CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESS BY DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon heard an address by the Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and then discussed how to advance efforts to agree on a programme of work for the Conference.

Ahmet Uzumcu, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said despite some of the challenges currently facing the Conference on Disarmament, it remained a unique body with an indispensible role. The Chemical Weapons Convention alone testified to the importance of the Conference as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. It was concluded successfully because all negotiating parties were prepared to make compromises for the sake of consensus. It was the first and, so far, the only international treaty that banned an entire class of weapons of mass destruction under conditions of international verification. The Convention represented both a political compact and a technical agreement.

Mr. Uzumcu said that the Conference on Disarmament was striving to promote disarmament and non-proliferation. This was a solemn responsibility. The future must be built upon the achievements of the past, and the Chemical Weapons Convention was an essential part of it. By promoting its universality, greater credit and credibility would be brought to the endeavours in the Conference.

Following a debate on the programme of work, the President of the Conference, Ambassador Wang Qun of China, said that after the three plenary discussions on the programme of work under the presidency of China and following his own relevant consultations, he generally felt that at present various parties still had divergent views on a programme of work. He felt the conditions were not yet right to propose a programme of work during China’s presidency. In future, he believed that this important issue could be further explored through plenary meetings and informal meetings.

In the discussion on the programme of work, some delegations said their clear priority was the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Others said nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority for the absolute majority of the Member States of the Conference. The programme of work should provide a negotiating mandate on nuclear disarmament. Negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space should also be dealt with truly in the programme of work.
The programme of work should be inclusive and balanced, and should fully reflect the legitimate security interest of each nation and should be acceptable to all Member States.

Some speakers noted that the Conference had been in a stalemate for over 14 years. In May 2009 consensus on a work programme was actually reached, only later it turned out that one delegation had second thoughts, which after a while of maneuvering ever since had been openly blocking the adoption of a work programme based on the May 2009 consensus practically single handedly. The conduct of meetings in the Conference on the issues on their many decades old agenda was no substitute for fulfilling their real task, negotiating international instruments on disarmament and non-proliferation. The Conference on Disarmament appeared to have lost sight of that basic fact. Other speakers warned that a decision on the future of this body could be taken elsewhere, rather than in the Conference. The Conference should indulge in some braining storming on how they could contribute to bringing the Conference out of its deadlock and reaching agreement on a programme of work.

Speaking in the debate on the programme of work were Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Germany, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Algeria.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 26 May.

Statement by the Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

AHMET UZUMCU, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said it had been less than a year since he left Geneva to take up his responsibilities as Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Despite some of the challenges currently facing the Conference on Disarmament, it remained a unique body with an indispensible role. The Chemical Weapons Convention alone testified to the importance of the Conference as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. It was concluded successfully because all negotiating parties were prepared to make compromises for the sake of consensus. It was the first and, so far, the only international treaty that banned an entire class of weapons of mass destruction under conditions of international verification. The Convention represented both a political compact and a technical agreement. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had a membership of 188 countries. More than 65 per cent of the total chemical warfare agents declared under the terms of the Convention had been verifiably destroyed, including the entire stockpiles of three States parties. More than 90 per cent of the 70 chemical weapons production facilities had either been destroyed or converted for peaceful purposes. The bulk of the remaining aggregate global stockpile resided in two countries, the Russian Federation and the United States, which had destroyed approximately 85 and 50 per cent of their respective stockpiles. Both countries had indicated that they would not be able to meet the final deadline for the complete destruction of chemical weapons: 29 April 2012.

There were two other States parties who were under an obligation to destroy chemical weapons present on their territories. The situation with regard to Libya was of particular concern. The destruction of chemical weapons was suspended due to a failure of the heating equipment at the destruction facility. Libya had cited the embargo imposed by the Security Council as the reason that prevented spare parts and equipment delivery for its chemical weapons destruction facility. In this regard he had sought the advice of the UN secretary-General and this issue was currently being considered by the Sanctions Committee established by the Security Council. Iraq joined the Convention in early 2009 and declared a cache of weapons that had been rendered unusable under the work authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Buried in two bunkers that were not readily accessible, it was a particular challenge to devise a programme that would lead to their safe destruction. The Secretariat recently conducted initial inspections of declared chemical weapons production and storage facilities in Iraq.

