CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS REPORT FOR 2006

The Conference on Disarmament today held the final meeting of its 2006 session, adopting its report to the General Assembly. Speakers also made statements, in which many lamented that, despite much progress this year in discussions, the Conference still remained without a programme of work, and many pointed out that it had failed to adopt a substantive report.

In final remarks to the Conference, Ambassador Anton Pinter of Slovakia, the President of the Conference, said he supposed this year would be remembered as the year of the P6 (Presidents of 2006 session). Slovakia’s mandate as President continued until the end of the year, and the P6 would continue as an action-oriented formation that had a responsibility towards the Conference. In order to translate this into concrete action, it was useful to share the knowledge and experience of the Presidents which had been gathered, therefore, he was presenting to the Conference the P6 vision non-paper which described the P6 views on how the 2006 session had started, where it stood now, and what might be the next possible step.

Speakers addressed various issues during the meeting, including that it was the lack of shared analysis of threats and challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security that had kept the Conference from moving ahead and conducting substantive negotiation work. However, a representative pointed out, greater efforts had been made, but results had been less. After a whole year, in the light of the heated discussions which took place about the annual report, it was clear that these discussions had proven that negotiations could not begin without a balanced and comprehensive approach which took into account the needs and interests of all States, both within and without the Conference.

The weakening of the non-proliferation policy which had been taking place over several years had grave consequences and necessitated not only a realisation of the ramifications of the issue, but equally resolute action to preserve humanity as a whole from the perils currently threatening it. The Conference should be adapted to the major challenges facing the world in this century, in order to respond to the challenges of the century where international peace and security had never been so precarious. One speaker said he was a witness to four wasted years, during which no progress had been made, and the Conference’s responsibilities and mistakes had not been recognised, whilst the world moved forwards to catastrophe.

The annual report (CD/WP.543) details the organization of work of the Conference over the 2006 Session, including the participants in the work of the Conference; attendance and participation of States not members of the Conference; the agenda and programme of work for the 2006 Session; the expansion of the membership of the Conference; a review of the agenda of the Conference; improved and effective functioning of the Conference; and communications from non-governmental organizations. It also contains summaries of the substantive work of the session.

The report states that the substantive debates of the Conference during its 2006 session were based on the joint proposal of the six Presidents of the Conference. As envisaged in the proposal, experts from capitals participated in focused structured debates. It also states that considering the developments detailed in this report, and with a view to commencing early substantive work during its 2007 session, the Conference requested the current President and the incoming president to conduct consultations during the intersessional period and, if possible, make recommendations, taking into account all relevant proposals, views presented and discussions held.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Finland on behalf of the European Union, Peru, Algeria, Morocco, Colombia, India, the United States, South Africa, France, Chile, Syria, Australia, United Kingdom, Israel, Senegal and the Netherlands.


Statements

KARI KAHILUOTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said for a decade, the lack of shared analysis of threats and challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security had kept the Conference from moving ahead and conducting substantive negotiation work. This year had been clearly different from previous years in the Conference as a new momentum had been developing as a result of the innovative initiative of the Presidents of the Conference. The European Union warmly welcomed the revitalising developments this year including agreement on a schedule of activities, focused structured debates, valuable work done by the Friends of the Presidents, and proposals for future work. These had led to a significant improvement in the quality of the Conference’s activities.

The European Union welcomed the focused structured debates held over the year. These had been important, and the concerns of all should be addressed substantively and concretely. Progress could be best achieved with a combination of prioritising and at the same time allowing for a just and meaningful consideration of the concerns of all. At the same time, the European Union recognised that some items were riper for negotiations than others, and would not fail to support actively all efforts aimed at restoring the important and central position of the Conference. While the European Union would have liked to see more forward-looking elements in the report, it had not insisted on any specific wording, thus taking into consideration the views expressed among the wide Conference membership.

