First Committee of the 70th General Assembly

Mr. Chairman
Excellencies,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honour to address the First Committee during the 70th session of the General Assembly and to be part of the high-level panel with my distinguished colleagues from the disarmament community. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the First Committee, H.E. Mr. Karel van Oosterom, and the Acting High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. KIM Won-soo for their kind invitation.

In my capacity as Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, I feel a strong connection with the theme of this panel: “Increased Capacities to Address Weapons of Mass Destruction”, as this topic forms the core agenda of the Conference on Disarmament. At the same time, I feel frustrated with the limited progress that the disarmament community, and in particular the Conference on Disarmament, has made in the past two decades.

Next year, it will be twenty years since the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was concluded by the Conference on Disarmament. The CTBT is the last treaty that was negotiated by the Conference on Disarmament, but as my colleague just reminded us, despite our best efforts, the Treaty has yet to enter into force. At the same time, the Conference on Disarmament has not been able to date to initiate negotiations on any of its agenda items and is not fulfilling its mandate as the sole multilateral negotiation forum on disarmament.

The ongoing stalemate in the Conference is not only damaging for the image of the Conference, but also to the United Nations and the disarmament community as a whole. And more importantly, it is an affront to the millions of people around the world who are looking to the United Nations for action on this primordial issue that affects their lives directly. If the Conference on Disarmament continues to be blocked, it will turn into a relic of the Cold War, unable to adapt to the security challenges of today’s world. In the absence of progress, Member States will increasingly opt for other fora to negotiate disarmament treaties and the public will lose whatever little confidence is left in the international disarmament machinery endangering the very existence of the Conference.

Looking at the current state of affairs, and in particular at the events of this year, there is unfortunately little reason for optimism when it comes to multilateral disarmament. In addition to the ongoing stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament, the inability of this years’ NPT Review Conference to reach consensus on a “substantive outcome” is a grim reminder of the urgent need for positive action. In this context, allow me to reiterate the reminder by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Conference on Disarmament of January of this year, when he impressed upon us that: “the need for progress in multilateral disarmament is greater than ever”.

Mr. Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentleman,

The Conference on Disarmament can play a pivotal role in generating much-needed progress in multilateral disarmament as a whole. Allow me to elaborate on how I think that the Conference can heed the call of the Secretary-General. Some of the ideas I put to the Conference in May 2014 are based on my strong belief in the value of the Conference on Disarmament as the only standing forum for multilateral disarmament and in the shared responsibility for allowing it to fulfil its mission. Should the Conference on Disarmament be abolished, it would be difficult to reinvent it in the current political climate. Today, there’s actually a stronger need for a functioning Conference on Disarmament than ever. For the Conference to remain the key component of the disarmament machinery, it needs strengthening and modernization, which is long overdue.

First, although there is no consensus among CD Member States to start negotiations on any of the Conference’s four core agenda items there are areas of agreement and common ground within each issue.

I continue to believe that consensus can emerge during negotiations. The Conference could for instance consider negotiations on areas of common ground with a view to producing framework conventions, to which substantive protocols may be subsequently negotiated and added. This approach has proven to be viable and sustainable in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The Convention with its five protocols is a living example of this approach.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the in-depth, comprehensive and structured discussions that took place this year and last in the Conference under the respective Schedule of Activities. These discussions have allowed the Conference to continue and deepen its deliberations on matters of substance, despite the long years of impasse, helping to better understand and clarify Member States’ positions. Such discussions could and should serve as common ground for the start of negotiations.

Second, in order to move forward, the Conference on Disarmament does not need to aim exclusively at negotiating legally binding instruments, even if this is the ideal goal and expectation of us all. There can also be merit, in exploring issues for which voluntary, politically binding regimes may be negotiated and, eventually, evolve into legally binding disarmament instruments.

Third, the working methods of the Conference on Disarmament, are seen by many delegations as being a large part – if not the root – of the protracted stalemate within the Conference. This year, the attempts to establish a subsidiary body on this issue were unsuccessful, but I would like to stress that such a review would provide an opportunity to critically look at current practices, codify some of the best practices that have emerged, and guide the Conference forward.

The rule of consensus, central to the Conference, has evolved into a restrictive interpretation, tantamount to unanimity, leading to the current blockage. I absolutely disagree with this interpretation, and would like to strongly encourage Member States to understand and interpret consensus for what in fact it is: a collective or common understanding, which leaves room for some divergence of views in the details. Recent developments in other international organizations, which were blocked by a similar restrictive interpretation of consensus, have shown that progress can be made when a less stifling interpretation can be agreed upon.

Fourth, the 2013 Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations provided an excellent opportunity for a broad and rich discussion of the issues and many delegations have referred to that experience as a useful model, which should continue to inspire the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The establishment of an Open-Ended Working Group by this year’s General Assembly, would provide another excellent opportunity for an exchange of ideas and for building momentum and hopefully helping to overcome the deadlock.

