Conference on Disarmament Holds Thematic Discussion on Agenda Item 6 on a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a thematic discussion on agenda item 6 on a comprehensive programme of disarmament, as it met in the first plenary meeting under the Presidency of Canada.

Ambassador Leslie Norton of Canada, President of the Conference on Disarmament, congratulated the United States, Russia and Switzerland for the historic summit that had taken place last week, here in Geneva. She said it was particularly regrettable that the Conference’s work was hampered by the perceived need for consensus on procedural matters. A procedural veto should not be required to protect fundamental national interests when States had an ability to block consensus on matters of substance during negotiations and also had the option to decline signature and ratification of a negotiated instrument. This extremely restrictive interpretation of the consensus rule had contributed largely to the decades-long stalemate in the Conference. The facts were clear, however, Presidencies and all Conference members needed to conduct business in a manner that was different from the past decades.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Russian Federation made a general statement. Recalling that it had been 80 years since Nazi Germany had invaded the Soviet Union, Russia said that the principle that one nation should not be allowed to promote insecurity over other States was amongst the lessons drawn from the war, and it was reflected in core disarmament principles. Today, events were undermining world peace, the United Nations Charter, and various fundamental disarmament treaties. The renewal of the 2010 START Treaty was a sign of hope, which showed that renewed dialogue was possible. The Summit that had taken place in Geneva last week was another hopeful sign. The Russian Federation was willing to continue strategic discussion with the United States and hoped that the momentum of the Geneva summit would be maintained, bearing in mind the lessons of the Second World War.

Speaking in the thematic discussion on a comprehensive programme of disarmament, delegations said rapid technological developments raised new issues in the field of disarmament, notably as regards cyberspace and automation; modern warfare would be faster, more networked and focused. The Conference must find ways to better engage with the increasing number of actors in the field, including those from the private sector. Urging mutual respect, several speakers expressed support for the Russian proposal for a convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. In reference to the Canadian Presidency’s schedule of meetings, some speakers questioned the relevance of discussions on gender equality or youth. Despite the Canadian Presidency’s goodwill, this could cause the Conference to stray away from its mandate. Other speakers said the failure to adopt the Australian proposals on gender equality would further reinforce the perception that the Conference was an anachronistic body. New ideas, including from young people, could help break the stalemate.

Speaking were the Russian Federation, India, Syria, Switzerland, China, Pakistan, Cuba, United States, Spain, Iran, Mexico, Germany, Chile, Republic of Korea, Venezuela, Sweden, Bulgaria, Japan, France, and the Netherlands.

The Conference on Disarmament will conclude the second part of its 2021 session on 25 June. The third and final part of the session will be held from 26 July to 10 September. The next public plenary is scheduled to be held on 27 July to hold a discussion on youth and disarmament.

Opening Statement by the Canadian Presidency

Ambassador LESLIE NORTON of Canada, President of the Conference on Disarmament, congratulating the United States, Russia and Switzerland for the historic summit that had taken place last week, here in Geneva, expressed hope that this important summit would set the stage for additional progress in the area of nuclear disarmament, and on international peace and security more broadly. There was an urgent need for effective controls over these weapons systems. While States that possessed nuclear weapons had a special responsibility, all must do their part to realise the mandate of the Conference.

It was particularly regrettable that the Conference’s work was hampered by the perceived need for consensus on procedural matters. A procedural veto should not be required to protect fundamental national interests when States had an ability to block consensus on matters of substance during negotiations and also had the option to decline signature and ratification of a negotiated instrument.

This extremely restrictive interpretation of the consensus rule had contributed largely to the decades-long stalemate in the Conference. It was difficult for Presidencies to fulfil their roles effectively because any initiative they took to propose items for discussion – discussion, not negotiation – appeared to be subject to a procedural veto. The facts were clear, however, Presidencies and all Conference members needed to conduct business in a manner that was different from the past decades. Encouraging those present to be as flexible as possible, she said she firmly believed disarmament was achievable if all worked constructively.

General Statement by the Russian Federation

Russian Federation, recalling that it had been 80 years since Nazi Germany had invaded the Soviet Union, said the principle that one nation should not be allowed to promote insecurity over other States was amongst the lessons drawn from the war, and it was reflected in core disarmament principles. Today, events were undermining world peace, the United Nations Charter, and various fundamental disarmament treaties. The renewal of the 2010 START Treaty was a sign of hope, which showed that renewed dialogue was possible. The Summit that had taken place in Geneva last week was another hopeful sign. The Russian Federation was willing to continue strategic discussion with the United States and hoped that the momentum of the Geneva summit would be maintained, bearing in mind the lessons of the Second World War.

Thematic Discussion on Agenda Item 6 on a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament

Several speakers paid tribute to the sacrifice of the Russian people during the Second World War. Speakers said that an agreement on a comprehensive programme of disarmament should not be a precondition for making progress on other agenda items, including on nuclear disarmament. They echoed the call by the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-21 for the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. The COVID-19 pandemic had provided a preview of the havoc that the use of biological weapons would wreak on the face of the earth. The Conference on Disarmament was the most appropriate venue for negotiations on a chemical and biological weapons convention; the gap that existed in that regard must be filled without delay. Noting that the best way to prevent terrorism from accessing weapons of mass destruction was non-proliferation and disarmament, speakers urged those present to focus on the Conference’s core mandate.

Recalling that item 6 had been on the agenda for 41 years, speakers urged efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and foster the peaceful resolution of disputes, in line with the Conference’s fundamental principles. Rapid technological developments raised new issues in the field of disarmament, notably as regards cyberspace and automation; modern warfare would be faster, more networked and focused. The Conference must find ways to better engage with the increasing number of actors in the field, including those from the private sector. Urging mutual respect, several speakers expressed support for the Russian proposal for a convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. Several speakers dwelled on the Conference’s inability to agree on a programme of work. Expressing dismay at the repeated failures to find consensus, they warned that the standstill had been eroding the Conference’s credibility for decades.

In reference to the schedule of meetings announced by the Canadian Presidency, some speakers questioned the relevance of discussions on gender equality or youth. Despite the Canadian Presidency’s goodwill, this could cause the Conference to stray away from its mandate. While pledging support for gender equality, they said they could not support the changes proposed by Australia to the rules of procedures for that reason. Those present should not allow the Conference to become a mere deliberative body. Other speakers said the failure to adopt the Australian proposals on gender equality would further reinforce the perception that the Conference was an anachronistic body. The changes were fully in line with the values of the United Nations, and occasionally some housekeeping was inevitable. New ideas, including from young people, could help break the stalemate.

HRC21.032E