CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONSIDERS ISSUES RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE
During its meeting this afternoon the Conference on Disarmament took stock of efforts last week to adopt a programme of work, and discussed issues relating to its rules of procedure. The Conference also considered a draft proposal from its President on civil society participation.
Jorge Lomonaco, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in an opening statement said the Conference was jointly responsible for building a system that granted Members the power to veto a procedural decision such as the adoption of a programme of work. He asked Members not to forget that consensus was not unanimity.
The President distributed a draft paper on civil society engagement (CD/WP.585) to Member States for their consideration. He said that a long impasse continued in the Conference and the differences could only be bridged by changing its culture. A culture that was home-grown. A culture that had granted a veto power that impeded relevant outsiders from speaking before it. A culture that had tied the hands of Conference Presidents in a fashion that was not consistent with multilateral practice in the United Nations system or other modern multilateral mechanisms. A culture that created the double track approach to disguise the fact that it had failed in fulfilling its mandate and raison d'être year after year. A culture that considered it acceptable and natural to spend a whole year negotiating a programme of work without even adopting it, only to start the same cycle again the next calendar year. A culture of inexistent diplomacy, as it did not allow diplomats to use their skills in disarmament negotiations.
The following States took the floor in the discussion: South Africa, Austria, Brazil, Finland, Switzerland, Ecuador, New Zealand, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Chile, Russia, United States, and Korea. China and Spain took the floor to make general statements.
The Conference will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Tuesday 10 February.
Statement by the President of the Conference on last week developments
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, asked delegations to take stock of the developments that took place in the week 26 to 30 January. He recalled that during the plenary meeting on 29 January he took action on the adoption of a draft programme of work, registered as CD/WP.584. It was regrettable that once again the Conference on Disarmament lost another opportunity to adopt a Programme of Work that could have enabled an early resumption of substantive negotiations on its agenda items.
The continuous inability to adopt a programme of work should not be qualified as the failure or fault of just one Conference on Disarmament member but rather as a collective failure. Everyone knew that had the debate gone slightly differently, some delegations would have expressed their opposition to other elements in the draft, and many would have preferred to extend the discussion and delay the taking of action. That would not be a surprise for any; the Conference on Disarmament had repeatedly witnessed such a situation, practices that not only allowed but that incentivized that to happen.
.
We are all responsible to building a system that granted members the power to veto a procedural decision. A system that conceived consensus as a rule and not as the common aspiration to reach an agreement after a decision-making process to solve differences and minority concerns. Let us not forget that consensus was not unanimity, he said.
Considering the general statements presented by States not only during the current session but for more than 15 years at the Conference on Disarmament plenary meetings, the President said he had a clear picture of the positions of Member States and groups, which showed that most Member States were fixated on certain issues and priorities. Even more, it was evident that some views of Member States were mutually exclusive. While a country openly stated that it could not accept a Programme of Work that involved negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), other Member States clearly expressed that the negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices was a priority. The President said he could not obviate the priorities expressed by a large group of Member States which stated that such a treaty was a logical step in a quest for a world without nuclear weapons, which should be the end goal of the Conference on Disarmament. That was why the draft submitted last week included the issues provided by all members and was not just crafted around the preferences of one delegation.
The draft programme of work (CD/WP.584) submitted last week for adoption was now being processed an official Conference document said the President; it would at the Conference’s disposal, and particularly at the disposal of the following Conference presidents, who may try to implement it in future – and if they did so, they would have the full support of Mexico.
Statements on last week developments
South Africa said it was deeply disappointed at the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to adopt a programme of work and thus start substantive work and negotiations. The Conference’s inability to agree on a programme of work illustrated the lack of flexibility of some Members who had held the international community hostage for many years, preventing it from making progress on certain agenda items, particularly nuclear disarmament. South Africa said various aspects of the working methods of the Conference should be considered. They included issues of continuity between Presidents and sessions; whether the consensus rule should be interpreted as ‘unanimity’, especially in relation to the commencement of negotiations; and the Conference’s relationship with civil society. It was time to salvage the credibility of the Conference on Disarmament, said South Africa; we could not afford to waste another year.
Austria regretted that the programme of work could not be adopted last week. Austria believed it was high time to review the rules of procedure on the membership of the Conference on Disarmament in a comprehensive way. It commended the Czech Republic for its tireless efforts in coordinating the informal group of observers, whose proposals to address the issue of membership had largely been neglected. A multilateral negotiation forum that tackled issues of collective security, which impacted upon all States by definition, should also provide the possibility for all States to be democratically presented in those negotiations. Austria also urged the Conference to open up to civil society, expressing gratitude to Acting Secretary-General Michael Møller for convening a Conference on Disarmament Civil Society Forum in March this year.
