CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT BEGINS SECOND PART OF 2007 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first plenary of the second part of its 2007 session, during which it discussed a proposed draft presidential decision and its corollary eventual special session in order for the Conference to start substantive work.

In an opening statement, Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, President of the Conference, said it was the hope of all that the body would be able to build on the positive atmosphere that had prevailed so far during the year, and would be able to begin productive work.

Following an informal plenary for consultations, the President said there was no consensus as yet on draft presidential decision L.1, and some delegations required more time to receive instructions. The Presidency would therefore continue consultations to assess delegations’ readiness to move forward. All delegations were urged to inform their capitals of the Conference on Disarmament’s eagerness to move forward to constructive work.

Responding to this, delegations expressed their point of view on the progress with regards to the draft decision, and urged all members to participate in a structured inclusive process with this was the goal. Several speakers also raised the issue of a treaty to ban fissile material, saying that this should have a non-discriminatory, multilateral, transparent and internationally verifiable mechanism attached to it.

The presidential draft decision, contained in document CD/2007/L.1, which calls for the appointment of four Coordinators – to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices – has been described by many Members as the Conference's best chance to get back to substantive work and to break the 10-year deadlock over the issue of agreeing on a programme of work.

Also this morning, the Conference accepted a request by Ghana to participate in its work and that of its subsidiary bodies as an observer, in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Speaking this morning were representatives of Ireland, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, and the United Kingdom.

The next plenary session of the Conference will be held on Tuesday 22 May at 10 a.m.

Statements

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference, in an opening statement, welcomed delegates back to Geneva, saying that it was the hope of all that the body would be able to build on the positive atmosphere that had prevailed so far during the year, and would be able to begin productive work, as was hoped by all.

On the consultations that she conducted during the recess, Ms. Fernando said that at the last plenary, on 30 March 2007, she had informed the Conference that during informal plenaries, it had become apparent that there was very broad support across the regions for the presidential draft decision (L.1). At the same time, it was also concluded that a few delegations needed more time to receive instructions from capitals on this draft decision. On 20 April, participants had been told that there were no objections to the holding of a special session, and consultations had been held with delegations with the aim of moving forward on this topic. She asked the members of the Conference if there were any new developments in this regard.

PAUL KAVANAUGH (Ireland), speaking on behalf of members of the New Agenda Coalition, said in response to the President’s request that many participants had spent the last few weeks in Vienna at the preparatory meetings for the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Many interesting contributions to the work of the Six Presidents had been made during the preparatory process. The Coalition was encouraged by the recent constructive discussions on, among other things, the banning of fissile materials. The Coalition had pointed out that for a treaty to be meaningful, it would require a verification mechanism. A treaty would limit the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals, and could be a significant step towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It was fervently hoped that the Conference on Disarmament would seize the opportunity to end the stalemate of the last ten years, and move forwards to substantive work. With the participation of all Member States, and the support of the President, it should be possible to do so.

The Council then went into informal plenary for consultations on the topic of the holding of the special session, subsequent to which, it returned to formal plenary.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference, said with regards to the outcome of the informal plenary, there was no consensus as yet on draft decision L.1, and some delegations required more time to receive instructions. The Presidency would therefore continue consultations to assess delegations’ readiness to move forward. Any queries delegations may have would be addressed. All delegations were urged to inform their capitals of the Conference on Disarmament’s eagerness to move forward to constructive work. The Six Presidents continued to have full confidence in the proposal.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said there was deep appreciation for the way in which the President and the representatives of Spain and South Africa had helped with efforts to revitalise the Conference. As the second part of the session began, Egypt wished to express its support for the mission of restoring the vitality of the Conference, and beginning substantive work. Egypt supported the proposal of the Six Presidents regarding the special session - it was a light at the end of the tunnel. It was important to learn from the lessons of the past if progress was to be made. Pragmatic realism should ensure progress, and all should profit from this important development. Despite this significant development, there was concern for the delay in creating a structured, inclusive, transparent and multilateral mechanism, whether in formal or informal setting, to address the draft decision. It was sad that this was not created during the inter-sessional process, when delegations could have made suggestions which could have been considered.

