CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FIRST PLENARY SESSION OF 2011

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first plenary meeting of its 2011 session, hearing statements from the President of the Conference, Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada, and more than a dozen speakers. It also adopted its agenda for 2011 by consensus.

At the beginning of the meeting, a moment of silence was held for the victims of the terrorist attack at Moscow airport. Most speakers expressed their condolences to the delegation of the Russian Federation.

Marius Grinius, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in preparation for his presidency he had conducted numerous consultations with various bodies including Member States, Observer States, regional groups, and civil society. It would seem that much had not changed here in the last decade. His conclusions from these consultations were as follows: there was considerable frustration that there had not been a programme of work since May 2009; there was considerable disappointment that there were still no negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; some Members States would accept a programme of work only if it included negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; there was a clear indication that they needed to focus on the four core issues, namely nuclear disarmament, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices, the prevention of an arms race to outer space, and negative security assurances. It was also evident that interest in other non-core issues contained in the Conference on Disarmament’s agenda was almost non-existent. There was general support for greater openness and transparency with respect to the Conference on Disarmament’s relationship with civil society. Finally, many Member States reiterated their official policy in favour of expansion of the Conference on Disarmament. In this context, however some States wondered how an expanded Conference on Disarmament would contribute to breaking the current impasse that existed with 65 Members.

Following the address by the President of the Conference, representatives of numerous countries took the floor to address a planned informal meeting between Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and selected delegations by saying that any meeting that involved the Conference on Disarmament’s work should be open to all Member States. It was important that the rules were respected and according to those rules, all Members were to be treated as equal, sovereign States. It was only natural for the entire membership to be interested in the views of the Secretary-General so it was important that the way they proceeded brought them all closer together rather than making distinctions and driving them further apart, especially when they were trying to adopt a programme of work.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said at the end of the meeting that he had spoken to Secretary General Ban over the phone after the exchange of views and the Secretary-General asked Mr. Ordzhonikidze to convey to the delegations that anyone who wanted to attend the meeting could do so in order that they could get the new year off to a good start.

In the statements, there were numerous calls by States for the Conference on Disarmament to focus on its core issues and return to substantive work this year. Great strides had been made in 2009 and 2010 in terms of the international disarmament agenda and now the eyes of the international community were on the Conference; not only was its reputation at stake, but also the momentum and political will that the disarmament agenda currently enjoyed. Several speakers warned that events of the day would bypass the Conference and it risked irrelevance if it did not step up its activity by adopting a programme of work and returning to substantive negotiations.

The Conference also adopted its 2011 agenda by consensus. The Conference’s agenda remains unchanged from previous years, and contains eight items: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; transparency in armaments; and consideration and adoption of the annual report and any other report, as appropriate, to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Speaking this morning were Pakistan, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Brazil, India, Venezuela, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Chile and the Russian Federation.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Wednesday, 26 January at 3 p.m. when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will address the Conference.

Statements

MARIUS GRINIUS, (Canada) President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in preparation for his presidency he had conducted numerous consultations with various bodies including Member States, Observer States, regional groups, and civil society. It would seem that much had not changed here in the last decade. His conclusions from these consultations were as follows: there was considerable frustration that there had not been a programme of work since May 2009; there was considerable disappointment that there were still no negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT); some Members would accept a programme of work only if it included negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; there was a clear indication that they needed to focus on the four core issues, namely nuclear disarmament, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices, the prevention of an arms race to outer space, and negative security assurances. It was also evident that interest in other non-core issues contained in recent Conference on Disarmament agendas was almost non-existent. There was general support for greater openness and transparency with respect to the Conference on Disarmament’s relationship with civil society. Finally, many Member States reiterated their official policy in favour of the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament. In this context, however some States wondered how an expanded Conference on Disarmament would contribute to breaking the current impasse that existed with 65 Members.

Mr. Grinius said from these conclusions his priorities were clear: first, he would continue to consult and to work with all interested parties to identify a programme of work acceptable to all Members. In the pursuit of this objective he would ask for help from all of them, including the regional coordinators. Secondly, he would endeavour to ensure that very little time was wasted and that substantive, worthwhile exchanges on vital disarmament issues took place. Thirdly, he would look to Members to see how they could collectively engage with civil society with greater openness and transparency. Finally, he would continue to consult about how they could learn about previous expansions and what the situation was today.

