CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES DRAFT PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the last plenary meeting of the second part of its 2010 session and discussed draft programme of work CD/1889. Zimbabwe and Hungary made farewell statements and the European Union, Ukraine, Italy, United States, Argentina, Japan, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Germany and Pakistan took the floor to comment on the proposed draft.

Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he would accommodate all States concerned in his efforts to seek a compromise on a programme of work for the Conference. It was regrettable that they had not yet started substantive work, especially as they had reached the end of the second part of the 2010 session. He would continue consultations on the basis of CD/1889 and would also use the upcoming recess to do so. While the draft had just been presented last week, its substance was not a surprise but he understood that delegations needed to get their capitals’ reaction first.

Zimbabwe said it viewed CD/1889 as a good starting basis for carrying the work of the Conference forward. Hungary said it was ready to accept CD/1889 and also welcomed the retention of the negotiating mandate for the long overdue Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The European Union said document CD/1889 constituted a compromise document containing elements to finally break the decade-long deadlock, but despite the enormous efforts, the Conference had not reached consensus on the programme of work. Ukraine supported the draft programme of work CD/1889 and was convinced that it was crucially important to achieve consensus on the draft as soon as possible. Italy said CD/1889 was a balanced document and hoped that they would have settled the important question on the programme of work by this September, when the high-level meeting took place in New York. The United States said since this was the last plenary of this second part of the current session, and as they would have to report to their capitals on the state of affairs at the Conference, she wondered whether the President could give any status report on the current situation. Argentina said it would continue to be flexible to support consensus and joined it on document CD/1889. Japan said it supported the current proposal CD/1889. The Republic of Korea expressed its willingness to accept draft programme of work CD/1889 and wished to see the utmost flexibility so that the Conference could adopt the draft. Turkey said that they could go along with the consensus on the basis of CD/1889. Germany said it seemed that there were no objections to the draft and wondered why they could not state that there was consensus on it. Pakistan said it had made its position very clear on the issue of the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty which was unacceptable to them because it undermined their security interests. That position had not changed.

The Presidential Draft Decision on the Establishment of a Programme of Work for the 2010 Session (CD/1889) proposes to establish: a working group under agenda item 1, entitled “Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament”, to exchange views and information on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination; a second working group under agenda item 1 which shall negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; a working group under agenda item 3, entitled “Prevention of an arms race in outer space”, to discuss substantively, without limitation, not excluding the possibility of multilateral negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on all issues related to that matter; and a working group under agenda item 4, entitled “Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons”, to discuss this agenda item, not excluding an internationally legally binding instrument. The draft also proposes to appoint three special coordinators under the agenda items on “New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons”; “Comprehensive programme of disarmament”; and “ Transparency in armament” who would seek views of Conference members on the most appropriate way to deal with the questions related to these items.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will take place after the summer recess and will be announced by the Secretariat in due time. The third and last part of the 2010 session will be held from 9 August to 24 September.

Statements

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), said that he would accommodate all States concerned in his efforts to seek a compromise on a programme of work for the Conference. It was regrettable that they had not yet started substantive work, especially as they reached the end of the second part of the 2010 session. While draft decision WP.559 had been a logical follow-up of last year’s adopted programme of work, it had not reached consensus. Brazil had then conducted extensive bilateral consultations with all members to reach draft decision CD/1889 which was a good and fair comprise. He would continue consultations on the basis of this document and would also use the upcoming recess to do so. While the draft had just been presented last week, its substance was not a surprise but he understood that delegations needed to get their capitals’ reaction first. He however invited delegations to speak on this issue today.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), in a farewell statement, said that Zimbabwe was a non-nuclear weapon State and had no ambitions or appetite to acquire them and attached great importance to all the four core agenda items of the Conference. His country’s top priority was a general and complete nuclear disarmament in order to maintain and foster international peace and security. The Conference’s mechanisms should be deployed in such a manner as to rid the world of these dangerous weapons. Zimbabwe cherished the Conference’s past accomplishments; those vindicated the fact that the Conference’s rules of procedure were the cornerstone and the fulcrum guiding its work. These assured both small and big States the opportunity to assert their national security interests and priorities. The consensus principle underpinned the work of the Conference; it had worked very well in the past and continued to be useful and relevant. Any attempt to demean, circumvent or amend the Rules of Procedures would not add any value or utility and could only be viewed as an exercise that was counter-productive.

