CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS 2010 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning opened its 2010 session, hearing opening statements from the Secretary-General of the United Nations (in a video message), the Secretary-General of the Conference, and the incoming Conference President, as well as statements by Pakistan, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, Argentina, Mexico, Spain on behalf of the European Union, Belarus on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Austria, China, Indonesia and the United Kingdom, in which many delegations stressed the need to move swiftly to adopt a programme of work for 2010.

In a video message, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said he believed that 2010 could be a historic year for progress in disarmament and non-proliferation. They had seen critical support from leaders of key nuclear weapon States, renewed engagement of the Security Council, and ongoing initiatives from the international community, non-governmental organizations and civil society. Last year, the Conference had broken a longstanding gridlock by adopting a programme of work. This year, he urged Conference members to put aside differences and focus on the global interest, in particular, the compelling need for binding legal norms and the vital role of the Conference in building them. He hoped they would agree on a work programme as soon as possible, hopefully during this first session.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, noted that by its resolution 1887, adopted at the historic Summit in September 2009, the Security Council had called upon the Conference to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. For its part, the General Assembly had adopted, by consensus, a resolution on the Conference, which requested all members to cooperate towards an early commencement of substantive work in its 2010 session. The Assembly had also adopted, again by consensus, a resolution on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) – for the first time in five years. The Conference should agree on a programme of work as soon as possible to resume its substantive work.

Ambassador Abdul Hannan of Bangladesh, incoming President of the Conference, in opening remarks, noted that, despite comments to the contrary, the Conference remained the single multilateral disarmament negotiations forum, and said Bangladesh was looking forward to getting it back to substantive work. As President, Bangladesh would do everything to see that consensus was found at the earliest possibility.

Also at the opening meeting, Pakistan suggested the inclusion of two new items on the Conference’s 2010 agenda – on a framework for regional arms control instruments and on missiles in all their aspects. Mr. Ordzhonikidze suggested that they adopt the agenda before them, but give Pakistan the possibility of raising the two issues in the context of the existing agenda items. If they did not adopt an agenda today, they would actually be going backwards, he observed. Many of the speakers echoed this formulation. It was also warned that, by opening up the agenda, they could be opening a Pandora’s Box, as other delegations might want to make changes. At the end of the meeting, the President announced that members would take up the issue of the new agenda proposals in an informal (closed) meeting on Thursday, 21 January.

At the beginning of the meeting, a moment of silence was observed in solidarity with the people of Haiti and all those who had lost their lives in the tragic earthquake there.

Also at the meeting, the Conference approved requests by the following States to participate in the 2010 session of the Conference as observers: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, the Holy See, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Libya, Montenegro, Oman, the Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia Thailand and Uruguay.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 26 January, at 10 a.m. There will also be a plenary on the morning of Wednesday, 27 January, when the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh is expected to address the Conference, at a time to be announced.

Opening Statements

ABDUL HANNAN (Bangladesh), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks, bid farewell to the Ambassadors of Australia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, Mongolia, South Africa, and Switzerland, and wished them well in their future work. He also extended a cordial welcome to the new Ambassadors from Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, Mongolia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and assured them of his support.

Bangladesh was honoured to assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference’s potential had remained unutilized for the past 12 years. Nevertheless, despite comments to the contrary, the Conference remained the single multilateral disarmament negotiations forum and Bangladesh was looking forward to getting it back to substantive work. As President, Bangladesh would do everything to see that consensus was found at the earliest possibility.

Bangladesh was attached to the aim of total and complete disarmament. It therefore supported initiatives that forwarded the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The agreement achieved under the Algerian Presidency [for a programme of work] had generated a lot of momentum, but it had not been possible to implement it. They were beginning a fresh year and a new session, but the objective remained essentially the same: the Conference should begin substantive work at the earliest possibility.