Mr. Grinius said that 2011 would be a pivotal year for the Conference on Disarmament. In late 2009 and throughout 2010 there were significant positive international security developments from the Security Council Summit of September 2009, to a New START Treaty, to a Nuclear Security Summit, to the successful result of the 2010 Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. At all these milestones, “political will” seemed abundant. In contrast to all these positive security developments elsewhere, the Conference on Disarmament appeared to be an oblivious island of inactivity where “political will” continued to be absent. Tomorrow he expected to hear the Secretary-General urge the Conference on Disarmament to get back to work and he hoped they would heed his call.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that they had received communications that there would be an informal meeting of the P6, the P5 and the regional coordinators with the Secretary-General when he was in Geneva on 26 January. There was a list of countries that had been invited to participate in an informal meeting with the Secretary General after his address to the Conference on Disarmament. The Secretary-General was the Secretary-General for all the countries represented in the room and Mr. Akram found it rather unacceptable for some to have a meeting with the Secretary General on a selective basis. He could accept if the regional coordinators were invited to represent everyone or if the P6 were invited, but he found unacceptable that the P5 countries seemed to take it upon themselves to represent all of them. The Pakistan delegation, for one, spoke for itself and was not ready to accept that kind of representation and they would not be bound by any decisions taken during this meeting with the Secretary-General as they were not there to participate. How was this meeting and its attendees decided upon? Until and unless all of them were included in this meeting, his delegation could not accept any outcome and it would not be an outcome on behalf of the Conference on Disarmament.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said that the high-level meeting in New York had been an excellent opportunity to provide impetus to the Conference’s work. The non-aligned countries did state that any decisions had to be taken with the participation of all Member States, comprehensively and transparently. Any initiative should bring together all delegations without discrimination or distinction.

JUAN QUINTANILLA (Cuba) extended condolences to the people of Russia for the airport tragedy that took place yesterday. He understood the concern expressed by the Ambassador of Pakistan and shared the idea that transparency was important. Any meeting that involved the Conference on Disarmament’s work should be open to all Members.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) took the floor to share the views that had been expressed regarding the Secretary-General’s visit. He welcomed the Secretary-General’s efforts and they were interested in his address before the Conference tomorrow. However, any effort that went forward following that meeting should be conducted with transparency and any interaction should be done with all the Members, not just a selective group of countries. This would be the best way to foster the work of the Conference.

SAYED MOHAMMED REZA SAJJADI (Iran) shared the view of the Ambassador from Pakistan that everyone should be on an equal footing. Any outcome from this selective meeting could not be accepted by his delegation.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) wanted to thank the Ambassador of Pakistan for having drawn their attention to the holding of this select meeting which was far from transparent. He could not see how such an invitee list was arrived at and had they been aware of this previously they might have had some understanding of how the list was determined. He could not understand how some countries were excluded. He agreed with previous speakers that they would in no way feel bound by the outcome of such a meeting.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said the selective meeting with the Secretary-General did not set a good tone for the beginning of a new year and Mr. Grinius’ presidency. There seemed to be a move to have fewer numbers because it streamlined the work, but this was not the way democracy worked and if you wanted to make things really easy you could just invite one country because then all decisions would be easier to make. He was not sure how Brazil was excluded from the list of the invitees to the meeting with Secretary-General and there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the invitee list. It seemed surprising that the Secretary-General would reduce the number of delegations he would like to consult.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) said he would have hoped that Mr. Grinius’ presidency would have started on a better note. His delegation had also learned of this event last night and they were surprised by the selection of invitees. It was important that the rules were respected and work conducted according to those rules, which stated that all Members be treated as equal sovereign States. It was only natural for the entire membership to be interested in the views of the Secretary-General so it was important that the way they proceeded brought them all closer together rather than farther apart, especially when they were trying to adopt a programme of work.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela) noted that the President made comments in his opening statement regarding increased participation by civil society as well as Observer States and this was encouraging because it meant more participation, transparency and democracy would be brought to the Conference. However, this was undermined by selective meetings that did not contribute to the confidence and trust that they needed to have for the Conference to do its work.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said that it was his understanding that the invitation to this meeting with the Secretary-General was not extended by the President of the Conference on Disarmament, and initially he thought perhaps it was best to proceed with a smaller group for pragmatic reasons. But in light of the enthusiasm shown in this hall for this meeting, it was not too late to reconsider such arrangements.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Secretary-General had a very tight schedule here in Geneva. He had about 40 minutes for this meeting and it was not a formal meeting. Overall, he believed the Secretary-General had the right to meet any delegation or group of delegations that he wanted to, taking into account that this was an informal meeting and nothing else. He was not going to present any great new ideas or proposals; his intention was to ask what was going wrong and how they would like to proceed. As Mr. Ordzhonikidze was the Secretary-General’s representative here, he was not objecting to the meeting and he saw the logic of the invitee list, which included the regional coordinators, who could inform the uninvited countries about what had transpired at the meeting. The Member States who were not invited should not see some kind of ploy behind this; everyone would be informed if anything interesting happened at the meeting.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), in a second intervention, said that in light of the explanation given by Mr. Ordzhonikidze, it was incumbent on him to stress the need for an inclusive and transparent approach to the work of the Conference on Disarmament, including interaction with the Secretary-General. He knew that he was a busy man and also addressing the Human Rights Council and a group on humanitarian issues and everyone had been invited to those meetings and whoever wished to take the floor would be invited to do so. He did not see why they could not have the same approach in the Conference on Disarmament. If the Secretary-General had to limit his interactions then the logical choice would be the coordinators of their groups who could then brief them afterwards. But he did not understand the basis on which the P5 were the only ones invited to this meeting. This was not the Security Council, this was the Conference on Disarmament, and he could not accept that his country’s views would be represented, or not, by five countries who were deemed the only ones who could meet with the Secretary-General. Again he stressed that any action or decisions taken from the meeting would not be binding on Pakistan.

