CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS A PROCEDURAL REPORT ON ITS 2018 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this evening adopted a procedural report to the United Nations General Assembly on its 2018 session.

Beliz Celasin Rende, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament,
noting the lack of consensus on the revised draft annual report after several hours of formal and informal meetings today, proposed a procedural and technical report on the 2018 session of the Conference on Disarmament contained in document CD/WP.610/Rev.2, which was then adopted by consensus.

A number of delegations took the floor during the adoption of the draft annual report, namely Syria, Russia, Zimbabwe on behalf of the Group of 21, United States, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Republic of Korea, Latvia on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, Cuba, Iran, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa, Algeria, Indonesia, China, and Belarus.

Ukraine, which will assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament at the beginning of the 2019 session, said that aiming to be ambitious in its aspirations, Ukraine would hold consultations during the intersessional period, with a view to present the Conference with a proposal on a programme of work for the 2019 session.

Closing the meeting and the 2018 session of the Conference on Disarmament, the President of the Conference urged all Member States to reach consensus on a programme of work in 2019 and so reaffirm the relevance of the Conference on Disarmament.

The 2019 session of the Council will start on 21 January 2019 under the Presidency of Ukraine.

Statements

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the 2018 session of the Conference on Disarmament had been a long and exhaustive but fruitful and constructive period, and remarked that, before closing the session, one last duty had to be performed: the adoption of the annual report. The draft document – to be shortly circulated - was a result of nine plenaries, 12 informal meetings, five small group discussions, five meetings with coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, and 26 bilateral consultations with 22 delegations. A great effort had been put into the report by all Member States, who held diverging views over its particular paragraphs. The President had spared no effort to find a solution agreeable to all, thus it believed that the draft report constituted a solid reference to what had been achieved in 2018 and an important leverage for the Conference on Disarmament to step up its endeavours in its next session. The President thanked all delegations for their flexibility and hoped that the report would be adopted in a spirit of compromise and consensus.

Syria said that, in response to the Note Verbale of the United Kingdom which contained unsubstantiated allegations, including against the highest Syrian officials, it had sent a memorandum and a statement to the Secretariat, with a request for those documents to be registered as official documents of the Conference on Disarmament and circulated to the delegations. What was the status of this request, Syria asked, and also inquired whether the revised draft annual report included paragraphs on which consensus had not yet been reached?

A Representative of the Secretariat of the Conference on Disarmament explained that the memorandum and a statement received from the Syrian delegation would be uploaded in the United Nations document system once they were translated into the official languages of the United Nations.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the advance copy of the draft annual report to be circulated shortly would be a revised version that would hopefully enjoy consensus, and then suspended the meeting.

Resuming the meeting, BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that most of the text of the revised draft annual report contained in document CD/WP.610/Rev.1 had been provisionally adopted in the informal sessions over the last four weeks. The draft also contained proposed language for the outstanding paragraphs not provisionally adopted, which was based on the delegates’ inputs, and which the President hoped would garner consensus.

The Conference proceeded to the adoption of its annual report for the 2018 session.

Syria was surprised that the President offered the draft annual report for adoption while the consensus on it had not yet been reached, in particular on paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3), as well as on paragraphs 18 and 20, without even discussing them in informal sessions first. Therefore 10(2) and 10(3) did not reflect consensus that would allow the Conference to adopt the annual report at this point, said Syria.

Russia stressed that no agreement had been reached in informal consultations on paragraphs 28 and 29.

Zimbabwe, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, commended the efforts of the President to reach a balanced report that reflected the work of this body, and stressed the importance of respecting the Rules of Procedure and the Office of the President. The Group of 21 strongly believed in maintaining the credibility of the Conference on Disarmament and considered that the current wording of paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) did not meet those principles.

United States thanked the Turkish Presidency for the efforts in the adoption of this difficult text, which did not reflect the very clear views that the United States had expressed throughout the session concerning the Presidency of Syria. It was unfortunate that the report was not more explicit about the very negative impact that the Syrian Presidency had had on the Conference on Disarmament. Although the United States would have preferred a stronger language on the Syrian Presidency, it would support the proposed text.

