CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESSES BY DIGNITARIES FROM CANADA, FINLAND, THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this afternoon, hearing addresses from Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, Alexander Stubb, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States of America, and Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico.

Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, said that the longer the stalemate in the Conference lasted, the more trust among its Members was lost and the spirit of compromise became harder to build. If consensus continued to be blocked on the programme of work, countries would increasingly look to find disarmament results in other fora. Canada would do all that was in its power to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work in 2011.

Alexander Stubb, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that regrettably the efforts to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament seemed not to have taken root. The swift resumption of negotiations would allow it to regain its authority. This body had achieved much in the past and there was no good reason why it should not be allowed to do so also in the future.

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States of America, said that the world faced no shortage of ingredients for nuclear weapons, and yet more ingredients were produced every day. Halting production was in the interest of every country, and the United States urged the Conference to end the stalemate and open negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without further delay. This was too important a matter to be left forever, Ms. Clinton underscored.

Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, said that Mexico had always respected the Conference, but could not accept that its way of acting jeopardized the achievement of the ultimate goal. It was the break the existing inertia and find a way to achieve a disarmament agenda.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 1 March at 10 a.m. when it will hear addresses from the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, Iran, Australia, Slovenia, Thailand, Cuba and Bangladesh, as well as the Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration and the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea.

Statements

LAWRENCE CANNON, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, said that this year Canada faced the same challenge that every recent incoming President of the Conference had confronted since the negotiation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: its traditional multilateral disarmament machinery had effectively stalled. Canada had served as the first President of the 2011 session of the Conference. As a country that had participated actively in all the multilateral disarmament bodies since 1946, Canada was among many States that had been party to the landmark successes which the Conference and its predecessor had achieved. Today, the threat of nuclear proliferation to international peace and security was alarming. Having negotiated a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, since 1998 the Conference had found itself unable to start negotiations on the next logical disarmament and non-proliferation measure: a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for such weapons. The longer the stalemate in the Conference lasted, the more trust among its members was lost and the spirit of compromise – so necessary if States were to begin negotiations - became harder to build.

If consensus continued to be blocked on the Conference’s programme of work, countries would increasingly look to find disarmament results in other fora, such as in the General Assembly, where consensus was not required to do business. By the same token, however, there was a natural reluctance by some States to put national security issues to the possibility of a majority vote in the United Nations. The Conference on Disarmament and its consensus rule had not been developed by accident and Canada was mindful that this negotiating body had served all well in the past. If the Conference did not exist, it would have to be re-invented. The collective challenge, then, was to re-invent the approach to work in the Conference. Canada believed that the Members should focus on the four core issues of the Conference in a new way: from the understanding that starting on negotiations on one issue did not mean the neglect of the other three. Canada would do all that was in its power to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work in 2011.

ALEXANDER STUBB, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that at the high-level meeting in New York last September all had heard the calls for the Conference to resume its work. However, the efforts to revitalize the Conference and take disarmament forward seemed not to have taken root. No real progress had taken place since the high-level meeting and the situation here in Geneva remained deadlocked. Many delegations continued to resort to procedural hurdles without offering any credible alternatives for real work to begin. This was regrettable and bureaucratic, Mr. Stubb said, adding that he joined others in once again urging Conference Members to take the necessary steps to move forward. In Finland’s view, the programme of work adopted in 2009 still provided the best available foundation for the deliberations of the Conference on Disarmament.

Mr. Stubb said that the Conference must begin, with no delay, negotiations on key substantive issues, most notably on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Launching negotiations on such a treaty would not only take the Conference closer to the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world, but also strengthen the non-proliferation and anti-terrorism efforts. The swift resumption of negotiations would also allow the Conference to regain its authority as the single multilateral negotiating body in the field of disarmament before it was too late for it to do so. Indeed, if the current stalemate continued, it risked negotiations moving to other fora and, consequently, the permanent impairment of the Conference on Disarmament. This body had achieved much in the past and there was no good reason why it should not be allowed to do so in the future. The Member States of the Conference on Disarmament must shoulder their responsibility and launch real negotiations.

HILLARY CLINTON, Secretary of State of the United States of America, said nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War the world had more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. The world faced no shortage of ingredients for nuclear weapons, and yet more ingredients were produced every day. Halting production was in the interest of every country and the United States urged the Conference on Disarmament to end the stalemate and open negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without further delay. Such a treaty would be an important step and build on the notable progress which had been achieved over the past years. The United States, for its part, had reduced the prominence of nuclear weapons in its national defence and had met with other members of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for a successful review conference on that treaty. It had also brought the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty into force together with the Russian Federation.

This Conference had always cherished the principle of consensus, but the patience of the United States was not infinite; there was no excuse for a State to misuse the consensus rule. It was clear that there was a wide range of views inside the Conference and that these must be accommodated. Progress would be difficult and take a number of years, but that was all the more reason to begin this process now. Global nuclear security was too important to allow this matter to drift forever. The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was critical; if they were serious about not letting nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorist, the available amount of such material must be reduced. The United States was committed to reducing nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear proliferation, its vision being a world without nuclear weapons. This would take time, but was attainable in the view of the United States, if taken step by step. Ms. Clinton asked the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty and expressed hope that action would be seen from this esteemed Conference that had meant so much to the world. The United States stood ready to support the beginning of negotiations and to try to accommodate legitimate national interests to reach such a treaty. This was too important a matter to be left forever, Ms. Clinton underscored.

JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, said that Mexico welcomed the work carried out by the last six Presidents of the Conference which had made it possible to carry out in-depth negotiations. However, Mexico was much surprised at the myths that had arisen around this forum, and especially the lack of definition of the programme of work, all of which had replaced the substantive work of the Conference for 15 years. Mexico had always respected the Conference and its rules, but it could not accept that its way of acting paralysed the progress and the achievement of the ultimate goal. The Conference could not continue to be an obstacle to complete disarmament. First, Mexico was of the view that the debates of the Conference did not represent substantive work and did not reflect the work of a permanent negotiating forum such as the Conference. Second, the Conference membership did not represent the international reality of today, and Mexico was particularly concerned about the hardcore rejection by some States of the direct and active participation of civil society. Civil society had earned spaces that enriched their work and the Conference could not resist the winds of change. Third, the procedural rules of the Conference were an obstacle to decision-making processes, particularly the rule of consensus, whose merit was that it was a means of seeking a general agreement and not a right to veto. In Mexico’s view, a veto ran counter to democratic decision-making in the Conference.

Mexico believed that it was the time to make decisions that broke the existing inertia and ensured that the machinery of the Conference could find a way to achieve a disarmament agenda. Mexico, for its part, had for several years attempted to structure activities aimed at generating confidence and understanding on essential subjects on the agenda of the Conference. In 2005, Mexico, together with other countries, had tried to start disarmament negotiations in the General Assembly, hoping that the Conference would adopt its own programme of work to fulfil its mandate. Mexico also thanked Australia and Japan for promoting substantive discussions in a parallel area. These efforts on the margins of the Conference could strengthen mutual understanding of the respective positions and dialogues, but they were not, however, a substitute in any way for substantive work.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/014E