CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS ADDRESSES FROM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND AUSTRIAN MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning to hearing addresses from Joseph Deiss, President of the United Nations General Assembly, and Michael Spindelegger, Federal Minister for European and International Affairs of Austria.

In his remarks, Mr. Deiss said that the last few months had seen many developments in the disarmament arena, including the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia. The disarmament effort did not stop with those two players, however. All States that possessed nuclear weapons must undertake measures to reduce their own stocks; this was essential. Last year he visited Hiroshima where he was able to meet survivors and their families and men and women who were working to ensure that such a tragedy never happened again. The international community had to make the same commitment, collectively. They needed responses that went beyond countries acting alone; they needed approaches that went beyond national and regional security considerations; they needed a strong United Nations and Conference on Disarmament which showed leadership in various areas. The Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament matters and as such it was an essential instrument. The Conference must be strengthened and overcome its logjam. Even during the Cold War, the Conference had been able to come up with agreements so why could it not play the same leading role now? As President of the General Assembly, Mr. Deiss said he was concerned about this. It was always good to have broad-based support for measures, but the rule of consensus could not be used to block their work. They needed flexibility.

Mr. Spindelegger said the poor track record of the Conference on Disarmament had lasted long enough. In view of its many historic achievements, it was simply not fair to let this forum continue to fail year after year. At the high level meeting organized last year the message was clear: the Conference on Disarmament had become irrelevant. It now faced the real danger of becoming obsolete. More and more States firmly believed that the international community should use the expertise and resources in Geneva for better purposes than discussing draft programmes of work. Like many of them, Austria would prefer working in and through the Conference on Disarmament, but if this organization was not able to deliver results, they would have to explore alternative working structures in Geneva. Mr. Spindelegger said that it was his firm view that if the Conference on Disarmament did not commence work by the end of this current session, the General Assembly should have a plenary debate on the future of multilateral disarmament. They had to identify or establish a forum to proceed with substantive work on the most pressing issues. Likewise, they should consider making the future allocation of resources to the Conference on Disarmament dependent on actual progress.

During the interactive dialogue that followed the presentations, speakers said that in order to move forward on substantive work they needed to take into account existing international realities. If they did not do so, their work there would not be successful. The Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum and it was affected by developments in the international political system. The work of the Conference could proceed only on the basis of ensuring the security of all States. Any initiative that undermined the security of even one State would not work. These security concerns needed to be addressed to facilitate the work of the Conference. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was not the only item on the agenda of the Conference and preferential treatment could not be given to one item at the expense of others. Unfortunately, they were faced with arguments that the only issue ripe for negotiation was the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and that this would be the only measure of the Conference’s success.

Several speakers noted that while they agreed with Mr. Spindelegger that the Conference had to find some way out of its stalemate, they did not agree that using alternative mechanisms or fora was the best way to solve this problem.

Speaking in statements were Austria; Brazil; Pakistan; China; Ireland on behalf of Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines and Switzerland; Algeria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 3 p.m. this afternoon when the Council will hear from the Secretary of State of the United States, Hillary Clinton; the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, Lawrence Cannon; the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Alexander Stubb; the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Ahmet Davutoglu; and the Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo.

Statements

PEDRO OYARCE, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Chile), welcomed the two guest speakers and gave them the floor.

JOSEPH DEISS, President of the United Nations General Assembly, said these were uncertain times and it was up to the international community to help people around the world reach their hopes and aspirations. The last few months had seen many developments in the disarmament arena, including the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia. The disarmament effort did not stop with those two players, however. It was essential that all States that possessed nuclear weapons undertook measures to reduce their own stocks. Last year he visited Hiroshima where he was able to meet survivors and their families and men and women who were working to ensure that such a tragedy never happened again. The international community had to make the same commitment, collectively. They needed responses that went beyond countries acting alone; they needed approaches that went beyond national and regional security considerations; they needed a strong United Nations and Conference on Disarmament which showed leadership in various areas.