France commended the President and her team for the remarkable efforts to find points of agreement on contentious subjects, in particular on the most delicate issue, the Syrian Presidency. France deplored the situation and underscored that a vast majority of delegations had demonstrated a great deal of flexibility to try and strike the right balance. Unfortunately, the desire for compromise had not been met by some partners, in particular concerning the Syrian Presidency. It would be desirable to find an agreement and adopt an annual report to the United Nations General Assembly and in that sense, France would stand ready to join the consensus.

Syria, responding to “inaccuracies” contained in the statements of the previous two speakers, rejected the attempts of hijacking this Conference on Disarmament for their own political agendas. The Syrian Presidency was one of the few, if not the single one, which had worked incessantly to reach a consensus on a programme of work in accordance with the mandate as defined by the Rules of Procedure. The imposing of opinions and views on others was not acceptable, said Syria, and added that the text of the paragraph 10(2) and 10(3) could not lead to a consensus.

United Kingdom thanked the President and her team for their hard work and the dedication to adopt the annual report, and said that the revised text could have been stronger in places, in particular in part B and in paragraph 10. The United Kingdom had come a long way from what it wanted to see in those paragraphs, and said that, nevertheless, it was ready to join a consensus.

Belgium expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Turkish Presidency in leading the work toward the adoption the report, which indeed was not perfect, particularly in part B, paragraph 10(2) and 10(3), but Belgium supported the proposal that was on the table.

Canada also thanked the President and her team for their hard work and said that it was essential that the annual report reflected the totality of the Syrian Presidency, which was unusual – to say the least – and included interventions by delegations that had been critical of the President. “This was the fact and cannot be ignored”, stressed Canada, and said that the proposed text was factual and not judgemental, and it enjoyed Canada’s support.

United States said that it had been Syria that was “totally unwilling to compromise”, especially in small group discussions where it had taken a “very hard line position” and was not interested in producing a balanced and factual report. It was clear from the Syrian statement that it had no interest in compromise. Despite repeated efforts by a number of countries to broker the compromise and find a consensus, Syria had objected, time after time after time.

Australia thanked the President and all the countries that had worked hard on reaching a compromise and consensus, and stressed that the text in paragraph 10 did not impede consensus because there was nothing in it that was not factual. The report needed to reflect what had happened this year and not having the language of paragraph 10 would be an inaccurate representation.

Argentina stressed that the annual report had to reflect what had transpired during the Presidency of Syria and be a true and factual reflection of the 2018 session. It would be a mistake to sweep under the rug what had happened during the Syrian Presidency, Argentina warned, stressing the critical importance of reporting on the most salient points of the session to the General Assembly. The proposal made by the President in paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) was reasonable and it enjoyed Argentina’s support.

Spain believed that the document before the Conference was a final step on a long road and that thorny aspects could be resolved by resorting to the Rules of Procedure, which mandated the Conference to produce a sincere, honest and factual report of what had happened during the session. Paragraph 10(2) simply stated something that could not be ignored, it was a chapter in history that had happened and that was indisputable. “I do not know how we can produce an annual report if we turn a blind eye to what had happened”, Spain said, noting that the language in 10(2) and 10(3) should garner consensus and should be included in the report.

Netherlands admired the way in which the President had handled the process and said that the text of paragraph 10(2) represented a compromise, while 10(3) was very factual and could not be written in any other way, as it simply listed the documents that had been submitted.

Germany commended the tireless work of the President to broker the compromise and stressed that the 2018 session was an extraordinary one in the history of the Conference on Disarmament, which should be adequately reflected in its annual report. The text before the Conference was a very faint reflection of that, a smallest possible denominator, and it would be deplorable if it was not adopted.

Republic of Korea thanked the President and all the delegations which had worked hard on reaching a compromise and said that consensus could be reached on the proposed language because it reflected the concerns of the Syrian delegation and the concerns of a number of other Member States.

