CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON STALEMATE IN ITS WORK AND THE CONFLICT IN GEORGIA

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements by Venezuela as the President of the Conference, France, Pakistan, New Zealand, Brazil, Sri Lanka and China on the stalemate in its work and its programme of work, and by Slovakia, the Russian Federation and Ireland on the conflict in Georgia.

Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandez of Venezuela, the incoming President of the Conference, said that Venezuela would present to the General Assembly in October the report of the Conference on Disarmament on its work in 2008. He hoped to carry out the fullest possible range of consultations on the report. Venezuela's position with respect to the proposed programme of work CD/1840 was prompted by the conviction that it could provide a basis for getting the Conference out of the present stalemate. Venezuela was aware of the difficulties in getting a consensus on CD/1840, but it viewed the document as a minimum basis to make progress. It was the best mechanism to ensure the strengthening and existence of the Conference.

France said that the main principle of disarmament advances should be that security for nations must not be diminished, and this justified the consensus rule, even if it was paralysing. Yet maybe it would be wise to abandon the consensus rule. Any attempt to establish links between the different agenda items would also help the blockage in the work of the Conference.

Pakistan quoted United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as saying that in setting priorities, the Conference members had no constraints as to how to conduct their work, other than to proceed on the basis of consensus. CD/1840 was far from being an agreed document. It was a lop-sided compromise.

In response to Pakistan, New Zealand said CD/1840 was a compromise, but it was not a lop-sided compromise. It did not meet New Zealand's national position, or that of the national priorities of any one country, but it should not do so. CD/1840 did not prejudge anything. It allowed all issues to be discussed, but it did not set up what elements had to be in the final outcome.

Brazil hoped that the Conference's report to the General Assembly would clearly be objective and factual, but at the same time, it trusted that it would not be a static and rigid photograph of the current state of the Conference, but that rather it could contain stylistic imprints and offer a message that they were not ending in an impasse and that next year they would be able to launch what they had put together this year thanks to the leadership of all the Presidents.

Sri Lanka said that under the presidency of Venezuela, Sri Lanka hoped that a new spirit would come into the work of the Conference.

China said that there was a difference of views on how the Conference should proceed, difference over both procedure and substantive issues. Although there were differences, they all shared the same goal and hope for progress in the work of the Conference. China believed that holding constructive dialogues instead of criticising others would be conducive to resolving these differences.

On the situation in Georgia, Slovakia said its position in settlement of the current conflict in Georgia stemmed from the long-term respect and support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia in the framework of its internationally recognized borders. All steps which threatened these principles were unacceptable for Slovakia.

The Russian Federation said the leadership of Georgia started the aggression, the ethnic cleansing and the genocide and that was why it was essential for Russia to go in. Russia had basically saved the people of South Ossetia from genocide. On 18 August, Russia had started to withdraw some sections of its troops. It noted with concern that until now there had been no confirmation of a full return of Georgian troops to their former position as provided for. The speed of Russia's further actions would depend on how Georgia fulfilled its obligations.

Ireland asked Russia for clarification as to whether Russia was alleging that Grad rockets equipped with cluster munitions warheads were in fact used by the Georgian forces. Russia said that the Grad devices could be considered as a weapon in keeping with the definition of cluster munitions, and they may be regarded within the definition of cluster munitions.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 August, when the President will present to the Conference the draft report on the work of the Conference during 2008 which will be presented to the General Assembly.

Statements

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela), Incoming President of the Conference, expressed his warm welcome to the Nagasaki Peace Citizens and the youth of Nagasaki who were bringing with them their tradition of calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It was encouraging for the Conference on Disarmament that the young generations of Japan had for years demonstrated deep concern for disarmament and interest in the work of the Conference. The Conference welcomed the visitors.