DIEGO BELEVAN (Peru) said Peru had serious doubts as to whether the document could be called a report, as it just said that the Conference had met throughout the year. Some delegations that were satisfied with the results would argue that those who were really interested could read the verbatim reports and thus would get a real idea of what had happened over the year. Peru had the troublesome impression of having adopted, after negotiations, a document that was emptied of content. This sterile and contentless document was the result of a week of negotiations, an ironic fate reserved for the Conference on Disarmament. It had been one decade since the Conference last initiated discussions on substantive items. Peru only accepted the document as it was not prepared to assume the price which other manipulators of the rules were prepared to pay.

Peru wished to make it quite clear that this was not considered to be a precedent for the future. Precedent was a word that had often been used to block any progress in the future, and this had never been the objective of Peru when participating in the work of the Conference. When there was good faith among States, it was possible to reach a situation which had a positive impact. It was lamentable that after the untiring efforts of the P6, as well as for the good faith shown by the majority of delegations, and the constructive proposals and mechanisms, that the absurd document had just been adopted. An even more bland document than in previous years had been adopted, which did not even pay tribute to the valuable presence of the United Nations Secretary-General, nor was attention paid to his statement. Greater efforts had been made, but results had been less. Maybe next year, the Conference would manage to develop a report which set down a series of events which never took place.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said it was a great pity the Conference had still not managed to get its work going again, and the only two documents it had been able to adopt were the agenda at the beginning, and a report at the end, which basically said there had been no consensus, and all issues had been discussed. When work had begun at the beginning of the session, the aim of that was to begin discussions on all the items on the agenda - serious discussions in good faith in order to single out the points and issues which could be consensual, and which would allow for the adoption of a programme of work.

However, after a whole year, in the light of the heated discussions which took place around the annual report, it was clear that these discussions had proven that negotiations could not begin without a balanced and comprehensive approach which took into account the needs and interests of all States, both within and without the Conference. In order to achieve that, there was a need for a serious, open and frank discussion. The Conference should not be used to throw accusations at participants. The main problem was the agenda. If all viewpoints were turned into working documents, these would become a mosaic of documents, some of which were related to the work of the Conference, and others not. Issues on terrorism were also important questions, however, they did not fall within the mandate of the Conference. This also applied to issues related to international humanitarian law, and it was hoped that in the future, discussions would be confined to the mandate and agenda of the Conference.

MOHAMMED BENJABER (Morocco) said he would like to open out the windows of the room to the gathering storm, as responses to new threats would have to be made together. The balance sheet of the Conference for the last nine years was hardly cause for optimism. The Conference, which had made historic compromises during the Cold War, was unable to determine a programme of work, and squandered time in exercises none understood. However, this year’s exercise had been promising. The Presidents of the 2006 session had allowed for the adoption of a calendar of structured and in-depth debate. True momentum had developed, crowned by the submission of a draft treaty for the prevention of the creation of fissile materials for weapons purposes, among other things.

In this context, the failure of the Conference to adopt a substantial report was a disappointment, a harsh reminder of the blockage all wished to overcome. At the beginning of this tormented century, where international peace and security were in the eye of the hurricane, the Conference would have to meet the expectations of the entire international community and each of its members. Twenty-seven years after its establishment, the Conference was at a turning point, and should seek the benefits of collective dialogue and multilateralism, reaffirming thus its pre-eminence. The Conference should be adapted to the major challenges facing the world in this century, in order to respond to the challenges of the century where international peace and security had never been so precarious.