Latvia, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States, wished the President luck in concluding the work of the Conference on Disarmament in a satisfactory manner, by finding a middle ground between sometimes diametrically opposed positions. The Informal Group of Observer States urged all Member States to adopt the proposed text and warned that the non-adoption of the report would send a wrong signal.

Cuba noted that the consensus was seen differently by various regional groups and noted that there were still outstanding issues that needed to be resolved, in particular in paragraph 10(2) and 10(3). Cuba was committed to finding a compromise that would work for all.

Iran stressed the need to avoid the politicization of the reporting scheme and to steer clear from the dangerous precedent-setting notions which would corrode the Conference’s long-established procedures and practices and adversely affect its overall functioning. The Rules of Procedure, Iran stressed, must be respected and genuine frankness must not be sacrificed on the altar of political considerations. The controversy created over the Presidency of Syria in the Conference on Disarmament was pointless and unnecessary, said Iran. The whole point was that Syria had assumed the Presidency in strict accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which it discharged with “exemplary professionalism”. Iran said it struggled to find in the Rules of Procedure anything that would disqualify a Member State’s right to preside the Conference on Disarmament.

Syria took the floor to correct some misunderstandings that the United States tried to put forward and stressed that consensus could not be built on a unilateral point of view. The proposed text must reflect Syria’s concerns in order for it to garner consensus. It was a great fallacy that Syria had been inflexible, uncooperative or non-collaborative.

New Zealand asked delegations whether there was any other way to list documents other than that mentioned in paragraph 10(3).

Brazil commended the President for her strenuous efforts toward the adoption of the annual report, whose adoption this year was critical in order to show the extra work the Conference had undertaken to make it resume its substantive work and to negate all those who had been sceptical of a possibility of having valuable discussions in this body. The adoption of an annual report which would show the important work of subsidiary bodies created by decision CD/2119 was very important to Brazil, as was to fully respect the Rules of Procedure, uphold the Office of the President, and protect and preserve the credibility of the Conference on Disarmament against erosion and undue politicization.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, recalled that the first draft of the 2018 annual report had been circulated on 20 August, the first day of the Turkish Presidency, which had been followed by informal and formal consultations and small group consultations which aimed to bridge the gap between some consultations. In the end, the delegations had come very close to finding a common language and the language before the Conference was a result of all those endeavours, said the President and suspended the meeting.

Resuming the meeting, BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that there was no interpretation from now on.

France asked if the President could confirm that this meeting was being held in accordance with rule 37 of the Rules of Procedures.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, asked if there was consensus in the room to proceed in English.

France said it would not block the consensus with regard to the holding of this meeting, but wanted to make sure that the plenary records would be released in all six official languages of the United Nations.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that would be the case.

A Representative of the Secretariat said that for organizational reasons, they could not get interpreters after 6 p.m. The meeting continued to be recorded and there would be verbatim records in all six official languages.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said she would now proceed to a paragraph by paragraph reading of the draft report for its final adoption. She would first concentrate on the paragraphs that had been provisionally adopted.

Syria asked the President to brief the Conference on the results of the informal consultations with the coordinators of the regional groups which had just taken place.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the discussions had focused on a new proposal and whether it would be acceptable to the G21 coordinator, which apparently did not enjoy consensus.

Syria said that in that case, since there was no consensus on the paragraphs in question, the Conference was not in a position to proceed with the adoption of the report. There must first be consensus.

United States asked whether the text was being opened for discussion.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that this was not the case of opening of the text, it was a matter of informal consultations.

Russia said that the text of paragraphs 28 and 29 did not enjoy consensus and that it did not adequately reflect the facts.

Syria did not consider that paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) reflected consensus on the content nor the result of intensive consultations over the past three days, and so did not represent a basis on which to move forward with the adoption of the text.

