CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT BEGINS PRESIDENCY OF CUBA

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning, which marked the first under the presidency of Cuba. The Conference also heard an address by the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, and welcomed participants of the 2011 United Nations Disarmament Fellowship.

In brief remarks, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, the new President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he would conduct his presidency in a participatory and transparent manner. During his presidency they would work on the draft report to the General Assembly, contained in document CD/PW.567.

In his address, Abelardo Moreno Fernandez, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that Cuba supported the optimization of the disarmament machinery, including the Conference on Disarmament. However, they were convinced that the paralysis currently affecting much of that machinery was a result of a lack of political will of certain States to make real progress, particularly in terms of nuclear disarmament. It was simply unacceptable that in today’s world there were nearly 23,000 nuclear weapons, of which 7,560 were ready to be used immediately. Thus, nuclear disarmament should remain the highest priority in terms of disarmament. They believed that consensus in the framework of this body should be reached on this matter. The Conference could and should adopt, as soon as possible, a comprehensive and balanced program of work that took into account the real priorities on disarmament.

Mr. Moreno Fernandez went on to say that it was time to fulfil the mandate of this forum. They must urgently begin their substantive work and guarantee the right of human beings and peoples to live in peace and in a world without nuclear weapons and interventionist wars. They should spend the staggering figure of 1.5 trillion USD that was currently devoted to military expenditures and squandered to wage war to instead promote life and development. Cuba assumed the responsibility of chairing this forum with the firm intention that the Conference on Disarmament did not lose its relevance due to inertia and lack of political will. This would only be possible with the contribution of each and every one of the Conference members, so it was in their hands to demonstrate, with concrete actions, their commitment to disarmament and peace.

During the day’s discussion, speakers welcomed the presidency of Cuba and said that they were sure Mr. Reyes Rodriguez’s rich experience and expertise would allow him to lead the Conference on Disarmament at this critical juncture. They pledged their support and cooperation, and thanked the outgoing president from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for his work on behalf of the conference. Many delegations also welcomed the delegates of this year’s United Nations Disarmament Fellowship. They also referred to the fact that the Conference on Disarmament remained the sole multilateral negotiating forum for nuclear disarmament and they urged each other not to let the forum be sidelined or become irrelevant, but rather to strengthen and bolster it. Some speakers also expressed the view that the Conference on Disarmament should begin negotiations on an internationally binding instrument on negative security assurances; this would allow them to get back to substantive work and to address some of the core agenda items before them.

Speaking this morning were Japan, China, Egypt, Ecuador, the Philippines, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, the United States, Mexico, Algeria, Chile, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.


The next public plenary of the Conference will be on Thursday, 1 September 2011 at 10 a.m.


Statements

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ, President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the meeting by wishing a warm welcome to the permanent representative of Tunisia as well as the participants of the United Nations Disarmament Fellowship who were also present. Mr. Reyes Rodriguez then welcomed Abelardo Moreno Fernandez, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, and gave him the floor.

ABELARDO MORENO FERNANDEZ, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that despite the economic crisis, military expenditures continued to increase each year, with a single country being responsible for nearly half of global military expenditures. The Conference on Disarmament had an irreplaceable role as the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations. This body not only retained total validity and relevance, but it also had a capital of experience and expertise in disarmament that could not be wasted. The fact that the Conference on Disarmament had not been able to conduct substantive work for more than a decade was cause for concern. Some insisted that this was due to the working methods and rules of procedure of this body; Cuba did not share this assessment. The best evidence was that what happened with the Conference was not an isolated incident compared with the rest of the disarmament machinery.

It was no coincidence that the UN Disarmament Commission concluded its work again this year without agreeing to substantive recommendations. It was also no coincidence that every year the First Commission of the General Assembly continued to adopt tens of resolutions that were simply not complied with, particularly those that referred to nuclear disarmament. Likewise, it was not by chance that the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament continued without being convened, despite the fact that the Non-Aligned Movement had insisted on this for many years.

Cuba supported the optimization of the disarmament machinery, including the Conference on Disarmament. However, they were convinced that the paralysis currently affecting much of that machinery was a result of a lack of political will of certain States to make real progress, particularly in terms of nuclear disarmament. It was simply unacceptable that in today’s world there were nearly 23,000 nuclear weapons, of which 7,560 were ready to be used immediately. Thus, nuclear disarmament should remain the highest priority in terms of disarmament. They believed that consensus in the framework of this body should be reached on this matter. The Conference could and should adopt, as soon as possible, a comprehensive and balanced program of work that took into account the real priorities on disarmament. In this context, he called on all members to display the necessary flexibility with respect for all rules of procedure and constructive dialogue.