RAFAEL QUINTERO CUBIDES (Colombia) said the Presidents of the 2006 session were to be thanked for their hard work, and for their spirit and open mind, focussed on identifying solutions for the deadlock, instead of on finding excuses. The situation the Conference was in today was regrettable. The report that had been adopted today was simply an added bitter taste, and the closing ceremony seemed to be a third-rate wake for the Conference. He said he had been a witness to four wasted years, during which no progress had been made, and the Conference’s responsibilities and mistakes had not been recognised, whilst the world moved forwards to catastrophe.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said over the past few days, the President of the Conference had relentlessly sought consensus on a substantive report of the Conference. If there was no such report, it was not for want of his trying - rather, it was symbolic of the Conference’s collective failure. Regret was even greater as there had been high expectations, and they had been tantalisingly close to reaching agreement on the entire substantive report. Lamentable although this had been, all was not lost. The contingent inability of the Conference to capture the flavour of what had happened this year in its report should not detract from the fact that there had been an unmistakable change of air. The 2007 session would be a fresh start: it would provide yet another opportunity to concentrate efforts for reaching agreement on a programme of work for commencing substantive work in the Conference.

CHRISTINA ROCCA (United States) said the hard work of the President towards leading the Conference to a final report was to be commended, despite its lack of substantiveness. One delegation, and one delegation alone was responsible for the failure to agree to a substantive report, in order to score political points. All knew the Conference was not a universal body, and was supposed to take into account the political concerns of members. One of its strengths had been the ability of Member States to leave bilateral concerns at the door, and sit down to negotiations. One delegation had threatened the very work of the Conference itself, meaning that the latter was unable to tell the international community that it had made real progress by moving closer to resuming negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Before next January, all Member States would have to consider how to respond to this behaviour.

The outrageous behaviour and accusations of that delegation were tempting the United States to use its rights of reply. However, it chose instead to let facts speak for themselves, and rejected, on the record, the behaviour of the sole delegation whose behaviour had made it impossible to reach agreement this year.

JOHANN KELLERMAN (South Africa) said he had no comment on the report, but was appreciative of the hard work and efforts of the President, whose willingness to always listen to and consult with delegations would be a useful example for South Africa when it assumed the Presidency. South Africa intended to consult with the Presidents for the 2006 session on the way ahead for next year, as well as to hold consultations with every Conference Member, and to search for the elusive missing ingredient that was the programme of work. The bulk of the consultations would be held during October this year on the edges of the First Committee in New York. A solution would only be possible with the cooperation of all members, and all delegations were appealed to approach the 2007 session with an open mind and with renewed flexibility and determination that would allow the Conference to resume its work.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said the conditions under which the report had been adopted incited a statement. The Conference had just adopted its annual report. The exercise was rather more difficult than in previous years, and more work had been done this year than in previous years. The report was just a report - it was a document aiming to capture the work done, and to inform the General Assembly, being faithful to what had happened. It should be a snapshot, nor a caricature. This report was a lot less detailed and precise than had been hoped, but it was a very distant and fuzzy photograph. Unfortunately, any more fine-tuning had been impossible. All were disappointed, and the speaker associated himself with the comments made by the representative of India. The French delegation had been surprised at the demands placed upon the Conference and placed upon it as the price to pay for going into more detail. Some of these demands had a hint of the surreal about them, and the speaker felt uncomfortable at the provocative attitude that almost thwarted the adoption of a report, as people sought to re-write history and portray the Conference in a way that had very little to do with reality. This should not happen again, or its credibility would be at stake.

CAMILO SANHUEZA (Chile) said Chile regretted the final result of the work of the 2006 session of the Conference on Disarmament. This year, substantive work had been done which was duly reflected, inter alia, through the setting up of a joint platform, bringing together the six Presidents, and the establishment of the Friends of the Presidents, and the adoption of a timetable of activities, the holding of structured debates on all items of the agenda, and the bringing in of a number of national experts. The Secretary-General of the United Nations had recognised this positive environment, and had encouraged the Conference to acknowledge these features as the establishment of a new period for the Conference.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said on 19 March 2006, he had made a statement in the Conference where he expressed his feelings for what went on in the Conference. There was an impression, that had increased with the passage of time, that there were some delegates who resorted to manoeuvres, misinterpreting the rules of procedure and the mandates of Presidents, and distorting terminology. The best way for the Conference to achieve progress was to work in transparency and sincerity and in full respect of the priorities of all. Some thought they could reflect power politics in the Conference, and at the end of the day, everything would happen according to consensus, therefore everything should begin on the basis of consensus.