Mr. Chipaziwa welcomed the recent tabling of a draft decision for the establishment of a programme of work by the Brazilian Presidency. Zimbabwe viewed this as a good starting basis for carrying the work of the Conference forward. All efforts this year could usefully be focused towards ensuring that all members reached consensus on it. Further, his delegation was convinced that it was imprudent for the Conference to succumb to pressure tactics emanating for outside this body. The Conference should act objectively, independently and at its own pace for it to remain credible and relevant. Zimbabwe welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General’s decision to convene a High-Level meeting of the United Nations Member States on Disarmament and on the Conference on Disarmament. This meeting could enhance the Conference’s reputation, if the Conference could have adopted a programme of work and moved on to the implementation phase by the time of that gathering in New York.

KLARA TUNYOGI AKOTS (Hungary), in a farewell statement, said that when she arrived at the beginning of 2009 she had immediately felt that something was happening in the Conference. 2009 had been a special year in the Council Chamber when the long waited programme of work had been adopted by consensus under the Algerian Presidency. Last week they had been introduced to a new draft programme of work. These two major documents provided a certain framework for the Conference. Although there were many similarities between the two documents, there were, at the same time, many significant changes. Hungary stood ready to accept these changes. They also welcomed the retention of the negotiating mandate for the long overdue Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. A programme of work without such mandate would be out of reality. She hoped that during the intercessional period concerned delegations would have enough time to consider the merits of the current draft programme of work and that the Conference would be ready to adopt it as soon as possible.

DIMITRIS ILIOPOULOS, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union appreciated the Presidents’ tireless efforts in promoting progress in the Conference. They particularly commended the efforts of the Brazilian Presidency in producing document CD/1889. The European Union considered this document to be another step in getting the Conference back to substantive work. It also constituted a compromise document containing elements to finally break the decade-long deadlock. This year, the Conference was again bogged down in endless consultations related to the implementation of the programme of work. Despite the enormous efforts that were undertaken under the 2010 Presidents, the Conference had not reached consensus on the programme of work; this was hard to understand and even harder to explain to their political leaders, he said.

The European Union hoped that the draft programme of work would be a sound and practical basis for substantial progress in areas of major concerns to all members of the Conference. The European Union supported the President’s efforts in reaching consensus on this document. They were however disappointed that their flexibility had not been answered with a more constructive attitude by some delegations but they remained committed to the Conference and to the immediate start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine) said that Ukraine highly appreciated the efforts that were made by the Brazilian Presidency and the other P6 members to start, as soon as possible, work in the Conference on Disarmament. Ukraine supported the draft programme of work CD/1889. Ukraine was convinced that it was crucially important to achieve consensus on the draft as soon as possible.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) expressed Italy’s appreciation to the Brazilian’s Presidency and the way it had conducted consultations. CD/1889 was a balanced document and he hoped that they would have settled the important question on the programme of work by this September, when the high-level meeting would take place.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that the United States continued to see last year’s adopted programme of work as a golden standard. They also appreciated the efforts of the Brazilian Presidency and the current Presidency’s efforts to achieve consensus. Since this was the last plenary of the second part of the current session, and as they would have to report to their capitals on the state of affairs at the Conference, the United States wondered whether the President could give any status report on the current situation. Some delegations had expressed last week the need to get instructions from their capitals. Could the President give an update on this?

Turning to the informal meetings, Ms. Kennedy said that the Conference should review the current practice whereby coordinators had to continue to call for meetings, even though the speakers’ lists were exhausted. Coordinators should be able to make their own judgment whether further meetings were needed or not. One should use common sense and fiscal considerations and not bring someone to call for a meeting when there were no more speakers who wished to speak.

MARIELA FOGANTE (Argentina) said that Argentina was grateful for the efforts that had been undertaken by the Brazilian Presidency. Argentina would continue to be flexible to support consensus and joined it on document CD/1889. This document was the basis for continuing consultations during the intercessional period.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) said that most of the delegations were eager to see an early agreement and consensus on the draft programme of work. Japan supported the current proposal CD/1889. Japan also supported the concerns expressed by the United States on the informal meetings. While these meetings had been very interesting, the Conference should be more flexible in conducting these meetings.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea also appreciated the Presidents’ efforts to reach agreement on a programme of work. He expressed his country’s willingness to accept draft programme of work CD/1889 and wished to see the utmost flexibility so that the Conference could adopt the draft.



GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), concluded, from what he had heard, that CD/1889 was widely accepted by the Conference’s Member States. Responding to the United States’ request for an update on the situation, he invited delegations who had received instructions from their capitals since last week to share these with the Conference’s members.

MALIKE SELCUK SANCAR (Turkey) said that they could go along with the consensus on the basis of CD/1889.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said that he had asked for the floor because it seemed to him that there were no objections to the draft. He wondered why they could not state that there was consensus on it.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that, as he had mentioned in last week’s meeting, his delegation had always made its position very clear on the issue of the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. For reasons very well-known to all, such a negotiation was unacceptable to them because it undermined their security interests. That position had not changed.



For use of the information media; not an official record


DC10/031E