CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES UPCOMING HIGH-LEVEL SUMMIT ON DISARMAMENT TO BE HELD IN NEW YORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning discussed the upcoming High-Level Summit on Disarmament that would take place on 24 September in New York and whether the Conference should hold an informal meeting to discuss the substance of the Summit and to submit an input to the United Nations Secretary-General. The President decided to hold such an informal meeting in the coming days. Also speaking today were India on the current stalemate in the Conference and the Permanent Representative of Poland in a farewell statement.

Jarmo Sareva, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, presented the Conference with some background information on the upcoming High-Level Summit on Disarmament and said that it would take place on Friday, 24 September from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Conference Room II of the North Lawn Building in New York. Invitations to the meeting had been sent out to all United Nations Member States, the Holy See, the Observer Mission of Palestine, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

Algeria said there had to be some sense of purpose, besides the expressed goal of giving impetus to the Conference on Disarmament, and wondered what kind of follow-up was expected out of the Meeting, apart the interpretation of the debate that would be offered by the United Nations Secretary-General? Pakistan said the Conference on Disarmament, which would be the focus of attention of this whole exercise, needed to hold an informal meeting to discuss its outcome beforehand. Ukraine said that the outcome should not only be a chairman’s summary but also make specific recommendations towards unblocking the Conference. Brazil said that it would find it strange if the Conference on Disarmament were not to hold an exchange of views on that upcoming High-Level Meeting. Germany said that it was highly unusual that, five weeks before such a meeting, there had not been any discussions between States on the substance of the Meeting. There should be a possibility for delegations to convey their positions to the Secretariat. Cameroon also spoke in favour of the Conference submitting such an input to the Secretariat.

Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria, President of the Conference on Disarmament, concluding the discussion, said that no delegation seemed to be against the holding of a meeting to discuss the forthcoming High-Level Meeting. He would decide on the format of such a meeting and communicate its date later.

Speaking on the current stalemate in the Conference, India said it did not believe that the disarmament machinery per se was the reason for the current impasse in the Conference. There was a need for a step by step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework for achieving global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. India had also had a consistent position with regard to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. There was a longstanding consensus within the international community over the basic goal and mandate of such a treaty, which had been reaffirmed on several occasions, and no useful purpose would be served in re-opening it.

Ambassador Zdzislav Rapacki of Poland in a farewell speech said the Conference still needed to improve the effectiveness of its work. While it should obey the Rules of Procedure, which reflected the right of every State to take care of their security interests, the well-being of this body nevertheless required that all its members also respected the right of the remaining members to conduct negotiations without wasting time. Obstruction had to have limits. He also noted that the existing Rules of Procedure allowed a like-minded majority of the Conference to start negotiations without a mandate and without an agreement on a subsidiary body, simply by conscientiously organizing such negotiations among themselves in the plenary meetings.

All delegations that took the floor this morning also expressed their sympathy and condolences to Pakistan, China and Russia, which were currently heavily affected by natural disasters. Brazil also said that the Conference should remind itself of the fact that it was working to avoid far much bigger catastrophes. Pakistan expressed its appreciation for the condolences that were expressed.

Also speaking this morning were Poland, India, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Pakistan, Germany Ukraine, Brazil and Cameroon.

The time and date of the next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be communicated once it is decided.

Statements

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), opened the meeting by expressing, on behalf of the Conference and on his own behalf, heartfelt condolences to the many victims and families of victims of the severe flooding that had occurred in recent days in Pakistan.

ZDZISLAV RAPACKI (Poland) expressed his condolences to Pakistan. Turning to his farewell speech, he said that in the six years he had represented Poland at the Conference on Disarmament there had been ups and downs in the proceedings, but at times they had managed to go forward. The Conference still needed to improve the effectiveness of its work. While they should obey the Rules of Procedure, which reflected the right of every State to take care of their security interests, the well-being of this body nevertheless required that all its members also respected the right of the remaining members to conduct negotiations without wasting time. Obstruction had to have limits. The longer procedural stalling tactics continued in the Conference, the more active consideration should be devoted to the idea of developing an alternative forum, or parallel process, in which real work could be undertaken without the constraints of the Conference’s Rules of Procedure.

But in Mr. Rapacki’s opinion such a body was not really necessary; the existing Rules of Procedure allowed a like-minded majority of the Conference to start negotiations without a mandate and without an agreement on a subsidiary body, simply by conscientiously organizing such negotiations among themselves in the plenary meetings. This like-minded majority would need to coordinate independently its activities and agree on a division of labour. States that would not be in a position to join this process could speak on any issue but would not be able to block the efforts of the majority. One should obviously not expect that the outcome of the negotiations among such a like-minded majority could be adopted by the Conference as a whole, but this had also been the case with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Such a pattern of action would also encourage new States to apply for membership.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) conveyed India’s condolences and solidarity with the Government and people of Pakistan. India attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament. The Rules of Procedure, including the rule of consensus, had served the Conference well. These were essential in a member-driven negotiating forum that dealt with security issues. India did not believe that the disarmament machinery per se was the reason for the current impasse in the Conference. They shared the widespread disappointment in the Conference that it had not been able to reach an agreement on a Programme of Work this year. India was of the view that reaching agreement on a Programme of Work to enable commencement of substantive work should remain the top priority.

