Conference on Disarmament Continues Discussions on a Draft Decision on the Work of the Conference for 2022

 

The Conference on Disarmament this morning continued discussions on a draft decision on the work of the Conference for 2022.

Ambassador Li Song of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, speaking in concluding remarks at the end of his Presidency, said the Conference did not work in a vacuum and could not be detached from international realities. All delegations at today’s meeting had presented their views on the text presented, including the comments on the content of the draft text and on matters of procedure. It was now obvious that no decision could be taken today, but this did not mean that the momentum to reach an agreement on the programme of work had been lost. He would pass on the task to the next President, the Ambassador of Columbia.

The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Alicia Victoria Arango Olmos of Colombia, said the problem lay not in language - only strong and manifest political will would overcome the standstill in which the Conference lay. Colombia would continue all efforts that had been made, and hoped that all States parties would work to establish the political will to adopt a programme of work so that delegates could effectively participate in dialogue. The intent was to continue to work with all to attain the common goal and show that the Conference on Disarmament could still be relevant on the international stage.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of France, Russian Federation, Cuba, India, Brazil, Pakistan, South Africa, Japan, Iran, United States, United Kingdom, Syria, Egypt, Australia, Zimbabwe, Republic of Korea, Canada, Netherlands, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Bulgaria, Norway, Argentina, Germany, Indonesia, Kenya, Algeria, Mexico and Venezuela. The meeting was held in hybrid form.

The next plenary of the Conference will take place on Tuesday, 22 February at 10 a.m. under the Presidency of Colombia.

Statements

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said last Tuesday the Conference had conducted a meeting on the programme of work in both formal and informal plenary, and held informal consultations on the same day. In the consultations, members had conducted frank and in-depth exchanges of views. A basic agreement had been reached on the text of the draft decision. The text reflected a very delicate balance, and this was as far as the Conference could go. As to the text of the draft, the main purpose of this clear and concise draft decision was to set up subsidiary bodies to consider agenda items in a comprehensive and balanced manner. This would serve as an open and inclusive framework for conducting substantive work in the Conference. Member States could naturally propose their own priorities, put forward their security concerns or positions, and could also build upon previous efforts or borrow therefrom. This was the intended meaning of the content of the draft.

In parallel with the consideration on the draft, the President had also continued intensive work on the appointment of coordinators for these subsidiary bodies. Some delegations had put forward new ideas regarding this issue. Nevertheless, in the context of the utmost effort for a smooth designation of a list of coordinators, the President had made use of the established practice used in previous years. The President then announced the proposed list of coordinators for the various subsidiary bodies. Such a powerful list of coordinators, he said, had added greatly to the weight of the draft decision. Under their able leadership, the work of the subsidiary bodies would make steady headway. The final version of the draft decision contained in CD/WP639/Rev.1 had been circulated. He hoped today’s meeting would allow for continuing discussion of the text and to reach consensus thereon.

France said despite the difficult circumstances in which the entire delegation was affected by COVID-19 and could not be present in the room, and with the concern for the Conference to start its work as soon as possible, France was in a position to consider the draft decision. In a constructive spirit, France was ready to join the consensus, if it so emerged. As a member of the Conference on Disarmament, France nevertheless would not be able, as was indicated in its note verbale, to consider and agree to any draft decision that would be submitted for adoption during the day without a direct and effective participation in the room if the Presidency decided that an in-person meeting should be held today. In other words, France was not in a position to accept to join the consensus without participating in an in-person meeting. The adoption of the decision in a hybrid format was, however, something that could be done today.

Russian Federation expressed respect for the position taken by France about how today’s meeting was being held. Russia hoped that next week France would be present in the meeting room and use the wisdom that they always showed, a wisdom that was always useful and constructive in the deliberations. The delegation wished to apologise for one of the things it had said on Tuesday, when it said the Conference last year did not adopt any decisions in a virtual format. This was not the case. Recognising one’s mistakes was a position that reflected strong diplomacy. Last year, some of the decisions of the Conference had been adopted through a virtual format, and those were taken in very special, indeed, unique circumstances. If those decisions were not taken, all it would have meant was that the entire work of the Conference in 2021 would have been blocked from the very beginning. This was why Russia had shown flexibility and agreed to make an exception to the way the Conference usually functioned.

