CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM THE HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS

The Conference on Disarmament today held its first plenary meeting under the Presidency of Poland, hearing from Kim Won-soo, Under Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, as well as from a number of delegations.

Mr. Kim stated that the persistent paralysis of the Conference had led many to question the relevance of traditional processes. Addressing issues on the Conference’s agenda outside of the Conference had regrettably become a new normal. It was imperative that an agreement on a programme of work be reached, otherwise there would be more and more demands that alternative forums be found.

Ambassador Piotr Stachańczyk of Poland, President of the Conference, informed that he considered the United Kingdom’s proposal of a draft programme of work to be the most realistic. All delegations were asked to study it, and a possible action would be taken on Thursday, 30 June.

Mongolia, on behalf of the Group of 21, stressed that, as long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their use and proliferation persisted. Finland said that its priority had been to reach an agreement on a balanced programme of work, which would include a negotiation mandate for a cut-off treaty banning the production of fissile materials. Israel believed that the rule of consensus was crucial in light of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues placed on the Conference’s agenda.

Switzerland said that the Conference had to think of its actions in terms of usefulness and contribution to the international community as a whole; living up to the challenges meant breaking down the silos. Republic of Korea urged all Conference members to stand united in implementing the measures imposed by the Security Council and send a clear message that the behaviour of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would not be tolerated. Syria said that it had never used chemical weapons, while terrorist groups on its territory were being actively supported by the Israeli occupation.

Mexico believed that the United Kingdom’s proposal of the draft programme of work had the potential to damage the Conference not only in 2016, but also in the years to come, as it did not include a negotiating mandate. United States stressed that the missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea only strengthened the international community’s resolve to intensify efforts, including sanctions, to stop such behaviour. Australia also expressed its concern over the launch by two intermediate ballistic missiles by “North Korea” the previous week.

Japan believed that the United Kingdom’s draft was the most realistic option, although Japan’s priorities remained unchanged, which were to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated that the United States was ceaselessly introducing strategic assets into “South Korea”, while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea clearly had the right to self-defence. Iran said that Israel was a great source of instability in the Middle East and the reason for the failure of the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in 2015.

United Kingdom said that its proposal had the potential to bring back the shared sense of purpose to the Conference, as it aimed at getting members to say yes. Spain was determined to work with the international community on finding a sanctions regime that would lead the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to irrevocably eliminate its nuclear programme. Russian Federation stressed that one item of the agenda should not be prioritized over all others, and any proposal along those lines could not be described as comprehensive.

India stated that if a consensus was not possible, substantive discussions should commence with the aim of launching negotiations, which was not contradictory to the mandate of the Conference. Nigeria pledged not to block efforts undertaken by the President.

The Conference will next meet in public on Thursday, 30 June at 10 a.m.

Statements

KIM WON-SOO, Under Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, expressed appreciation for all 2016 Presidents of the Conference, who had tried to keep the Conference relevant. The lively debate today was a testimony to it. Efforts by the Secretary-General of the Conference to engage civil society were highly valued. The need for informal meetings, one of which had taken place the previous week, should remind everyone that the integration of civil society still remained behind the curve. No multilateral disarmament process had recently been initiated without the involvement of civil society. The persistent paralysis of the Conference had led many to question the relevance of traditional processes. Addressing issues on the Conference’s agenda outside of the Conference had regrettably become a new normal. Nuclear-weapon States held the largest responsibility. In May, an appeal had been made to the Open-ended Working Group to continue its work on bridging differences. Mr. Kim stressed that compromise did not involve a sacrifice of agreed objectives. Sincere engagement of all stakeholders, both nuclear haves and have-nots, needed to be actively promoted and encouraged. The international community had not given up on the Conference, and efforts outside of it did not aim to replace it. However, it was imperative that an agreement on the programme of work be reached, otherwise there would be more and more demands that alternative forums be found.

Ambassador PIOTR STACHAŃCZYK of Poland, President of the Conference, said that the Conference had proven its efficiency in the past, and its fortieth anniversary was coming in three years. The current stalemate in the Conference required qualitative progress. The output of the Conference in 2016 was a common concern of all members, and it was not too late to make a positive turn. Taking into account a high initial level of support for the United Kingdom’s proposed draft programme of work, that proposal would be reintroduced to the agenda. At the same time, other proposals could also be further examined and elaborated. The United Kingdom’s proposal was the most realistic, and all delegations were asked to study it, with a possibility that an action be taken on Thursday, 30 June. The factor of time was of utmost importance.

Mongolia, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons existed, the risk of their use and proliferation persisted. Until a complete elimination of nuclear weapons had been achieved, it was urgent to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to effectively assure non-nuclear States against the threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones was a positive step and an important measure towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In that context, the Group of 21 strongly supported the early establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all nuclear weapons. It was disappointing that three States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons had blocked consensus on the draft outcome document of the ninth Review Conference of the Parties. Security assurances guaranteed to States members of nuclear-weapon-free zones could not substitute for universal legally binding security assurances, stressed Mongolia. A conclusion of such an instrument would be an important step towards achieving the objectives of arms control, nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects.