Mr. Hannan had held informal consultations during the intersessional period with Ambassador Christian Strohal of Austria. As the incoming president, he had reached out during those consultations as widely as possible to understand the views of delegations. He believed that would help him in making a well informed recommendation to the Conference by early next week. He had been discussing all relevant proposals with the Six Presidents of 2010.

BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video message, explained that he had planned to address the Conference personally, but the tragedy in Haiti had made that difficult. He believed that 2010 could be a historic year for progress in disarmament and non-proliferation. His hope was based, not on wishful thinking, but on real opportunities for concrete action. They had seen critical support from leaders of key nuclear weapon States, renewed engagement of the Security Council, and ongoing initiatives from the international community, non-governmental organizations and civil society. He urged the Conference to recognize the importance of this moment and demonstrate to the world its continuing relevance, especially in strengthening the rule of law in the field of disarmament.

Last year, the Conference on Disarmament had broken a longstanding gridlock by adopting a programme of work. This year, Mr. Ban urged Conference members to put aside differences and focus on the global interest, in particular, the compelling need for binding legal norms and the vital role of the Conference in building them. He hoped they would agree on a work programme as soon as possible, hopefully during this first session. That would send a positive signal and help build momentum in the run up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and beyond. For his part, disarmament and non-proliferation would remain a priority. He would continue to build support for his action plan and do everything in his power to advance efforts towards a world free of weapons of mass destruction.


SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, speaking as the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative, noted that the Conference on Disarmament began its new session at a critical juncture. The past year had witnessed growing momentum for multilateral disarmament, with the successful conclusion of the May NPT Preparatory Committee and – most importantly – the adoption by the Conference on Disarmament of a programme of work that laid the foundation for substantive work. Moreover, with the adoption of resolution 1887 at the historic Summit in September 2009, the Security Council had pronounced its unanimous and unprecedented support for the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Significantly, the Security Council had called upon the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Security Council had also welcomed the Conference's adoption of a programme of work in 2009, and had requested all Member States to cooperate in guiding the Conference to an early commencement of substantive work.

For its part, the General Assembly had adopted, by consensus, a resolution on the Conference on Disarmament, which requested all Conference members to cooperate with the Presidents of the Conference towards an early commencement of substantive work in its 2010 session. The Assembly had also adopted, again by consensus, a resolution on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) – for the first time in five years. Significant endeavours outside the Conference, including bilateral efforts on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals, and important initiatives on the part of other Governments and civil society, had helped to sustain and consolidate the momentum.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation remained among the Secretary-General’s top priorities. Less than two weeks ago, he had met with the Executive Heads of disarmament-related organizations and his disarmament advisers, for the first time, as part of his concerted efforts to promote this critical agenda through innovative partnerships and synergies. The Secretary-General had proposed a five-point Action Plan to eliminate nuclear weapons, which highlighted his support for the immediate start of negotiations here in the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile material cut-off treaty, and looked to taking forward those efforts throughout 2010. Mr. Ordzhonikidze believed that, guided by the leadership of the 2010 Presidents and supported by their efforts, the Conference should agree on a programme of work as soon as possible to resume its substantive work. This was the time to fulfil the expectations and the hope that were placed in this body.

Discussion on the Agenda for 2010

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) noting that the Conference’s first task was to approve the agenda, which would guide the Conference throughout the session, said the approval of the agenda should not be treated as a mere formality. They should not rush to a decision on adoption of the agenda. Rather, a frank and full exchange of views on the agenda would help them to develop a programme of work, and to avoid any confusion during the course of the year and at the time of the adoption of the annual report.

Last year's United Nations General Assembly resolution 64/42, presented by Pakistan, called for urgent consideration of conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels and requested the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. Mr. Akram urged the Conference to adopt that request, and to include the issue on the agenda.

