating a treaty on negative security assurances. Prevention of an arms race in outer space and radiological weapons were other issues. He also suggested that the Conference could take up new issues: cyber weapons and cyber security were worthy of closer consideration. The other option that the Conference had was to engage in substantive discussions on all agenda items in a balanced and equal manner. This was a process that the Conference had pursued for the past two years and Pakistan felt that these substantive discussions had proven to be very useful as they could serve as building blocks for a treaty when the international community was ready to negotiate it.

Pakistan agreed with those who believed that they should not abandon or undermine the Conference. The Conference was not the only forum which was deadlocked, the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization were equally at an impasse. The lesson learnt from history was that circumstances and realities changed, and when they did, the Conference would be able to find the ingredients to progress. The countries whose interests were directly affected by the issues on the agenda of the Conference, and on which there was no agreement, should engage in efforts to address the security concerns that were causing the trouble in the Conference. This would take a long time, but there were no short-term answers. In the meantime, they should continue to create building blocks through substantive discussions or agree on the negotiation any of the new issues that could lead to binding instruments. It would be extreme folly to scuttle the Conference.

Katy Donnelly of New Zealand, acting President of the Conference, bid a warm farewell to Ambassador Akram, and was also joined by India, China and Turkey.

The next formal plenary will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 15 September, when the Conference will hear from the Chair-elect of this year’s First Committee, Ambassador Karel van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations in New York.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/043E