As a member country of the Group of 21 and the Non Aligned Movement, India attached the greatest priority to nuclear disarmament and had been consistent in its support for global, complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament, said Mr. Ali Rao. Non-proliferation could only be successful if it was linked to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. India also welcomed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between Russia and the United States; it was a step in the right direction. There was a need for a step by step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework for achieving global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Reducing the role of nuclear weapons, de-alerting them, reducing nuclear dangers including the possibility of accidental or unintentional use of nuclear weapons, and measures to prevent terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons were steps which were gaining increasing international support. India’s resolutions in the General Assembly’s First Committee had given expression to a large number of these proposals. India had espoused the policy of no first use and non-use against non-nuclear weapon States and was prepared to convert these undertakings into multilateral legal agreements. India had also had a consistent position with regard to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. There was a longstanding consensus within the international community over the basic goal and mandate of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which had been reaffirmed on several occasions and no useful purpose would be served in re-opening it. India was committed to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally verifiable treaty to ban the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. India was a nuclear weapon state and a responsible member of the world community, and would approach these negotiations as such.

Mr. Ali Rao also said that India supported international efforts to prevent the weaponization of outer-space. While non-discriminatory and universally acceptable transparency and confidence-building Measures could be useful complementary measures, the objective should be the negotiation of legally binging instruments that enhanced security in space and for all users.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) expressed Russia’s sympathy and condolences to the people of Pakistan and expressed the hope that it would be able to overcome this catastrophe with the help of the international community. He also paid tribute to outgoing Ambassador Rapacki by noting his deep intellectual capacities and high professionalism.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) expressed the heartfelt condolences of Algeria for the terrible challenge that Pakistan was confronted with these days. He expressed the hope that the international community would respond more expeditiously to address the problem. He also addressed condolences to the people of China who had also been exposed to tremendous challenges resulting from mother nature. He also registered his respect and admiration for outgoing Ambassador Rapacki.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) expressed his appreciation to his colleagues who had taken the floor and all others in the room who shared the opinions expressed this morning on the devastating effect of the floods in his country. Pakistan’s greatest strength remained in its friendship with the international community. He expressed condolences to the peoples of China and Russia who were also subjected to climate events. These incidents were a wake-up call to the grave issue of climate change and the need to address it before it became a grave problem. He also wished well to outgoing Ambassador Rapacki.

JARMO SAREVA, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, presented the Conference on Disarmament with some background information on the upcoming High-Level Summit on Disarmament and said that it would take place on Friday, 24 September from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Conference Room II of the North Lawn Building in New York. The five hours made available for that meeting came by way of a decision of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself, who had decided to extend the initial planned three hours, so as to give the opportunity to all participants with the level of Minister and above to take the floor. Invitations to the meeting had been sent out to all United Nations Member States, the Holy See, the Observer Mission of Palestine, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that he supposed that there had been some time for democratic discussion in New York on the scenario of the meeting. Had there been some interaction between the Secretariat and Member States? Also, it would be more useful to have a full day of discussions instead of expediting the matter in the early morning. He would also be interested to get the length of speaking times in advance; many developing States were not always willing to send high-level diplomats to New York only if it was to speak for two or three minutes as there was a cost factor involved. Was there also any expectation for the outcome of the meeting? There had to be some sense of purpose, besides the expressed goal of giving impetus to the Conference on Disarmament. What kind of follow-up was expected out of the High-Level Meeting, other than the interpretation of the debate that would be offered by the United Nations Secretary-General? What kind of follow-up action was being considered?

JARMO SAREVA, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, answered that the United Nations Secretary-General had consulted with a large number of Member States in New York and also during his travels and was also to meet with the Chairs of the five regional groups in New York. Regarding the possibility of extending the meeting to a full-day, this had been discussed but such an extension would be impossible in light of the many other high-level meetings taking place in New York that week. The maximum duration of statements would not exceed five minutes; the exact time would be communicated at a later point. Regarding the outcome of the Meeting, it would be in the form of a Chairman’s summary. The United Nations Secretary-General did certainly not wish to see this meeting as a one-shot event to be forgotten afterwards. Both the United Nations Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament would like this event to have a forward-looking aspect. The United Nations Secretary-General would sum-up the contents of the Meeting in his final remarks and it was likely that there would be some forward-looking part. Consultations were still ongoing on the form of such a forward-looking part.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) added Germany’s voice to those who had expressed their condolences to the victims of the natural disasters in Pakistan, Russia and China. Concerning the role of the Conference on Disarmament with regard to the upcoming High-Level Meeting, it would be good if the Conference could hold an informal exchange on the expectations of delegations with the regard to the outcome of the Meeting.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that there had been a proposal made by the Secretariat in New York for the High-Level Meeting which would have seen only statements made in the name of regional groups instead of States. As for the Asian region, there was no consensus position so this was not possible. Thus, additional time would have to be allowed in order to express the various positions inside the regional group. Concerning the outcome of the High-Level Meeting, if it was going to be only a summary or assessment of the Chair, how would that have ownership of the participating States? Also, the Conference on Disarmament, which would be the focus of attention of this whole exercise, needed to hold an informal meeting to discuss the outcome of the Meeting.