For the Conference to start its substantive work, all Member States needed to feel that their concerns, both structural and procedural, had been addressed. Egypt would spare no effort to constructively engage with the membership of the Conference in order to begin substantive work; it was essential to capitalise on existing momentum, and to take into account the concerns of all States, rather than just those of some.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference, responded that each Member State had been consulted during the consultations, and their views had been taken into account. The Presidency had provided detailed information as a matter of transparency and to highlight the goal of the Presidency to communicate fully with delegations, and respond to their concerns.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said there was a sense of forward movement in the Conference this year. At the current stage of activities, establishing a programme of work remained the top priority, and consensus should be reached on this. The draft decision focussed on this issue, and this was welcome. To ensure the smooth conduct of negotiations, there should be sufficient understanding of the fundamental parameters of the unfolding programme of work, especially its substance. This was vital for the substantive work that it was hoped the Conference would begin. The Conference should arrive at multi-lateral, non-discriminatory agreements. India reiterated that on fissile materials, it was attached to the negotiation of a universal, non-discriminatory, effective and verifiable treaty, and the Presidency should clarify this. India was supportive of the mandate on such a treaty contained in United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/75L, and had reiterated this support at relevant moments, in 1995 and 1998. India sincerely hoped there was sufficient common understanding on this fundamental issue. It would have been ideal to engage in negotiations on such a treaty in an ad hoc committee, and not to be overseen by a Coordinator. India encouraged the Presidency to continue consultations, so that the Conference could arrive at a decision that took into account the interests and concerns of all delegations. It was only through the consultative process that the Conference would arrive at a consensus, and India would continue to work with this aim in mind.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan appreciated the dedication and energy with which the President provided the Conference. Pakistan had expressed its particular concerns with regards to the draft decision in informal consultations, but wished to reiterate certain points. Pakistan understood that during the first part of the year, there was a broad expression of support for taking forward the four core issues in a structured session. The momentum that had been created should have been used to move forward on various agenda items, and this would have helped to develop a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. A majority of Member States had expressed their readiness to move forward on a treaty on fissile material, with a non-discriminatory, multilateral, transparent and internationally verifiable mechanism. These agreed parameters should be stuck to in order to begin negotiations on the treaty.

Pursuance of nuclear disarmament continued to be the raison d’être of the Conference, and this would strengthen the non-proliferation regime. A comprehensive programme on nuclear disarmament would be the most robust and durable way of revivifying the Conference. The draft decision should be re-examined, and space created for negotiations. A structured, inclusive process should be set up, in which all countries could express their concerns. Pakistan believed in multilateralism, and was committed to making the Conference work, within the context of its rules of procedure. Pakistan reserved the right to examine the draft decision, and to submit revisions to the text.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) said in order to provide a comprehensive and balanced programme of work, open and full consideration of the Conference and its rules of procedure should take place, with the opinions of all taken into account. There were questions on both substance and procedure with regards to the draft decision, and these should be dealt with openly and inclusively within the Conference. The four core issues identified by the Conference had equal value, and none was less important. Equal treatment was therefore required to be applied. It was not understandable why the Conference should postpone discussion of nuclear disarmament - further delay would be a source of concern and regret. The position of Iran on a treaty on fissile materials was based on a verifiable, comprehensive international treaty, which would be a step towards nuclear disarmament.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria had previously expressed its position during informal meetings in the first part of the session, on both the treaty and the draft declaration. The positive aspects of this proposal were appreciated, and they included the four foci of the Conference. At the same time, Algeria had already made several substantive and formal comments during consultations. Algeria looked forward to seeing the Six Presidents making every effort in order to overcome the differences which remained, and to reach a consensus on the draft decision. The numerous observations made on the procedural side and on the substantive aspect had been listened to, and some of these were shared. Algeria urged the President and other members of the Six Presidents to find the appropriate method and the appropriate formula, including the elements proposed by the Ambassador of Egypt to have multilateral consultations in the Conference on the proposal, as well as to take on the proposals or amendments submitted by other delegations so as to reach consensus on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work that would be acceptable to all parties.

JOHN STEWART DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said he was puzzled at the statement by one delegation with regards to the lack of structure in the inter-sessional period, but others would recall that this was the same delegation which had caused a situation in which no extraordinary plenary meeting could be held without consensus on the draft decision. Getting the Conference back to work was in the collective interest, both those with and those without nuclear weapons. Some nations had asked for more time, and there was surprise that seven weeks was insufficient to get instructions for such an important issue. It was hoped these instructions would be received soon so that the Conference would be able to move forward. Of course, good faith was required if this issue was to be taken to its conclusion. There was a practical aspect here: in a matter of a few weeks, there would not be time to carry out the draft decision in a meaningful way on any of the issues contained therein. Colleagues and friends in other delegations were urged to come to the table quickly so that the Conference as a whole could move forward.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said all Member States should heed the appeal of the President to preserve the positive spirit that had characterised the work of the Conference. Only through a frank exchange of views and equal consideration of the interests of all members could a positive outcome be arrived at. Egypt had displayed on every occasion an openness, and would continue to do so.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC07021E