The position of the Russian Federation relating to the format of today’s meeting was that in light of the practice of the work of the Conference over the last two years, the Russian Federation supported the idea of holding a hybrid meeting, at the request of France, and agreed to hold the discussions on the draft document submitted by the Presidency with a view of understanding how close all were to the consensus that was being sought by all. Nevertheless, a decision related to the document could only be taken in an in-person format, as this document would determine the work of the Conference until the end of the year. No delegation should be able, at some point, to use this as a pretext to contest the decision, if the document was indeed adopted. Russia did not see any difficulties in postponing the adoption until next week, when all delegations would be present. During today’s meeting, what was really important was to reach a common understanding that the Conference was moving closer and closer to agreement, and that the document could be adopted by consensus.

Cuba said Cuba had been in a similar position as was the French delegation during the first two weeks of the Conference this year and had respected the restrictions that governed the work of the Conference. Cuba fully supported all the excellent work that had been taking place, the transparent manner of organizing meetings, and how all the rules of procedure had been followed. Having said that, Cuba could not share the interpretation that was being made here in the room relating to the format of this meeting: this was not a hybrid meeting, nor an in-person meeting, it was not a meeting that could be found in any of the rules. This was a plenary meeting, that had a number, and according to United Nations practice, as a plenary meeting, any decision could be adopted if indeed they could reach consensus. The President had carried out very hard work on the negotiations for the programme of work and only one delegation had made proposals in writing, all the others had been made in the room or in informal meetings.

According to Cuba, the President had followed all the necessary rules and steps for the functioning of the Conference. On Wednesday the first revision of the document had been circulated, which should be adopted today, and Cuba was ready to do so and join consensus. The Conference had to be very careful with the practice they were establishing in this meeting. There was no practice requiring all delegations to be present in the room for adoption of a decision - the United Nations Charter itself did not include this provision. If there was no consensus or political will, this should be said clearly, but no practices should be established that were not in line with the rules. That this was a hybrid meeting did not disbar it from being a plenary meeting. The rules had not changed. Cuba was fully flexible, and understood that there were different positions, but believed the practice of the Conference should be followed. Cuba had clearly stated its views on hybrid-format meetings.

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said having listened to these views, it was apparent that there was still a difference of views on the procedure of the meeting. He hoped that the Conference would first concentrate on the issue of whether it could reach agreement on the text of the draft decision before turning its attention to whether it could take action on the text on which it had reached agreement. After two weeks of adequate discussions, and the presentation of the lines of thinking on this clear and precise approach by the P6, the text of the decision seemed to enjoy the broad support of all delegations, that had, throughout the process, demonstrated a high degree of flexibility and constructiveness. The President expressed his heartfelt thanks to all colleagues for this. The delegations of the Conference were then asked if they could take a clear stand at the meeting as to whether there was agreement on the text itself of the draft.

India said India had carefully studied the amendments suggested by France. Multilateral diplomacy was established on documents. The Conference needed to draw upon previous work, as this would help it to move forward in a constructive manner, and this was particularly relevant. A clear and concise approach should not be a hasty one, as this could hamper work that did not fall under one agenda item. The Conference needed more time to consider how to continue its work.

Brazil said with regard to the question as to whether action could be taken on the basis of this text, this text did not reflect the views of Brazil, and it was not totally comfortable with PP4, and also saw challenges in how OP3 was currently drafted. But having said that, Brazil was ready to support the text, and was open to continuing negotiations, and could adopt it today.

Cuba said in Cuba’s judgement, it was willing to adopt the text proposed by China. It was far from Cuba’s national aspirations to launch comprehensive treaty negotiations in each of the subsidiary bodies. It was important to begin considerations of each item of the agenda in the Conference. This position was not reflected in the document. Over the years, there had not been a consensus to launch this type of negotiation. Adopting the document was a first step in moving forward, and this was why Cuba could adopt the document if it met consensus, as it met the minimum necessary requirements that could begin to approach the goal of regulating disarmament.

Pakistan said Pakistan had engaged in a constructive spirit during the formal and informal discussions over past weeks and recognised the general sense of positivity in which all delegations engaged. As a result of these extensive consultations, the Conference had before it the least common denominator that could unlock the decades of gridlock faced by the body. The decision did not impinge upon the fundamental international security concerns of any member and was an example of the much-sought-after political will of the members.