Zimbabwe asked the President to clarify the issue of opening the text, noting that the discussions on paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) had not been concluded.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that she wanted to start the paragraph-by-paragraph reading of the draft report, starting with those already agreed.

Syria suggested to start with the pending paragraphs.

Iran said that there first must be consensus of paragraphs 10 bis and 10 ter.

United States recalled that those critical paragraphs were very carefully negotiated, and that it was not clear to the United States how further negotiations would lead to consensus.

Brazil said there were paragraphs that were pending: 10 bis, 10 ter, 28 and 29. Brazil noted that the solution for paragraphs 10 bis and 10 ter was something that came from small group consultations and many had not participated in them, and did not know how this language came about. Brazil had systemic concerns in terms of establishing precedents that may be harmful in the Conference in the future. For example, the issue of downgrading representation was incompatible with the idea of a nation’s sovereignty, to be represented at the level that they see fit. He did not think it should be seen as a statement that bore upon the quality of the Chair.

United States disagreed with Brazil and said that, given the nature of the presidency in question, it was clearly a fact that there was an intention on the part of a number of States to alter their representation in this room. That was a fact. Certain delegations had refused to attend under that presidency, and this must be put on the record.

France said it was one of the countries that had downgraded its representation during the Syrian Presidency for reasons it had already explained, in an exercise of its sovereign right to choose its level of representation. France urged the President to proceed as she had wisely suggested, by starting with adopting the paragraphs on which there was consensus.

Syria agreed that the level of representation was a sovereign decision of each country, but disagreed about reflecting it in the report, which would mean reflecting a subjective decision taken by a delegation, which was not the approach that the Conference should adopt. The President, for one reason or another, had chosen to ignore Syria’s views on this issue, which it had repeated many times. Syria had a very strong position against having this reference to a sovereign decision by Member States about their level of representation. During the informal consultations, Syria had repeatedly clarified that it could not accept any signalling out of the Syrian Presidency. Any such attempt was seen as an attempt to weaken the Office of the Presidency and a violation of the Rules of Procedures. Syria was strongly in favour of starting by pending paragraphs.

Russia said that it had done its best to open the way in the small group and did not believe that even a compromise on those contentious paragraphs would be a right way ahead in light of setting precedents for the future work of the Conference.

South Africa said that the report must be relevant and it must consider the consequences of today’s actions for the future work of the Conference on Disarmament. South Africa favoured focusing on the areas of disagreement first.

United States said that it did not seem that this fundamental disagreement would be able to be bridged, now or at any point in the future.

Cuba stressed that all Member States wanted to adopt the annual report and proposed to first address the pending paragraphs and identify compromise that could be reached, and, noting that the current formulation was not conducive to reaching consensus, proposed to insert paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) at a different place in the report. Cuba agreed that the texts of those two paragraphs were still being negotiated as there was no consensus.

United States said that paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) were fundamental to the United States and stressed that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.

France said that the issue of placement of the paragraphs had already been discussed and would not garner consensus. Those two paragraphs were a result of very long discussions and an important compromise, France stressed, noting that the initial language was much stronger than the language of the proposed text. All Member States of the Conference should make a genuine effort and try to agree on this very fragile balance that had been struck.

United Kingdom said that Cuba’s proposal would not be acceptable as the language of paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) was the result of very long consultations.

Syria stressed that the language in paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) had been discussed and negotiated at length but had never reached consensus. In terms of moving forward, Syria stressed the need to first deal with outstanding paragraphs before adopting any others.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, asked the delegations whether they wished to start with a discussion on outstanding paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3).

United States stressed that there were fundamental issues with regard to those paragraphs, and it would not be possible to reach consensus. The United States was not able to see how an agreement could be found. The Conference on Disarmament should face up to reality that there were fundamentally different views on how to proceed.

Netherlands said that it had thought that the language in 10(2) was a compromise proposed by the President and that was why the Netherlands had agreed to it.

Iran asked about the status of paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) – was the language proposed by the President or was it a result of negotiations in small group of Member States? How many States had been involved in that process? Small groups of States did not represent the Conference on Disarmament.

