CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM 20 SPEAKERS ON VARIOUS DISARMAMENT ISSUES

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from 20 speakers on a series of topics, ranging from its agenda items on new types of weapons of mass destruction, a comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments, to the side events held concerning definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and space security issues.

Many speakers noted the continued absence of consensus on a programme of work, but there were different views on how effective recent side events had been for the Conference. Some speakers said side events were useful and helped increase knowledge of issues, especially technical issues. One speaker hoped that the event on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would provide the building blocks and the confidence for future negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the Conference. However, other speakers said they were not in favour of and did not participate in side events. These side events lacked the extensive participation of the relevant parties. Any conclusions coming from such side events did not have any status in the work of the Conference. This was why they did not endorse or acknowledge any conclusions in such side events. This was in the interest of safeguarding the authority of the Conference and the wide participation of Member States. One speaker said they participated in the side events without prejudice to their position in real negotiations and it was obvious that discussions on the sidelines of the Conference could not be a substitute for negotiations in a subsidiary body of the Conference.

On agenda items 5, 6 and 7 concerning new types of weapons of mass destruction, a comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments, one speaker said that while a stalemate persisted over the four core issues, there was no reason why substantive progress could not be made on other issues which might also have a significant impact on state, regional and global security. The Conference could explore the possibilities to create a codified norm as well as to place a demand for concrete steps to be taken against those who continued to transfer arms and ammunition to terrorists. A speaker said they were willing to work on new issues, but without forgetting the real priorities before the Conference, i.e. threats linked to nuclear proliferation and the need to stop nuclear weapons. Another speaker said that the international community should consider elaborating a legally binding instrument before the production of new weapons of mass destruction became a reality. One speaker said today they were seeing a rethink of the concept of weapons, getting away from the military definition. Today the talk should be about weapons of mass disruption and not just of mass destruction, including using science and technology for hostile reasons. They should talk of information and communication technological progress which could be used against the security interests of States.

Speaking this morning were Israel, Sweden, Australia speaking also on behalf of Japan, Brazil, the Philippines on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament, Belarus, Russian Federation, France, China, Belgium, the Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, Algeria, Republic of Korea, Japan, Poland, Italy and Hungary.

In concluding remarks at the end of the Presidency of Canada, Ambassador Marius Grinius joked that he could already feel the power and glory slipping away from Canada to Chile. He pledged his constant and persistent engagement with his P6 colleagues, especially Chile as the next President. On a programme of work, they had had some thoughtful exchanges of views on all four core issues, and he noted that there were certainly some members who would like to explore other items on the agenda outside of the core issues. He hoped the momentum and spirit of the discussions would continue.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference agreed to a request from Montenegro to participate as an Observer State in its 2011 session.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 February under the Presidency of Chile.

Statements

TAMAR RAHAMIMOFF-HONIG (Israel) said the Conference on Disarmament had long been in need of an agreed, clear, comprehensive and up-to-date vision which would move it away from the deadlock which had curtailed its work for over a decade. Israel remained convinced that the Conference continued to have an important role to play as the sole multilateral negotiating forum. Recently, the initiation of independent initiatives had been raised as a possible alternative to the Conference’s lack of progress. One should seriously examine the actual value of these initiatives. Such exercises may succeed in achieving an agreed outcome of the like-minded, however this may come at the cost of undermining the Conference, a result Israel would view as highly unfortunate. From Israel’s point of view, Member States of the Conference should strive to agree on a realistic and pragmatic programme of work. Despite the substantive and beneficial discussion which had taken place over the past two weeks on the four core issues, it seemed clear that deadlock remained over the way forward. While such a stalemate persisted over the four core issues, there was no reason why substantive progress could not be made on other issues which might also have a significant impact on state, regional and global security. Israel had been calling for the past several years for the banning of transfers of arms to terrorists to be addressed as a matter of priority. As a lacuna existed regarding a clear and comprehensive norm banning such transfers, it would be well worth the while of the Conference to explore the possibilities to create such a codified norm as well as to place a demand for concrete steps to be taken against those who continued to transfer arms and ammunition to terrorists.

