CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT URGED TO ALLOW CIVIL SOCIETY TO PARTICIPATE DIRECTLY IN ITS WORK

The Conference on Disarmament today heard renewed calls to allow representatives of civil society to participate directly in its work at the last plenary of the second part of its 2006 session.

Ireland, which has raised the issue of the participation of civil society in the past, said the failure of the Conference to define an appropriate relationship with civil society was of concern. It was hard to believe, much less understand, how a body charged with a mandate of such relevance to humankind and drawing its funding from the United Nations could continue to effectively exclude civil society from a meaningful role in its deliberations. The Friends of the President should take a more active approach in this matter, and the Irish delegation would be happy to meet with the Friends in order to explore how this could be done.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said interesting and specific ideas were heard on the problems of participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Conference. As these views were interesting and systematic, the statement should be distributed in writing so that members could learn more about this, and it was hoped the Conference would think seriously about the matter.

New Zealand and France supported the idea of the direct participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Conference, and Italy said the Friends of the President were ready to consult interested delegations on the specific issues of the agenda.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Ousmane Camara of Senegal, said the aim of the Conference was to bring to concrete form the legitimate aspiration to security of the international community, whilst preserving the latter from the perils threatening it today, whether they were the risk of nuclear proliferation, or terrorism.

Today, due to the mutations in the international order and the wave of renewal which was affecting the world as well as the United Nations, the Conference was at a crossroads, and the impasse under which it was suffering was a challenge for all, the President said. The thirty-odd non-Member States that each year asked to participate as observers, and the non-negligible number of important personalities regularly addressing the Conference showed the interest that the Conference had for the world; and this interest was clearly shown in the recent visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who had urged the Conference to contribute to history through concrete results.

The Conference also heard from the representatives of Romania, who provided a general statement; Argentina, who talked about negative security assurances; and the Russian Federation, who spoke about prevention of an arms race in outer space.

The President of the Conference, referring to the gruesome murder of four Russian diplomats who were taken hostage in Iraq earlier this month, said this act deserved the strongest condemnation, and the President and the Conference as a whole expressed condolences to the families of the bereaved, and to Russia and its people. The Russian Federation indicated thanks for the kind words of the President after the tragic events in Iraq, which would be transmitted to the families of the bereaved.

The third and last part of the 2006 session of the Conference will take place from 31 July to 15 September. The next plenary of the Conference will meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 3 August.

Statements

OUSMANE CAMARA (Senegal), Incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, said Senegal was pursuing with determination, in Africa and the rest of the world, a policy that was inspired by the ideals of peace, solidarity, and mutually advantageous cooperation. The aim of the Conference was to bring to concrete form the legitimate aspiration to security of the international community, whilst preserving the latter from the perils threatening it today, whether they were the risk of nuclear proliferation, or terrorism.

Senegal, a militant in the fight for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, continued to believe in the pertinence of the Conference, the unique multilateral instance of negotiation in the field of disarmament, which had a particular importance in the current international context, and which had already proved its effectiveness in the past. Today, due to the mutations in the international order and the wave of renewal which was affecting the world as well as the United Nations, the Conference was at a crossroads. The impasse under which it was suffering was a challenge for the imagination of all, and should call upon the consciences of all present, both as individuals and representatives of Member States.

Senegal believed that a judicially-constraining international instrument on negative security guarantees in favour of States which did not have nuclear weapons would give an increased level of authority to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the Senegalese Presidency, he said, the Conference would review two important issues on the agenda, namely efficient international agreements to guarantee States without nuclear weapons against the use or threat of these weapons; and the global disarmament programme. All were appealed to for an active and constructive participation in the discussions planned for August.

The thirty-odd non-member States that each year asked to participate as observers, and the non-negligible number of important personalities regularly addressing the Conference showed the interest that the Conference held for the world. This interest was clearly shown in the recent visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, whose conclusion was still echoing in the Chamber: if it has the political will, the Conference on Disarmament can recover its authority of yesteryear, and engender concrete results which will shape history. All should work together to turn this wish into a fact.

Before making his speech, Mr. Camara spoke of the recent news of the gruesome murder of four Russian diplomats who were taken hostage in Iraq earlier this month. This act deserved the strongest condemnation, and the President and the Conference as a whole expressed condolences to the families of the bereaved, and to Russia and its people, he said.

ANKA ELENA JURCAN (Romania) said there was seldom a single day without any piece of news concerning the current threat of terrorist access, and potential use of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. At the same time, the Conference should pay due attention to the conclusions and recommendations of the international meetings on topics that were directly or indirectly related to the issues on the Conference’s agenda, and it was worth taking them into account in the Conference’s activity. Some delegations had already started to do so concerning the proposals put forward at the beginning of the month by the Commission on weapons of mass destruction, chaired by Dr. Hans Blix. Such an opening of the Conference towards the “realities of the outside world” should become a part of the creative thinking much desired in the Conference’s endeavours.