The adoption of a procedural report was not a catastrophe - it was a newborn baby, and a return to the mandate that was discharged by the Conference. The Conference should have adopted a substantive report that would reflect reality, however, some had wanted a report that was cosmetic, that beautified an ugly reality. The King was naked, and this was the truth. One delegation had made remarks that maybe were directed towards Syria, and they should be reminded that facts spoke for themselves. All knew this delegation undoubtedly represented a great country and people, but the delegation also represented a country that pursued policies that entailed disasters, waging wars over and over again against small peaceful countries that disagreed with their vision of the world.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) expressed Australia’s strong disappointment that even in the compromise report, there was no reference to the discussion on anti-personnel landmines, and there had been mention of this issue in previous reports. The report could have given strong and positive momentum. It was a matter of concern to Australia that a very small number of delegations could not accept the value of the work of the Conference. She associated herself with the comments made by France. Some countries were attempting to rewrite history. She also bid farewell to the representatives of France and Senegal who were leaving.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) joined Australia in thanking the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference and the secretariat for their sterling efforts to re-energize the Conference. He also wished a bon voyage to the Representatives of France and Senegal and he had been impressed about how they upheld multilateral diplomacy. Much had been said about the report of the Conference. It had not met their big expectations, but it had achieved the bare minimum and would allow the Conference to move forward. He regretted that some members of the Conference had not allowed the body to discuss the issues with good faith. Others, in contrast, although they had serious reservations about certain issues, had engaged in a constructive way. The Conference would move on, and as representatives changed, the Conference lost friends and experience, but also gained new perspectives and energy to push forward. He assured the President of the commitment of the United Kingdom to help re-energize the Conference.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) joined the others in thanking the President of the Conference for his tireless efforts to try to bring together many differences. The Conference was faced with a situation where it had a report, which was not substantive, but they had been very close to it. He wished the succeeding Presidents to take the example of Ambassador Pinter. He joined his colleagues in wishing farewell to the Ambassadors of France and Senegal. Israel regretted that the Conference had been unable to adopt a substantive report. Everyone knew who was responsible for this failure. Israel hoped that this example would not repeat itself. Some delegations had spoken of rewriting history, and he hoped to remind Syria of the historical facts. Israel was a sovereign State and would continue to be so.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said Syria was a country which respected international law. It did not occupy the land of neighbouring countries, it did not destroy cities and it did not use illegal weapons. Everyone knew what Israel did. The Arab Summit agreement in Beirut in 2002 had called for peaceful negotiations with Israel, but Israel had rejected this offer. Recently, Syria had asked for peace negotiations with Israel to resume, but the Israeli Prime Minister had responded that Israel had other tools in its possession which it could use against Syria.

ANTON PINTER (Slovakia), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he wanted to pay tribute to two prominent figures of the Conference who would shortly be leaving Geneva. Ambassador Ousmane Camara of Senegal had made an outstanding contribution to the Conference, both as the Representative of his country as well as when he was President of the Conference. The President said he had special reason to remember the kindness and courtesy of Ambassador Camara when he succeeded him as President. Ambassador Francois Rivasseau had similarly established his reputation both inside the Conference and beyond. He had shown great flair and tenacity. The President said he would miss both colleagues and on his behalf and on behalf of the Conference, he wished them the best of luck for the future.

OUSMANE CAMARA (Senegal), in a farewell statement, thanked the President for the kind words addressed to him. He said it was with emotion that he took the floor today before the august Conference which, a few weeks earlier, he had had the honour to preside. The holding of structured and in-depth debates on the different points on the agenda had given rise to improved understanding both of subjects and position, and he was sure it would open the path to a future which would see the resumption of the work of the assembly. In such a context, Senegal remained attentive to all initiatives or proposals destined to revitalise the Conference and launch it into the negotiation process.