As this was the first time that he was addressing the Conference as its President, he wished to convey his appreciation to the previous Presidents of the Conference, the Secretary-General of the Conference, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the secretariat and the Coordinators for the support they were providing. Venezuela believed that the Conference on Disarmament was an essential part of the multilateral system in the field and was called on to play its part. It must regain its path. Activities were underway to make up for the lost time so that the Conference could reflect the aspirations of all peoples. At a time of great political complexity around us, the Conference had to help to strengthen the international legal order in the field of arms control. This mandate needed unswerving political will. The commitment to peace and disarmament obliged the Member States to get the Conference out of the stalemate which it found itself in. To confront the threats around the world, the Conference started by annually adopting its agenda and programme of work. Nuclear disarmament was considered by many as the raison d'etre of the Conference. Until such a time as nuclear disarmament was achieved, it would be necessary for negative security assurances to exist to assure non-nuclear-weapon States. It was necessary to reach consensus on this. An important step towards disarmament would be by negotiating a treaty prohibiting the use of fissile material in explosive devices. While none at the Conference refused to negotiate such a treaty, there remained details which concerned it that must be cleared. Prevention of an arms race in outer space was also a priority for the Conference, and it was necessary to strengthen the legal regime to assure this.

Ambassador Mundarain Hernandez said that Venezuela, as President of the Conference, would present to the General Assembly in October the report of the Conference on Disarmament on its work in 2008. He hoped to carry out the fullest possible range of consultations on the report. Venezuela's position with respect to the proposed programme of work CD/1840 was prompted by the conviction that it could provide a basis for getting the Conference out of the present stalemate. Venezuela was aware of the difficulties in getting a consensus on CD/1840, but it viewed the document as a minimum basis to make progress. It was the best mechanism to ensure the strengthening and existence of the Conference. Venezuela invited all the Member States of the Conference to further enrich and define the proposed programme of work, which should be robust enough to gain the trust it required, and at the same time, no one should feel excluded. There was ground for optimism if they compared the situation now to progress in the past. The Six Presidents of the Conference in 2007 and 2007 had injected a drive in the work of the Conference, and Venezuela was convinced that progress had been made towards overcoming the obstacles. It was necessary to ensure that this now had substance and all needed to contribute to this. He conveyed on behalf of the Conference on Disarmament deep appreciation and farewell to the Ambassadors of Finland and France who were leaving Geneva.

JEAN FRANCOIS DOBELLE (France) said he would speak strictly in a personal capacity and his words would commit only himself. A few months after arriving in Geneva, many of his colleagues had believed that the Conference on Disarmament, thanks to the work of its successive Presidents, was at a point of getting a new start after a long sleep. Unfortunately, nobody now could say when this forum would be able to renew its initial vocation to negotiate and conclude international agreements on disarmament and non-proliferation. They must retain hope because the Conference remained an irreplaceable instrument which had been for too long in a low water phase. It allowed each Member State to express its concerns, priorities, ambitions and aspirations openly and in this way, it was the barometer of the fate of the world. Yet it could and should do a great deal more.

Ambassador Dobelle said he wanted to set out a number of considerations. The state of international relations had a direct impact on the work of the Conference. It was not a surprise that in the 1990s, when there was optimism about the end of the cold war, the Conference had more impact. It was also not a coincidence that the rhythm of work slowed down with the start of this decade. The arrival of mass terrorism, the two major non-proliferation crises, the emergence of new poles of power and the doubts that some felt about the virtues of multilateralism had all left their imprint on its work. Diplomats could not do everything, as they were dependent on instructions from their capitals. Such instructions left only a small margin for manoeuvre. Sometimes, even the most ingenious conventions were confronted with obstacles. The main principle of disarmament advances should be that security for nations must not be diminished, and this justified the consensus rule, even if it was paralysing. Yet maybe it would be wise to abandon the consensus rule. Any attempt to establish links between the different agenda items would also help the blockage in the work of the Conference. He hoped that a consensus would emerge on the proposals for a compromise drawn up by the Presidents of the Conference in 2007 and 2008, which was the closest they had to what could become at the right time an object of general agreement. The fact that the Conference could not agree on a programme of work, based on the first four items of the agenda that was superficial and obsolete, should not stop the Conference from dealing with certain objects affecting conventional disarmament, like illicit trafficking in small weapons and MANPADS. These issues represented a real need which had not yet been met.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said that when United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed the Conference in January this year, he reminded the Conference that in setting priorities, the Conference members had no constraints as to how to conduct their work, other than to proceed on the basis of consensus. In June, the European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana told the Conference that the European Union had carefully listened to the difficulties a few countries had with the proposal CD/1840 and would be open to discuss any specific security concerns. Six questions still remained to be answered on the rule of consensus, the quest of a perfect formula, compromise, pre-judgement, preconditions and ripeness. Was the rule of consensus being misused. The misuse of a rule would be to invoke it when it served one's national interest and deny it to others when it served theirs. CD/1840 was far from being an agreed document. Was the perfect the enemy of the good in the Conference. CD/1840 was good but not good enough. It was a lop-sided compromise among broadly likeminded countries, but it did not meet the basic minimum concerns of all Member States of the Conference. Pakistan believed that CD/1840 prejudged the outcome. Pakistan did not agree with the premise that the document did not have preconditions. There was no agreement on the question as to which issues were mature and ripe for negotiations and which were not.

