CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESS BY CO-CHAIR OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT

This morning the Conference on Disarmament heard an address by Gareth Evans, Co-Chairman of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, an initiative of Australia and Japan. The Australian Ambassador, Caroline Millar, inaugurating the Australian Presidency of the Conference, which began this week, also spoke, along with representatives of Japan, Malaysia, China, the Philippines, Iran and Syria.

Mr. Evans said that the Commission wanted to re-energize a high-level political debate about the interconnected issues of disarmament. The international community had been sleepwalking on a whole range of issues in the last years. Formally established as an independent Commission by Japan and Australia, the Commission was now broadly represented, as all Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) member States were on it, plus India and Pakistan. The present intention of the Commission was to publish a major report by the end of this year and it was also working on an evaluation and identification of the risks linked with existing nuclear States and the risks of use and misuse of nuclear weapons. The Commission also wanted to try to tackle the sense of complacency currently prevailing in the general public and in Governments that the whole problem of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament was not such a big deal. The core message of the Commission was that as long as any State possessed nuclear weapons, others would want them too, and that as long as States had some nuclear weapons, there would be a risk that they were used, which could be catastrophic.

The Commission's short-term vision focused on a number of issues that had a high level of urgency and which had to be accomplished by 2012: to secure a successful 2010 NPT Review Conference; strengthening the NPT itself; addressing the issues of safeguards, compliance and enforcement; addressing the institutional questions about the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant institutions. Another element of the short-term agenda was the obvious necessity to find a solution on the issues of Iran and North Korea. There was also a real necessity for the current bilateral process of arms reduction negotiations between Russia and the United States to go into many more issues than those currently being addressed in the START II negotiations. A further objective was to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force.

In the ensuing interactive discussion, States thanked the Commission for its work. The Philippines wondered whether there was any planned collaboration between the Commission and the Conference on Disarmament or the First Committee of the General Assembly. Iran said that it knew that some countries had nuclear weapons or were directly benefiting from a third party's nuclear protection, and wondered how the Commission would really resolve that problem. With regard to the Commission's upcoming conference to be held in Cairo and dedicated to the Middle East region, Syria wondered what would the aim of that Conference would be and what parties would be involved in it? Further, what was the relationship between the Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Ms. Millar said that Australia's objective during its Presidency was to ensure that the Conference made the best use of the time available to it in 2009. She hoped that Member States would be in a position to adopt, at the next plenary, the list of proposed Chairs and Special Coordinators as well as the proposed schedule of work. Some delegations had raised legitimate concerns and she was continuing to consult with delegations to address them. She also realized that some delegations had yet to receive instructions from their capitals. She noted that the decisions included in CD/1867 and CD/1866/Rev.1 were only for 2009. The Conference's 2010 session would have to take its own decisions and to come up with its own programme of work and proposals.

Draft decision CD/1867 on the implementation of CD/1864 (the adopted programme of work) is a proposed list of names for the appointment of Chairs of the four working groups and the three Special Coordinators.

Draft document CD/1866/Rev.1 is a proposed schedule of activities for the meetings of the Conference on Disarmament the four working groups and the three special coordinatorships from 29 June to 18 September 2009.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 2 July 2009.

Statements

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference, said that it was with great honour that Australia assumed the presidency of the Conference, especially at this important time when they had agreed on a balanced programme of work. Introducing today's guest speaker, Mr. Gareth Evans, she noted that he had an impressive resume, including as one of Australia's longest-serving Foreign Ministers, and he was integrally linked to Australia's active history of involvement in disarmament. As Foreign Minister he had been instrumental in bringing to a conclusion the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Commission he was currently chairing was a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments that aimed to reinvigorate international efforts on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the context of both the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and beyond.

GARETH EVANS, Co-Chairman of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, said that he was probably one of the few people in the world who might remember the times when the Conference had been achieving very impressive results. He thought that the institution was fully capable of delivering results. The only problem was political will. Turning to the work of the International Commission, he said that it aimed to contribute to the work the Conference was doing. They wanted to re-energize a high-level political debate about the interconnected issues of disarmament. The international community had been sleepwalking on a whole range of issues in the last years.