There was also the important issue of missiles. At present there was no global regime on missiles and the international arms control architecture was incomplete without such a regime, Mr. Akram said. Meanwhile, the international community was witnessing a growing competition in missile technology. Pakistan therefore proposed to include an item on missiles in all their aspects on the Conference agenda. The Conference on Disarmament should not remain oblivious of the negative implications of such weapon systems on international peace and security.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that Canada would look at Pakistan's proposal very carefully and would get back formally. Canada had been prepared to adopt the agenda as it was, because Canada believed that there were other greater challenges to be addressed that were pressing. Moreover, if one opened up the agenda, there was the possibility that other items would be added. For its part, Canada believed that there were items on the agenda right now that were not particularly relevant to arms control at the moment. What they were doing was opening up a potential Pandora's Box on this issue.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, noted that it was a tradition for many years that the agenda was adopted at the first meeting at the beginning of the session. The agenda was not an ideal document. Rather, it reflected the positions of many countries. What was important was that – good or bad – they had a document. The items on the agenda were very broad, whether they concerned nuclear problems, conventional problems, missiles or any other subject. He suggested that they adopt the agenda before them, but give to Pakistan the possibility to raise the two issues it had suggested today in the context of the existing agenda items. Because if they did not adopt an agenda today, they would actually be going backwards, and would be going against what the Secretary-General and the international community expected from them.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) thanked the Secretary-General of the Conference for reminding delegations of the meaning of the agenda and its adoption not just for the work of the Conference, but the fact that the highest bodies of the United Nations – the General Assembly and the Security Council – had expectations of the work of the Conference. Brazil was committed to proceeding with the work of the Conference with the ultimate goal of achieving nuclear and general disarmament via negotiations. They should remind themselves that they were in this broader context, not isolated in a specific body. The agenda was not a mere formality, although it was a formal document. What was important was the programme of work, and more than that the start of negotiations. Brazil agreed with Mr. Ordzhonikidze that it was not necessary to amend the draft agenda, and that they could consider possibilities within the scope of that document.

Finally, Brazil asked for clarification on the situation. Would Pakistan formalize in a document a proposed amendment to the agenda? In any case, the Conference would need time to consult and discuss the matter.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) strongly supported the views of the Secretary-General of the Conference. It was very simple. It was not time for them to add any additional items to the agenda they had set over the past couple of years, but to work substantially on those items. They should focus on how to do that. In addition, as previous speakers had said, there was not much problem to taking up the issues raised, including by Pakistan, under the present agenda.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said, with the highest regard that they had for the Secretary-General, every sovereign State in the Conference had the right to express its views on what the agenda should be and what the programme of work would be. In line with that right, Pakistan had made a suggestion. Pakistan sincerely believed that the Conference on Disarmament should not act in a vacuum but should be responsive to events on the ground. They should not be in a situation where the agenda was frozen in time for all time to come. It was sincerely hoped that the Conference President would take the suggestions on board and consult with the members of the Conference, either in formal or informal sessions, on those proposals. It was not Pakistan's intention to create an obstacle; nor was it Pakistan's intention to ignore events happening around them.

VENKATEH VARMA (India) said India had no difficulty agreeing to the draft agenda before them. That draft agenda had been derived from the first special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, to all items of which India attached great priority, including the highest priority to general and complete disarmament. In addition, India supported the agenda because it had not hindered them from undertaking work in the past and should not pose an obstacle to the work of the Conference in the present, such as the adoption of a programme of work. It was further believed that the agenda adequately addressed the interests of all delegations.

Reference had been made to General Assembly resolution 64/42, which called on the Conference to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional arms control. India believed that the Conference had a vocation to negotiate arms control treaties of a global scope. Therefore, India had voted against resolution 64/42. Moreover, there were other forums that were working on regional arms agreements. There was therefore no reason for the Conference to focus on such an issue, in particular when it had other pressing issues before it. The suggestion was both unrealistic and unacceptable to India. India would oppose consideration of this item in the Conference on Disarmament's deliberations in whatever form.