In recent weeks, some national statements had supported CD/1840 in the plenary sessions. In its statement on June 17, Pakistan expressed its reservations on the proposal in its present form. Since then, there had been no significant development in bridging the differences in key areas. Pakistan would sign any dispensation or mandate that was non-discriminatory and it would propose that the Conference should work on a mandate for a verifiable fissile material treaty. Pakistan would be able to endorse CD/1840 if it was revised to address the following issues stated in CD/1843: a commitment to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable fissile material treaty; creation of space for addressing the question of the existing and future stocks of fissile material; balance among all four core issues; using ad hoc committees or any other subsidiary bodies as mechanisms for negotiations, in accordance with the Conference's rule of procedure; and a differentiation between the role of the coordinators to facilitate informal discussions and the functions of formal subsidiary bodies of the Conference to conduct negotiations in the context of the programme of work. For Pakistan, incorporation of "international and effective verification" into the proposed mandate was of critical importance and stemmed directly from its vital national security interests.

ANTON PINTER (Slovakia) said he had been instructed to bring to the attention of the Conference the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Slovakia on 14 August related to the situation in Georgia. The position of Slovakia in settlement of the current conflict in Georgia stemmed from the long-term respect and support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia in the framework of its internationally recognized borders. All steps which threatened these principles were unacceptable for Slovakia. Slovakia had always refused and would refuse in the future the use of force by any of the parties in settling conflicts and open issues, including that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Slovakia supported the mediation efforts of the French Presidency of the European Union concerning the solution of the conflict in Georgia. As part of the settlement of the situation in Georgia, Slovakia would among other things support the dispatch of European Union peacekeeping missions in the country. In the interest of the settlement of the humanitarian crisis, Slovakia had provided humanitarian aid of 5.6 million Slovak crowns for all citizens of Georgia suffering from the armed conflict, including the refugees from South Ossetia.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said they had heard a number of interesting interventions this morning which ranged across a wide area. The statements of France and Pakistan were linked in the sense that they both addressed the inability of the Conference to get down to negotiations. He wished to take up some of the points raised by his distinguished colleague from Pakistan because it was important that the record presented on the subject reflected not only one view point but also the points of view of others.

At the outset, Ambassador MacKay recalled that New Zealand had foresworn acquiring nuclear weapons and was totally committed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He understood that New Zealand's perspective on the inability of the Conference to move forward on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty might be somewhat different from that of his Pakistani colleague whose country did possess nuclear weapons. The difference in perspective came through quite clearly in the statement made by Pakistan this morning. On Pakistan's first point on misusing the rule of consensus. It was possible to bandy around with this issue. There was a consensus rule in the Conference and States should take advantage of that rule to prevent work from proceeding if they judged it was necessary to do so. However, the Conference was unique in the level of safeguards that it had on the use of consensus. Consensus was first required on a work programme, then on a particular outcome, then on adoption of an instrument as a whole, then all States had the sovereign right to decide on whether or not to become a party to the outcome. So there were four levels of safeguards. In such a situation, States should take a flexible approach with regards to the first level of work, but unfortunately that was not the situation. On the issue of whether perfect was the enemy of the good, New Zealand agreed with Pakistan that it should not be. They should not be looking for the perfect when they decided to commence their work, they should look for a basis to commence work and then negotiate their national positions. Normally, they should not block negotiations from the start. New Zealand's position was pretty similar to Pakistan's position, but the difference was that New Zealand was willing to put up its position for discussion, rather than to set preconditions.

