Conference on Disarmament Hears Statements on the Situation in Ukraine as well as General Statements

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held its last plenary meeting under the Presidency of Alicia Victoria Arango Olmos, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, hearing statements on the situation in Ukraine as well as general statements.

At the end of the meeting, Ms. Arango Olmos thanked all parties for the confidence that they had placed in her work to lead the Conference despite the complex international situation. To reach agreements in multilateral scenarios, the first task was to debate what united, rather than what divided States. It was necessary for all delegations to maintain their commitment, flexibility and willingness.

Speaking in today’s plenary were Pakistan, Russian Federation, United States, France, Syrian Arab Republic, Belarus, Netherlands, Venezuela, India, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, Poland, Italy, Argentina, Switzerland, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Iran, Peru, France on behalf of the European Union, Ecuador, Cuba, and China.

The next public plenary of the Conference is scheduled be held on Tuesday, 22 March at 10 a.m.

Statements

Pakistan said that India had carried out actions that posed grave risks to regional peace, including the launching of an anti-satellite missile inside Pakistan airspace. Pakistan strongly condemned India’s actions. Pakistan had taken note of India’s statement that the missile firing was “accidental,” but said that the incident could not be resolved so simply. Pakistan asked why the missile entered Pakistani airspace, and why India did not immediately inform Pakistan about the misfiring. India’s response of holding an internal hearing on the incident was insufficient. The international community had an important role to play in ensuring peace in Asia, and needed to open its eyes to India’s dangerous actions.

Russian Federation said that all activities of the Conference must follow the rules of procedure. The rule of consensus was enshrined in its Covenant. Recently, that principle was ignored by the Colombian Presidency when permitting an official plenary session to be held on March 3 without consensus from all delegates. The theme of the meeting was also not communicated to the Russian Federation. Russia categorically rejected the President’s interpretation of the rules of procedure. Russia had openly expressed its rejection of the meeting held on March 3 and called for the findings of that meeting to be held invalid. The role of the President was to work with all States to find solutions in a constructive manner, rather than to make decisions on a political basis. Russia also rejected recordings of private meetings being made public, and called on the Secretariat to explain why those were released.

United States expressed deep appreciation for the work of the President in the tumultuous period of her Presidency. The United States particularly thanked the President for the session held related to women and disarmament. The United States said that the Conference’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was on the record, and that over 140 States had agreed on that decision. The United States echoed the words of the French delegation that the invasion was unjustifiable.

France thanked the outgoing President, who had been able to conduct her work with great professionalism, calm and authority. The President had been able to resist even the most unacceptable pressures so that the Conference, which was part of the security architecture, retained all its credibility. The President had honoured multilateralism and Colombian diplomacy. Contrary to Russia’s claims, Articles 18, 20, and 30 of the rules of procedure had not been violated, and meetings had been held according to the rules of the Conference. Numerous plenary meetings were held without defining the agenda. The request of the Russian delegation would not be accepted by most of the Conference, and France condemned it. France also congratulated Cuba on its assumption of the Presidency.

The European security environment had been profoundly degraded by Russia's unjustified and unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine, and the holding of weekly plenary meetings was more necessary than ever. It was not a war between two blocs, but an attack on the world order that was built on law and morality at the end of the Second World War, and an attack on international law. The Conference could not remain outside the debate on that issue because it had been mandated to negotiate disarmament treaties. A refusal to engage in that dialogue would be a further sign of regression that was still preventable.

Syrian Arab Republic reiterated the role of the Presidency in respecting the opinions of all members. The delegation expressed its grave concern at the way that the plenary was held on March 3. It was in violation of Article 18, as not all parties agreed to the agenda of the session. Syria refused the outcomes of that plenary, and declared it to be illegal. Syria welcomed the Cuban Presidency, which it was hoped would be more professional.

Belarus shared the understanding of the Russian and Syrian delegations, and declared that the March 3 plenary had been in violation of the Conference’s rules.