Mr. Deiss said that progress made over the last few months provided a firm foundation for their future work. One of the recommendations that came out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was the organization of a high level meeting, which took place in September 2010. The Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament matters and as such it was an essential instrument. The Conference must be strengthened and overcome its logjam. It was a question of the credibility of this forum and all its Member States. Even during the Cold War, the Conference had been able to come up with agreements so why could it not play the same leading role now? As President of the General Assembly he was concerned about this. It was always good to have broad based support for measures, but the rule of consensus could not be used to block their work and they needed to be flexible. The General Assembly was ready to make its contribution to the revitalization process of the Conference on Disarmament. Disarmament was one of the noblest goals of the United Nations and they should strive for its achievement.

MICAHEL SPINDELEGGER, Federal Minister for European and International Affairs of Austria, said disarmament had been among the key foreign policy priorities for Austria for a long time. Austria became a member of the Conference on Disarmament in 1996 because it wanted to contribute with an active role in this important body. Back then, the successful negotiations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty proved the capacities of the Conference on Disarmament: consensual solutions based on constructive engagement by all parties. The last time he addressed the forum, Mr. Spindelegger said he had outlined Austria’s positions on a number of important issues, including their support for a treaty on fissile material, multilateral approaches to the fuel cycle and the long overdue entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. At the time, the Conference had just adopted a programme of work after more than a decade of stalemate. Therefore, he had been optimistic that this, together with the increasingly positive atmosphere in the international security arena, would lead to real and tangible progress. Indeed, they had seen real progress in various fora, including: the New START Treaty that had entered into force, which he hoped would serve as the trigger for further disarmament efforts; the adoption, by consensus, of a Final Document at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which included an ambitious Action Plan on nuclear disarmament; and in the field of conventional weapons they had seen the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, one of the most successful developments in the field of disarmament in the past 15 years. Austria actively supported the implementation of this milestone agreement, in particular in the area of victim assistance.

Mr. Spindelegger said the poor track record of the Conference on Disarmament had lasted long enough. In view of its many historic achievements, it was simply not fair to let this forum continue to fail year after year. At the high level meeting organized last year the message was clear: the Conference on Disarmament had become irrelevant. It now faced the real danger of becoming obsolete. More and more States firmly believed that the international community should use the expertise and resources in Geneva for better purposes than discussing draft programmes of work. Like many of them, Austria would prefer working in and through the Conference on Disarmament, but if this organization was not able to deliver results, they would have to explore alternative working structures in Geneva. Mr. Spindelegger said that it was his firm view that if the Conference on Disarmament did not commence work by the end of this current session, the General Assembly should have a plenary debate on the future of multilateral disarmament. They had to identify or establish a forum to proceed with substantive work on the most pressing issues. Likewise, they should consider making the future allocation of resources to the Conference on Disarmament dependent on actual progress.

For Austria, this was not a random political issue. For States that were not members of military alliances, such as Austria, functioning multilateral security institutions were a vital component of their security. Global disarmament was a pressing issue that required their fullest attention. The long term deadlock of core disarmament forums posed a serious security problem, a problem that had to be addressed. Paralysis was not an option. It had been said that the problem was not the forum, but a lack of political will. But instances like the Mine Ban Treaty and the Cluster Munitions Convention demonstrated that political will could also be generated through process.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, (Brazil), said that they should examine the best ways for the General Assembly and its First Committee to assist the Conference on Disarmament in its exclusive task of negotiating legal instruments on disarmament. Every year, at least half of the Permanent Representatives to the Conference on Disarmament attended the First Committee, bringing a desirable Geneva blend to the New York culture. The First Committee session was an important opportunity for Member States, the majority of which were not represented in the Conference on Disarmament, to exert influence on the Conference. One had to admit however, that as it happened last October, the resolution on the Conference’s report was produced basically by the six presidents with the intervention of a few Conference Member States. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if the resolution came especially from delegations of non-member States of the Conference on Disarmament. Another useful initiative had been the visits by Chairmen of the First Committee to the Conference on Disarmament prior to the opening of the session of the General Assembly.