On whether CD/1840 was a compromise, Ambassador McKay said he believed it was a compromise but not a lop-sided compromise. It did not meet New Zealand's national position, or that of the national priorities of any one country, but it should not do so. CD/1840 did not prejudge anything. It allowed all issues to be discussed, but it did not set up what elements had to be in the final outcome. The same point applied to preconditions. On the issue of which agenda items were mature for negotiations, New Zealand would be happy to see negotiations on any of the items on the programme of work. However, it did not believe that delegations in the Conference could deal with all of them equally and equitably at the same time. They had to start somewhere, and New Zealand believed that the closest issue to being ready for negations was a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. New Zealand welcomed the indications by Pakistan of its willingness to engage further in consultations with regard to a draft mandate in CD/1840, but it came back to a point that they should not stipulate in advance what the outcome of an FMCT would be. In substance, the positions of New Zealand and Pakistan were very close, but it did not believe that they should set out in advance what the negotiations would be. They needed to be careful about going down that route.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said he wished to speak of the aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia and its consequences. This was the twelfth day since the aggression started. The Russian Federation noted that instead of a serious analysis of the reasons for this tragedy and a search for lasting peace, the western media continued to whip up a frenzy of untrue information which crudely distorted the reality, especially in its seeking a guilty party. It was appropriate here to look at the chronology of events. On 7 August, Georgia began its attack using force on South Ossetia under the slogan "renewing the Constitutional order in the conflict zone." On 8 August, Tskhinvali suffered artillery attacks and so did the villages of South Ossetia. This bombardment included the use of multiple launch rocket systems, specifically the Grad system, which was a cluster munition. Russian peacekeepers were hit by this fire. They were fired upon directly. This was particularly tragic. Georgian peacekeepers fired at them. Georgian troops started moving in and the Georgian air force fired on civilians in South Ossetia. Georgian forces partly took control of the capital of South Ossetia and some villages were literally swiped from the face of the earth. This led to many casualties among civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Following all these events, and because of the continued threat to Russian citizens in South Ossetia, Russia sent its troops to support the Russian citizens and the Russian peacekeepers. The leadership of Georgia started the aggression, the ethnic cleansing and the genocide and that was why it was essential for Russia to go in. Russia had basically saved the people of South Ossetia from genocide. This was perhaps not pleasant for all to hear, especially those who had sent weapons to Georgia and provided assistance to the regime. These people tried to present this as a window to democracy, but if this was democracy, it was not the kind of democracy that anyone needed. Instead of condemning Georgia, some had defended it and accused Russia of using excessive force and aggression. Russia hoped that justice would prevail.