Netherlands denounced the war in Ukraine as being illegal. There were attempts to silence the Conference, but the rules of procedure were clear, and the President was within her right to hold the March 3 session, as well as the session on women and disarmament. The President was thanked for allowing Netherlands to denounce on the record the war in Ukraine. Netherlands would continue to speak out about issues, and would work to make progress in the field of disarmament.

Venezuela shared the concerns on procedure expressed by Russia, Syria and Belarus regarding the meeting held on March 3. The meeting had been held without having previously indicated the topics and notifying delegation members. The Presidency had the right to hold meetings, but needed to inform delegates of the agenda beforehand. The action of the President was in violation of the rules of the Conference. The Presidency had deprived member States of their right to act under Article 31. That course of action undermined the trust of the Conference and its consensus-based workings. Press releases were drafted for the press to use, and were not used as official records. Press releases did not reflect what happened in the meeting. A press release had distorted what happened in the room on March 3. Venezuela had taken the floor twice to express its reservations regarding proceedings, but those statements had not been recorded. The releases were important tools for reflecting the most important parts of the Conference. Either press releases should fully reflect proceedings, or they should not be issued.

India informed the Conference that on March 9, 2022, a technical malfunction had led to the accidental firing of a missile that had landed in Pakistan. India expressed deep regret about the incident, and relief that no person was injured in the incident. India was holding an internal investigation into the incident.

Canada expressed appreciation for the way that the President oversaw deliberations. Canada also rejected attempts to denounce meetings or suppress press releases, which were not documents that member States had any influence on. Canada agreed with the explanations provided by France on the rules of the Conference. Canada further commended the President for holding a plenary on women and disarmament, and expressed regret that it had not been a formal session.

Germany thanked the President for her leadership during challenging times. The German delegation also wished all the best to the incoming Cuban Presidency. The Conference did not work in a vacuum, and Russia continued to wage war in Ukraine with the assistance of Belarus, which directly affected the work of the Conference. It was not the session on March 3 that was illegal, but the actions of the Russian Federation. The great majority of member States had condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms, and Germany would continue to call the actions of Russia unjustifiable and unforgivable.

United Kingdom thanked the President for her work during the difficult period, and condemned the attacks on her by certain member States. Many plenaries had been held without topics being agreed beforehand. It was impossible to have a discussion about nuclear war without mentioning that Russia, which held nuclear weapons, had invaded Ukraine. Russia’s nuclear rhetoric was unhelpful. United Kingdom called on Russia to withdraw all troops from Ukraine; the war must stop.

Japan expressed its sincere gratitude to the President for her efforts in overseeing the plenary and upholding its integrity, and for her flexibility in enabling the Japanese representative to participate remotely. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine shook the foundations of international order, and were violations of international law. Japan condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Russia’s nuclear threats were dangerous. Japan was fully aware of the dangers of nuclear war, and such tragedies should never occur again. Japan also thanked the President for her work on preventing the use of land mines.

Poland thanked the President for her professionalism. Russian aggression against Ukraine violated several international treaties, and Poland condemned it. It was affecting discussion in various multinational forums, including the Conference.

Italy thanked the President, and expressed appreciation for the manner in which she had overseen the Conference. She had been a model of integrity. The March 3 meeting was fully legitimate and in respect with the rules of the Conference. What undermined Italy’s trust was not the action of the Presidency, but the action of Russia in Ukraine. Three million people had been forced to leave their homes and find refuge in neighbouring countries.

Argentina echoed the concerns of Venezuela regarding the press releases circulated on the United Nations Web page. The statement from Argentina had not been reflected in press releases, despite repetition of key points. The written text of the remarks had been submitted in writing. The delegation called for a review and improvement of the press services to ensure that press releases fully reflected the content of deliberations.

