CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL FOR A PROGRAMME OF WORK
The President of the Conference on Disarmament this morning tabled a proposal on the establishment of a programme of work for the 2010 Session of the Conference. The Director of the Department of International Organizations at the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil and several other speakers expressed support for the proposal.
Ambassador Luiz Filipe De Macedo Soares of Brazil, President of the Conference on Disarmament, tabling his draft proposal CD/1889, said that in the previous weeks he had conducted consultations with all delegations and regional groups so as to enable the Conference to resume its substantive work. During these consultations he had heard the points of view of all delegations and he had attempted to find a solution that encompassed all comments. His draft programme of work was also based upon CD/WP.559 that had been tabled under the Presidency of Belarus last March.
Carlos Duarte, Director of the Department of International Organizations, Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, said that it was Brazil’s hope that the draft tabled today would help in reaching agreement. Brazil recognized and respected the rules under which this body operated and did not put into question the legitimate security interests these sought to cover. However, in the past, these same rules had not prevented the Conference from agreeing to launch negotiations even when certain substantive divergences remained. The difficulties confronting the Conference did not stem from the nature of the Conference, its structure, composition or regulations. If it had been so, the problem would have been solved through smart political engineering. What they were facing, and which was far more serious, was the blockage of international relations in their most vital dimensions. Seen in this light, the protracted impasse in this body worked to the detriment of genuine, rule-oriented multilateralism as the basis for international negotiations in all fronts. Paralysis ultimately served the status quo – in which nuclear weapons continued to exist and, by their very existence, continued to pose a grave threat to all mankind.
Canada, Mexico, Germany, the Netherlands, Belarus, the United States, the United Kingdom, Chile and Australia took the floor to express support for the President’s draft proposal.
Pakistan said that the President’s draft proposal was a new document and different than the one they had seen during the consultations with the President. They would thus need to first get instructions from their capital before being able to express Pakistan’s position.
Algeria noted that the adoption of a programme of work was linked to the balance of the overall security interests in different parts of the world. Thus, the Conference needed to achieve a political agreement on these issues first and to translate it into legal language to move forward.
Indonesia said the President’s proposal was a good starting point. However, there were some points in the proposal that some delegations and his own wished to see different.
Syria said today’s discussion was decreasing the distance remaining to reach an agreement. More consultations and more transparency would in the end lead them to a programme of work that would be satisfactory and acceptable to all.
India, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, expressed the Group of 21’s sincere thanks for the President’s efforts and the way in which he had led consultations.
At the end of the meeting, the President of the Conference said that his draft proposal would remain on the table and that it would be up to his successor from Bulgaria to decide the best course to follow.
The President’s proposal, entitled Draft Decision of 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 to 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 meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will take place on Tuesday, 13 July at 11 a.m. It will be the first meeting under the presidency of Bulgaria. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, Nikolay Mladenov, will address the Conference at that meeting. Frank Rose, United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Policy and Verification Operations, will also address the Conference to present the New National Space Policy of the United States.
Statements
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Brazil), said that in his capacity as President of the Conference on Disarmament he had decided to table draft programme of work CD/1889, according to Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedures, which stated that the Conference’s provisional agenda and programme of work should be drawn up by the President with the assistance of the Secretary-General and presented to the Conference for consideration and adoption. In the previous weeks he had conducted consultations with all delegations and regional groups so as to enable the Conference to resume its substantive work. During these consultations he had heard the points of view of all delegations and he had attempted to find a solution that encompassed all comments. His draft programme of work was also based upon CD/WP.559 that had been tabled under the Presidency of Belarus last March.
MARIUS GRINUS (Canada) thanked the President for all the work he had done and for trying to bring the Conference on Disarmament back to work. Canada would support this latest proposal and would be prepared to work on its basis.
JUAN IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said that he also wished to express appreciation for the enormous efforts that the President had done. He expressed the total support of Mexico for the draft proposal.
ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that the President’s draft proposal was a new document and that during the consultations with the President he had seen another document. He would thus need to first get instructions from his capital before being able to express Pakistan’s position on this document. He also took thanked the President for the work he had done and for having conducted it in the most constructive manner.
CARLOS DUARTE, Director of the Department of International Organizations, Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, said that he had been fortunate enough to participate in this Conference at a time when it had been engaged in the negotiations that had led to the adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Since then, regrettably, this body had been gripped by paralysis. This state of affairs was all the more worrisome given the Conference’s central stage role in the international peace and security machinery. With regard to the draft programme of work tabled today, it was Brazil’s hope that it would help in reaching agreement. Brazil also recognized and respected the rules under which this body operated and did not put into question the legitimate security interests these sought to cover. However, in the past, these same rules had not prevented the Conference from agreeing to launch negotiations even when certain substantive divergences remained. Those had been dealt with in the negotiations proper. Thus, consensus could be made to work for the interests of all. The difficulties confronting the Conference did not stem from the nature of the Conference, its structure, composition or regulations. If it had been so, the problem would have been solved through smart political engineering. What they were facing, and which was far more serious, was the blockage of international relations in their most vital dimensions, i.e. power and security.
Seen in this light, the protracted impasse in this body worked to the detriment of genuine, rule-oriented multilateralism as the basis for international negotiations in all fronts. Such an impasse clearly worked against adequately, and multilaterally, dealing with issues that were of interest to all nations. Paralysis ultimately served the status quo – in which nuclear weapons continued to exist and, by their very existence, continued to pose a grave threat to all mankind. It was essential that the international community counted on a permanent multilateral body charged with negotiating disarmament and arms control. Mr. Duarte also noted that Brazil had presented a working paper on a possible structure for the fissile material treaty, which could be an incentive towards the adoption of the programme of work. The general structure proposed in that document would preserve each and every delegation’s point of view. It comprised a framework or umbrella treaty and two protocols, one prohibiting future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices and the second dealing with pre-existing fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. Turning to the upcoming high-level meeting in New York next September, he underlined that its objective was not to circumvent the Conference but to support its work. Political impetus expected from this meeting would be more effective in case the Conference would have already agreed on a programme of work by then.
HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) thanked the President for his outstanding efforts in trying to move the difficult issue of the programme of work forward. The President had added a few useful elements to the draft. The approach in the draft seemed to enjoy very wide support from the Conference. While he understood that delegations needed further instructions from their capitals, he very much hoped that, in view of the high-level event later this year, the Conference would be able to deliver a message that it was getting closer to the adoption of a programme of work.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) expressed his delegation’s enormous appreciation for the work done by the President and for him trying to move the work of the Conference forward. The adoption of a programme of work was linked to the balance of the overall security interests in the different parts of the world. Thus, the Conference needed to achieve a political agreement on these issues first and to translate it into legal language to move forward. It was unfortunate that the Conference could not yet achieve consensus on the programme of work. However, this should not be seen as a failure, but rather as incapacity of the Conference to address the security issues of delegations.
As mentioned by Brazil, the upcoming high-level meeting in September in support of the work of the Conference on Disarmament would be a useful opportunity. Delegations in the Conference should engage into a discussion on what would be the best outcome of this high-level meeting for the Conference on Disarmament, said Mr. Jazairy. Further, when talking about the programme of work, he often heard from some delegations about issues being “ripe”. To say that one issue was riper that another was a way of saying that it was ripe for one group over another. One should respect the sensitivities of the different groups and the various priorities of the delegations.
PAUL VAN DER IJSSEL (Netherlands) said the Netherlands appreciated the efforts of the President to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work. The Netherlands thought that the proposal was a very balanced text and they hoped that they could start the work of the Conference as soon as possible.
JUAN IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said he wanted to express the feeling of frustration of the Mexican Government on the inability of this forum to negotiate disarmament issues. He deplored the fact that they could not approve this draft programme of work. Mexico had always been committed to the Conference on Disarmament and had always seen its work as a tool rather than a purpose in itself. But this tool was now totally broken. The only thing they could aspire to now was to explore with an open mind the different alternatives that existed in the wider international community to achieve the goals of disarmament. Mexico had also received with great pleasure the invitation to the high-level summit in New York. This was an opportunity to giving momentum to the Conference and to review its machinery. The problem was not the Conference in itself; the States decided if it functioned or not. One thing was clear: the Conference was not responding anymore to the current state of the world; it had been set up in a different time for different matters.
DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) commended the balanced manner in which the President had conducted his work. Indonesia attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body. All efforts had to be exhausted in order to break the current impasse. The President’s proposal was a good starting point. However, there were some points in the proposal that some delegations and his own wished to see different. Emphasizing Indonesia’s efforts to strive for total nuclear disarmament, he said that the treaty on fissile material should cover the issue of verification. The actual stocks of fissile material were so large that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would have no impact on the further production of nuclear weapons without verification.
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus) highlighted the transparent approach with which the President had conducted his consultations with delegations. Belarus expressed its support for the draft proposal. It was the product of many days of multilateral efforts to further the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The amendments made in certain paragraphs would help to bring States closer and give hope to delegations that there would be no detriment to the proposals and views of any delegations during negotiations. Belarus called for the adoption of the programme of work by the Conference. There were a number of General Assembly resolutions which called upon the Conference on Disarmament to do this. They needed to show that they were able to work constructively.
LAURA KENNEDY (United States) expressed the disappointment of the United States about the fact that the Conference was ending Brazil’s presidency without being able to achieve any consensus on the proposed programme of work. But the issue was also too important to give way to despair; they would have to find ways to continue to move this issue forward, be it bilaterally and multilaterally.
JO ADAMSON (United Kingdom) paid tribute to the President and for the way with which he had conducted the session. His draft programme met a lot of different “appetites”. When arriving at a certain point in negotiations everyone wished to get things with different “flavours”. However, the United Kingdom was very much ready to “come to the dinner and eat the menu as it was proposed by the President”.
PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) thanked the President for his efforts. The draft incorporated a gradual and balanced approach. Chile was able to support it. The fundamental questions they needed to asked themselves now was whether the conditions existed outside of this forum to conduct the work they could not fulfil in the Conference on Disarmament. The upcoming high-level meeting would have to review and take stock of the external conditions that would provide for the Conference on Disarmament to function. It was time for this exercise of reflecting and looking at this aspect of paralysis.
FAYSAL KHABBAZ-HAMOUI (Syria) thanked the President for all his efforts. He had undertaken the consultations and today he had tabled an excellent paper. This success was not something strange for Brazil, taking into account the success the country had achieved together with Turkey in reaching the Teheran Declaration. Today’s discussion was decreasing the distance remaining to reach an agreement. The non-adoption of the document would not lead to despair. More consultations and more transparency would in the end lead them to a programme of work that would be satisfactory and acceptable to all.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Brazil), said that his draft proposal would remain on the table and that it would be up to his successor from Bulgaria to decide the best course to follow.
ALI RAO (India), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, expressed the Group of 21’s sincere thanks for the President’s efforts and the way in which he had led consultations.
PAUL WILSON (Australia) wanted to put on record his delegation’s appreciation for the President’s efforts. Australia also supported the draft programme of work. He hoped that collective leadership could be found in this place to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC10/029E