The document was based on three fundamentals: the balanced consideration of all agenda items; avoided arbitrary positions of the past; and did not undermine any national considerations on security. It was a pragmatic and sensible approach, particularly given the complexities of regional security landscapes. The proposal reflected a delicate balance, and the text was as far as the Conference could go. The proposal may not be perfect or meet the national priorities of all, including Pakistan, many of whose proposals and priorities were not in the text. Nevertheless, Pakistan was ready to join consensus, and did so in the collective interest of the Conference body and its membership to move forward. The proposal, although not ideal, allowed for the commencement of substantive work for the Conference to continue its mandate. By agreeing to this decision, all members would have the opportunity to articulate their priorities and other points when work began.

South Africa said the negotiations on the programme of work had been inclusive and comprehensive. The reality was that what was on the table was a decision on subsidiary bodies and not a programme of work. South Africa supported anything that would advance the programme of work and bring the Conference back to its position as the prime place for location. On PP5, some changes were suggested, based on the 2018 decision. South Africa viewed that the guiding star should be the adoption of a programme of work, and the decision should reflect that. Having said that, South Africa was ready to support any initiative that would get the Conference back to work and would not stand in the way of consensus.

Japan said regarding the draft decision, even though it was far from Japan’s ideal national position, it provided a good compromise basis, which would allow the Conference to engage in substantial work. It showed the work that would be required by all, especially the coordinators, to achieve the work suggested. Japan was strongly committed to the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference. Japan supported this in the Conference and in other bodies. This commitment to the immediate commencement of negotiations was not directly reflected in the document. However, compared to the previous submitted document, there was some improvement in the text, which further reflected Japan’s national position. There was a more positive tone in PP4. In OP1, Japan had said that the document should be drafted in order to pave the work to the Conference’s original mandate. The addition to the text intended to express that orientation to the work. In conclusion, this draft decision was acceptable to Japan, which would join the consensus adoption of it even today. The document had pros and cons, but it was important to show the rest of the world that the Conference was able to reach a decision on substantive work at this juncture, and all members should show a political will to convince the entire world that the Conference was still capable of taking a decision on a substantive matter.

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said this was a critical juncture. The draft decision should request all members of the Conference to display political will, so that it could maximise its efforts.

France said it thanked all colleagues for understanding the situation of the French delegation, and endorsed the statements made by India and Japan in particular. France agreed that great efforts had been made, and that an agreement was very close. The proposal was innovative and could help the Conference to resume its work quite quickly. On Tuesday 15 February, France had expressed its desire to see the list of potential coordinators for the five subsidiary bodies, and did not object to any of these names. On Tuesday afternoon there had been informal consultations of the document, and France had not been able to attend. If it had, it would have expressed its opinions on OP3 of the document, and made suggestions to improve it, as it was a pivotal and crucial part of the text. However, France believed that further improvements could be made to the text. For the sake of transparency, France wished to inform the Conference about the proposed amendments it had made yesterday, and these included to add text to the end of the paragraph. It was very important to indicate that the Conference found itself along a continuity, and if the subsidiary bodies were to be established, they should not start from scratch, but build on the very important work that had been done over years past.

Iran said the Conference could not lose sight of the catastrophic use of nuclear weapons and the threats posed by their existence. The urgency of achieving and maintaining a nuclear-free world served national and collective interest across the world, and the Conference was the right place to achieve that goal. It was important to have a magnificent programme of work for the Conference, but reaching that goal and the goal of nuclear disarmament required political will from all Members, above all else. The draft was not ideal for any delegations, including Iran, but was a pragmatic one, but with the amendments it had improved and was responsive to the concerns of all delegations. Iran had its own priorities which were not reflected in the text, such as nuclear disarmament. Opening the text was a Pandora’s Box, as evidenced by past failed experiments. The current text was a realistic and pragmatic approach that had the possibility of breaking the decades-long stalemate and allowing the Conference to commence work and achieve its mandate. Iran was ready to join consensus.