Finland stated that it was the common responsibility of the Conference to search every avenue that could lead into substantive work in the Conference. A balanced and comprehensive programme of work, which would include a negotiation mandate for a cut-off treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, had been Finland’s priority. It was also important to review the working methods of the Conference, while an expansion of the Conference’s membership would contribute to the inclusiveness of that body. Integrating gender dimension into the domain of “hard security” was also important, in which context the initiative by the Dutch Presidency to address gender and disarmament issues in the Conference was welcomed. Finland stressed that in the current security context, the need to uphold and strengthen the rule of law in international affairs was more important than ever. The Arms Trade Treaty was a significant achievement of the international community, and now the work needed to be done towards its universalization and effective implementation. Finland urged the nuclear-weapon States to continue cooperation, build and rebuild confidence and negotiate deeper cuts in their nuclear arsenals. Finally, the Ambassador of Finland bid her farewell to the Conference, as her tenure was coming to an end.

Israel said that in the last four years of work in the Conference, an interesting momentum had been witnessed, with the revival of the informal discussions under the schedule of activities, which enabled deepening of the discussions and understandings of the core issues on the agenda. There was no dispute that the revitalization of the Conference could come from within the Conference itself. Israel believed that the rules of procedure, and in particular the rule of consensus, were crucial in light of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues placed on the Conference’s agenda. In recent years, terrorist organizations in the Middle East had acquired arsenals which, in some cases, far exceeded those held by States. Iran continued to violate Security Council resolutions, in particular with regard to the development and testing of its missiles. Israel believed that a more secure and peaceful Middle East required all regional States to engage in a process of direct and sustained dialogue to address the broad range of regional security challenges in the region. Back in 2011, Israel had agreed to enter a long process of consultations regarding the regional security challenges in the Middle East. It was unfortunate that its neighbours had not adopted a similar attitude. The Ambassador of Israel informed that his term in office was coming to an end, after which he would be returning to Israel to retire.

Switzerland stated that the challenges in the area of disarmament were acute and numerous. There was a need for the Conference to rethink and re-evaluate itself, so that it could better tackle the challenges it was facing. The Conference had been the single multilateral negotiating body, but a number of disarmament instruments in recent years had been negotiated outside of the Conference. The Conference had to think of its actions in terms of usefulness and contribution to the international community as a whole. Living up to the challenges meant breaking down the silos, but it seemed that the Conference was going down the road of growing isolation. Geopolitical difficulties could partly explain why the Conference had not been able to draft any instruments over the past 20 years; nonetheless, during the same period, the international community had negotiated a number of documents, including the Arms Trade Treaty. The notion of security had evolved since the Cold War, including the notion of human security. It was symptomatic that the Conference was playing no role in numerous discussions and processes currently under way. The Conference could not expect to preserve its legitimacy while more than two thirds of the United Nations Member States were excluded. Greater interaction was also needed with the civil society and other stakeholders in the field of disarmament. It was necessary to make changes now, after the 20 years of paralysis. The Ambassador of Switzerland bid his farewell to the Conference as his tenure was coming to an end.

Republic of Korea brought up the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s track record of nuclear and ballistic missile programme in 2016. Facing the previous week’s missile launches, the Security Council had issued a statement strongly condemning the recent missile launched. The Council stated that “the DPRK was diverting resources to the pursuit of ballistic missiles while DPRK’s citizens have great unmet needs.” A vast number of people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were in need to humanitarian assistance on the account of the regime’s obsession with nuclear weapons. All Conference Member States were urged to stand united in implementing fully the measures imposed by the Security Council and sending a clear message that the international community would not tolerate such behaviour by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Syria supported the statement by the Group of 21 regarding negative security assurances. It had been decided that the Middle East would become a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which had also been called for by Security Council resolutions. There was a party in the Middle East which possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, unlike in other regions. Syria said that Israel had repeated the same lies expressed in the Conference. The Syrian Government had never used chemical weapons. Instead, Syria had been calling for two years for the United Nations to send a mission to look into chemical weapons in certain regions. Terrorist groups in Syria were supported by the Israeli occupation, including through a liaison officer. Making accusations against Syria was a form of encouragement for those terrorist groups to continue using such weapons. Israel was an entity which practiced state terrorism. At the same time, Israel was continuing with building settlements, until no ground had been left on which to build peace. The Security Council’s Commission of Inquiry on the use of chemical weapons had not yet issued any report on Syria.

Mexico was aware of the urgency to commence negotiations. Compromise was required from everyone so that the Conference could move forward. There were provisions for two kinds of bodies – deliberative and negotiating. The distinction between them was clear, and the Conference belonged to the latter category. The United Kingdom’s proposal had the potential to damage the Conference not only in 2016, but also in the years to come, as it did not include a negotiating mandate. To call it a programme of work would thus be misleading. The initiative was inconsistent with the Conference’s mandate and would not help break the paralysis over negotiations. Instead, it could further dismiss the importance of the body. The real challenge for the Conference was to start negotiations on items on the agenda. Mexico would make every effort to fix the inconsistencies in the proposed draft document.

