CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON DRAFT DECISION FOR GETTING THE CONFERENCE BACK TO WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from Sweden, speaking also on behalf of Finland, Cuba, Pakistan, Canada and Algeria on Presidential draft decision CD/1840, which aims to get the body back to substantive work. It also heard concluding remarks by Ambassador John Duncan of the United Kingdom, at the end of the United Kingdom Presidency of the Conference.

For Sweden and Finland, the proposal for a programme of work contained in document CD/1840 was a balanced and carefully crafted compromise. The adoption of that programme of work would merely allow them to start a process of hard bargaining based on give and take and respect of each others' security perceptions that should ultimately lead to legally binding agreements that strengthened global security. Cuba wanted to put on the record that it would not oppose the adoption of document CD/1840 if consensus were reached on that proposal. Nevertheless, it was truly disappointing that they were giving in to the sad “realpolitik” that this unfortunate era for disarmament and arms control had imposed on them. Canada joined Sweden and Finland in its continued support of draft decision CD/1840 as a practical starting point. In Canada's view not all four core issues were ripe for negotiations, and Canada encouraged a more pragmatic outlook by Members.

Pakistan said the fact was that nothing had changed since 13 March, when document CD/1840 was first presented. Pakistan’s substantive concerns about draft decision CD/1840 included that there be a commitment to negotiate a “non-discriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable” fissile material treaty; the creation of space for addressing the question of existing and future stocks; the commencement of negotiations on all four core issues; and using ad hoc committees as mechanisms for negotiations. Algeria challenged a number of the statements made by Canada, including that the issue of negative security assurances had not yet reached consensus. Algeria hoped that eventually consensus would be reached on CD/1840 in a way that fully took into account the concerns of Conference members.

At the end of the meeting, the outgoing President of the Conference observed that, at the beginning of the term, they had noted the almost complete consensus on draft decision CD/1840, which contained much of the substance of its predecessor (CD/2007/L.1). While it was regretted that consensus had not been found, the differences were not insurmountable. But it was necessary to look at what was reasonable. It was very much in question if this body was in a position to carry out four parallel negotiations.

According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Chile as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; appoint Japan as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations; appoint Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; appoint Senegal as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and would request those Coordinators to present a report to the Conference on the progress of work before the conclusion of the session. The Conference would also decide to request the Coordinators for the agenda items previously appointed by the 2008 Presidents (i.e., new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems for such weapons, radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armament) to continue their work during the current session.

Draft Decision CD/1840 builds on an earlier proposal submitted by the 2007 P-6 (CD/2007/L.1), and its related documents CRP.5 and CRP.6, combining those three texts in a single document.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 24 June under the Presidency of the United States.

Statements

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking also on behalf of Finland, said that he had taken the floor in support of Presidential Draft Decision CD/1840, underscoring that Sweden and Finland fully subscribed to the statement already made on that topic by the European Union on 15 May. Sweden and Finland had over the last few years warned of the danger that the Conference on Disarmament could sink into irrelevance if the present paralysis was not broken. They had also underlined that those blocking progress had to be made to understand that the inertia in the Conference was doing damage not only to their common security, but also in the long run to their own security. By joining the Conference its Member States had taken on a collective responsibility to seize opportunities to negotiate treaties that strengthened global security. Such opportunities existed and it was their duty to act upon them. Not doing so was irresponsible.

The proposal for a programme of work contained in document CD/1840 was a balanced and carefully crafted compromise that would allow the Conference to resume substantive work and negotiations in its 2008 session. No more, no less. Sweden and Finland fully shared the view expressed by the United Nations Secretary-General that the proposal "would not deprive any Member State of the ability to assert its national positions in the subsequent phases of the Conference's work". Document CD/1840 should not be considered as another "grand bargain". The adoption of that programme of work would merely allow them to start a process of hard bargaining based on give and take and respect of each others' security perceptions that should ultimately lead to legally binding agreements that strengthened global security. Let them prove wrong those that, in words and deeds, appeared to have already written off the Conference on Disarmament. Let them continue to urge those very few remaining States that had not yet endorsed draft decision CD/1840 to reconsider their positions. And let them spare no efforts to overcome the remaining hurdles in order to finally cross the bridge that had been built – because cross it together they must.

ABEL LA ROSA DOMÍNGUEZ (Cuba) said that they were about to conclude the second part of the Conference on Disarmament for 2008, which risked encountering the same fate as previous sessions. In that context, Cuba wished to put a number of comments on the record concerning draft decision CD/1840. Cuba would not oppose the adoption of document CD/1840 if consensus were reached on that proposal. Cuba was aware that its adoption would mean that they could finally have something resembling a programme of work that would enable the Conference to get down to work.