What could be done by the Commission that had not been done by other disarmament groups, Mr. Evans asked? The added value was the timing of the initiative. All had currently a sense that they were riding a sort of wave and not only because of the new United States Administration. These positive times had been reflected in the adoption of a programme of work by the Conference on Disarmament, but also in the ongoing START II negotiations between the United States and Russia. The second added-value of the Commission was its representative character. Formally established as an independent Commission by Japan and Australia, it was now broadly represented, as all NPT member States were on it, plus India and Pakistan. There was a serious attempt to bring together all different visions and ideas of its membership.

The present intention of the Commission was to publish a major report by the end of the year Mr. Evans, said. As to the substance of what the Commission would be proposing, although not fully identified yet, there would be, among other points, an evaluation and identification of the risks linked with existing nuclear States and the risks of use and misuse of nuclear weapons as well as the risk linked to their use; the problems of nuclear proliferation; and the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists and other non-State actors. The issue of civil nuclear programmes should also be addressed, he added. It also wanted to try to tackle the sense of complacency currently prevailing in the general public and in Governments that the whole problem of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament was not such a big deal. The core message of the Commission was that as long as any State possessed nuclear weapons others would want them too and that as long as States would have some nuclear weapons, there would be a risk that they were used, which could be catastrophic.

The Commission was also working on a kind of action plan with short-, medium- and long-term visions, noted Mr. Evans. The short-term vision had 2012 as its target. There were a number of issues that had a high level of urgency and which had to be accomplished by then: to secure a successful 2010 NPT Review Conference; strengthening the NPT itself, in the light of all that had been learned about its weaknesses; addressing the issues of safeguards, compliance and enforcement; addressing the institutional questions about the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant institutions. Another element of the short-term agenda included the obvious necessity to find a solution on the issues of Iran and North Korea. There was also a real necessity for the current bilateral process of arms reduction negotiations between Russia and the United States to go into many more issues than those currently being addressed in the START II negotiations. A further objective was to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force. Among medium-term objectives were to put in place all the remaining non-proliferation objectives: to achieve major progress in disarmament in general, to get existing stocks to a very low number, to reduce to a maximum their degree of deployment and degree of readiness. There was also a need to adopt a doctrine, saying that the existence of nuclear weapons was only justified as a means of deterrence against the proliferation of such weapons. On the long-term vision, the Commission would look for a shift from very low numbers of nuclear weapons to zero. They also wanted to identify what kind of changes would have to happen to achieve that goal of zero nuclear weapons.

What they needed most was an injection of political will to sustain this agenda over that long period of time, Mr. Evans observed. They had to create an atmosphere were everyone was serious about that objective. To get that sense of seriousness, it would require sustained leadership by existing nuclear-weapon States, but also peer group pressure from institutions such as the Commission. Civil society also needed to be involved in the process to keep Governments engaged.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) praised the President and his Six Presidents (P6) colleagues for their outstanding efforts in steering the Conference on Disarmament out of its deadlock and back onto the path of substantive work. He also expressed his delegation's deep gratitude to Mr. Evans for his timely and comprehensive briefing. The presentation had provided the Conference with a wealth of useful ideas that would augment the negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and the other discussions that would commence under the Conference's programme of work.

Japan, as the only country that had suffered nuclear bombings, had consistently adhered to its three non-nuclear principles and had demonstrated its strong resolve towards achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It was submitting every year to the General Assembly a resolution on the total elimination of nuclear weapons; it actively promoted the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and it had faithfully implemented its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement for over 30 years and had fully ensured international confidence in its peaceful use of nuclear energy. Mr. Suda said that Japan was certain that the Commission would strengthen the recent positive movement in nuclear disarmament and that the outcome of its work would contribute to the success of the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

AZRIL ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia) encouraged the President to continue the consultations that had been conducted by her predecessor to fully implement the Conference's programme of work. Given the time left, the adoption of draft decision CD/1866 would allow the Conference to make full use of the remaining time of the current session. Malaysia was convinced that both proposed draft documents, CD/1866 and CD/1867, included all necessary elements for the Conference to move towards substantive work. He called on all delegations to make all efforts for an early adoption of both draft decisions.