Mr. Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentleman,

The issue of membership remains high on the agenda of the Conference. Since 1982, 27 States have requested membership of the Conference. A decision on their accession is much needed to make the Conference more inclusive, enhance its legitimacy and thus increase the trust in the Conference. I am not alone in my desire for expansion and some Member States are even calling for universal membership.

In this regard, allow me to take this opportunity to also stress the need for the Conference on Disarmament to engage with civil society. It is time for Members to adapt the procedures in the CD to what is being done in other disarmament meetings and more broadly in the UN to involve civil society. To this end, I organized an Informal Civil Society Forum last March which provided a venue for rich interactive discussion with civil society organizations from around the globe and was well received by all participants. The forum was aimed at demonstrating how the expertise and insights of Civil Society can enrich the work of the Conference and thus encourage its Members to start including civil society in a more sustained and structured manner. At the request of both Members of the CD and representatives of civil society, I plan a similar event in 2016 to address specific technical topics with experts from academia and research institutions. Finally, I am convinced that it is high time to look at some of the issues – beyond the core items on the agenda of the Conference – that need urgent attention and can be attended to in spite of the current overall deadlock. For instance, some Member States of the CD have proposed to address the issue of cyber security and cyber weapons.

I would like to turn briefly to an issue which many of us in Geneva follow closely and with concern, namely the future of UNIDIR. For the past thirty-five years, the Institute has supported the disarmament community with its policy-relevant work across the entire disarmament agenda. It remains a thought leader on a number of emerging issues, making an indispensable intellectual contribution to disarmament discussions in Geneva and helping to stimulate new thinking. With its convening power, its autonomy and its impartiality, UNIDIR provides unique support to the diplomatic community in Geneva and beyond. At a time when other parts of the disarmament machinery are seen by many as underperforming, UNIDIR continues to deliver as it should, and it's projects are very much in demand. In short, the Institute punches far above its weight.

It is therefore of great concern that UNIDIR continues to be plagued by financial difficulties, which now jeopardize its very existence. A solution to these difficulties, and putting in place a sustainable, stable and secure source of institutional funding can no longer be postponed. I am therefore very grateful to the French delegation for its efforts to secure consensus adoption of this year's UNIDIR resolution, which would chart a two-step approach to put the Institute on a sounder financial basis.

We need to the hear the voice of independent researchers and experts in the various disciplines that are relevant for disarmament and security to help us anticipate new security challenges and threats, and to adequately address them before they become critical. UNIDIR is the bridge between the United Nations and the broader security community that helps us create the necessary synergies to address and mitigate the effects of insecurity at the international, regional and local levels.

Let me also update you on the disarmament work in Geneva outside the Conference on Disarmament. The States parties to the Biological Weapons Convention continue to strengthen the convention and together with the Implementation Support Unit, which is based in Geneva and attached to UNODA, continue to carry out important work in promoting and implementing the Convention.

In the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons the recent examination of lethal autonomous weapons systems, popularly known as killer-robots, has provided an insight into the future conduct of warfare. From how autonomous weapons could change perceptions towards human dignity, to their impact on the battlefield, to their ability to comply with the current rules of international humanitarian law, these are but some of the issues considered in these wide ranging discussions. Their development is moving apace in a number of countries and some preventive treaty making would be more than in order now. In 2016, the 121 States Parties to the CCW will continue their discussions but everyone needs to participate. I call especially on developing countries to join the work and I encourage the States Parties of the CCW to seize the opportunity at the 5th Review Conference in 2016 in Geneva to agree on negotiating a Protocol to the CCW that will address this new issue. I, like many others, am not looking forward to a world where autonomous machines decide on who lives or dies!

Mr. Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentleman,

In closing, I would like to make a few points concerning the interaction between the General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament. The General Assembly has a primary role in setting the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament as clearly set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Conference. The resolutions passed by this Committee each year are intended to form the basis for the discussions in the Conference. In particular, by taking into account the new and emerging security challenges, not part of the Decalogue.

Secondly, the General Assembly plays a significant role in the process of standard setting, and its moral and political weight should be used to move the Conference on Disarmament forward, as a key part of the disarmament machinery. The Conference does not exist in isolation and the consequences of its inability to agree go far beyond the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The work of the Conference is an integral part of the broader efforts to build a safer and more secure world in which countries and communities can prosper. The new Sustainable Development Goals, in particular goal 16, reminds us of the fundamental importance of peace and security towards this objective. However, the Conference on Disarmament sometimes needs to be reminded of this fact and of its tasks. This year’s General Assembly provides another opportunity to do so, and I therefore strongly urge you to forcefully take this opportunity to push for a much more robust implementation of common responsibilities in the field of disarmament.

Thank you for your attention.