CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS LAST PLENARY UNDER THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENCY

The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued to discuss the second revised programme of work presented by the Ukrainian presidency on 13 February. At the beginning of the meeting, a number of delegations made statements concerning the upcoming Venezuelan presidency of the Conference on Disarmament.

At the end of the meeting, the President of the Conference, Ambassador Yurii Klymenko of Ukraine, remarked that accommodating all differences on the programme of work still appeared elusive and perhaps unrealistic, and thanked all the delegations and secretariat for their participation during the Ukrainian presidency.

During the discussion on a draft programme of work, Russia expressed its preference for separate discussions on questions of procedure and substance, noting that if questions of substance were not resolved, then there would be no need to discuss procedural matters. Iran reiterated its concern about establishing coordinators on working methods and membership expansion because it would very likely divert the work of the Conference from its core mandate. The United States was pleased that the second revised draft kept the reference to membership extension and working methods, and said that discussing the two issues was critical for the Conference going forward. Brazil underlined that it was important not to lose the momentum established at the Conference during 2018 within the five subsidiary bodies and that the Conference needed to focus on issues that showed more maturity. China believed that negotiating an instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space was very timely.

Cuba was concerned that the language in the second draft seemed to take the Conference further away from the consensus and agreed on the need to focus on substance rather than procedure. Argentina noted that an amendment to the working methods of the Conference may help depoliticize its work, and Member States should look into this while discussing the issues of substance. France underlined that the Conference had to link its work to the current strategic and security realities and urged it to start working on a legally binding Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Mexico welcomed the language in the second draft which referred to issues to negotiate in line with the mandate of the Conference. Germany was very open to discussing the proposal to appoint one or two coordinators to consider membership expansion and working methods. Japan echoed the importance of working together in a spirit of cooperation and urged delegations to move on with discussions and thus allow the Conference to carry out its work.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference on Disarmament discussed the upcoming presidency of Venezuela.

The United States expressed its strong opposition to a representative of the former Maduro regime occupying the seat of Venezuela as the President of the Conference on Disarmament. Venezuela objected to the United States’ statement which it said was an abuse of procedure since the internal situation of Venezuela was not an issue to be discussed in the Conference on Disarmament. Cuba stressed the importance of mutually respecting the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Syria objected to taking the Conference hostage to specific political objectives and to imposing subjects outside of its agenda and mandate.

Iran said that discussions of a political nature should not be addressed in this forum. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the issue of Venezuela should be resolved in a peaceful manner in accordance with the wishes of its Government and people, while the Conference on Disarmament should focus on its agenda and mandate. Australia said that one of the valuable things about this body was that States could listen to each other with respect and stressed that raising the issue of a presidency of the Conference on Disarmament was fully within the mandate of what the Conference could talk about. Russia urged the Conference on Disarmament to turn its attention to adopting its programme of work.

Ambassador Aidan Liddle of the United Kingdom, the incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, paid tribute to the Ukrainian presidency and its tireless efforts to come up with a programme of work and said that the United Kingdom would offer preliminary ideas on the way forward during the next plenary meeting.


This was the last meeting of the Conference on Disarmament under the Presidency of Ukraine. The next public meeting will be held on Tuesday, 19 February at 10 a.m. under the Presidency of the United Kingdom.


Discussion

United States expressed its strong opposition to a representative of the former Maduro regime occupying the seat of Venezuela as the President of the Conference on Disarmament. The Maduro regime was illegitimate, as it had stolen the elections from the Venezuela people and had bankrupted the country. The number of countries recognizing the Guaidó presidency was increasing daily, said the United States, adding that Venezuela taking the Presidency of the Conference would be a travesty, especially after the disastrous Syrian presidency in 2018.

Venezuela objected to the United States’ statement which it said was an abuse of procedure since the internal situation of Venezuela was not an issue to be discussed in the Conference on Disarmament. The United States was fabricating a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela in order to justify its intervention in the country, whose Government had not received any requests to allow humanitarian assistance into the country. The country that was talking about a humanitarian crisis was the same that was systematically taking steps to freeze assets that were the property of the people of Venezuela. Rules of procedure were very clear on the geographical rotation of the presidency.