With regard to the second issue raised, missiles in all their aspects, India did not consider this to be an easy subject to be dealt with in the Conference in the present context. However, there were aspects of that issue that probably could be discussed. It was an issue that could be considered, if there was agreement on how it could be dealt with in the Conference. However, India underscored that at present there was no general agreement on the subject shared by all members in the Conference.

General Statements

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) thanked all Conference delegations for their countries' support of General Assembly resolution A/RES/64/29 entitled "Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". Canada had been pleased that that resolution had been adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 2 December 2009. That resolution was of direct relevance to their work this Chamber this year, as, in its first operative paragraph, it urged the Conference to agree early in 2010 on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Last spring, the Conference had adopted a programme of work (CD/1864) that included, inter alia, exactly such negotiations, Mr. Grinius highlighted. For its part, Canada looked forward to the earliest possible adoption of the same or closely similar programme of work for 2010 as last year, as well as to working with all delegations to make the immediate commencement of negotiations in this Chamber a reality in early 2010, thereby fulfilling the General Assembly's request of them all.

Finally, Mr. Grinius believed that all Conference sessions, whether formal, informal or semi-formal, should be open to non-governmental organizations and observers. The only restricted sessions should be those in which they were negotiating on substantive material. Frankly, the Conference needed all the support it could get from the concerned non-governmental organizations and observers that were with them.

ALBERTO DUMONT (Argentina) said the 2009 session had been the most significant in the Conference in over a decade, with the adoption of the programme of work and the flexibility shown by delegations in that regard. Since 29 May 2009, there had been tireless efforts to implement that programme of work. Despite criticisms, CD/1864 still represented the best balance they had. They were only a few months on from the adoption of CD/1864, and Argentina believed that it was logical that they build on that. It also provided for immediate commencement of negotiations on an important area, fissile materials. Argentina would continue to try and facilitate and accommodate the views of other States in the start of work in the Conference. Now, more than ever, they needed to make a reality of the commitments they had undertaken to negotiate international disarmament instruments.

JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said that in September 2009, Mexico had participated in the Security Council summit on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Mexico was convinced that the simple existence of nuclear weapons, as well as their increase and the emergence of new nuclear weapon States, represented a threat to international peace and security. There was a need to make clear progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The only absolute guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination. Mexico was preparing for the World Summit on Nuclear Security, which would be held in Washington, D.C. in March 2010. It was hoped that the results of that meeting would positively contribute to the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Mexico also hoped that the negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation with a view to decreasing their nuclear arsenals was a positive sign that could help create a positive environment for the establishment of a world free from nuclear weapons.

With a view to starting substantive work as soon as possible in the Conference, Mexico was ready to take up negotiations immediately on the central elements included in documents CD/1864 (on a programme of work for 2009), as well as 1866 and 1867 (on the implementation of that work programme). As for nuclear disarmament, a collective nuclear security system that was able to establish and maintain international peace and security should not be simply built on a strategic balance or on nuclear deterrence systems. Via the discussion on this topic and the identification of measures for disarmament, such as the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, confidence-building measures and verification mechanisms, they could make headway in this area. With regard to fissile material, Mexico was ready to consider a variety of legal instruments, which should include existing stocks as well as a verification mechanism. Mexico also reiterated the importance that the exploration and use of outer space should be undertaken only for peaceful ends, for the benefit of all countries, and underscored that the current legal regime was insufficient to do that.

JAVIER GIL CATALINA (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that, with regard to the proposal put forward on the draft agenda, the European Union would have to consider that issue and get back once it had formulated its position. Last year, the adoption of the programme of work, CD/1864, had been a true breakthrough after 12 years of stalemate within the Conference. That programme of work was a comprehensive and balanced document, which had been the result of extensive consultations. The programme of work had been widely welcomed by the international community, as a sign that the Conference was returning at last to serious work and negotiations. The European Union had actively supported and warmly welcomed the adoption of CD/1864, and had stood ready to seize the momentum created by its adoption. The European Union sincerely regretted that that had not been possible. Now, it would actively work towards adopting, on the basis of the political consensus arrived at in 2009, the programme of work for 2010 and towards implementing it without delay.

