CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES REVISED PACKAGE FOR THE 2020 PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament discussed today the revised package presented by its President, Carlos Mario Foradori of Argentina. Germany and Sweden briefed on the Berlin Ministerial Meeting of the Stockholm Initiative which had taken place on 25 February.

The revised package contained a draft proposal for a programme of work of the Conference on Disarmament for 2020 (CD/WP.626/Rev.3) and a draft decision on the appointment of coordinators of the subsidiary bodies and the timetable for subsidiary bodies meetings (CD/WP.627/Rev.2). It also contained a Presidential statement on the appointment of Ambassador Felix Baumann of Switzerland to hold informal open-ended consultations to determine whether there would be common ground for addressing issues relating to the improved and effective functioning of the Conference on Disarmament.

Presenting the draft package, Mr. Foradori said that, since the plenary on 27 February had shown that the Conference was far from consensus, the P6 [six Presidents of the Conference for the 2020 session] had revised the draft package. Stressing the inclusivity and the transparency of the process, the President stressed the responsibility of all Member States to adopt a programme of work at the beginning of a year.

Regrettably, the most common currency used in the Conference was the mistrust of one another, he said; this lack of trust led him to believe that some States were “more keen to support a programme of war than a programme of work”. Unless the Member States took seriously its responsibility to fight for disarmament, they would fail to meet their moral mandate in front of the international community.

During the session, Australia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Peru, South Africa, Iran, Syria, Russia and Venezuela took the floor to comment or explain their national positions on the package.

At the beginning of the plenary, Germany and Sweden briefed the Conference on the second ministerial meeting of the Stockholm Initiative that had taken place in Berlin on 25 February. The ministers had adopted a political declaration “Non-Proliferation Treaty at 52” and a set of 52 concrete stepping stones for advancing nuclear disarmament. The Stockholm Initiative countries were now reaching out to other State parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to seek dialogue and support for the proposed agenda.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be announced at a later date.

Berlin Ministerial Meeting of the Stockholm Initiative

Germany said that on 25 February, the second ministerial meeting of the Stockholm Initiative had taken place in Berlin. Ministers had adopted a political declaration “Non-Proliferation Treaty at 52” and a set of 52 concrete stepping stones for advancing nuclear disarmament. The Stockholm Initiative, launched in 2019, was to overcome standstill in nuclear disarmament and revitalized dynamic for the Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments as enshrined in its article VI. The participating countries had shared the view that the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference must demonstrate that article VI still mattered in practical terms.

Sweden outlined the further steps that the members of the Stockholm Initiative would take in the run-up to the 2020 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The purpose of the stepping stones approach was to reduce the current risks and to build the trust necessary for bigger, subsequent disarmament steps. They represented a non-exhaustive list and included measures such as diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in doctrines and policies. The Stockholm Initiative countries were now reaching out to other State parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to seek dialogue and support for the proposed agenda.

Statements on the revised package

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that, following the plenary on 27 February which had shown that the Conference was far from consensus, the P6 [six Presidents of the Conference for the 2020 session] had decided to revise the draft package. In this process, all the comments and observations by all delegations had been taken into account. After many consultations, the P6 had thought that certain modifications, especially in the title, would bring the Conference closer to starting a substantive work.

Stressing the inclusivity and the transparency of the process, Mr. Foradori stressed the responsibility of all Member States to adopt a programme of work at the beginning of a year. He regretted that the most common currency used in the Conference on Disarmament was the mistrust of one another and said that this lack of trust led him to believe that some States were “more keen to support a programme of war than a programme of work”.

Unless the Member States took seriously its responsibility to fight for disarmament, they would fail to meet their moral mandate in front of the international community. “Civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity not always must be subject to proof,” he stressed and invited the delegations to explore together the unknown territory of a common ground of agreement, to start working united and coordinated.

Australia said that two presidencies out of six was enough time to spend on the package for this year’s work. The package was not perfect but it gave structure for substantive work. Should the Conference decide not to adopt the package, Australia said it would leave it for next year’s P6 and would not continue the discussions on the package in the plenary.

United Kingdom said that the package was a very wise way of leading the Conference out of the labyrinth and said that it was ready to support the proposal and join the consensus.

Netherlands said it was surprised by some changes in the text, notably in the title of the document, which should be called a “programme of work”.

Germany said that the package was ready for adoption and thanked the P6 on a tremendous job. It was now time to make a decision and Germany was ready to support the package and go back to substantive work.

Japan said that although it preferred the previous document in which “programme of work” was in the title, for the sake of the consensus, Japan fully supported the package.

Peru remarked that the removal of the “programme of work” from the title was an important change and it meant that, once again, the Conference on Disarmament would not be adopting or implementing a programme of work.

South Africa said that it was very difficult to keep its capital informed on the evolution of the process as there had been confusion about which proposal was on the table. South Africa was awaiting the instructions from its capital on the revised package and hoped that all views from the delegations would be therein incorporated.

Iran stressed the collective and individual responsibility to move to nuclear disarmament and safeguard the mandate of the Conference against any unhealthy intrusion or erosion. The first step was to draft a comprehensive and balanced programme of work, in line with the Rules of Procedure, which clearly stated that the Conference was to adopt a programme of work and not a package. The concept of the package had been accepted but it should not sacrifice the inherent mandate of the Conference simply to have something for discussion. It was important not to contribute to the perceived lack of trust, stressed Iran.

Syria underlined that all concerns must be taken into account in the revision of the draft package. Building trust was a difficult task that needed intensive efforts. Syria remained ready to interact constructively on the proposal of the work of the conference despite its concern related to subsidiary bodies which risked turning away from the core mandate of the Conference on Disarmament, which was to negotiate legally binding instruments. With the increasing challenges in the current international security environment, the Conference must retain its core mandate.

Russia welcomed the change in the title of the document, which was not aligned with the content of the text. If there was no intention to start negotiations, then all other proposals, e.g. on the establishment of subsidiary bodies, amounted to a programme of work.

Venezuela recognized the efforts by the President to look for consensus and the contribution of the P6 and said that it had supported the Algerian proposal for the Conference to move out of stagnation. In the light of the international security situation, and bearing in mind the agenda of the Conference, it was important for it to start negotiating.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, thanked all the delegation for their comments.


For use of the information media; not an official record


DC20.014E