United States said the United States was prepared to continue to work in a hybrid format to allow the work to continue. The United States was also concerned about the wording of OP3, and also thought such language was not necessary, and preferred the original simple draft which allowed any Member State to bring up any topic. With regard to the fissile material cut-off treaty, the national position of the United States was aligned with the Japanese position, and it expected this would remain the case. It was unclear whether the conversations were formal or informal, and this should be clarified. The timeline was quite tight, there were very few meetings, and more time was required for substantive work in the potential subsidiary bodies.

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, responding to these questions, said that as to the draft decision on the P6, he had consulted time and again with the delegations. The purpose of the draft was to set up a platform allowing for the speedy launch of substantive work in the Conference. Such a platform was open and inclusive in nature, and the earlier consensus was reached on the programme of work, the more time the subsidiary bodies would have for their substantive work. Last Tuesday afternoon, when open-ended consultations took place, he recalled his personal observations on the time allocation and the methodology of work for the subsidiary bodies. As an outcome for the informal consultations, some limited changes were made to OP3. Once the draft decision on the work of the Conference was adopted, the coordinators of subsidiary bodies would be able to commence immediately their informal consultations with all Member States. From mid-March, they could formally start meetings, and before that, coordinators would have the time to actively consult Member States on how to carry out their work. The goal was to have a speedy agreement on the draft programme of work for the Conference.

United Kingdom said the United Kingdom had reservations on the text that was before it and regretted the lack of reference to certain treaties. It had grave doubts as to the wisdom of the changes to OP3 as compared to the original version. The United Kingdom believed this represented a hostage to fortune that would complicate rather than simplify the work. The common understanding that this would be an open and inclusive platform was the goal. All delegations should take the same approach, or it would be almost impossible to continue discussions in the subsidiary bodies. The proposal made by France would be an improvement of the text, and the United Kingdom supported its inclusion. The United Kingdom had shown a great deal of flexibility over the last three years, and continued to be flexible today. It was good that the objections of a small handful of delegations appeared to be overcome. The United Kingdom looked forward to the discussions in the subsidiary bodies.

Syria said the realistic and pragmatic approach by the Presidency since the beginning of this year’s session had led to this clear and concise document which reflected a sensitive balance. Even though the draft was not exemplary when it came to allowing the Conference to pursue its negotiating mandate, the text provided enough flexibility to reach an agreement among Member States so the Conference could deal with the various items on its agenda in an inclusive and balanced manner, namely through the establishment of the subsidiary bodies which were granted, in the text, enough margin and space to allow Member States to determine the methods of work and the various topics to be tackled. Syria remained ready to support any consensus supported by the Presidency, which would lead the Conference to start its substantive work during this year’s session.

Russian Fedaration said the Conference should not try to prepare a document that would be ideal, as, in current conditions, this was virtually impossible. The document presented was a pretty good attempt to find a way out of the difficult situation and to avoid making a very difficult choice. The situation was similar to that of the Argonauts of ancient Greece, who sought to sail into the open sea to avoid Scylla and Charybdis, finding an opportunity to avoid this difficult part of their journey. The document submitted was similar to that lucky wave that could lead the Conference out to the open sea of substantive work and would give it the opportunity to seek and find that golden mean that actually was the implementation of the mandate of the Conference. Even though perhaps there were some problems with the document and perhaps it did not fully reflect the national position of the Russian Federation, nevertheless the document could be adopted by consensus, and it was supported in every possible way. The attempts of France to improve the text of the document were appreciated.

The delegation had as yet received no instructions with regards to those suggestions, but as a preliminary comment, speaking in a personal capacity, the Russian Federation wished to note that last year quite a lot of time had been spent discussing such proposals, and as a result of all of that the Conference had been close to an understanding that they made the text of the document significantly worse. There were two concerns with regard to the proposal made by France. The document related to the work of the subsidiary bodies, and the French proposal referred to established practice. As far as the functioning of subsidiary bodies, in the Conference there was no established practice as such. Rules of procedure did not provide for any specific provisions related to how the work of the substantive part and the organizational aspects of the subsidiary bodies. It was thus not advisable to refer to established practice. Secondly, the French proposal referred to “all documents of the Conference that could be considered or documents which delegations could use”, and this was a large volume of documents which could be referred to other optional issues. On objections raised by the United States and the United Kingdom on the possibility of complicating the work of the subsidiary bodies, on the contrary, such a proposal would simplify the work of the subsidiary bodies and ensure no national interests would be ignored, thus avoiding discrimination in their work.