Discussion on issues pertaining to the Rules of Procedure of the Conference
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said by initiating discussion on issues pertaining to the rules of procedure of the Conference, his intention was to advocate for a positive and constructive interpretation of the rules of procedure in a manner that could serve the purpose for which the Conference was established: negotiating multilateral disarmament agreements.
As the long impasse continued in the Conference, the President said his opinion was that the differences could only be bridged by changing the culture of the Conference on Disarmament. A culture that was home-grown. A culture that has granted a veto power that had impeded relevant outsiders from speaking before it. A culture that had tied the hands of Conference Presidents in a fashion that was not consistent with multilateral practice in the United Nations system or other modern multilateral mechanisms. A culture that created the double track approach to disguise the fact that it had failed in fulfilling its mandate and raison d'être year after year. A culture that considered it acceptable and natural to spend a whole year negotiating a programme of work without even adopting it, only to start the same cycle again the next calendar year. A culture of inexistent diplomacy, as it did not allow diplomats to use their skills in disarmament negotiations.
The President said following consultations, he decided to today focus on the issue of ‘Civil Society Participation’. Many delegations had expressed the benefits of allowing civil society participation because of its fundamental contribution in other disarmament and arms control fora. The possibility to do so was in our hands, said the President, as a decision by the Conference on Disarmament was enough to allow it.
The President distributed a draft paper on civil society engagement (CD/WP.585) to Member States for their consideration.
Statements on the draft proposal on Civil Society Participation
Brazil said it thought the Conference on Disarmament should be more active in engaging civil society in its discussion and deliberations. It asked for a point of clarification regarding whether civil society could participate in discussions.
Finland thanked the President for his proposal, to which its initial response was positive. Finland asked for clarification on elements of the language.
Switzerland said it was important that the Conference examined its way of operation; it was restrictive as far as civil society participation was concerned and far from the approach adopted by most multilateral fora. Civil society participation would be an important step forward.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, responding to the questions, noted that the wording or language of the proposal was an adaptation of Rules 33 and 34 of the rules of procedure. It would grant the same speaking rights and rights to submit proposals or documents to civil society as those granted to Observer States. Approved language was much easier to adopt than new language, he added.
Ecuador said it had always advocated for greater democratization, transparency and universalization of international multilateral forums, so it supported the expansion of membership of the Conference on Disarmament. Collective efforts were all the more important for the issue of nuclear disarmament, which was one that threatened the whole of humanity. Ecuador said civil society’s knowledge and expertise must be acknowledged by the Conference, and appreciated the initiative of Acting Director-General Michael Møller to hold a Civil Society Forum in March of this year. Ecuador supported the document on the active participation of civil society in the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The fact that the Conference on Disarmament had been gridlocked for 18 years meant States parties must find alternatives to exit the impasse. The current organization of six annual Presidents who had four working weeks each, per year, was not workable – an alternative could be to have three Presidents per year. Of course it was healthy to have a decision adopted on consensus, but in general a strong majority should be able to make decisions in an international body such as the Conference on Disarmament, said Ecuador.
New Zealand said it applauded the President’s proposal for civil society participation and his efforts to open the body to non-governmental organizations. The language may need to be ruminated upon but New Zealand supported the initiative.
Algeria said it supported the involvement of civil society so long as it was a positive one, and there was a coordinated approach between civil society and States. Algeria took cognizance of the draft proposal and would convey it to capital for instructions.
Belarus took the floor to raise questions about the proposal of civil society participation, referring to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) rules on civil society participation, and recommending the Conference look at the rules of procedure with regard to the issue of other disarmament fora. Belarus expressed concern that any organization with consultative status to ECOSOC could come and address the Conference, which may not be of any benefit to it. Belarus said the main task of the Conference was to adopt a programme of work and it was perhaps not a good idea for it to be distracted by such administrative matters.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said by raising the issue of civil society participation he was following the wish of the majority of the members of the Conference on Disarmament. If the Conference took action promptly there was no reason it would be a distraction; indeed the President hoped the Conference would take action next Tuesday. The President did note that he had taken a rather conservative approach in the proposal based on his impression it would avoid objections, but if Belarus wished to take a more liberal approach in the proposal of civil society participation it was very welcome.