Cuba emphasized that rules of procedure required the President to address a point of order as soon as it was raised, and stressed that plenary meetings were meant for the discussion of the Conference’s agenda.

United States said that the issue of Venezuela did impact the Conference on Disarmament as in a few months’ time, that country would hold its Presidency. The Venezuelan regime taking the Presidency would be a travesty, therefore the United States would continue to raise this issue because it was concerned about preserving the dignity of the Conference on Disarmament.

Venezuela stressed that the Conference should be discussing issues on its agenda. Venezuela too was concerned about the future presidencies, one of which would be held by the United States, as some delegations did not pay attention to very important issues like general and complete disarmament. Venezuela was very concerned that this was the approach that the presidency of the United States would take.

Syria objected to taking the Conference hostage to specific political objectives and to imposing subjects outside of its agenda and mandate, which was to negotiate legal agreements on nuclear disarmament.

Iran said that it was better to halt discussions of a political nature, which should not be addressed in this forum. A point of order raised by a country must be immediately addressed, and in this matter, all the countries were equal and should be treated equally.

United States said that any representative of the Assad regime was in no position to talk about international law.

Syria said that the violations of the United Nations Charter and international law by the United States in Syria, and its use of military force without the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council, made that country ineligible to make recommendations on international law.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that this discussion was another example of the politicization of the Conference on Disarmament and the abuse of its rules of procedure. The issue of Venezuela should be resolved in a peaceful manner in accordance with the wishes of its Government and people, while the Conference on Disarmament should focus on its agenda and mandate.

Australia said that one of the valuable things about this body was that States could listen to each other with respect. Raising the issue of the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament was fully within the mandate of what the Conference could talk about.

Cuba stressed the importance of mutually respecting the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Cuba could also say that the only country that had ever used nuclear weapons in history should not be a President of the Conference on Disarmament, but that would not be productive. The Conference had a responsibility towards the international community to maintain its commitment to nuclear disarmament.

United States stressed that the discussion was an example of why the Conference must examine a whole range of issues related to its rules of procedure and methods of work. The issue of the Presidency was very relevant to the Conference, the United States said, and invited all Member States to engage in a very relevant discussion on methods of work.

Russia recalled that during the discussions on the draft programme of work on 14 February, a number of delegations had emphasized the need to reaffirm the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating body of the international community for nuclear disarmament. That was why the Conference must turn its attention to adopting its programme of work.

YURII KLYMENKO, President of the Conference and Permanent Representative of Ukraine, said that the Conference on Disarmament would now continue discussing the second revised programme of work circulated on 13 February.

Poland said that concerning the expansion of the membership of the Conference, which was gaining support, the last 20 years or so had proved that the exclusivity of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament had not resulted in a smashing success. Poland supported the expansion of the membership, not only because it would bring new fresh blood and new ideas into the Conference, but also because – from the international relations point of view - it was the proper and just thing to do. Poland strongly encouraged the delegations to also discuss the Conference’s working methods, because “after 40 years, everyone needs a good health check-up”.

Russian Federation noted that it had already made a proposal about the questions of substance and procedure. If questions of substance were not resolved, then there would be no need to discuss procedural matters. The last thing that the Russian Federation wanted to see at the Conference was to have a greater focus on procedural issues. Accordingly, the Russian Federation preferred to have separate discussions on questions of procedure and substance.