Egypt said the establishment of a general framework would allow the Conference to re-establish its stalled work. To put things into perspective, this Conference had been suffering from complete paralysis for more than two decades, and had been seeking to reach a minimum level of agreement in order to put an end to this and start its work. Egypt had always been and always would remain at the forefront of the countries supporting the Conference and had been trying and would continue to work day and night to empower it to fulfil its mandate. This had been its focus and target for years and years. Based on this, Egypt had shown a high level of flexibility when it came to national priorities in the framework of the Conference’s work. This was the only way forward, but it seemed some delegations were still unable to show any level of flexibility. Egypt appreciated that the draft decision tabled was the result of consultations and negotiations that started more than 20 years ago. The Conference had been seeking to adopt a programme of work or a general framework that would allow it to resume its work.

Egypt supported the document, although it did not fulfil its ambitions from a national point of view, but it represented the minimum level allowing it to start its work without marginalising or excluding or targeting any member of the Conference. The Conference should be very careful when it came to lengthening the discussions - it had had more than 20 years to engage in these, and a few days or a few weeks would not allow progress in this context. Experience had shown that such a procedure and this very critical timing would mean that the Conference would lose yet another opportunity. With all due respect to the delegations that had taken the floor, any attempt to add new formulations and amendments at this critical time would further complicate things. Based on the above, Egypt called upon the delegations that had submitted new proposals to re-examine their position and allow the Conference to reach an agreement. If the Conference failed to agree on this very simplified decision, how would the Conference be able to continue and proceed to its work at any stage? They could only blame themselves if this situation occurred.

Australia said the principles outlining the proposal were helpful for the work. Australia appreciated the constructive exchanges. Like many, Australia had some concerns with the draft, and was disappointed it did not contain a reference to a fissile material cut-off treaty, which should be negotiated urgently. However, it was vital for the Conference on Disarmament to recommence its work. The draft proposal would take the Conference in the right direction in this regard, and Australia was ready to join consensus.

Zimbabwe said it supported the revised text, and hoped the new formulation, complete with the names of the coordinators for the subsidiary bodies would find support by all. The text was not perfect, and did not include a number of national preoccupations, but its flexible approach should be commended. Zimbabwe was ready to adopt the decision as it stood and would caution against further tinkering with this balanced text, which was a solid base to move forward. This was a crucial opportunity.

Republic of Korea said the current draft text did not fully reflect the national position, particularly on the issue of a fissile material cut-off treaty. If the language could be improved, the Republic of Korea was open to this, and it had participated in the discussions in a flexible spirit to achieve compromise. While the text was not perfect, with the understanding that national positions could be addressed in the subsidiary bodies, the Republic of Korea was ready to join consensus.

Canada said Canada remained concerned about the current formulation of OP3 and preferred the original version, which was designed to move the Conference quickly into substantive work, without lengthy discussions in subsidiary bodies. Canada could accept that national priorities were not included in the draft, but understood that a broad mandate would be given to the subsidiary bodies. The inclusion of the requirement to determine the topics of discussion in each subsidiary body should not be a backdoor to undermining that topics would be discussed in a comprehensive and balanced manner. The Conference on Disarmament needed to base its work on previous work, as stated by France.

Netherlands said the new draft proposal was an interesting and creative way forward, and the proposed changes to the title and PP4 were supported. However, the proposed changes to OP3 were somewhat harder to swallow. The concise OP3 in the initial draft was preferred. In order to show flexibility and join consensus of those Member States who wished to advance the work, the Netherlands supported the proposal of France, if this was the way forward to achieve progress and restart the work of the Conference.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the draft shared the views and concerns of all countries. In general, it was sensed that the Conference was very close to agreeing on it. To gain trust or mistrust depended on the individual. Everybody in the room had worked hard and deserved respect and trust. The text was not fully ideal or comfortable for all Member States and did not reflect all their concerns, but everything could not be 100 per cent from the beginning. Accommodating all views and opinions and prioritising specific agenda items and national positions would all lead to a repetition of failure of adoption, as in the past. This draft was not a treaty or a convention, which was legally binding, but was just for future work, to bring the Conference back to work, which was important. It was time for all Member States to demonstrate political will, and the draft should be adopted by consensus.