Cuba thanked the President for his interesting proposal, particularly as it would put Member States and civil society on equal footing. Cuba queried whether it was a good idea to ‘copy and paste’ the rules of procedure into the new proposal, however. Member States and civil society were not the same, said Cuba. In the United Nations, a Member State was a Member State and a non-governmental organization was a non-governmental organization. The points made by Belarus were interesting, as ECOSOC covered a range of issues but the Conference dealt with very specific subjects. Perhaps a roster or list of non-governmental organizations would be a good idea, to see which had contributed to disarmament fora over the years.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, thanked Cuba for its comments. He said the time had come for Members of the Conference on Disarmament to take a stand – were they for open and transparent proceedings or not.
Ireland said it supported civil society participation within the Conference and felt optimistic about the proposal and looked forward to returning next Tuesday.
Chile said perhaps only the General Assembly, in a special session on disarmament, would be able to renew the Conference on Disarmament and thaw the old cold war divides. Chile said the more liberal and inclusive the Conference was the better things would be. However, Cuba had made reasonable points that should be addressed, and asked the President why he was not giving priority to the issue of enlargement of Member States over the participation of civil society.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, responded to Chile, saying in reply to its last comment, ‘we still have one more week to go’.
Russia thanked the President for another outstanding draft decision which certainly invoked an interactive if not unanimous reaction. Russia said it would consult capital, but on a preliminary basis asked for clarification. ECOSOC did not only register organizations that had expertise with disarmament said Russia, asking how many non-governmental organizations were registered with ECOSOC and how many had anything to do with disarmament, or more specifically, the Conference’s agenda. There were doubts as to whether States should be compared with non-governmental organizations, which in the best cases represented only a certain group of society, unlike Governments. And unlike Governments, non-governmental organizations did not bear any obligations towards the citizens of a country.
United States said it was conducting a robust dialogue with civil society and that this was a matter of national policy. The United States asked for clarifications on matters regarding the rules of procedure. Did the President envision civil society participation in all meetings whether they were formal or informal? Finally, the United States asked whether the proposal would use the ECOSOC definition of civil society.
Korea said it supported more active engagement of civil society with the Conference on Disarmament and would communicate the President’s proposal to capital. In a preliminary comment, Korea said we should be cautious and not give full access to all non-governmental organizations at first, especially as the Conference on Disarmament was handling very sensitive national security issues. Korea wondered whether a decision on civil society participation should be postponed until after the first Civil Society Forum in March, when there may be lessons learned.
Cuba enquired whether the meeting had official records and if a press release would be issued.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said this was indeed a formal plenary session of the Conference on Disarmament, as it was convened. The President was not responsible for any past or future press release.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA) had a list of civil society organizations which worked with it; there was also the possibility to use a list of ECOSOC accredited organizations dealing with the subject of disarmament. The President said he wished the negotiations on the proposal to continue in plenary, not in informal meetings.
Belarus said it had a very flexible position on the participation of civil society in the Conference so long as it consisted of experts who could contribute to its work. Today’s discussion showed that the proposed document would not be able to be agreed by next Tuesday. Belarus asked for an explanation on how its work would be organized.
JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he would circulate a modified version as soon as possible. The Conference would return to the issue next Tuesday, in addition to other subjects to be announced at the end of the week, but the President said it was unlikely the Conference would be ready to take action on the proposal next Tuesday. The President thanked Members of the Conference for their input and reaction, appreciating their responses and hoping they would make progress.
General Statements
China took the floor, as the representative announced he would soon conclude his mandate as the Chinese Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs and leave Geneva, and wished to share some concluding thoughts on the work of the Conference. Although it was going through rough patches, the Conference remained an authoritative institution with suitable membership, rich experiences and great potential for negotiating treaties in the fields of arms control and disarmament, said the Ambassador. The reasons for the deadlock in multilateral disarmament machinery were first and foremost political, rather than institutional or regarding its rules of procedure. Complex and far-reaching changes were taking place in the overall international security situation – that external factor had prevented the Conference from making substantive progress more than any other. Abandoning the Conference was not the right way to solve the problems, said the Ambassador. The Ambassador called for enhanced political will, by seeking common ground through equal consultations, for confidence and patience. The principle of consensus should be preserved, he said, as it was a principle whose relevance and importance had stood the test of times. In conclusion, the Ambassador said every effort should be made to nurture a favourable external security environment so as to create positive conditions and a favourable atmosphere to bring the work of the Conference on Disarmament back on track.
Spain took the floor and spoke about the subject of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, among other issues. Given the security challenges faced by the international community, the new Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference represented an excellent opportunity to strengthen the implementation of that instrument, including the requirement for more work by the Nuclear-Weapons States.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC15/006E