Iran said there was no doubt about the magnitude of danger that nuclear weapons posed to civilization, especially in current circumstances where the warmongering by certain regimes was at its height. Iran welcomed the proposal in the second draft regarding nuclear disarmament with a clear negotiating mandate. The four core issues of the Conference on Disarmament were equally important, and the Conference should not prioritize one issue over the other. Any programme of work could only be workable if a meaningful balance was maintained among the four core issues. A balanced, non-discriminatory and inclusive approach would best serve the cause of nuclear disarmament and any negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should be undertaken within the framework of the Shannon Mandate, including existing stockpiles of fissile material. Iran reiterated its concern about establishing coordinators on working methods and membership expansion because it would very likely divert the work of the Conference from its core mandate. The Conference’s current stalemate was not caused by its limited membership. It would be better for the Conference to focus time and energy to negotiate a treaty on nuclear disarmament.

United States said that the second draft was headed in the right direction, and it agreed with the Russian Federation that there was a link between substance and procedure. Discussing the two issues was critical for the Conference going forward and the United States was pleased that the second draft kept the reference to membership expansion and working methods. There was no reason to be afraid of having a discussion on any issue; any body needed to periodically review its working methods and membership.

Brazil underlined that it was important not to lose the momentum established at the Conference during 2018 within the five subsidiary bodies. The dialogues in those bodies were extremely dense and they prepared the ground for a more concrete mandate when issues matured. Brazil agreed that the four core issues needed to have equal importance in any programme of work, but Brazil would have no difficulty to elevate the language on certain non-core issues. At the same time, Brazil believed that the Conference on Disarmament needed to focus on issues with more maturity and that the language of a programme of work needed to reflect those nuances. It was not easy to jump into a negotiation mandate overnight because the issues which the Conference dealt with were complex, challenging and serious. Nevertheless, the Conference had to adopt something; otherwise, no work would be done. Brazil suggested that adequate technical advice be provided to the Conference.

China shared its preliminary view of the second revised draft programme of work by saying that it believed that the prevention of an arms race in outer space was a very timely issue, as well as negotiating an instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space.

Cuba would have preferred that the second revised draft contain a direct reference to reaching binding agreements. It expressed concern about the language that seemed to take the Conference further away from consensus than previous versions. Cuba agreed with the Russian Federation on the need to focus on substance rather than procedure. It was important to find out whether there was a consensus on discussing membership expansion and working methods. The problem of the Conference was political, not procedural.

Argentina said that any potential amendment to the working methods of the Conference may help depoliticize its work. The rules of procedure had been around for quite some time. Member States needed to look into amending them while discussing the issues of substance.

France agreed that the Conference had to link its work to the current strategic and security realities. The degree of maturity of the four core subjects was different. The Conference should start working on a legally binding Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. As for membership expansion and working methods, France had no difficulty to see the Conference working on those issues with one or two coordinators.

Mexico welcomed the language in the second revised draft which referred to issues to negotiate in line with the mandate of the Conference. Even though the second draft was not clear on what exactly would be discussed under each of the paragraphs, it could be nonetheless used as the foundation for the Conference’s work.

Germany agreed with France that some issues were much more mature for discussion than others. As for the proposal to have one or two coordinators to consider membership extension and working methods, Germany was very open to discuss those issues.

Japan echoed the importance of working together in a spirit of cooperation and agreed with Brazil that the Conference should build on its previous work formally. At the same time, Japan urged delegations to move on with discussions and thus allow the Conference to carry out its work.

YURII KLYMENKO, President of the Conference and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva, reminded of the intent of the Ukrainian presidency to be ambitious in its attempt to present a balanced and acceptable programme of work that would reflect the variety of views and positions. However, accommodating all differences on the programme of work still appeared elusive and perhaps unrealistic. It was desirable to allow all delegations and their capitals to go over the current draft programme of work. He thanked all the delegations and the secretariat for their participation during the Ukrainian presidency.

AIDAN LIDDLE, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the Conference on Disarmament, paid tribute to the outgoing Ukrainian presidency and its tireless efforts to come up with a programme of work. He noted that the current draft programme of work was a good basis for the future work of the Conference, even though consensus was difficult. As the incoming President, he intended to continue consulting further with all delegations and would offer preliminary ideas on the way forward during the plenary meeting on Tuesday, 19 February.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, 19 February, at 10 a.m. under the presidency of the United Kingdom.