The agenda of the 2011 Session of the Conference on Disarmament was then adopted by consensus.

ANDRÁS DÉKÁNY (Hungary) said that over the last two years there had been a revival in the disarmament agenda. Despite this positive momentum, the Conference on Disarmament was once again unable to deliver on its promise to move the disarmament machinery forward. Calls had been issued for this body to start substantive work, but their requests had thus far remained unanswered. This practice could not continue. Mr. Dékány said that tomorrow they would hear from the Secretary-General and he was sure Mr. Ban would not refrain from conveying his deep disappointment regarding the lack of progress on the issues on the agenda.

Mr. Dékány said Hungary was ready to actively engage in discussions whose aim was to rapidly agree on and adopt a programme of work. He appealed to all Member States to be flexible, to be committed to common goals and mandates, and to be ready to adopt the programme of work in order to demonstrate that they were there to deliver on what was expected of them. In only a few weeks, Hungary would start the destruction of its stockpiles of cluster munitions. It would also ratify the Cluster Munitions Convention this year.

Mr. Dékány said that Hungary supported expansion of the Conference on Disarmament as year after year Observer States showed great interest in their deliberations. Civil society was equally committed to moving the Conference on Disarmament agenda forward and they belonged in the wider family.

JAN KNUTSSON (Sweden) said that Sweden had a strong interest in the disarmament agenda, not least nuclear disarmament. They had come to the conclusion that possession of nuclear weapons would be more likely to lessen their security than to enhance it. Subsequently, they had been active in efforts to promote nuclear disarmament and to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons. They were well aware of the recent international developments in the disarmament field, which he characterized as a renewed momentum. They must now, however do more than merely refer to this momentum in speeches. It must be used to the fullest in international fora and processes, particularly in this one, the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. They should use the Conference on Disarmament for what it had been devised to do.

In recent times the Conference on Disarmament membership had, at least once, been able to agree on what it was that the Conference should be doing. They all knew what this carefully crafted compromise looked like. It had never been meant to resolve, in and by itself, real differences in security perception. That had to take place in the actual negotiations. However, they remained convinced that it could form the basis for substantive work, without undermining anyone’s ability to defend their security interests.

Mr. Knutsson said outer space was another topical issue before the Conference on Disarmament. In this age of globalization, mankind was becoming ever more dependent on the peaceful use of space, underlining the need for discussion on space security. This involved preventing an arms race in space as well as dealing with the creation of debris through tests or the use of anti-satellite weapons.

Sweden joined with many others in calling for the immediate commencement of substantial negotiations and discussions in the Conference on Disarmament.