Switzerland expressed gratitude for the work of the President, especially for her work in pursing the topic of gender and disarmament. The Conference had held a plenary meeting each week. Weekly meetings were not motivated by a particular theme or topic. When Switzerland had held the Presidency in 2018, no single plenary meeting had had a topic, and no State had complained about that. Such complaints were not useful or welcome. Switzerland wished the Cuban delegation all the best for its upcoming Presidency.

Republic of Korea thanked the President for the integrity that she had shown throughout Conference meetings held since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. Every delegation should be free to raise any subject deemed necessary or relevant to the Conference, particularly in these urgent times when international peace and security was in great danger due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Republic of Korea believed that this freedom of speech was within the rules of procedure. It was hoped that weekly plenary meetings would continue to be held under the Presidency of Cuba.

Russian Federation stated that the Conference in recent years had been unable to fulfil its mandate to support global peace. The theses put forward by States regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine were false, and the objectives of such statements were to hide the failures of the West since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia had repeatedly explained why it had been forced to take extraordinary steps in Ukraine. In the mid-1990s, Russia had completed its obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. After the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bloc expanded, Russia chose in 2015 to exit the Treaty, however remaining open to dialogue. Russia had contacted stakeholders in the West regarding anti-ballistic missile structures, but discussions had not been fruitful. The United States was stepping up its anti-ballistic missile systems in the Asia Pacific region. In 2019, the United States had left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Russia had no other option but to follow suit.

Steps to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty had been taken deliberately by the United States to develop its nuclear arms potential. That decision encouraged an upscaling of the global arms race, as did the United States decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty. President Biden had indicated that the United States was considering remaining in the Open Skies Treaty, but in the end had failed to do so, leaving the Open Skies Treaty and forcing Russia to do the same. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization bloc had been acting as an international policeman, with five countries holding United States nuclear weapons and undergoing training regarding the use of those weapons. Those facts showed who was to blame for the degradation of the global security sphere. Russia’s proposal regarding security assurances over the past 10 years had been rejected or ignored, as had its attempts to control global arms proliferation. Russia’s policy on nuclear arms had been submitted to the Conference, as had its statements on the unacceptable nature of nuclear war.

The operation in Ukraine was a necessary measure with specific objectives: To ensure the demilitarisation and neutralisation of Ukraine. Civilians had not been targeted, and Russia had only targeted opposing forces. Ukrainian forces had set up sites within civilian infrastructure, and Russia had been forced to attack those sites. Reasons for the military operation were not only the coup d'état in 2014, but also the short-sighted and criminal elements of the Kyiv regime. The Government of Ukraine had conducted a genocide against its own citizens over eight years. The international community, in particular Western States, had not reacted to those actions, instead accusing the Russian Federation of not complying with its obligations under the Minsk Agreements, when Russia was not a party to those Agreements. Russian armed forces had provided humanitarian support to Ukrainian civilians. The West had remained deaf, blind and mute to the atrocities carried out in the south of Ukraine. Strikes had been made on civilian infrastructure, including a water purification plant. On March 15 and 16, as a result of an attack on Donetsk from Ukraine, 41 people had died and 65 innocent civilians had been injured.

Brazil communicated its appreciation for the work of the President and for her professionalism. Brazil commended her decision to hold a session on women and disarmament. Brazil offered its continued support to the Cuban Presidency and all future Presidents of the Conference.

Democratic People Republic of Korea said that the role of the Presidency was based on the rules of procedure, and meetings should be organised based on the rules of procedure and the principles of consensus. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea expressed its confidence in the incoming Presidency of Cuba.

Mexico recognised the work of the President at a difficult time. The March 3 meeting had followed previous practices of the Conference. The convening of the meeting had not been politically motivated. Mexico regretted that the Conference was being used as a political body, but recognised the need to consider relevant current events. Leaders had threatened the use of nuclear weapons without considering the implications of those threats. The rules of procedure did not allow the President to prevent member States from speaking. Members should be allowed to express their opinions. Rules of procedure allowed for some formal meetings of subsidiary bodies. Mexico welcomed the incoming Presidency of Cuba.