Ambassador Loshchinin said that on 12 August, six principles had been agreed upon to settle the dispute. On 18 August, Russia had started to withdraw some sections of its troops. It noted with concern that until now there had been no confirmation of a full return of Georgian troops to their former position as provided for. The speed of Russia's further actions would depend of how Georgia fulfilled its obligations. Georgia did not seem to be in a hurry to do so. During these events, the Georgian leadership several times had accused the west and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of not providing the necessary support and assistance to the Georgian campaign. In response, there were statements that Georgia would receive the necessary support and assistance. Reports today said that NATO was meeting in Brussels and was opening its door for Georgia to enter NATO. What could this lead to. Georgia was trying to bring NATO countries and Russia into conflict, and this was extremely dangerous, if this type of proposal was indeed being made. Georgia had violated all its international obligations, even those signed with the European Union. In conclusion, he said that Russia was working on a large scale to help the refugees and to restore the infrastructure that was destroyed in South Ossetia. Peace was returning to South Ossetia. There was a need now to ensure a peaceful settlement with the support of the entire international community. The first of the six principles agreed upon between France and Russia was the non-use of force, so they must now sign and ratify a legally binding instrument on the non-use of force and that would be the basis to implement the other elements in the agreement.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that during the presidency of Venezuela of the Conference, it would be its duty to approve the report of the Conference for the year. Clearly, this was no easy undertaking. Brazil hoped that the report would clearly be objective and factual, but at the same time, it trusted that it would not be a static and rigid photograph of the current state of the Conference, but that rather it could contain stylistic imprints and offer a message that they were not ending in an impasse and that next year they would be able to launch what they had put together this year thanks to the leadership of all the Presidents.

On what Pakistan had said with limpid clarity, Brazil wished to express its general agreement with the arguments advanced by the Ambassador of New Zealand. It also wished to add a specific point. For Brazil, possible negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty should contain verification provisions. In the view of Brazil, it was not so important for the principle to be in the mandate, because even so, this would not be a certainty that it would be present in the document that was ultimately negotiated. He also wished to put on the record that with the departure of the Ambassador of France, they were losing a skilled jurist.

JAMES O'SHEA (Ireland) expressed his sorrow at the departure of the Ambassadors of France and Finland, both of whom had enriched the discussions in the Conference. The delegation of Ireland associated itself with the remarks of New Zealand, which expressed also the position of Ireland on the question of getting the Conference back to work. As New Zealand said, the position of New Zealand, and the same could be said for Ireland, was very close to that of Pakistan on the various questions of substance relating to the content of a treaty on fissile material.

Referring to the statement by the Russian Federation, Ireland's position was set out in the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union on 13 August and in two statements by the Irish Foreign Minister. For the purpose of clarification, the distinguished Representative of the Russian Federation had referred by the use by the Georgian forces of the multiple launch rocket system Grad, and that this type of weapon was a cluster munition which hit not targets but areas. As far as he was aware, the rockets of the Grad system could have a number of different kinds of warheads. He sought clarification as to whether Russian was alleging that Grad rockets equipped with cluster munitions warheads were in fact used by the Georgian forces.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that the Grad devices could be considered as a weapon in keeping with the definition of cluster munitions, and they may be regarded within the definition of cluster munitions. A definition of cluster munitions was still needed. The important thing here was that the Grad devices destroyed everything, people and infrastructure, and here they were used to fire on the civilian population and that was entirely unacceptable.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) appreciated the civil and courteous tone that New Zealand and Brazil had expressed, and welcomed with appreciation the analysis provided by the Ambassador of New Zealand. New Zealand was a passionate advocate of the start of work in the Conference and Pakistan could identify with that. However, the responses from New Zealand and Brazil were partial, and they had still not gone to the heart of the matter. Pakistan assured them that it had noted Brazil's remark about the content and tone of the report and Pakistan was open to suggestions and believed that the Conference should not give the signal that it would start its work from scratch next year.

DYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) was happy that Latin America was providing social and democratic alternatives to crises around the world. Under the presidency of Venezuela, Sri Lanka hoped that a new spirit would come into the work of the Conference.

WANG QUN (China) noted what the Ambassadors of Pakistan, New Zealand, Brazil and others had said today. They were all important statements on the work of the Conference. China would study the elements in them seriously. On its own part and judging from the statements, there was a new fact, a reality in the Conference. This was the difference of views on how the Conference should proceed, difference over both procedure and substantive issues. Although there were differences, they all shared the same goal and hope for progress in the work of the Conference. So how should this difference of views be handled. China believed in holding constructive dialogues instead of criticising others. That would be conducive to resolving these differences. Only by this approach would there be early agreement on the programme of work. The rules of procedure of the Conference had to be respected and China was ready to work with all the parties to achieve this goal.