JUAN JOSÉ GÓMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said that 2009 and 2010 saw great strides in the disarmament agenda. This showed it was possible to achieve instruments in this realm. However, a new session of the Conference on Disarmament was starting with a feeling of frustration as there seemed to be no way to break out of the deadlock and everything else was put on hold because of one item. It was imperative that the Conference on Disarmament fulfil its mandate, which was negotiation. Mexico was frustrated that they had not been able to come up with a programme of work and negotiating did not mean that an agreement had to be met, but negotiation was imperative. They could not carry on acting on the basis that one could not touch the structure, membership, agenda or procedural rules. History showed that international bodies adapted and the Conference on Disarmament should be more representative of the world in which they lived, with more participation by civil society and a larger membership. The rule of consensus was abused and was being turned into a veto mechanism.

JAMES MANZOU (Zimbabwe) said that his country attached great importance to all four core agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament. Their top priority was nuclear disarmament to be followed by a general and complete disarmament in order to foster international peace and security for all mankind. It was reprehensible that global military expenditures reached approximately 1.6 trillion USD in 2009 at the expense of poverty alleviation and efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015.

Meanwhile, the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had been in a state of paralysis for over 12 years. They could certainly do better and indeed they must do better for the sake of future generations. However, efforts to achieve this noble objective should not undermine the cornerstone principle guiding their work, namely that of consensus. It was Zimbabwe’s considered position that the consensus rule was still valid and relevant to their work today. It empowered all States to assert their national security interests and priorities in the Conference. The Conference on Disarmament and its predecessor bodies had a track record of negotiating landmark disarmament treaties such as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) among others. This august body was still capable of attaining many more successes. Zimbabwe strongly believed that with the highest level political will and leadership, the Conference on Disarmament should be in a position to resume substantive negotiations soon.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARONGO OLMOS (Colombia) made a call for cooperation and flexibility from all Member States so they could make significant progress in their work this year. The fact that they could not come to a consensus on a programme of work should not prevent them from having negotiations on key issues that were on the agenda. The eyes of the international community were on the Conference on Disarmament and it was not just the reputation of the Conference that was on the line, but also this momentum they had to finally achieve a nuclear free world.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said Chile planned to shoulder their political obligations and continue with the work design that had been laid out by the President of the Conference. It would be a contribution to the Conference and allow it to address the substantive work in the plenary. The participation of civil society would enrich the work of Member States. The international climate was not a bad one and it led to a shared feeling that they were at a special junction and they needed to be reflective and realistic, but at the same time take concrete actions. It was quite clear that there was interest in reactivating multilateralism in this sphere and the Conference on Disarmament needed to be at the heart of these actions. They needed to move toward the collective interest which included revitalizing the disarmament machinery.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum and their work was directly affected by developments in the international political system. Over the last two years, Pakistan had clearly stated that it could not agree to a fissile materials treaty in the Conference on Disarmament due to the discriminatory waver granted to its neighbour for nuclear cooperation by several major powers, as this arrangement would further accentuate the asymmetry in fissile materials stockpiles in the region, to the detriment of Pakistan’s security interests. Pakistan had been compelled to take this position due to the selective and discriminatory action of certain States in violation of their own national and international commitments, in pursuit of profit and outdated Cold War concepts of containment and balance of power.

Once again, they were witnessing a blatant violation of national and international commitments that had been undertaken to uphold the international non-proliferation regime. Once again, selectivity, exceptionalism, discrimination and double standards were being employed at the cost of international principles as well as commitments. These developments would amount to a paradigm shift in strategic terms and be a step toward fundamentally altering the very basis of the international non-proliferation regime. The message that such steps transmitted was that the major powers could change the rules of the game if it was in their interest to do so. Pakistan strongly believed that double standards and discrimination must be rejected. These measures would also further destabilize security in South Asia.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) thanked the delegations for their outpouring of support and kind words for the country after the terrorist attack at a Moscow airport yesterday. Among those who died and were injured were totally innocent foreign nationals and he expressed condolences to the families of these victims. This showed yet again terrorism was a global threat to mankind and they had to work together to put an end to it.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that he had spoken to Secretary-General Ban over the phone after the exchange of views and the Secretary-General was happy that everyone wanted to meet him. He had not expected this outpouring of interest and had only 45 minutes so he planned to have a very informal exchange of views. But after hearing about their interest, the Secretary-General asked Mr. Ordzhonikidze to convey to the delegations that anyone who wanted to attend the meeting could do so in order that they could get the new year off to a good start.

The President of the Conference and several countries then had an exchange to clarify questions regarding the agenda as well as the nature of future meetings.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/002E