CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES ISSUES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS PROGRAMME OF WORK
Meeting Summaries
China said that some of the issues were not very clear to them yet and the delegation needed further instructions from Beijing. But it was important to appoint the Chairs and Coordinators as soon as possible and China would try to come up with its own position as soon as possible.
Several speakers also said that it was important to have a balance in the allocation of time for the four main topics. Colombia said that the Conference should – at least initially – avoid simultaneous meetings of the Working Groups and the discussions led by the Special Coordinators.
The United Kingdom said that it was not helpful if nations now tried to start setting new conditions. The rules and procedures of the Organization were well known. A collective endeavour required “give and take” by all. The Conference should not fall into the trap of identifying new obstacles; they should look for new solutions.
Colombia said that the Conference needed also to think about other priorities and urgent matters, such as the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference. The Philippines said that inclusivity was also an important factor. Thus, observer States to the Conference on Disarmament should ipso facto be given the same rights and privileges in the Working Groups.
Iran stressed that nuclear disarmament remained its highest priority and emphasized that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty – which was to ban fissile material for nuclear weapon’s purposes – should not be turned to become an instrument in the area of non-proliferation; they would never accept such an approach.
The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced at a later date.
Statements
ALIREZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said that the Conference had adopted on 29 May a document that had established a programme of work for the 2009 session and had ended the Conference’s longstanding deadlock. Expectations had arisen that the Conference would play its role to materialize the objectives and priorities of the members, which were known as the four core priorities. Iran’s view was that the Conference, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, should perform its responsibilities in a manner to meet the security concerns of all States. Iran’s position towards the Conference was clear and well known to its members. They were of the firm conviction that the existence of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to the security of all nations. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority of his delegation. Members of the Non-aligned Movement had also repeatedly called the attention of the international community to the threat posed by nuclear weapons. They continued to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of those weapons, within a specified time limit, including a nuclear weapons convention.
Mr. Moaiyeri re-emphasized that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty – which was to ban fissile material for nuclear weapon’s purposes – should not be turned to become an instrument in the area of non-proliferation; they would never accept such an approach. Further, Iran also wished to see progress on the issues of negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The risk of an arms race in outer space was ever increasing. At the same time, some nuclear weapon States still pursued the strategy of the use of nuclear weapons particularly against non-nuclear weapon States.
DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia), addressing the implementation of the programme of work, said it was important to have a balanced geographical criterion for appointing the Chairs of the different Working Groups and the Special Coordinators. Colombia was awaiting the proposals of the Six Presidents (P6) in that regard. Having a balance in the allocation of time for the four core topics was also important. The dynamic of the meetings or difficulties that would be met during the meetings would further define that allocation of time. The Conference should also, at least initially, avoid simultaneous meetings of the Working Groups and the discussions led by the Special Coordinators. Further ahead, the programming would certainly become difficult to follow for delegations, bearing in mind the number of meetings taking place in Geneva. Colombia felt that it was essential to be pragmatic in order to make progress. The Conference needed also to think about other priorities and urgent matters, such as the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference.
AZRIL ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia) said that the adopted programme of work was indeed a delicate balance, an artwork that had successfully combined efforts over many years in a comprehensive manner. It was the much-needed impetus to face the growing challenges of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the insecurities that existed surrounding nuclear weapons. The call to start negotiations on a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was timely and constituted one of the key steps towards nuclear disarmament. Such a treaty was essential in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The other issues, namely negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space were of equal importance.
Turning to the implementation of the programme of work, Mr. Aziz said that Malaysia was committed to a balanced schedule of work that would ensure that the Working Groups on all the four core issues would be dealt with in a fair manner. Practicability and flexibility was needed, given the time constraints that they had. He urged that continued efforts be made so as to allow the Conference on Disarmament to start its substantive work as soon as possible.
CLAUDIA GARCIA GUIZA (Mexico) said that the Conference was at a decisive moment, as they were giving form to the adopted programme of work. Among the first steps they had to take was the appointment of the Chairs of the Working Groups and the Special Coordinators. Those appointments should respect regional representation. Mexico thus proposed to have four of those positions assigned to the Group of 21, two to the Western Group and one to the East European Group. The Conference also needed to come up with a calendar of work. Mexico would prefer a time allocation that would allow for flexibility. Mexico trusted that with the current positive atmosphere they would soon be able to resolve the remaining procedural questions. The use of plenaries should be preserved for the reporting of Working Groups on their work and for delegations to comment on it. Those procedural questions should still be dealt with this year, to avoid the Conference starting without a programme of work in 2010.
AFTAB KHOKHER (Pakistan) believed that the Conference should focus on the issues that would facilitate an early resumption of substantive work. All decisions had to be taken based on the rule of consensus, as laid down in the rules of procedures of the Conference. The appointment of Chairs of the Working Groups and Special Coordinators, allocation of time and preparation and adoption of the reports of the Working Group, should all be finalized on the basis of consensus. Neutrality was an important factor in the nomination of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators. Further, all Working Groups should have a balanced allocation of time.