ZAMIR AKRAM, (Pakistan), said Pakistan felt that in order to move forward on substantive work they needed to take into account existing international realities. If they did not do so, their work would not be successful. The Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum and it was affected by developments in the international political system. The work of the Conference could proceed only on the basis of ensuring the security of all States. Any initiative that undermined the security of even one State would not work. These security concerns needed to be addressed to facilitate the work of the Conference. The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was not the only item on the agenda of the Conference and preferential treatment could not be given to one item at the expense of others. Unfortunately, they were faced with arguments that the only issue ripe for negotiation was the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and that this would be the only measure of the Conference’s success. The Conference should not directly or indirectly endorse an approach that did not enjoy the majority support of the international community. Mr. Akram said he agreed completely with the President of the General Assembly that all nuclear weapons States must reduce their stockpiles. Any revitalization of the Conference must cover all aspects of the disarmament machinery, including the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

WANG QUN, (China), said they must look at the real effect of the high level meeting held last year on the Conference on Disarmament, the purpose of which was to revitalize the Conference. Had it succeeded in achieving this objective? All delegations needed to take a long and hard look at this. Their efforts going forward should be guided by three principles: maintaining and strengthening the Conference; respecting and upholding the rule of consensus; and giving attention and weight to the legitimate security concerns of all delegations. These efforts would help them return to substantive work and the Chinese delegation would make its contribution to this end.

GERARD CORR, (Ireland), said that he was speaking in a joint statement on behalf of Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines and Switzerland. This was the first time the President of General Assembly had addressed the Conference on Disarmament, and this was therefore a historic moment and symbolized the critical juncture at which the Conference on Disarmament was right now. But the visit was only natural given that the first General Assembly resolution adopted in 1946 was on disarmament and this topic had consistently been a high priority. The General Assembly, consisting of all United Nations Member States, regularly requested the Conference to undertake certain tasks and it received an annual report from the Conference on Disarmament. The visit of Mr. Deiss was very important because world expectations were high and it was necessary for the Conference on Disarmament to be reminded of its responsibility to live up to its mandate and negotiate. The General Assembly was also watching the deadlock in the Conference with growing impatience and great concern. As a concrete idea, the above mentioned countries suggested that the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly engage in a debate on the revitalization of the disarmament machinery, including the Conference on Disarmament. A focused debate was urgently needed and it should take place in the near future and be based on substantive inputs, including elements from Geneva. Their delegations stood ready to participate actively both in the preparation and in the debate.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), said the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament was a situation that was peculiar to this body, which they thought had rid itself of paralysis after the adoption of CD/1864 in 2009. This document was a good basis for the resumption of work. Algeria was convinced that the Conference on Disarmament remained the right body for negotiated frameworks for international peace and security and while they shared Mr. Spindelegger’s concern about the stalemate in the Conference, Algeria did not believe that resorting to alternative mechanisms would provide the solutions needed for these pressing problems.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said that the delegation considered that all kinds of issues for agenda items should be discussed inside the Conference on Disarmament, not outside of it in an alternative forum as this would interrupt the progress of the Conference’s work. All activities of the Conference should be treated in a comprehensive and balanced manner and the consensus principle of the Rules of Procedure should be thoroughly observed while the legitimate security concerns of all nations should be taken into full account as well.

JO ADAMSON, (United Kingdom), said there was a great deal of interest in more interaction between New York and Geneva on the future of disarmament. This was not an ordinary year for the Conference on Disarmament, so they should take every opportunity to have some interaction with the Advisory Board prior to the General Assembly meeting in October. Could the Board reach out to some of the mechanisms to solicit thoughts from the membership to foster an inclusive debate on the future?


JOSEPH DEISS, President of the United Nations General Assembly, thanked all the speakers for their contributions to the discussion and said he was happy to hear that there was a desire for more interaction between Geneva and New York. His role was to strengthen the United Nations and its credibility as much as possible. The United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament were supposed to be showing leadership and they needed to respond to that. The United Nations Charter started with the three principles of peace and security, cooperation, and friendship and the Conference on Disarmament embodied all those goals so when they were stuck in their discussions, they should think about these injunctions and not just focus on their individual agendas. The man and woman in the street were asking themselves what these people were doing in Geneva and New York so they should try to provide solutions for citizens. If someone hired a worker to do work around their home, the homeowner would check on their progress at the end of each day and the people at the United Nations should think the same way.


For use of the information media; not an official record