LI YANG (China) said that China would continue to support the work of the Presidency in a constructive manner, so that the Conference could arrive at an agreement on the implementation of the programme of work as early as possible. Turning to Mr. Evan's presentations, China appreciated the Commission and thanked all its experts for their work. Since its creation, the Commission had done very forward-looking work. It had not issued a political proposal yet, but there was a practical proposal in the form of a work plan. China hoped that the Commission would further promote the issue of non-proliferation and disarmament and China would fully support it. China had always supported a complete ban on and total destruction of nuclear weapons and thus was in conformity with the Commission's principles. China would send one of their ex-vice foreign ministers to work with the Commission.

JESUS DOMINGO (Philippines) said the Conference had been inspired by Mr. Evans overview of its short-, medium- and long-term goals. He asked if there were a mechanism for interested States to collaborate with the Commission? Further, was there any planned collaboration between the Commission and the Conference on Disarmament or the General Assembly's First Committee? On the regional and sub regional consultations, would Oceania and South-East Asia be included?

GARETH EVANS, Co-Chairman of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, answered that they had not worked out yet what their collaboration would be with the United Nations system. The Commission would surely want to make use of the full array of existing multilateral bodies to promote its priorities. Perhaps early next year, once the Commission's formal report was adopted, they could look into this matter. They had not yet planned to collaborate with the Pacific region, but would also look into it.

MOHAMED TAGHI HOSSEINI (Iran) said that Iran welcomed all dignitaries from capitals who wished to talk about the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Iran considered Mr. Evans' speech today as a national view by a delegation. Any other participation by any other party would have had to be considered by the Conference in plenary and accepted by full consensus. The words Mr. Evans had said about Iran were not accurate and had not reflected the reality on the ground. Iran was also of the idea that as long as nuclear weapons existed they might be used. That was a reality. However, they knew that some countries had such weapons or were directly benefiting from a third party's nuclear protection. He wondered how the Commission would really resolve that problem?

GARETH EVANS, Co-Chairman of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, said that he thought that his statement had been quite fair. Iran was a country of concern because of unresolved Security Council issues. But he himself had also argued that one should not make any assumptions about Iran's will to get nuclear weapons. It simply was an issue where the international community wished to have more comfort.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria greatly appreciated the efforts Mr. Evans was making in the Commission. Syria had felt quite encouraged by what he had said and hoped that the Commission would achieve its objectives. Regarding the Commission's upcoming conference to be held in Cairo and dedicated to the Middle East region, what would be the aim of the Conference be and what parties would be involved in it? Further, what was the relationship between the Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency? Was there a complementarity between both organs or were they competing?

GARETH EVANS, Co-Chairman of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, said that people were speaking freely in the Commission and that it was currently in a listening mode. They were still in the process of understanding the dynamics of the key players in the region. There was not a competitive relationship between the Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Commission was supportive of it. The Commission was also addressing the question of whether the jurisdiction of the International Atomic Energy Agency should be widened and if it should become the verifying agency under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in concluding remarks, said that Australia's objective was to ensure that the Conference made the best use of the time available to it in 2009. She encouraged delegations to make substantive statements on the issues covered in the programme of work at the Conference's next plenary. That would help guide the forthcoming deliberations in the four working groups and the special coordinatorships. She also hoped that Member States would be in a position to adopt, at the next plenary, the list of proposed Chairs and Special Coordinators as well as the propose schedule of work. Some delegations had raised legitimate concerns and she was continuing to consult with delegations to address them. She also realized that some delegations had yet to receive instructions from their capitals. She noted that the decision on the appointment of Chairs and Special Coordinators were only for 2009. The Conference's 2010 session would have to take its own decisions and to come up with its own programme of work and proposals. Further, in light of the fact that the working groups and the special coordinatorships had not started their work this week as planned, document CD/1866 had been replaced by document CD/1866/Rev.1.


For use of information media; not an official record

DC09034E