The Secretary-General, at his address to the Conference on 21 June, had signalled his high support and guidance for the activity of the sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations. He had also mentioned the risk of non-State actors acquiring the means to carry out nuclear terrorism, as well as the fact that, among other proposals, the Conference had at hand “the elements of a ground-breaking instrument on halting the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes”. While everybody recognised the fact that the FMCT negotiation would not be an easy one, taking into account the several remaining divergent views on issues such as scope and verification, it should also be admitted that this was the reason of a negotiating process, and none of the problems would be solved without embarking negotiations on them.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said the failure of the Conference to define an appropriate relationship with civil society had been of concern to many delegations. It was hard to believe, much less understand, how a body charged with a mandate of such relevance to humankind and drawing its funding from the United Nations could continue to effectively exclude civil society from a meaningful role in its deliberations. The Conference remained the only major disarmament forum where non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were not present. During its Presidency of the Conference in March 2003, Ireland had sought to address this anomaly. None of the modest options had commanded consensus, but the baton had been taken up by succeeding Presidents, and in January 2004, the Conference had adopted its one and only decision for many years, which would set aside one of its informal Plenary meetings per annual session to NGOs, when the Conference adopted a programme of work. There was still no programme of work, although the Conference could be said to be working more effectively in 2006. Ireland believed that with the active engagement of the Friends of the President, there would be some welcome progress in this area in 2006. The Friends should take a more active approach in this matter, and the Irish delegation would be happy to meet with the Friends in order to explore how this could be done.

MARCELO VALLE FON ROUGE (Argentina) said on negative security assurances, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Protocol to the Treaty itself would be the most appropriate framework for advancing negotiations on a multilateral legally-binding security assurance instrument, bearing in mind that the five nuclear powers should uphold this. The common position of the Council of the European Union was welcomed, noting that it included two nuclear States. Nuclear States should reaffirm the existing security guarantees created by the United Nations Security Council, and sign and ratify the security assurances in the form of treaties. Nuclear States should grant more effective assurances to non-nuclear weapons holding States to assure them they would not use these against those States.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) indicated thanks for the kind words of the President after the tragic events in Iraq, which would be transmitted to the families of the bereaved. In an official statement, various points had been made, including that the irreversible had occurred, despite all efforts to retrieve the Russian nationals. The murderers, whatever their beliefs, had no faith or honour, and the Iraqi leadership should do their utmost to ensure that not one of the participants in the crime could avoid just retribution. In this sad and serious moment, it should be recognised that Iraq had become an arena for terrorist action in which many suffered, including simple Iraqi citizens. Stability and peace should be achieved, through national reconciliation and the union of all Iraqis, regardless of their faith. There was a need for real international assistance for the political system in Iraq. The situation in the country had become worse, worsening the threat to totally innocent people. There had been a lot heard in the Conference on the problems of preventing terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons and other forms of weapon, and this was a very important subject. Even more important was the need to eliminate the reasons which nurtured terrorism.

During the recent thematic week held in the Conference on prevention of an arms race in outer space, many delegations had supported the renewal of the views and approaches to possible measures of activity and security in space-based issues. Time was ticking on, and measures to build confidence in outer space were required in order to build peace, security and international cooperation in preventing an arms race in outer space.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said interesting and specific ideas were heard on the problems of participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Conference, as expressed by the Ambassador of Ireland. All had paid attention to what she had said, in the sense that it was a big gap between the Conference and many other organs of the United Nations or just international organs in general which took into account the views of civil society. As these views were interesting and systematic, the statement should be distributed in writing so that members could learn more about this, and it was hoped the Conference would think seriously about the matter.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said the suggestion on the circulation of the statement from Ireland was supported. The issue was one that had been around for a long time, and had been before the Conference for a long time. It was important that the Conference take similar approaches as other bodies. There was potentially a huge role for civil society in assisting bodies in their work. It would be good to come back and discuss this issue further in the Conference. If there were participants who had reservations on this issue, it would be useful to have an open exchange to see what could be done to redress their specific concerns in a way that would allow greater input from civil society. This was an issue which should be kept at the forefront of the collective mind of the Conference as it progressed through the Senegalese leadership.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said one of the things that had been done this year was to work interactively, and with regards to the inclusion of civil society, one of the points of progress achieved this year was to get beyond the purely procedural debates which had been held over the last eight years, and this spirit should continue. This was just one aspect, and before thinking of new developments, maybe the Conference should start at the beginning, considering how to implement what had already been agreed upon. The perception was that there was no work programme, but on consulting colleagues this argument did not hold water. There was a schedule of activities, and although this was disappointing, it could be taken to mean a programme of work, as had been the case in the 1980s. If the Conference was to agree it had a programme of work, then there was already a decision, and non-governmental organizations could join in deliberations. The Conference should not get too bogged down in procedural issues, it should be creative and proactive, and on this basis the most progress could be made.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said her statement could be circulated. On the purpose of putting it forward, it was to ensure that the Friends of the President, a good innovation, would have the benefit of interested delegations views on certain topics, and also in the interest of transparency. However, it was not just a procedural issue, it was an issue that Ireland would pursue across the multilateral fora. There was one point with which Ireland could agree with France, and that was that the Conference appeared to be working this year, and whatever this was called the issues on the agenda were being addressed. Civil society had participated in some form during the discussions with Experts that had been held in other meetings. Maybe the decision taken in 2004 should be examined, and whether this could be the year in which that aspect of it should be implemented, and the representatives of civil society invited to address a session. A debate should be held on this topic.

RAFFAELE DE BENEDICTUS (Italy) said with regards to what had been said on the role of the Friends of the President, they were ready to consult interested delegations on the specific issue of the agenda.