Nevertheless, for Cuba, nuclear disarmament was the highest priority in disarmament, as all Member States of the United Nations agreed in the final document of the first General Assembly special session on disarmament in 1978. As long as they did not make progress in that area, they could not delay the conclusion of an effective international agreement to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Cuba therefore urged the nuclear Powers and other States that were today emphasizing non-proliferation at the expense of nuclear disarmament to unambiguously face up to their article 6 obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required parties to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament”. It was truly disappointing that they were giving in to the sad “realpolitik” that this unfortunate era for disarmament and arms control imposed on them. It was not possible that the obstinacy and power of a few obliged them to follow the easy path of accommodation, while efforts were redirected to issues of secondary or tertiary importance. Cuba was optimistic, however. Things would change sooner rather than later.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said Pakistan's policy on a fissile material treaty had been determined at the highest decision-making level: the National Command Authority had reiterated last year Pakistan's position in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security interests of all States. From Pakistan's point of view, there was only a minor difference between the proposal CD/2007/L.1 of last year and the new paper (CD/1840) synthesized this year. While presenting the paper, it had been made clear by the President that it would form the basis for further informal consultations. At that point, Pakistan had stated that it was ready to table amendments to the paper in accordance with instructions from the capital. The fact was that nothing had changed since 13 March, when document CD/1840 was first presented. No engagement to amend or negotiate the text of the paper had yet taken place. Not a single comma had been changed, though several substantive and procedural suggestions had been made by Pakistan and other members. Pakistan's understanding was that it was not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal.

From Islamabad, the response had been that Pakistan would sign any dispensation or mandate that was non-discriminatory; that the Conference should work on a mandate for a verifiable fissile material treaty; and that the Government had started an interdepartmental evaluation of the recent draft proposal. Pakistan's substantive concerns about draft decision CD/1840 were well known. These were, inter alia: a commitment to negotiate a “non-discriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable” fissile material treaty; creation of space for addressing the question of existing and future stocks, as was done in the Shannon report; negotiations on all four core issues – nuclear disarmament, a fissile material treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances; and using ad hoc committees as mechanisms for negotiations. It was true that the Conference had to start work without preconditions. There were three preconditions that they had to remove: first, that no negotiations could start if verification was part of the mandate; that no negotiations could start if ad hoc committees would deal with the four core issues; and that negotiations would only take place on a fissile material treaty, and not on the other three core issues.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said Canada joined Sweden and Finland in its continued support of draft decision CD/1840 as a practical starting point, although not without a lot of difficulties, as pointed out by Pakistan. Pakistan had made references to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. In 1997, Canada had given a presentation on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty before the Conference, saying that there was no doubt that tough decisions would be necessary during any negotiation, but not necessarily a priori; decisions to begin need not prejudge vital issues. That statement made over 10 years ago applied as much today as it did 10 years ago.

But regarding the issue of commencing negotiations on all four core issues, in Canada's view not all four were ripe for negotiations. Issues such as negative security assurances that had been flogged to death several years ago still did not appear ripe. That area would require a necessary "toilettage" before being ready. On nuclear disarmament, that seemed more like a wonderful long-term objective rather than a negotiation that was really realistic at this point. As for prevention of an arms race in outer space, Russia and China had tabled a paper on that issue, and there did seem to be a willingness to discuss it. The bottom line was that an fissile material cut-off treaty was much more ripe for serious discussion and negotiation than any of the other four core issues. Canada encouraged a more pragmatic outlook by Members.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria's position had not changed. But regarding the current discussion on the draft decision CD/1840, Algeria had made all efforts to allow the Conference to emerge from the stalemate and deadlock in which it languished. That stalemate did not mean that the members had not made contributions or efforts. However, those contributions and efforts had not gained consensus so far. As for Canada's statement on the programme of work as well as issues ready to be negotiated, Algeria had a question: what was meant by saying that there were questions that were ripe for negotiation and others that were not? Canada had also mentioned that reaching a programme of work required difficult decisions. Also, what was meant by saying that the issue of negative security assurances had not yet reached consensus? If that were true, it would also be true to say that there was no consensus on any of the four core issues, for if there were they would have begun negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. It was also well known that negotiations on a effective international agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was very urgent – otherwise there was no point to all the efforts that they were making.

Document CD/1840 did mark progress as compared to L.1, unfortunately, the positions of members had not yet reached consensus on that. Algeria therefore hoped that the United Kingdom, along with the six Presidents of the Conference, would work together in order to reach the desired consensus through intensive consultations. It was hoped that eventually that consensus would be reached on CD/1840, in a way that fully took into account the concerns of Conference members.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom), the President of the Conference, in concluding remarks at the end of the United Kingdom presidency, said the United Kingdom continued to be a strong supporter of multilateral approaches to disarmament and as such welcomed the work of the Conference. At the beginning of the term, they had noted the almost complete consensus on draft decision CD/1840, which contained much of the substance of its predecessor (CD/2007/L.1). That was the view of the 12 Presidents of the Conference, coming from different regional groupings around the world.

It was regretted that consensus had not been found. But the candour of the discussions on the draft decision was welcomed, even though it showed there were still differences. The differences were not insurmountable. But it was necessary to look at what was reasonable. It was very much in question if this body was in a position to carry out four parallel negotiations. They were perhaps in a position where the best was becoming the enemy of the good. The Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral body for disarmament negotiations, and it was the United Kingdom's hope that they would get it back to work, Mr. Duncan concluded


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08034E