Bulgaria said the political will and flexibility should be maintained to keep the momentum of work done so far. If this was maintained, the next step could be taken to advance the work through the creation of subsidiary bodies. All should be together in the effort, as it was the only way to advance. Creating the subsidiary bodies would not mean that all national positions were not taken into account. Bulgaria was ready to support the French proposal, but was wary that a lengthy discussion would not help the work. Delegations should show the flexibility needed to advance towards a result-oriented agenda.

Russian Federation said with regard to the proposal made by France, the work of the subsidiary bodies should preserve or reflect continuity with the work that had been carried out in the same format in 2018, this was agreed, but if this was the most important element of the document, some language could be included, not in OP3 but in the preambular part, and thus a compromise could be reached. On OP3 and the language that the subsidiary bodies should agree on a list of specific questions for discussion, in that way the Conference was strengthening the whole structure and integrity of the document. The work of the subsidiary bodies should have some form of structure, and countries should agree to something akin to a list of issues to be discussed in each body. Work should be results-oriented and focus on agenda item.

Cuba said in 2018 subsidiary bodies had been established according to one practice, then there had been changes, and today there were efforts to use a different practice. The reference in France’s proposal was ambiguous - there was no established practice. The proposal also mentioned taking into account past documents. Cuba believed that PP5 clearly stated that the work of the Conference and the work of the subsidiary bodies would take into account any proposal or document of the past, and therefore France’s proposal was superfluous. Now was the time to strike a balance between a political will to approve a document that would allow the Conference to start its work, or continue to focus on issues that were secondary to the interests of States.

Norway said the programme of work should be adopted today, or the consensus would unravel. There was a risk that the lack for specificity would lead to debates, but the current context was not conducive to ideal solutions. Adopting the programme of work was only a first step, and the priority was to get back to effective work. The draft gave the Conference a possibility of advancing its work, and there would be a more substantive exchange later on. This would avoid disagreements which would ensure that the Conference did not advance. Norway agreed with the French proposal but was ready to join consensus on the basis of the text that had been proposed.

Argentina said the draft, even though not perfect, and without reflecting national concerns, brought the Conference closer to a consensus that would achieve progress. It was perhaps not wise to continue to make amendments to the text. Argentina could join consensus and adopt the document.

Germany said the mainly constructive atmosphere should be maintained in future discussions, and was able to support the last draft, as well as the amendment proposed by France, if this constituted a constructive way forward.

Indonesia said they had succeeded in creating a conducive environment for success. This document was not perfect, but in no multilateral forum could a perfect document that satisfied all interests be created. All delegations should show flexibility.

Kenya said the Conference on Disarmament was the single multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament and arms control. The text provided a starting block for resuming work. National concerns were the obstacle blocking progress. Members should demonstrate political will to adopt the document, and Kenya would support this in order to ensure the work of the Conference moved forward.

Algeria said the efforts had led to the draft decision which was based on the work carried out in previous years. Algeria took note of all proposals, and believed it was time for a consensus, and to use this opportunity and adopt the draft, as it would move the work of the Conference forward. This simplified and clear approach responded to the needs to separate procedure on one hand, and the question of implementing the results of work on the other hand, which approach would allow the Conference to take all views into account and overcome the stalemate. The text enjoyed broad support. The interests of all countries would be taken into account as part of the common interests of all.

Mexico said it was important to adopt a programme of work that was in line with the rules of procedure and had a mandate to negotiate binding disarmament treaties. It had been said that there was no political will in the Conference to do so and start negotiations. Mexico did not agree with delegations who had said there was a lack of political will. The international environment was difficult, and there was a need for a multilateral forum for negotiation and dialogue on different and important issues. The Conference did have a mandate for negotiations, and its organizational framework should also be focused on that. This text did not reflect the full set of hopes of Mexico - there should be a specific mandate guiding the work, and coordinators had to ensure that there was a full focus on the mandate. However, the proposal could help give focus to the work of the Conference. Mexico would continue to work constructively on proposals made by France, South Africa and other delegations. The mandate of the Conference on Disarmament was to negotiate, and differences should be addressed during negotiations, as this was the only way to avoid misunderstandings.