United States strongly condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s 21 June launch of two ballistic missiles to the Sea of Japan, which had violated Security Council resolutions. Those provocations only strengthened the international community’s resolve to intensify efforts, including sanctions, to stop such behaviour. It was now clear that only one of the proposals on the programme of work put forward had a chance of gaining consensus. United States thus asked that action be taken, as soon as possible, on the United Kingdom’s proposal as tabled.

Australia noted the early initiative by the new Polish Presidency to submit for discussion a draft proposed programme of work, and cautioned that there was a danger in trying to set the bar too high too early. Could negotiations be immediately launched? Australia did not agree that the draft would be causing damage to the Conference. Australia expressed its concern over the launch by two intermediate ballistic missiles by “North Korea” the previous week. Violations of the Security Council resolutions were condemned, as they posed a threat to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and beyond.

Japan agreed that efforts ought to continue on adopting a meaningful programme of work that would lead to an early commencement of negotiations. The President’s proposal based on the United Kingdom’s draft was considered to be the most realistic option, although Japan’s priorities remained unchanged, which was to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. The missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea constituted a clear violation of relevant Security Council resolutions, and were provocations that undermined the peace and security of the region and international community, including Japan.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that some delegations had stated that its strategic rocket test firings had been a violation of the Security Council resolutions. Some countries were taking action to increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula, including further military drills and arms build-ups. The Security Council resolutions referred to earlier were a breach of the United Nations Charter. The United States was ceaselessly introducing strategic assets into “South Korea”, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had the right to self-defence. The security of the country and the people had to be protected from the consistent United States threat. Republic of Korea’s delegation should focus on how to contribute to the work of the Conference rather than criticize its fellow countrymen.

Iran criticized the statement by the regime which was itself a great source of instability in the Middle East and was not a party to Non Proliferation Treaty. Israel was the reason for the failure of the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in 2015. Its atrocities in the occupied Palestinian territories were well known to everybody, and were regularly addressed by the Human Rights Council. The Israeli delegation was advised to be silent and not to educate any other responsible members of the international community on their obligations.

United Kingdom stated that it was willing to consider innovative approaches to get the Conference back to work. Its proposal had the potential to bring back the shared sense of purpose to the Conference. The original proposal had aimed at getting members to say yes, and to date, no member had explicitly said that they would oppose the proposal. Given the divisions over the prioritization of various items, it was important that there was a comprehensive discussion on the disarmament agenda. United Kingdom fully accepted minor technical changes made by the Presidency. The focus in the remaining time this year should be on discussions legal provisions and other arrangements on achieving and maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons, and the Working Group should be a meaningful one with a meaningful output. United Kingdom was fully committed to the process, and it was ridiculous to hear that its actions would damage the process. The substance of the proposal had been on table since February and States had had the time to consult with their capitals.

Spain said that the Conference should not be limiting its work to discourse only, but had to negotiate. Infinite patience was needed, as some of the extreme positions taken were counterproductive to the ultimate goal of negotiating. The international scene was full of hurdles, but steps nonetheless needed to be taken. Spain was determined to continue to work with the international community on finding a sanctions regime that would lead the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to irrevocably eliminate its nuclear programme. The missile tests the previous week were unacceptable and were a threat to the international peace and security.

Russian Federation noted that the Polish Presidency had officially distributed the draft programme of work which almost verbatim reproduced the British proposal from February. To which degree did the submitted document meet the criteria of comprehensiveness and balance? One item of the agenda should not be prioritized over all others, and any such proposal could not be described as comprehensive. It would create an undesirable precedent for the future. The Nigerian proposal, to discuss the four core items on the agenda without discrimination, was preferred by far. Russia had proposed to the British authors of the proposal to add elements of discussion on preventing arms race in the outer space, but the United Kingdom had not expressed readiness to meet half way, so no constructive alternatives had been put forward. That was why Russia had put forward its own initiative on a document on combating biological and chemical terrorism. Duplicating certain functions was nothing unusual in international instruments, noted Russia. In the spirit of compromise, Russia had demonstrated flexibility and taken steps to unite its own and British proposals. Serious discussions on the British proposal had not taken place; it was thus proposed that all proposals on the table be properly and in-depth debated.

India stated that the 14 June proposal by the Group 21 Coordinator was also on the table. India agreed that time was of essence when it came to the adoption of a programme of work that would allow the Conference to perform its real mandate. India remained committed and prepared to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, based on the Shannon mandate, largely supported by the international community. The mandate provided to the Conference was to serve as a negotiating forum. That should remain its aim and objective, but if consensus was not possible, substantive discussions should commence with the aim of launching negotiations. That was not contradictory to the mandate. The President was encouraged to continue consultations, so that there would be some clarity on everyone’s positions.

Nigeria said that sadly the Conference had not been able to reach consensus on the programme of work. Nigeria would not block the process started by the current President. Efforts by States should be conducted in utmost transparency.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC16/029E