Argentina proposed to suspend the meeting and attempt to reach consensus in an informal meeting.

United States said that there was no consensus to move to an informal session.

Algeria supported the position of the Group 21 concerning the need to respect the Rules of Procedure.

Iran asked for an answer to the questions it had asked earlier.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) had not been provisionally adopted and that a number of small group meetings had been held in which the delegations had come very close to a common language. The language proposed was based on all the efforts that the President had mentioned.

Syria said that the language did not reflect any result, and in this Syria fundamentally agreed with the Presidency.

Iran asked whether there had been at least 10 States involved in the process.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that six States had taken part.

Russia said that the Presidency was attempting to maintain confidentiality and said that nothing prevented the delegations that had taken part in those consultations to stand up and say it. Russia was one of such States, said the delegate.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, after a short suspension, said that there were delegations which wished to engage in a discussion on paragraph 10(2) and 10(3).

United States said that it was not sure what there was to discuss and what the purpose was of reopening the discussion.

Syria remarked that there were four pending paragraphs and not two, and that the Conference needed to agree on their legal status before moving ahead with the adoption of the report.

Zimbabwe said on behalf of the G21 that the Group was prepared and willing to work on the consensus language.

United States said that there had been intensive small-group discussions about those paragraphs, and the United States was ready to accept the language proposed by the President.

France sought clarity on the proceedings and how the discussion and the adoption process of this report would continue. France asked what the legal status of the paragraph was. The document was far from being perfect and very far from its national position, but France was willing to accept it for the sake of compromise.

Syria said that in its earlier statement it had asked for clarity and remained ready to engage in serious efforts to reach consensus.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, invited delegations to put forward their proposals.

Argentina said it was ready to accept paragraph 10(2) and 10(3), adding that there had not been a rational explanation given for an opposition to 10(3) which listed three documents and was therefore very balanced.

Russia clarified that the proposal made earlier by New Zealand echoed one of the previous proposals made in the small group.

Syria was flexible with the proposal of New Zealand but it had an issue with the wording “some delegations downgraded their representation”. Furthermore, Syria was not ready to accept the singling out of the Syrian delegation, and disagree with the placement of 10(3).

United States said that this had been a fundamental problem in discussions and negotiations so far. Syria did not want its name mentioned in the document, and a proposal had been made to use the “fourth presidency” instead. The United States did not see a problem with 10(3) because it was factual.

Iran said that it seemed that there was no other choice but to repeat its position over and over. Paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) had no legal status as they were a product of negotiations between six delegations and other Member States of the Conference could not be expected to accept what had been agreed in small groups. It there was a will to have the annual report adopted – which Iran seriously doubted – there must be flexibility by those States which insisted on one sided presentations.

France said that the discussion was going around in circles and said that in the context of small group discussion on 10(2), the Syrian delegate had made it very clear that mentioning Syria by name or mentioning chemical weapons was not acceptable. Thus the current wording of 10(2) was a compromise. On the question of legality, France disagreed that the work and outcomes of small groups could not be used by the President to propose the language, noting that this was a practice in many multilateral fora.

Indonesia thanked the President and her team for their work in drafting the report and noting the difficulties during the current discussions, proposed to only have a procedural report, in one sentence.

Netherlands said in reference to 10(3) that it was a fact that the documents had been submitted, and this fact could not be disputed. The text of 10(2), which already represented a compromise, should not be opened for discussion.

Australia was committed to adopting the annual report by consensus, but noting that it was very difficult to reach consensus and how to move forward, said that the proposal by Indonesia should be considered.

Syria said that the President had made an effort to reach agreement on 10(2), on which there was no consensus, and said that the only way forward was to put that paragraph aside and to find a new placement for 10(3).

United States said there was no consensus on moving forward without those paragraphs. The proposal made by Indonesia was the only way for the Conference to get through this process, given the fundamental differences.