Mr. Uzumcu said just as they needed to assure the elimination of chemical weapons, so must the Organization prevent their re-emergence, now or in their future. Under the provisions of the Convention, non-proliferation was to be assured through systematic declarations, industry monitoring and verifications, controls on transfers of chemicals, and regulatory measures to identify and track chemicals of concern. States parties were also required to establish national laws and regulations to give effect to their legal obligations under the Convention. A significant number of States parties still needed to adopt comprehensive legislation and the Organization offered its technical assistance. The key challenge for the future was to ensure that the legal prohibitions based on the Convention were viewed as comprehensive enough for States parties to take action in identifying possible new threats and adopting the measures to prevent them. Chemical security threats, including the possibility of the use of chemical weapons by non-state actors, had created a renewed interest in the ability of the Organization to coordinate the delivery of emergency assistance to States parties in case of an attack or the threat of an attack with chemical weapons.

Mr. Uzumcu said that the Conference on Disarmament was striving to promote disarmament and non-proliferation. This was a solemn responsibility. The future must be built upon the achievements of the past, and the Chemical Weapons Convention was an essential part of it. By promoting its universality, greater credit and credibility would be brought to the endeavours in the Conference.

Statements on the Programme of Work

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said they would now move on to the second issue on their plenary schedule today, the exchange of views on the Conference’s programme of work. Under China’s presidency, this was the third meeting to discuss the programme of work. During previous discussions, there had been an exchange of views on a number of specific questions on what elements were indispensible in the programme of work. Some members believed that they needed a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. Others said the programme of work needed a clear working mandate. For others, they wanted new wording in the mandate, saying the important part was for substantive work to restart in the Conference on Disarmament. Others wanted a simplified programme of work with no mandate. As President, he thanked all for their contributions. He hoped that this discussion would be conducive to the early conclusion of a programme of work and the Conference starting substantive work. The programme of work was the key to opening the work of the Conference. He hoped that delegations would contribute to this last plenary on the programme of work under China’s presidency.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the essence of the position of the European Union was that it attached a clear priority to the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT) on the basis of document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995 and the mandate contained therein, and subsequently reiterated in CD/1864. They also considered that there were confidence-building measures that could be taken immediately, without the need to wait for the commencement of formal negotiations. This was why they called on all States possessing nuclear weapons to declare and uphold a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The European Union also remained ready to engage in substantive discussion on the other items that were included in CD/1864: on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination, including on approaches toward potential future work of a multilateral character; on all issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as on other issues on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament.

SO SE PYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea attached importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, which was vital in achieving nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament remained the highest priority for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea like the absolute majority of the Member States of the Conference. The programme of work should provide a negotiating mandate on nuclear disarmament. Negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space should also be dealt with truly in the programme of work.
The programme of work should be inclusive and balanced, and should fully reflect the legitimate security interest of each nation and should be acceptable to all Member States. To do so, the Conference had to keep the rule of consensus and conduct open-minded discussions on tabling all issues with transparency and at the same time any actions that might be giving negative effect to the adoption of the programme of work should be avoided.

HELLMUT HOFFMAN (Germany) said the international community in the special session on disarmament in the General Assembly in 1978 clearly established the Conference on Disarmament as the negotiating body, while the United Nations Disarmament Committee was assigned the role of the deliberative body in the field of disarmament. Unfortunately, both bodies had not fulfilled their respective roles and tasks in any satisfactory manner in many years. The Conference had been in a stalemate for over 14 years, i.e. after it had completed its last negotiating achievement, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Ever since, it had struggled over the question of what to tackle next in terms of negotiating international instruments in the field of disarmament. In May 2009 consensus on a work programme was actually reached, which was widely celebrated in the disarmament community around the world. Only later it turned out that one delegation had second thoughts, which after a while of maneuvering ever since had been openly blocking the adoption of a work programme based on the May 2009 consensus practically single handedly.

The conduct of meetings in the Conference on the issues on their many decades old agenda was no substitute for fulfilling their real task, negotiating international instruments on disarmament and non-proliferation. The Conference on Disarmament appeared to have lost sight of that basic fact. It was deeply frustrating and unacceptable that in spite of the flurry of activity the Conference had seen in this session and its margins, the situation in the Conference remained unchanged. Germany continued to call upon all sides to open the way to start the work on the basis of the May 2009 consensus as reflected in CD/1864. Delegations must not abuse the consensus rule to veto the beginning of a negotiating process.