JARMO SAREVA, Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, said that at some point there had been the idea for allowing statements only by the five regional groups. That idea had now been given up, so as to allow for a maximum of Member States to speak. All speakers would be speaking on behalf of their Governments or their organizations. If a country speaking happened to occupy a central coordinating role in a central regional or political group, it would be possible to deliver it in that name. The High-Level Meeting would not be a General Assembly meeting and General Assembly Rules of Procedure would thus not apply. The Meeting would follow the established practice for high-level meetings. Regarding the question on substance and the possibility for the Conference on Disarmament to discuss formally or informally the substance of the Meeting in advance, this was something for the Presidency of the Conference to pursue and the Members to decide. Such a discussion would however be useful for the United Nations Secretary-General to get an idea as to what the feel was in the Conference. This could be either in the form of an informal discussion in the Conference or informal informals submitted from Members to the Secretariat through the President.

ANDRIY KASIANOV (Ukraine) expressed Ukraine’s condolences to Pakistan. Ukraine attached great hope in the High-Level Meeting. Extending the time from a morning meeting to a whole working day should still be considered. The outcome should not only be a chairman’s summary but it should also make specific recommendations towards unblocking the Conference. For this a full-day meeting would be needed.

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), said that a number of delegations had approached the Presidency to present their will to discuss the High-Level Meeting in the Conference on Disarmament. They had discussed this in a number of bilateral meetings and consultations with regional groups. The Presidency had planned to have such a meeting, probably next week, but he had however also recently seen less enthusiasm among some delegations over such a meeting.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) expressed Algeria’s sympathy to the delegation of Russia for the difficult period the country was going through. Turning to the issue of discussing the High-Level Meeting in the Conference, he said that one of the issues had been that the New York meeting would take place under a format which would include the whole membership of the United Nations and not just the Members of the Conference on Disarmament. The question was how an informal discussion in the Conference on Disarmament could then be included in that process. This made the question complex. However, he did not see why the Conference on Disarmament should not convey its views to the United Nations Secretary-General through the Secretary-General of the Conference if there was a readiness on part of the Secretariat to take into account such an input. The Presidency of the Conference should move forward and proceed to have such an informal meeting next week. But before proceeding with it they should get confirmation that there would be readiness by the Secretary-General to consider such an input.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) joined his colleagues in expressing condolences to the countries that were currently experiencing natural disasters. They should also remind themselves that in the Conference on Disarmament they were working to avoid a much bigger catastrophe than those currently witnessed. On the High-Level Meeting, he said that he would find it strange if the Conference on Disarmament were not to hold an exchange of views on that upcoming High-Level Meeting. He had the impression that many governments had still not made up their minds on what was expected from the Meeting. His Government was also looking for information to draft their position for the High-Level Meeting. As it would be a short meeting, speakers would want to concentrate on the most important points to support the Secretary-General in his proceedings. It could be thus badly interpreted if the Conference on Disarmament would not discuss the substance of the High-Level Meeting beforehand. Also what was the planned title for the High-Level Meeting?

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), said that the title of the High-Level Meeting was: Revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament and taking forward multilateral negotiations.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN (Germany) said that it was highly unusual that, five weeks before such a meeting, there had not been any discussions between States on the substance of the Meeting. There had been a lot of discussions on procedural matters, but the title of the meeting itself spoke for the fact that it was directly affecting the Conference on Disarmament. He did not think that the Conference on Disarmament should adopt a consensus view on the outcome and substance of the High-Level Meeting, but that there should be a possibility for delegations to convey their positions to the Secretariat. Also, no unanimity was needed for the President to hold informal informals on these questions.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that he did not think that there would be any problem on agreeing to have informal informals.

ANATOLE FABIEN-MARIE NKOU (Cameroon) expressed Cameroon’s sincere condolences and shared the pain of the countries currently experiencing natural disasters. He also believed it would be most welcome if the Conference would hold a discussion on the upcoming High-Level Meeting as they were the ones familiar with the problem that would be addressed in New York. Such a meeting should be held as soon as possible.

GANCHO GANEV, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Bulgaria), concluding the discussion said that no delegation seemed to be against the holding of a meeting to discuss the forthcoming High-Level Meeting. He would decide on the format of such a meeting and communicate its date at a later date.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/033E