The European Union attached a clear priority to the immediate commencement and early conclusion of negotiation, in the Conference, of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995, and the mandate contained therein, as agreed in CD/1864. That was a means to strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation and it constituted a priority that was ripe for negotiation. The European Union also remained ready to engage in substantive discussion on the other items included in document CD/1864, such as on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination. The European Union appealed to all delegations to show flexibility in order to make swift consensus possible around the programme of work for 2010. It also reiterated its longstanding attachment to the enlargement of the Conference membership, in particular to include those Member States of the European Union which were not yet members of the Conference.

MIKAEL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, warmly welcomed the new President of the Conference and commended his tireless efforts in consultations in the intersessional period. The Eastern European Group fully supported activities aimed at reactivating the work of the Conference.

Speaking in a national capacity, as one of the fellow Presidents for 2010, Belarus believed that not only the six Presidents, but all the States parties should invest in the work of the Conference and demonstrate the necessary flexibility, in the spirit of constructive multilateralism, to find an acceptable basis to achieve consensus on the programme of work. Belarus was ready to assist in achieving that aim.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) fully endorsed the statement made by Spain on behalf of the European Union. It had already been said that last year had entered history as the year when they had made a breakthrough on a programme of work, but also one with no subsequent progress on substantive work. They had to work this year to prevent the Conference from sliding back into deadlock. They needed close cooperation among the Six Presidents, interactive and transparent consultations among all delegations, which also acted as a confidence building measures, and the active participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society, to do that. Austria was firmly convinced of the need to take up substantive work in the Conference, and to live up to the expectations of the General Assembly and the Security Council, but also to address the expectations expressed more widely by the international community. They needed to move swiftly to adopt a programme of work on the basis of the consensus achieved on 29 May 2009.

WANG QUN (China) said that the process of arms control and non-proliferation was starting to be reactivated, but things were beginning to be more and more difficult for the Conference on Disarmament in its arms control agenda. Apart from the Summit on Nuclear Security and the 2010 NPT Review Conference, review and negotiation processes on chemical and biological weapons were progressing. If all States were to work through the United Nations system, through dialogue and negotiations on an equal footing, that would help to consolidate and strengthen the arms control system and promote the universal security of all States.


Over the past year, the Conference had adopted a programme of work, which had been welcomed by the international community as a whole. All States had made efforts to achieve those results. In the coming days they had to find a way to try and maintain the good momentum that they had achieved so as to begin substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament as soon as possible. There were substantial challenges to doing that, but China was convinced that if they held open and transparent discussions on an open and equal footing, they would be able to achieve success and to begin their work.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) said it was Indonesia's hope that they would adopt a programme of work in 2010. Continued stagnation in the Conference on Disarmament signalled that they were insensible to the international situation and the call of the Security Council. In previous years, the Conference had been caught in the web of conflicting views, including on whether to begin negotiations on a specific issue or on all core agenda items at once, as well as on whether negotiations on a fissile material treaty should include existing stocks and a verification mechanism or not. Despite those issues, they had achieved consensus, and they needed to build on that momentum this year.

Achieving total elimination of nuclear weapons remained the highest priority on Indonesia's agenda. The longer those weapons existed, the greater the chance they would be used. As a non-nuclear weapon State, Indonesia needed assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. In that context, the efforts of the President were commended for getting the Conference back on track and it was expected that those efforts would bear fruit. Finally, Indonesia expected that in future the Conference would engage with non-governmental organizations in its activities, which could also help it to break its deadlock. The Conference on Disarmament was perhaps the only multilateral body that excluded non-governmental organizations from participation in the majority of its work.

JOANNE ADAMSON (United Kingdom) paid tribute to United Nations colleagues lost in Haiti. Many delegates had noted the importance of working with civil society.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/002E