International security was the major goal of all, and to which all should contribute - the reaching of such a goal rested more on cooperation and on dialogue than on confrontation. The weakening of the non-proliferation policy which had been taking place over several years had grave consequences and necessitated not only a realisation of the ramifications of the issue, but equally resolute action to preserve humanity as a whole from the perils currently threatening it. The Conference on Disarmament had proved its capacity to intensify and deepen the debate within its heart, and yet it should not continue to work in a vacuum, which was a potential cause for dogmatic confrontation and fixed points of view, and should open itself to outside opinions, including that of experts and researchers, as well as of civil society. The activities of the past year showed the availability and the will of the forum to begin constructive dialogue, and it was up to the members of the Conference to breathe new life into the negotiation process.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France), in a farewell statement, extended his thanks to Ambassador Pinter and the previous Presidents of the Conference before him, particularly the Ambassador of Poland who had given the Conference so much advice. He wished the Ambassador of Senegal every success. Forty-four years ago, General de Gaulle had said in a press conference that as France was not participating in the negotiations between the United States and Moscow, it was not in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. General de Gaulle had said it would need a lot of imagination to imagine that the presence of France in such a meeting would make a difference. Looking back at the work of the Conference over the past seven years, and on the discussions on the report, he believed that General de Gaulle’s comments remained valid. It was only in 1978 that France had decided to take its seat at the Conference. However the question and comments by General de Gaulle remained more pertinent than ever before. The world had changed, and the world that the Conference had to disarm was not the world of 30 years ago, it was not even the world of 10 years ago. This did not mean that the subjects that had concerned their forefathers had disappeared, but these subjects had to be complemented by other work and issues which their forefathers had never expected.

France regularly made sure that it kept the Conference informed of how its thinking was developing. A new meeting of minds had to be achieved. They did not manage this in the last Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor did they manage it at the UN Summit last year, but in the Conference, the first signs of this new meeting of minds must appear. In might appear through the report, through the interest of all delegations for concrete and specific activity in this forum, or in the idea that all issues must be dealt with on an equal footing. There was one subject in the Conference that was more ripe than others for negotiations. He would not say goodbye, but until they met again.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said he remembered the press conference in February 1962 of General de Gaulle. He himself was a great admirer of General de Gaulle and had written his thesis on some of the aspects of the General’s foreign policies. However, it was true that the General had sometimes been proven wrong. It was undeniable that the Conference had produced more than irreconcilable plans and much more than clamouring and complaining like old men in a tragedy. It was also true that in the last 10 years, the Conference had lost its sense of direction. He personally had the feeling that when they succeeded yesterday in reaching agreement on a report of substance that the Conference had regained a sense of action. They had to wait and see. He wished the Representatives of France and Senegal his best wishes and thanks.

ANTON PINTER (Slovakia), President of the Conference, in concluding remarks, said as they were about to complete the third part of the 2006 session of the Conference on Disarmament, he supposed this year would be remembered as the year of the P6. The unprecedented initiative launched by Poland had developed into an experience which the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference had cultivated and enjoyed. Slovakia’s mandate as President continued until the end of the year, and the P6 would continue as an action-oriented formation that had a responsibility towards the Conference. In order to translate this into concrete action, it was useful to share their knowledge and experience which had been gathered, therefore, he was presenting to the Conference the P6 vision non-paper which described the P6 views on how the 2006 session had started, where it stood now, and what might be the next possible step. The non-paper did not describe the maturity of any issue, nor evaluate the issues, nor did it prejudge any future decisions by the Conference or its future Presidents. It was a kind of food for thought non-paper which might inspire inter sessional consultations. He stressed that the future developments were the sole prerogative of the incoming Presidents and the decisions of the Conference.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06054E