Cuba believed that the negotiation of a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for the fabrication of nuclear weapons was a positive, but insufficient, measure if subsequent steps were not defined to achieve nuclear disarmament. There was also an urgent need to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East; achieving this would mean a real contribution to the lasting peace in this region that was living in turbulent times. Cuba had noted with concern remarks made during some meetings by certain delegations expressing that now was the time for putting aside the Conference on Disarmament and turning to alternative negotiation processes. Replacing the Conference with ad hoc arrangements that were improvised, selective, outside the framework of the United Nations, and ruled by a reduced group of countries would constitute a dangerous step backward. The solution was not to ignore this body or minimize its importance. On the contrary, to preserve and strengthen it was now more than ever a responsibility of all. The achievement of multilaterally agreed solutions, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, was the only sustainable method of addressing issues related to disarmament and international security.

Mr. Moreno Fernandez concluded by saying that it was time to fulfil the mandate of this forum. They must urgently begin their substantive work and guarantee the right of human beings and peoples to live in peace and in a world without nuclear weapons and interventionist wars. They should spend the staggering figure of 1.5 trillion USD that was currently devoted to military expenditures and squandered on waging war to instead promote life and development. Cuba assumed the responsibility of chairing this forum with the firm intention that the Conference on Disarmament did not lose its relevance due to inertia and lack of political will. This would only be possible with the contribution of each and every one of the Conference members, so it was in their hands to demonstrate, with concrete actions, their commitment to disarmament and peace.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he would conduct his presidency in a participatory and transparent manner. During his presidency they would work on the draft report to the General Assembly, contained in document CD/PW.567.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said that Japan and Australia had held a side event on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty verification from 30 May to 1 June. As chair of that event, he would submit a written report to the Conference on Disarmament very shortly. The side event did not represent a negotiation, nor a pre-negotiation, but an opportunity to exchange views. During this event, no agreements were sought and no decisions were taken. Views expressed during this side event were without prejudice to national negotiating positions of participants when Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament began. The event covered four themes: a recap of the previous side event meetings; verification of fissile materials and production facilities; other verification related matters; and wrap-up. The numerous experts who participated made valuable contributions to this meeting. Mr. Suda thanked those delegations who attended.

WANG QUN, (China), said that the Chinese delegation would continue to work with all other delegations and continue to support open and transparent consultations to adopt a programme of work to embark on substantive work involving all agenda items, including Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations. They would also participate in consultations on the report of this year’s work in the Conference on Disarmament.

MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY, (Egypt), said that Egypt now had the honour of presiding over the Non-Aligned Movement which had always been at the forefront of the international disarmament effort. It also clearly considered the top priority to be nuclear disarmament. The Movement had emphasized the necessity of beginning negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Such an approach would not only provide them with a roadmap to nuclear disarmament, but it would also deal effectively with fissile material and negative security assurances, both of which were of great importance to the Conference on Disarmament. The demand for negotiations to reach nuclear disarmament was not a controversial or unreasonable one. Indeed, such a demand stemmed from the commitment of nuclear weapons States to disarm their nuclear weapons in accordance with article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He concluded by saying that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of such weapons, and this was their objective.

MAURICIO MONTALVO, (Ecuador), said that as Mr. Moreno Fernandez had mentioned in his address, this was the sole forum for disarmament negotiations. There had been several initiatives taken to try to sideline the Conference and they shared his concern that this forum would be ignored or minimized, whereas it should be bolstered and strengthened. Many diagnoses had been given about the paralysis that affected the Conference and some deep self-reflection had taken place, and yet at the end of the day they found themselves with their hands empty and staring at the ceiling, still without a programme of work. They could not sit back with their arms crossed, and they had to respect procedure, but not become a slave to it. They could never forget their ultimate objective was the preservation of peace.

HOSSANA DELA CRUZ, (Philippines), took the opportunity to draw attention to the forthcoming Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the regional and national preparations being made accordingly. The Philippines had recently co-organized a BWC Conference Week in Makati City from 28 June to 1 July which consisted of numerous workshops on various BWC subjects. Participants included delegations from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), regional partners, academic institutions, and international organizations. The conference week was an invaluable opportunity to exchange initial ideas among the regions, and also for cooperation among the diplomatic, security and scientific communities within each country. The Philippines would be sharing further details on the conference in the coming week and the delegation would be interested in hearing about the experiences of other regions and nations as to their preparations for the Review Conference.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ, (Venezuela), said that an unshakable political will was demanded of them when pursing peace and the elimination of nuclear weapons. While they worked toward this goal they had to offer negative security assurances and reach consensus on the best ways to undertake these assurances. They also needed to work on a treaty governing fissile material, including their monitoring, verification and stockpiling. The Venezuelan delegation was also concerned about the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The current president had the difficult task of explaining the situation of this body to the First Committee in New York. All the presidents had carried out valiant efforts to move the work of the Conference forward and he thanked them for that.

U.L.M. JAUHAR, (Sri Lanka), welcomed the new Cuban presidency, thanked the previous presidents, and thanked Mr. Moreno Fernandez for his remarks. To reach their common objective of a world without nuclear weapons, it was imperative to engage all Member States and address their security concerns. There was an urgent need to reach agreement on negative security assurances.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea aligned itself with the statement of 18 August delivered by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21. He thanked Mr. Moreno Fernandez for his statement and reiterated their support for any programme of work that took into account the concerns of all Member States.

ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), welcomed the presidency of Cuba and outlined the many reasons people in Pakistan admired Cuba, chief among them the help Cuba provided in the country after a devastating earthquake there. Turning to remarks made by Mr. Moreno Fernandez, they appreciated and concurred with his statement, particularly those areas referring to nuclear disarmament. They agreed that the impasse they faced today was a sign of problems that were present and could be seen throughout the disarmament machinery. This body had made no progress toward nuclear disarmament in the last few years; in fact, some countries seemed to have forgotten about it completely. Now that the Cold War had ended there was no logic or justification for these nuclear weapons to remain central to the strategic postures of the major nuclear weapons States. Pakistan, despite being a reluctant nuclear weapons State, and he said reluctant because they had been forced into that position, remained ready to negotiate on nuclear disarmament. In their view, the next logical step was to negotiate a treaty on negative security assurances and it was reasonable to argue that they should at least start negotiating this treaty to break the impasse in this august body.

NINA SARASWATI DJAJAPRAWIRA, (Indonesia), said that it was regrettable that stalemate had prevented this body from commencing any negotiation on substantive issues on its agenda. Given the political will, Indonesia was confident that the Conference on Disarmament could advance negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, negative security assurances, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons in accordance with the Shannon Mandate as well as the prevention of an arms race in outer space. They had always been supportive of the work of the Conference on Disarmament. In this regard, they reiterated their full support and readiness to continue consultations on any proposal aimed at fostering consensus on the programme of work. They also supported the appointment of a special coordinator for the expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament. This engagement and expansion would create the much needed political impetus that would contribute to the progress of the Conference’s work.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI, (Iran), said the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament was designed to help start negotiations on international binding instruments. They believed that a lack of agreement on one agenda item should not hinder their work on other agenda items. If they began negotiations on some areas, this would allow them to address all the core issues before them in a balanced manner. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only guarantee against their use or threat of use, but until then a binding agreement on negative security assurances should be pursued as a priority. This was a ripe issue for negotiation because it would not entail technical issues and only required the political will of States to begin.

LAURA KENNEDY, (United States), thanked the Philippines for their report on the Biological Weapons Convention conference held in Manila. She asked her colleagues not to mistake a lack of headlines for a lack of effort as there were always consultations and briefings going on behind the scenes with regard to obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. She concluded by saying that the success or failure of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East rested with the States of the region.

JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO, (Mexico), said they were pleased to welcome the presidency of Cuba and if anyone could give mouth to mouth resuscitation to this body it was Mr. Reyes Rodriguez.

HAMZA KHELIF, (Algeria), welcomed Mr. Reyes Rodriguez as president of the Conference, thanked So Se Pyong for his efforts as the last president of the Council and thanked Mr. Moreno Fernandez for his thoughtful address given this morning. Algeria believed that the issue of disarmament and the dangers posed by weapons in various parts of the world highlighted the importance of the role of disarmament and the need to reach consensus on decision-making and an agenda that addressed the concerns of all. The Algerian delegation continued to believe that the programme of work adopted in 2009 in document CD/1864 did allow them to re-launch a dynamic negotiating process.

PEDRO OYARCE, (Chile), said that they were grateful for the plan of work of the current president and it would be difficult to solve all their problems, but they wanted to continue to move forward to break the deadlock.

JAMES MANZOU, (Zimbabwe), said they looked forward to Cuba’s leadership and they could be assured of his delegation’s full support.

Md. ABDUL HANNAN, (Bangladesh), said that they were disappointed with the progress made during 2011; technical discussions without the necessary political commitments would not lead to solutions. Bangladesh subscribed to the view that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating forum and it attached high priority to nuclear disarmament.

JO ADAMSON, (United Kingdom), said that they remained ready to participate in informal brainstorming sessions and roll up their sleeves. The United States, United Kingdom and Russian Federation had been working very closely over the last few months, but they had been doing so quietly so there would be no megaphone diplomacy involved. Things had been happening quietly in quarters all over the world and they were happy to play their part and would need partners to work with them and play their part as well.

VICTOR VASILIEV, (Russian Federation), said that they were thinking about how to move the Conferebce forward and what priorities they could see. They fully shared the ideas held by Cuba, and also believed the problem of the Conference on Disarmament did not lie in procedural issues, but was really a matter of the political will of States. Bearing in mind that discussions had already turned to the question of the Middle East, Russia would also touch on this issue to make it clear they were all speaking about the same thing. It was clearly shown that the Conference on Disarmament was undertaking the work on a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, and he said that all countries, and all countries of the region, must participate in this process.

MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY, (Egypt), said that regarding the explanation given by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation, Egypt appreciated the explanation of the work that had been done behind the scenes. Egypt hoped that the Conference on Disarmament could select a chair country so that all countries could get along and do the work in time for the 2012 session.


Concluding Remarks

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the next meeting of the Conference would be on 1 September at 10 a.m.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/042E