VICTOR VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was grateful for the discussion on the programme of work in the plenary, which reflected the wish of many delegations to continue to discuss this issue to reach agreement on a programme of work. The Russian Federation shared many of the views expressed by Germany. However, the Russian Federation wished to note that the dialogue on the programme of work was not actually taking place. It had already been noted today that the United Nations Secretary-General had appointed a new Secretary-General to the Conference, Mr. Tokayev, in a rather delicate situation of the Conference. A decision on the future of this body could be taken elsewhere, rather than in the Conference; they had already heard suggestions regarding the plenary of the General Assembly in July or the meeting of the First Committee of the General Assembly in the autumn. The Conference should indulge in some braining storming on how they could contribute to bringing the Conference out of its deadlock and reaching agreement on a programme of work. The next President of the Conference, Colombia, would probably hold informal consultations where they could have an objective discussion to discuss this situation. If not, then the Russian Federation would not be able to share the optimism of the Conference’s Secretary-General and they would have to accept the fact that a decision on this would be taken in a different forum.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria had not wanted to take the floor, but in view of the statements made by all distinguished delegates about the programme of work, Algeria wanted to raise some queries on this subject. Algeria was always keen to reiterate the importance of the Conference on Disarmament being the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament matters. Algeria had made a number of proposals before, including in 2001 and 2005 and as part of the P5 in document CD/1864, but unfortunately all of the attempts did not allow for the Conference to make any further steps ahead. Algeria still supported CD/1864 of 2009 as a starting point for launching the work of the Conference on the four core items that were before the Conference for consideration. Algeria had listened to a number of positions that threatened to resort to other fora outside the Conference in order to take decisions on the work of the Conference. Algeria wondered, did this mean to negotiate on one particular item. This kind of maneuvering or delay applied to all other items on the agenda. Did this mean that they would start negotiations, or were there other alternatives? Algeria had heard proposals for a simplified programme of work that established working groups without specific mandates. He was forwarding this query as an idea. In view of the approaches applied in recent years, why not invoke the approaches of the last century, when a programme of work was only a programme of activities and the content of discussion was basically included in the annual report. As for the establishment of subsidiary bodies, that was a separate question from the programme of work and if there was consensus, they would hold them.

Maybe this formula would allow them to reach agreement on a programme of work, hoping they had reached a consensus formula. Regarding the Conference being a negotiating body, any negotiations that would take place within the Conference would need substantive discussions. The Conference was established in 1978 and did not approve any instrument until 1993. A long time had elapsed from 1978 to 1993, there had been no programme of work, and there had not been any ultimatums like they were hearing today. They needed more patience in order to reach a formula in order to conserve the Conference on Disarmament. Algeria did not believe that resorting to other fora to negotiate fissile materials or negative security assurances or prevention of an arms race in outer space would allow them to find the necessary political basis that would allow them to reach international politically effective instruments.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference of Disarmament, (China), said without prejudice to the sentiments of delegations on getting into a political debate on the programme of work, as President, he would prefer to focus on issues to be dealt with in context of the programme of work. He admired the lively interactions in the context of the informal plenaries, but in the plenaries, they could discuss the programme of work. Russia had said that it was its impression that the discussion was not taking place on the programme of work. As President, he would like to come up with two questions. The purpose underlined was to stimulate discussions, rather than to impose this as a question that needed to be answered. If they thought this was useless, they could simply disregard the inputs of the Chair. What was important was to have the inputs coming in. Maybe time would be too short for China, as they would soon be concluding their presidency. But these inputs may be important for their colleagues taking over the presidency. He would like to come up with some questions in light of the observations made by Algeria and Germany. He would like to propose two questions. First, the colleagues had said CD/1864 was a good document. While in the presidency, it was not for him to go into the substance of the matters, but it was his impression from what was transpiring in the room that CD/1864 was a consensus document. In his view, it was a balanced document and a good basis for any further breakthrough. But if they were to aim at further progress, how could they operationalise this. It was important to be clear about what they meant when they said it was a balanced document, how did they consider it to be balanced. By posing this question, they maintained the thrust of the balance as enshrined in document CD/1864 but still enabled themselves to move ahead.

The President said that for the sake of stimulating discussions, if they looked at CD/1864, when it talked about the mandates of working groups, some were characterized as negotiating on, others as discussing substantially, these points were important in talking on the mandates of the working groups. Many viewed the balance in the document as not only confined to these words, as the document was wise enough to plant other seeds of balance. The balance in the document was subtle. This should prompt the Conference to think that they should be able to keep the balance of the thrust of CD/1864 as originally designed, as it addressed the concerns of all countries. This was one question which required further exploring. It would be useful if there was further input on this. The second question related to what Germany said in relation to negotiations versus discussions. He believed it was right to say the Conference was a negotiating body. In order not to engage in a political debate for practical purposes, they needed to look at the difference between discussion, substantive discussion and negotiation. For instance, if they already had a treaty in place, when they looked back, the process before it could only be negotiations, how could they say it was discussions? Even if they agreed to embark on a negotiating process on a prospective treaty, for long elusive years, eight years or ten years, how could they call these negotiations? It was in the nature of the exercise. Germany was saying that the Conference was struggling to deal with negotiations. In what context should they look at this, the linguistic context, how to characterize negotiations versus discussions. What should they do? How could they move on by focusing on practical effects? These were some of his random thoughts.
He should stop himself, and if the purpose was stimulating discussions, they could target himself. The purpose was not to stir up a political debate, but rather to discuss how best to move forward. So if they were not having real discussions, what did Russia think of the two questions that he had just come up with. He did not want a political debate on this. If others wanted to discuss the questions, they were welcome.

