CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS LAST PLENARY MEETING UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF BANGLADESH

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon held the last plenary meeting under the presidency of Bangladesh, during which it heard statements by Austria, United Kingdom, Mexico, Syria, Iran and Belarus.

In the discussion, some speakers said it was in the shared interest of all States to prevent the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The United Nations Charter had come under attack because of reckless unilateralism, and the entire edifice of the post-war multilateralism was at risk, some speakers warned. The world was less safe, and the only way this situation could be addressed was through multilateralism. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were intrinsically linked, and it was important that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons with its three pillars was implemented. Some speakers requested further details on the financial situation of the Conference, noting that it was surprising that it only had funds to hold a few more meetings this year.

Speaking were Austria, United Kingdom, Mexico, Syria, Iran and Belarus.

Speaking in right of reply were United States, India, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Pakistan, Israel and Iran.

In his concluding remarks, Ambassador Shameem Ahsan of Bangladesh, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said it was greatly disappointing that for decades no programme of work could be agreed on, nor substantive negotiations moved forward, because of the divergent positions over core issues. Perhaps time had come for Members to do some soul-searching on the longstanding stalemate in the Conference. To many, the rule of “consensus” had been used in a manner that weakened this body. Many would agree that the impasse in the Conference, the sole multilateral forum of disarmament negotiation, was a “step backward” for all. At the same time, Members of the Conference should not forget its past successes underpinned its prospects and lent a strong argument in its favour.

The next public plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be communicated at a future date.

Statements

Austria said nuclear radiation and blasts did not respect borders. It was in the shared interest of all States to prevent their catastrophic humanitarian consequences from occurring. The impact of COVID-19 went well beyond health. The backdrop of the emerging economic crisis could serve as an inspiration to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Conference on Disarmament.

United Kingdom said it was surprising to hear there was enough budget to hold only a few meetings until the end of the year. The Conference should have enough budget to meet whenever it was necessary. Due attention should be paid to the implications of the financial situation for next year. The United Kingdom would welcome further details on the financial situation to be able to understand the full picture and plan accordingly.

Mexico regretted that the Conference was still in paralysis despite the many efforts made by a range of presidencies and delegations. It had been a complex year for all countries, and the conditions that had caused the paralysis had become worse. The world was less safe and the only way this situation could be addressed was through multilateralism. The Conference had to go back to its prime function, which was to comply with and fulfil its negotiating mandate.

United States , speaking in right of reply, said that it had sent a letter to China in December 2018 to organize bilateral discussions on arms control, and was still waiting for a response. Without responding to the diatribe of the representative of the former Maduro regime, it should be said that there was no consensus in this body on any of the four core agenda items. To make progress, discussions must be held on the way in which the Conference conducted its business.

Syria said last year marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This date did not seem so distant: the world was facing similar threats, as it was on the brink of a new arms race because of the same party which had caused the bombing in Japan. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were intrinsically linked, and it was important that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons with its three pillars was implemented.

Iran said the United Nations Charter had come under attack because of reckless unilateralism. The entire edifice of the post-war multilateralism was at risk. The United States had withdrawn from several international treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and was set to militarize outer space. While Saudi Arabia had the right to use nuclear energy for civil purpose, it had failed to meets its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

India , speaking in right of reply, said Pakistan had abused this forum, once again. However, its statement did not deserve a response.

Saudi Arabia , speaking in right of reply, said the accusation levelled by Iran had no ground in reality. The behaviour of Iranian was contradictory: they claimed to be worried about the situation in Yemen while providing weapons to the Houthi coalition. It was not Saudi Arabia’s actions, but rather that of the extreme militia, which had triggered the situation in Yemen. One could not deny that Iran was supporting extremist groups in Yemen, and others, such as Hezbollah.

United States , speaking in right of reply, called on Syria to cease using chemical weapons against its people. Regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia had said it all. Iran was the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. It funded Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels. Iran was the international outcast, plain and simple. Iran could not be allowed to supply arms to proxies; the international community should therefore extend the arms embargo.

Syria , speaking in right of reply, said that, perhaps, the Conference was not the right place to discuss the issue of chemical weapons. As interpretation into English did not fully reflect Syria’s previous statement, the Arabic version should be the one used for the minutes.

China , speaking in right of reply, said the Conference was a multilateral forum, not one where one country could attack others and their governing parties. The impact of the Cold War mentality on the arms control process should be carefully considered. China had no intention to enter in a Cold War-like conflict, and stood ready to engage in dialogues on strategic stability and arms controls.

Pakistan , speaking in right of reply, said India’s policy of diversion sought to divert attention from the violations of international law in Jammu and Kashmir.

Israel , speaking in right of reply, demanded that Iran refer to it by its official name.

Iran , speaking in right of reply, asked who, if not from the Saudis, were the godfathers of terrorism. The United States had been resorting to absurdities to divert the attention of this august body.

United States , speaking in right of reply, said that, while they had a great deal of respect for the Chinese Ambassador, they had been wondering on what basis China had been saying that the Chinese people supported the Communist party. It was surprising that the Chinese Government cited a study by Harvard to support its claims in that regard.

Saudi Arabia , speaking in right of reply, called on Iran to collaborate with International Atomic Energy Agency experts and grant them access to the country.

Iran , speaking in right of reply, said the “Zionist regime” did not deserve to be called a State and Iran would never refer to them as such.

China , speaking in right of reply, said it had provided clear answers to the questions posed by the United States.

Belarus , recalling that it would assume the presidency of the Conference after Bangladesh, said that the budgetary constraints required a painstaking establishment of priorities. This year had not been an easy one for the Conference. It was important to establish firm foundations for upcoming months, in other words focus on the adoption of a report that would be technical. In the last week of its presidency, Belarus intended to organize a plenary meeting in a hybrid format.

Concluding Remarks

Ambassador SHAMEEM AHSAN of Bangladesh, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said it was greatly disappointing that for decades no programme of work could be agreed on, nor substantive negotiations moved forward, because of the divergent positions over core issues. Perhaps, time had come for Members to do some soul-searching on the long-standing stalemate in the Conference. To many, the rule of “consensus” had been used in a manner that had weakened this body. Many would agree that the impasse in the Conference, the sole multilateral forum of disarmament negotiation, was a “step backward” for all. At the same time, Members of the Conference should not forget its past successes underpinned its prospects and lent a strong argument in its favour.

_______