China said that without translation, the legitimacy of this meeting could be questioned. China said it was one of the countries that had participated in small group consultations, and said that the current language of 10(3) offered a basis for reaching an agreement.

France said it would not be ready to accept the proposal to put aside the four contentious paragraphs and adopt the rest of the report because the Conference on Disarmament had an obligation to produce a meaningful and balanced report, which would have to include the Syrian Presidency and the work of the subsidiary bodies. It would be pity to choose the path of only adopting a technical or procedural report, given the valuable work that had been accomplished in the Conference during the session, but France was ready to consider it as a compromise.

United Kingdom said adopting the report which omitted the four paragraphs was not acceptable to it and urged the President to decide, to either try to adopt the annual report, or to follow the proposal by Indonesia which the United Kingdom would accept, with regret.

Argentina said it was ready to continue to work on the adoption of the report and make another effort.

Belarus thanked the President and stressed the need to avoid politicization and build consensus. The wording of paragraph 28, proposed by Belarus in small group consultations, might offer a solution, said the delegate. Belarus was ready to continue working on the adoption of the report.

Brazil said it was ready to spend more time on the adoption of the report given the important and substantive outcomes it contained and it would be a pity to lose that substance. The key issue was paragraph 10(2), and Brazil could accept the current placement of 10(3). It would be artificial to give up on the whole report because of one three-line paragraph.

Zimbabwe, speaking on behalf of G21, said deciding to go down the route of a procedural report would be a sad moment and noted the Group’s readiness to work on consensus language. A lot of work had been done in the course of the year, especially in the subsidiary bodies, and the G21 remained ready to work on finalizing the report to the General Assembly. “We cannot give up an entire report because we cannot agree one or two paragraphs”, stressed Zimbabwe.

United States said that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, and said that it was up to the President to craft the language in paragraph 10(2) that would reach consensus.

France was ready to support the excellent proposal made by Belarus on paragraph 28, if it was worded in the way Belarus had proposed during the small group consultation.

Netherlands was fully in line with Belarus and France.

China asked what the difficult point on paragraphs 28 and 29 was, and expressed surprise that a proposal made by China had been left out and that China had not been invited to the final round of consultations, which had been done in a very disrespectful way. China then made several proposals to the text, including to change the wording in paragraph 10(2) from “downgraded their level of representation” to “changed their level of representation”.

United States said that it seemed that China had not heard the United States’ position on 10(2) and stressed that should any language in this paragraph be changed, the United States would demand that the word “fourth presidency” be replaced with “Syrian presidency”.

France said that flexibility had its limits and that France would not accept changes in 10(2). It was a sovereign right of France to downgrade and limit its representation in light of its concerns related to the legitimacy of Syria to hold the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The language proposed by China fundamentally altered the balance of this paragraph which was already very far from the initial position.

China said it was flexible on the word “downgraded” and said that the purpose of the proposal was to make it more acceptable. China stressed the need for a solution and innovative thinking, and called upon all to help out.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, read out the new proposal on the language of paragraph 10(2), based on the proposals made by China and the United States.

United States said that a number of countries had tried to find a way to present the facts during consultations and negotiations, and stressed that because of fundamentally different positions, it would not possible to reach consensus on the text.

Syria said that the language proposed by the President did not reflect the outcomes of the consultations nor the wider sentiments in the room.

Brazil said that consensus could not be imposed and said that it was unfair for the delegations that had not been part of small group consultations to be presented with a “take it or leave it option”. This body was a negotiation body by its nature, and it was up to the Member States to negotiate language. There was room for improvements in language of 10(2), Brazil stressed.

Germany supported the statement by the United States and said that it was time to start thinking about option B.

China emphasized that the Conference had to choose between two evils and the worse evil was not to have a report at all which would mark a demise of the Conference on Disarmament.

Russia agreed with China.

Iran said that it would be a disservice if the Conference on Disarmament failed to reach an agreement and urged those delegations which were in favour of paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) to show flexibility. All Member States should respect each-others’ sovereignty and be able to discuss the report and reach consensus.