VICTOR VASILIEV (Russian Federation) said the last thing he had thought about was to enter into a political debate with the President. They were like good big brothers. What he was referring to was one simple thing. They needed to find an appropriate forum to tackle the issues confronting the Conference. These issues would be discussed in a very speedy time, including the meeting of the Consultative Advisory Board for Disarmament Matters in Geneva. Some delegations were getting ready for these meetings. Russia was interested in participating in the brainstorming to see how they could save the Conference. The President had raised ideas on what was the programme of work, and discussions versus negotiations. Discussions may lead at one point to a treaty. However, he did not think a plenary was the right place. Russia had already shared its political approach and had clearly expressed its position on document CD/1864 and other documents. What they needed was a thorough discussion on the Conference and its role in the future and how to deal with the challenges confronting it in the future.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference of Disarmament, (China) said regrettably they did not have time. He believed that both formals and informals could address the programme of work. He did see the merit of discussing this in informal meetings.

HELLMUT HOFFMAN (Germany) said he hesitated to interpret his own statement. However, as the President wanted to provoke a discussion on this, in the statement of Germany, he had in no way touched the issue of alternatives. This was a matter for a later occasion. Germany believed that they would have to discuss this issue in this forum before they broke up for New York. But today, Germany had quite deliberately not raised this issue. Germany wanted to stress that the Conference was not a deliberating body, it was a negotiating body. Germany understood what the President was saying. In previous treaties, discussions had slowly turned into negotiations. But after 14 years of such attempts, it became difficult to maintain this. It was important that the Conference remind itself of its actual task. When the President took note of the fact that many delegations did not bring their technical experts because of the assumption that they were not seriously discussing essential issues, that said something, they were far away from quasi discussions. It was important to say that there was a problem when after 14 years they were no closer to some kind of negotiations process. In Germany’s book, negotiations started when they were working on a draft, even it if was contentious. But when they were continuing discussions, they were very far away from negotiations, and it was important to realize the situation that they were in.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference of Disarmament, (China), said he had listened carefully to the views expressed about the programme of work. After the three plenary discussions on the programme of work and following his own relevant consultations, he generally felt that at present various parties still had divergent views on a programme of work. He felt the conditions were not yet right to propose a programme of work during China’s presidency. In future, he believed that this important issue could be further explored through plenary meetings and informal meetings. At the same time, he felt deeply that the Conference actually did have a basis for agreeing on a programme of work.

He had two points on this matter, speaking on behalf of China and not as President, with regard to document CD/1864, it was a balanced document and its balance was reflected in various aspects. It was a good basic document. In terms of mandates of the working groups, for some it suggested negotiations, for others substantive discussions and for others exchanges of view and discussions. For some items it aimed at a treaty, for others it aimed at practical steps and for others it aimed at recommendations. His second point concerned the programme of work of the Conference. It was true that delegations stood apart on the programme of work, some countries wanted negotiations, while others insisted on discussions. However, they should not fail to see two following factors. First, no one in the Conference had thought to dispute the commencement of the programme of work on the basis of a comprehensive balanced programme of work including an FMCT. The second thing was that all parties, especially since the beginning of this year, had all came to the meetings in a serious and constructive manner, including on FMCT. This was the basis of an evolving consensus which should not be neglected. Some may see this evolving consensus as insignificant, but it should not be belittled. On the other hand, the current Conference debate on discussions versus negotiations should not be considered linguistic in nature. They should be clearer about what they wanted and they should reflect on this seriously and on the basis of document CD/1864. This was how China viewed the situation, especially on the basis of what transpired during China’s presidency.

On the programme of work, in view of the current status, especially the differences on the programme of work, China did not envisage to table a programme of work nor did it envisage to come up with even a non-paper about it. But he hoped that the Conference would focus on the real effect and the objective with innovative thinking. This was what he wanted to share with the Conference in his national perspective as far as a programme of work was concerned. This concluded this plenary. The next plenary would be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 26 May. There would be an informal meeting at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 May on combined agenda items five, six and seven.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/032E