Nigeria thanked the President for her professionalism in the face of difficulties and commended the session held on women and disarmament. Nigeria reiterated its concern at the ongoing conflict, adding that measures for resolving the conflict peacefully should be prioritised over argument.

Iran said that upholding the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament was of utmost importance. The delegation expressed concern regarding the way that the session had been held on March 3. The Conference needed to conduct its work and adopt decisions by consensus, and that was not done on March 3. That had undermined the work of the Conference. Iran joined concerns that its positions on procedural issues were not included in press releases.

United States said that the long statement of Russia was absurd, and quoted a previous statement from a representative of the Permanent Mission of the United States to the United Nations saying that it would not give Russia airtime to proliferate lies, and that Russia was the only aggressor. The United States called on Russia to end the attacks and stop the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

France thanked the Russian delegation for accepting that the situation in Ukraine should be debated, but said that its statement was full of falsehoods. Russia had raised a series of points to justify the massacre of civilians on Russian soil. France called on the Conference to hold regular meeting to debate the issue.

Peru expressed its thanks for the work of the Presidency during the difficult period. Peru condemned Russia’s offensive in Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Peru was also appreciative of discussions on the gender aspect of disarmament. The country wished to contribute closely to the work of the Cuban Presidency.

France , on behalf of the European Union, called on Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine immediately, completely and unconditionally. Russia’s proposed international legal reform would lead to a “law of the strongest.” Russia should accept Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, and engage in meaningful discussions to end the war. The European Union called for an immediate end to the conflict, and denounced dangerous threats of the use of nuclear weapons. Russia’s actions endangered all peace-loving nations. Ukraine was fully in compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Russia should stop making unfounded allegations regarding Ukraine’s possession of nuclear weapons.

Russian Federation said that it was taking all necessary action to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and had established humanitarian corridors for civilians to exit Ukraine. The European Union was not a participant in the Conference, and France had no right to make a statement on its behalf.

Ecuador thanked the President for her professional conduct, and applauded the convening of the high-level segment and the meeting on women and disarmament.

Cuba thanked the President and her team for its work. The upcoming Presidency would preserve the mandate of the Conference and its long-standing practices. Cuba supported a Conference that developed a broad and comprehensive agenda and that avoided unnecessary politicisation. The forum had failed to make significant progress over more than 20 years, in spite of significant funding. The adopted programme of work for the coming sessions would lay the foundations for future texts on which the Conference should be based. The adopted programme of work would help the Conference move step-by-step toward loftier goals in the realm of disarmament and proliferation. The next public plenary meeting of the Conference would be held on 22 March at 10 a.m.

China commended the efforts of the President in facilitating the work of the Conference. Subsidiary bodies had started their work as scheduled. The right of every coordinator to fulfil their mandate should be upheld. The work of the Conference was not only related to the events of the past few weeks, but also those of the past decades. Ensuring the orderly proceedings of the Conference were based on the principle of consensus was important.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS , Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva thanked all parties for the confidence that they had placed in her work to lead the Conference despite the complex international situation, and for the efforts made to adopt Decision CD 22/29 and discuss how to break the Conference’s deadlock. The informal nature of subsidiary groups, and the fact that they did not have a clear negotiating mandate, were matters of concern to the Colombian Presidency. However, in order to reach agreements in multilateral scenarios, the first task was to debate what united, rather than what divided States. It was necessary to update rules of procedure to reflect the right of men and women to equal participation and representation in the Conference. Long debates did not bring the Conference closer to its objective. The rules of procedure needed to ensure that men and women were able to participate in all positions of the Conference equitably. It was hoped that the future work of the Conference would be truly useful and would enable the Conference to move closer to the fulfilment of its mandate. It was therefore necessary for all delegations to maintain their commitment, flexibility and willingness.

___________

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.