Russia said that there had been a proposal, which was to drop the paragraphs on which the Conference could not be agree. Should the Conference on Disarmament scarify its common good for the sake of those four paragraphs?

United States said it would not agree to drop those four paragraphs.

France said it would not agree to drop those four paragraphs and it supported the idea of a procedural report.

China wondered if the Conference should consider its earlier proposal and urged all to show flexibility in reaching the final solution.

United States was willing to discuss the Chinese proposal if the wording “fourth presidency” in 10(2) could be replaced with “Syrian presidency”.

Belarus said that it was better to discuss substance in relation to 10(2) and 10(3).

France said that the Chinese proposals were not acceptable to France which could not accept that downgrading the participation was against the Rules of Procedure.

United States said having heard the explanation of the Chinese proposal, the United States believed that it moved the Conference further away from consensus and said that the position of the United States on this proposal was very clear; substituting “Syria” for “the fourth presidency”.

Argentina said that there was no harm in China’s proposal, which should be given a chance in order to try everything to ensure that the report was adopted, in an effort to reaffirm multilateralism.

Indonesia asked the Conference to consider its proposal again, since the debate was going around in circles. Indonesia would rather have a report than not have a report, and a procedural report would represent a best and last attempt to have a report.

Syria thanked China for its relentless efforts to build consensus, which unfortunately was not successful. Syria was ready to accept some parts of the Chinese proposal, but the proposal concerning paragraph 10(2) did not address Syria’s concerns.

Brazil said that it was not sure how a technical report would look like and how it would address the work and reports of subsidiary bodies, and whether it would ensure that those reports were sent to the General Assembly for their consideration. Brazil suggested that the Conference followed the President’s earlier proposal to do a paragraph-by-paragraph reading of the draft report.

United States said that there was no point in a paragraph-by-paragraph reading, and asked the Secretariat to explain what a technical report would look like.

Secretariat explained that a technical report would include as appendixes all official documents of the Conference on Disarmament, summary records, process verbal, and reports of subsidiary bodies.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that there was no consensus on the revised draft annual report contained in document CD/WP.610/Rev.1 and proposed to consider a procedural and technical report, which the Secretariat would distribute soon.

Iran regretted that there was no outcome because of the “obsession of certain delegations with their political agenda” and stressed that a technical report would not address the four contentious paragraphs.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, suspended the meeting.

Resuming the meeting, BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the delegations had received draft procedural report on the 2018 session of the Conference on Disarmament contained in document CD/WP.610/Rev.2 and called upon the Member States to adopt the report.

The Conference on Disarmament then adopted the report.

Ukraine commended the President and her team for their hard work to bridge the differences and said that the report just adopted was the right solution at this moment. Ukraine would assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament at the beginning of its 2019 session. Aiming to be ambitious in its aspirations, Ukraine would start consultations with Member States during the intersessional period, with a view to present a draft programme of work at the beginning of the 2019 session.

China said that the Conference on Disarmament had gone a long way during its 2018 session, and in its subsidiary bodies had gone deep into questions and touched sensitive issues. Although the programme of work had not been adopted, negotiations were going on, and China said that if such a momentum continued, the Conference would be revitalized and able to produce a fruitful result.

Netherlands thanked the President and her team for their hard work and noted that the Conference on Disarmament had made major steps forward during 2018, particularly in its subsidiary bodies. The Netherlands paid tribute to the outgoing Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament and expressed appreciation for the support and expertise he had lent to the Conference.

Brazil agreed that the discussions in 2018, particularly in subsidiary bodies, had been very rich and substantial and had laid ground for the work to be done in 2019. It was regrettable that the full report had not been adopted, but the procedural report did make reference to the work of its subsidiary bodies.

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, in her concluding remarks, thanked all the delegations for the adoption of the annual report and urged all to reach consensus on a programme of work in 2019 and so reaffirm the relevance of the Conference on Disarmament.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18/46E