Conference on Disarmament

Mr. President,
Distinguished Ambassadors,
Distinguished Delegates,

I am pleased to address the Conference on Disarmament again, for the fourth time during my tenure as Secretary-General.

Like many of you, I deeply regret that the Conference on Disarmament is still at a standstill. As the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, stated in his speech at the Monterey Institute earlier this year, “the credibility of this body is at risk”. The record of achievement of the Conference is, in his words, “overshadowed by inertia that has now lasted more than a decade. That must change.”

We must rise to this challenge.

I remain firmly committed to the Conference. I continue to believe in the value, importance and necessity of the Conference on Disarmament as the single, multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.

Together, we must chart new paths to bring the Conference back to negotiations.

I commend the presidencies of Hungary, India, Indonesia and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their tireless efforts since the beginning of the year. In just a few days, we will only have two more presidencies to complete the 2013 Session. Time is running out.

Mr. President:

The implementation of the agenda of the Conference is long overdue. A compromise should be found to bridge the narrow gap that obstructs the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as a priority.

The Conference should also start early and vigorous consultations to achieve consensus on other legally-binding instruments on nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, as well as effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These core items are of much promise to international security.

In my past statements as Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, I have had the chance of presenting a number of proposals on both substantive and procedural aspects that could contribute towards the resumption of substantive work.

These proposals include: 1) a review of the presidency activity, structure and duration; 2) expansion of the membership of the Conference; 3) a reflection on the role of civil society; 4) a reassessment of the agenda; 5) a review of the rules of procedure, in particular to examine the best ways and means of utilizing the rule of consensus in a manner that neither jeopardizes security interests nor retards the progress of the Conference; and 6) strengthening political will through consultations at the highest political level of Member States.

Many of you have made similar and other constructive proposals before and during this current session.

I may mention the proposals put forward by Indonesia, calling for a timetable of activities with a greater involvement of regional groups or the discussion of the four core agenda items in a serial manner allowing for one item per year.

I noted the call by the United Kingdom for a review of the United Nations disarmament machinery, aimed at promoting mutually reinforcing relationships between the United Nations Disarmament Commission that deliberates, the Conference on Disarmament that negotiates and the First Committee of the General Assembly that legislates on disarmament matters.

For its part, Switzerland has drawn from past but productive practices employed by the Conference, and has suggested a structured and action-oriented process that would lead to more positive changes in the methods of work of the Conference.

In this context, I also welcome Germany as well as other Member States of the CD which consistently have expressed their support for the Conference to resume its negotiating mandate.

Mr. President:

As Secretary-General of the Conference, I fully support a balanced and comprehensive Programme of Work in line with the CD’s role as a negotiating forum. The deadlock in finding consensus on what goes into this Programme and how to implement it has, in the interim of the protracted consultations, led some delegations, such as the Russian Federation, to present a new proposal: a “lighter” or “simplified” Programme of Work, which would enable the Conference to be substantively active.

I have followed with keen interest, the recent plenary debates focusing on a Programme of Work and the revitalization of the Conference. From my vantage point as Secretary-General of the Conference, I would like to propose for your early consideration:

First, the establishment of an informal working group with a mandate to produce a Programme of Work that would be robust in substance and progressive over time in implementation. We urgently need a Programme of Work that leads to negotiations.

Second, the establishment of a subsidiary body in accordance with article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, to examine and make proposals on the improvement of the working methods of the Conference.

Third, the designation of a special coordinator to examine and make proposals on expansion of the membership of the Conference and on the possible role that civil society may play in its work.

Mr. President:

These proposals are part of a structured process which is not new to the practices of the Conference. As Ambassador Urs Schmid reminded us three weeks ago, it was as a result of such a process that the Conference was able to resume in the 1990s the negotiating mandate that led to the adoption of the Chemical Weapon Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

I believe that such a process deserves serious consideration.

The proposed structured process does not threaten any State interest. It is part of the organizational responsibility which we must assume to improve the manner in which we work so that we can reach agreement to start negotiations.

As Secretary-General, I will continue to play my role in any manner that can promote the proposed structured process. I will work closely with the P6, including holding inter-sessional meetings that may strengthen continuity from one presidency to another, and regular interactions with the regional groups.

I am concerned that if we do not act, we will experience a possibly irreversible erosion of confidence in this forum. It is our collective responsibility to prevent such erosion. The stakes are simply too high.

We need to find common ground, with respect for different points of view but driven by a spirit of compromise and collective will to find a way forward.

It is often said that the differences of opinion that prevent agreement on a Programme of Work are shaped by considerations far beyond this Chamber. Most probably, this is true. However, this does not free us from any responsibility to do our best here to move ahead, by reviewing seriously our options and considering avenues for change that can generate consensus.

The Conference on Disarmament has the potential to again be at the heart of the international community’s efforts to create a safer and more secure world through disarmament. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that it can fulfil its potential.

Thank you for your attention.