I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that the adoption of the programme of work two weeks ago had been the result of hard work and a very favourable atmosphere. It was vital that they kept making the best of the current momentum. The Conference had to make sure that the mandates included in the programme of work were fully implemented. The current spirit of cooperation and flexibility had to be maintained. Openness and transparency should be kept.
WANG QUN (China) appreciated the untiring efforts of the Presidents to reach a programme of work for the Conference. The top priority now was to further those arrangements. China was in the process of formulating it own position. China believed that, as mentioned by many others, the rules of procedures of the Conference and rules of equity were very important rules and principles. In their view, those rules and principles should be reflected in the specific working arrangements of the next stage of the Conference’s work. They should identify a detailed programme at an early date. Some of the issues were not very clear to them yet and they needed further instructions form Beijing. It was important to appoint the Chairs and Coordinators as soon as possible. China would try to come up with its own position as soon as possible. They hoped that other delegations would maintain the hard work and momentum. China would, as always, play a constructive role in the process.
JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that some delegations had raised issues on the principles they should be looking at if they were to achieve success. Among those, three were particularly important: trust, good faith and balance. It was not helpful if nations now tried to start setting new conditions. The rules and procedures of the Organization were well known. A collective endeavour required “give and take” by all. The Conference should not fall into the trap of identifying new obstacles; they should look for new solutions. The issues identified in the programme of work deserved very serious attention. The positions of the United Kingdom were well known, but that they did not mean that they were not prepared to engage. The key factor was to harness the talent in the room; there were experienced colleagues who had earned the respect of the Conference and they should step forward soon to free the Conference from this obsession with procedural details and to implement the decision that had been taken two weeks ago.
JESUS DOMINGO (Philippines) said that inclusivity was also an important factor. Thus, observer States to the Conference on Disarmament should ipso facto be also given the same rights and privileges in the Working Groups and the discussions led by Special Coordinators and also be allowed to participate in the work of those bodies.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC09030E
The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard from Iran, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, the United Kingdom and the Philippines on the implementation of the programme of work, the appointment of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators and the allocation of working time to those bodies. Iran also spoke on the issue of nuclear disarmament.
Colombia said that it was important to have a balanced geographical criterion for appointing the Chairs of the different Working Groups and the Special Coordinators. Mexico proposed to have four of those positions assigned to the Group of 21, two to the Western Group and one to the East European Group. For Pakistan, neutrality was an important factor in the nomination of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators. Pakistan thus believed that neutrality was an important factor in the nomination of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators.China said that some of the issues were not very clear to them yet and the delegation needed further instructions from Beijing. But it was important to appoint the Chairs and Coordinators as soon as possible and China would try to come up with its own position as soon as possible.
Several speakers also said that it was important to have a balance in the allocation of time for the four main topics. Colombia said that the Conference should – at least initially – avoid simultaneous meetings of the Working Groups and the discussions led by the Special Coordinators.
The United Kingdom said that it was not helpful if nations now tried to start setting new conditions. The rules and procedures of the Organization were well known. A collective endeavour required “give and take” by all. The Conference should not fall into the trap of identifying new obstacles; they should look for new solutions.
Colombia said that the Conference needed also to think about other priorities and urgent matters, such as the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference. The Philippines said that inclusivity was also an important factor. Thus, observer States to the Conference on Disarmament should ipso facto be given the same rights and privileges in the Working Groups.
Iran stressed that nuclear disarmament remained its highest priority and emphasized that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty – which was to ban fissile material for nuclear weapon’s purposes – should not be turned to become an instrument in the area of non-proliferation; they would never accept such an approach.
The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced at a later date.
Statements
ALIREZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said that the Conference had adopted on 29 May a document that had established a programme of work for the 2009 session and had ended the Conference’s longstanding deadlock. Expectations had arisen that the Conference would play its role to materialize the objectives and priorities of the members, which were known as the four core priorities. Iran’s view was that the Conference, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, should perform its responsibilities in a manner to meet the security concerns of all States. Iran’s position towards the Conference was clear and well known to its members. They were of the firm conviction that the existence of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to the security of all nations. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority of his delegation. Members of the Non-aligned Movement had also repeatedly called the attention of the international community to the threat posed by nuclear weapons. They continued to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of those weapons, within a specified time limit, including a nuclear weapons convention.
Mr. Moaiyeri re-emphasized that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty – which was to ban fissile material for nuclear weapon’s purposes – should not be turned to become an instrument in the area of non-proliferation; they would never accept such an approach. Further, Iran also wished to see progress on the issues of negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The risk of an arms race in outer space was ever increasing. At the same time, some nuclear weapon States still pursued the strategy of the use of nuclear weapons particularly against non-nuclear weapon States.
DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia), addressing the implementation of the programme of work, said it was important to have a balanced geographical criterion for appointing the Chairs of the different Working Groups and the Special Coordinators. Colombia was awaiting the proposals of the Six Presidents (P6) in that regard. Having a balance in the allocation of time for the four core topics was also important. The dynamic of the meetings or difficulties that would be met during the meetings would further define that allocation of time. The Conference should also, at least initially, avoid simultaneous meetings of the Working Groups and the discussions led by the Special Coordinators. Further ahead, the programming would certainly become difficult to follow for delegations, bearing in mind the number of meetings taking place in Geneva. Colombia felt that it was essential to be pragmatic in order to make progress. The Conference needed also to think about other priorities and urgent matters, such as the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference.
AZRIL ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia) said that the adopted programme of work was indeed a delicate balance, an artwork that had successfully combined efforts over many years in a comprehensive manner. It was the much-needed impetus to face the growing challenges of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the insecurities that existed surrounding nuclear weapons. The call to start negotiations on a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was timely and constituted one of the key steps towards nuclear disarmament. Such a treaty was essential in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The other issues, namely negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in outer space were of equal importance.
Turning to the implementation of the programme of work, Mr. Aziz said that Malaysia was committed to a balanced schedule of work that would ensure that the Working Groups on all the four core issues would be dealt with in a fair manner. Practicability and flexibility was needed, given the time constraints that they had. He urged that continued efforts be made so as to allow the Conference on Disarmament to start its substantive work as soon as possible.
CLAUDIA GARCIA GUIZA (Mexico) said that the Conference was at a decisive moment, as they were giving form to the adopted programme of work. Among the first steps they had to take was the appointment of the Chairs of the Working Groups and the Special Coordinators. Those appointments should respect regional representation. Mexico thus proposed to have four of those positions assigned to the Group of 21, two to the Western Group and one to the East European Group. The Conference also needed to come up with a calendar of work. Mexico would prefer a time allocation that would allow for flexibility. Mexico trusted that with the current positive atmosphere they would soon be able to resolve the remaining procedural questions. The use of plenaries should be preserved for the reporting of Working Groups on their work and for delegations to comment on it. Those procedural questions should still be dealt with this year, to avoid the Conference starting without a programme of work in 2010.
AFTAB KHOKHER (Pakistan) believed that the Conference should focus on the issues that would facilitate an early resumption of substantive work. All decisions had to be taken based on the rule of consensus, as laid down in the rules of procedures of the Conference. The appointment of Chairs of the Working Groups and Special Coordinators, allocation of time and preparation and adoption of the reports of the Working Group, should all be finalized on the basis of consensus. Neutrality was an important factor in the nomination of Working Group Chairs and Special Coordinators. Further, all Working Groups should have a balanced allocation of time.
I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that the adoption of the programme of work two weeks ago had been the result of hard work and a very favourable atmosphere. It was vital that they kept making the best of the current momentum. The Conference had to make sure that the mandates included in the programme of work were fully implemented. The current spirit of cooperation and flexibility had to be maintained. Openness and transparency should be kept.
WANG QUN (China) appreciated the untiring efforts of the Presidents to reach a programme of work for the Conference. The top priority now was to further those arrangements. China was in the process of formulating it own position. China believed that, as mentioned by many others, the rules of procedures of the Conference and rules of equity were very important rules and principles. In their view, those rules and principles should be reflected in the specific working arrangements of the next stage of the Conference’s work. They should identify a detailed programme at an early date. Some of the issues were not very clear to them yet and they needed further instructions form Beijing. It was important to appoint the Chairs and Coordinators as soon as possible. China would try to come up with its own position as soon as possible. They hoped that other delegations would maintain the hard work and momentum. China would, as always, play a constructive role in the process.
JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that some delegations had raised issues on the principles they should be looking at if they were to achieve success. Among those, three were particularly important: trust, good faith and balance. It was not helpful if nations now tried to start setting new conditions. The rules and procedures of the Organization were well known. A collective endeavour required “give and take” by all. The Conference should not fall into the trap of identifying new obstacles; they should look for new solutions. The issues identified in the programme of work deserved very serious attention. The positions of the United Kingdom were well known, but that they did not mean that they were not prepared to engage. The key factor was to harness the talent in the room; there were experienced colleagues who had earned the respect of the Conference and they should step forward soon to free the Conference from this obsession with procedural details and to implement the decision that had been taken two weeks ago.
JESUS DOMINGO (Philippines) said that inclusivity was also an important factor. Thus, observer States to the Conference on Disarmament should ipso facto be also given the same rights and privileges in the Working Groups and the discussions led by Special Coordinators and also be allowed to participate in the work of those bodies.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC09030E