Venezuela said even though the text did not reflect all of the national priorities of Venezuela, it was a good foundation, and could be adopted today. The notion of established practice required further and better understanding if it were to be included in the text to be adopted today.

United Kingdom, on procedural issues, said that the delegation understood this was a full meeting with full decision-making powers. The clarification of the Russian Federation was appreciated.

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said all delegations at today’s meeting had presented their views on the text presented, including the comments on the content of the draft text and on matters of procedure. It was now obvious that no decision could be taken today, but this did not mean that the momentum to reach an agreement on the Programme of Work had been lost. He would pass on the task to the next President, the Ambassador of Columbia. He would also continue to support her work as a member of the P6, and continue to work to ensure the Conference on Disarmament adopted the document as soon as possible.

In concluding remarks to his Presidency, Ambassador Li said he thanked all delegations for their help and support. China fully supported the work and role of the Conference, which was ever more prominent, and all members should work in respect and mutual confidence to advance the work of the Conference and achieve universal, sustainable and common security. China actively encouraged and guided an exchange of views on the status of the Conference and on ways to bring its work forward in light of international circumstances. The Conference did not work in a vacuum and could not be detached from international realities. Members needed to view it from a higher and broader strategic perspective, and set about working in a forward-looking, open and constructive way, and identify new opportunities and consensus which truly met the goals of members. China had worked actively to depoliticise the Conference, bringing it back to a healthy and professional path. This had laid a good foundation for the Conference’s work over this year. All delegations had fully demonstrated good will, patience, confidence and respect: a true example of genuine multilateralism.

Fresh attempts had been made to adopt a comprehensive, clear and balanced programme of work and progress had been made. A practical course of action had been determined, with the establishment of subsidiary bodies to advance the work of the Conference. Only a streamlined approach, maximising common ground whilst setting aside differences, could lead to a comprehensive and balanced progress in work. Geneva was a platform for intensifying exchanges, platform building and understanding among all nations in coming together in a common endeavour to maintain international peace, security and multilateral consideration of the disarmament process.

Ambassador ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS of Colombia, incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, said she had reviewed the statements made 11 years ago, when Colombia last assumed the Presidency of the Conference on 1 June 2010, and noted with concern that things had not changed much. Back then, there had been efforts made by Chile, Canada and China, but a programme of work had not been adopted either and had remained unfruitful. It was a matter of political will at that time which had stopped progress. The problem lay not in language - only strong and manifest political will would overcome the standstill in which the Conference lay. Colombia would continue all efforts that had been made and hoped that all States parties would work to establish the political will to establish a programme of work so that delegates could effectively participate in dialogue. The intent was to continue to work with all to attain the common goal and show that the Conference on Disarmament could still be relevant on the international stage.

France said this morning’s debate showed that agreement on a draft programme of work was very close. The dialogue showed that this agreement was important. The statement made earlier was in no circumstances to be understood as a demand from France. It should be considered, and France was ready to join consensus without the proposed amendments. The Russian delegation had suggested that the substance be taken in the preamble, and this was an interesting position which could lead to agreement. Colombia should continue working along the path of the proposed document, which was the best path to an agreement.

Pakistan said the proposal had garnered almost universal agreement, and members had engaged constructively even though the proposal may not have been perfect. The broadest possible support and agreement on the decision was indeed a significant achievement. Pakistan noted that in the discussions today there was neither opposition nor objection to the proposal, which made it a significant achievement. The deferment today was mainly to allow one delegation to be present and join consensus. The document was neither ideal nor perfect, but was the least common denominator for the body. As for the proposals made to amend the text, Pakistan strongly advised against it, for a simple reason: if the text was opened, it would certainly derail the progress that had been made, and could risk unravelling what had been achieved. The Conference should not make perfect the enemy of good.

Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the statements of France and Pakistan were important views. Considering that during today’s discussion, especially the very last stages, there was no clear opposition expressed to the text tabled, he asked whether it could be taken that all Member States agreed to finalise the text so that, under the Presidency of Colombia and at next Tuesday’s plenary, a formal decision could be taken on the draft decision? As there was no request for the floor, it was decided to lock the text, so that at the next plenary, a formal decision could be taken on it.

 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

 

DC22.009E