ANNA-KARIN HOLM ERICSON (Sweden) said she would like to give a little bit of information about a side event that was held on space security issues on 7 February. The organizer of the event was the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The event was moderated by the Deputy Director of the Institute, Mr. Daniel Nord. At the side event, a researcher of the Institute, Dr. Bharath Gopalaswamy, provided an account of the situation with regard to the increase in space activities in terms of the number of commercial satellites, but also in terms of the amount of space debris. The Director of UNIDIR, Ms. Theresa Hitchens, gave additional information about the current use of space, with an emphasis on the need for additional international agreements and rules for this use. The importance of transparency and confidence-building measures was noted. The Director of Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the European External Action Service, Ms. Annalise Giannella, gave an account of the European Union’s proposal for an international code of conduct on outer space activities. The three presentations were followed by a discussion about the Conference and space security issues. Sweden had found this event useful to increase their knowledge of issues at hand and hoped that others found it useful too. Sweden also thanked Australia and Japan for organizing the experts’ side event on Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty definitions this week, which Sweden found very useful in deepening and broadening their understanding of some very technical issues.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia), also speaking on behalf of (Japan), said Australia and Japan continued to support efforts to ensure that negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty on the basis of the Shannon Mandate could begin in the Conference as soon as possible through a Conference work programme. To build confidence and momentum toward that longstanding goal of Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty negotiations in the Conference, Australia and Japan had co-hosted in the Palais over the past three days an experts side event on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, focusing on possible definitions in the future treaty. Summarising the events, Mr. Woolcott said that on Monday, Mr. Kevin Alldred of the International Atomic Energy Agency had started the event with a presentation on the nuclear fuel cycle. On Tuesday, they had continued their discussion with an exchange on how “production” might be defined, and on Wednesday, they had concluded with a session which posed the open question of whether there were any other definitions which might be relevant for the future treaty. While the discussions did not reach any definitive answers, and that was not their purpose, they allowed participants to delve into the issues in greater depth and brought out linkages between particular lengths and also between certain definitions and other core elements of the future treaty, including verification arrangements and scope. Australia and Japan saw from this event a strong interest in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty among many Member and Observer delegations and a willingness to engage in sustained discussion on these issues. They also saw a willingness to continue exploring elements of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty through this format, as the Conference continued its efforts to establish and implement a work programme. Australia and Japan would now look to build on this experts side event and look to coordinate a second experts side event on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the near future, following further substantive debate in plenary. Australia and Japan hoped that these events would provide the building blocks and the confidence for future negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the Conference.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that Brazil this year would be assuming the role of Coordinator of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean and was honoured for assuming this responsibility. Presenting a historical background on the Agency and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, Brazil said the Agency was created as a result of Article 7 of the Treaty, ratified in 1969, to ensure that its Member States fully implemented their obligations under the Treaty, which forbade its signatory nations from use, storage, or transport of nuclear weapons. The Treaty had created the world’s first nuclear weapon free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean in a permanently inhabited area, and all 33 States in the region were States parties. The headquarters of the Agency were in Mexico City. On 1 February 2010, Ambassador Gioconda Ubeda Rivera of Costa Rica had assumed the post of Secretary-General of the Agency for four years. The regime of nuclear weapon free zones had stemmed from the Treaty and had gone on to lead to the creation of new nuclear weapon free zones and today, 114 States were States parties to nuclear weapon free zones around the world. Brazil wanted to highlight the importance of spreading nuclear weapon free zones to ensure that the majority of the inhabitants of earth were safe from the scourge of nuclear weapons. However, States that had renounced nuclear weapons were still jeopardized by nuclear threats. Brazil and the other 113 Member States living in nuclear weapon free zones insisted on the need for a multilateral and legally binding instrument that guaranteed no threats to States that did not have nuclear weapons. It was decided on 27 January this year that Brazil would handle coordination of the work of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean in Geneva, including strengthening dialogue and information exchange between the Agency and the Conference on Disarmament. Brazil was very pleased to point out that three of the six Presidents of the Conference in 2011 represented States parties to the Treaty: Chile, Colombia and Cuba.

EVAN GARCIA (Philippines), speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament, said the Group thanked the Canadian Presidency for making the discussion on Conference on Disarmament membership expansion as one of its priorities, and hoped it would continue to be a priority for the succeeding Presidencies. The Group greatly appreciated the efforts of the President in consulting with the Group. The Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference on Disarmament’s call for membership expansion had its basis in the Conference’s rules of procedure and previous practice – the rules called for the periodic review of the question of membership and more than a decade had passed since the last review. Indeed this lapse did not reflect current international security realities, especially as the Conference was mandated to negotiate legally-binding instruments, which were expected to have universal effect. The Group had also appealed for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the question of membership expansion, which was last done in 2001. Regrettably, the Conference had not yet been able to adopt and implement a programme of work, but the Group continued to encourage the Conference to realize at its earliest opportunity a balanced programme.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus) thanked the President for organizing thematic debates on the Conference’s agenda items directly at plenary meetings of the Conference. These contributed to building confidence among the delegations. At the same time, Belarus called on the future Conference President not to give up on the efforts of searching for acceptable formulas of a programme of work to start full fledged substantive activity in the Conference. The probability of development of new types of weapons of mass destruction that had characteristics comparable in destructive effort to those of weapons of mass destruction was first mentioned in the UN framework back in 1948. In the 70s and 80s the idea of drafting both a universal international treaty prohibiting the development and manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons and specific treaties on detected types of weapons of mass destruction were discussed in the Conference. Belarus since 1979 had been initiating adoption of the UN General Assembly resolutions prohibiting the development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons. Under present day conditions, there was a necessity to review periodically the influence of science progress on international security. According to the General Assembly resolution, the Conference on Disarmament was the most appropriate forum for this review. The logic of Belarus’ position was based on a preventive approach. Belarus believed that the international community should consider elaborating such a legally binding instrument before the production of new weapons of mass destruction became a reality. In this regard, Belarus was confident that the elaboration of a universal legally binding treaty prohibiting the development and manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons could be the most effective measure in that direction. However, Belarus recognized that the Conference could become more active on this issue as soon as the progress on the first four core issues was feasible.

VLADIMIR NOVOKHATSKY (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation would focus its statement on agenda items 5, 6 and 7. The discussion on new types of weapons of mass destruction in the Conference already had a wealthy history. Scientific and technical progress had taken the world a long way ahead and there was no doubt of the importance of monitoring scientific and technical progress so that they could identify when new types of weapons of mass destruction appeared. Today they were seeing a rethink of the concept of weapons, getting away from the military definition. Today the talk should be about weapons of mass disruption and not just of mass destruction, including using science and technology for hostile reasons. They should talk of information and communication technological progress which could be used against the security interests of States. Today it was important to note the appearance of new challenges and threats to the maintenance of new nuclear security. They were all united in creating a safer world protected from nuclear terrorism and other challenges in the nuclear field. These issues were close to radiological weapons, including use by terrorists of nuclear weapons as well as hostile actions against nuclear facilities. Concerning item 6 on a comprehensive programme of disarmament, Russia had no problem to have a Special Coordinator or Head of Working Group on a comprehensive programme of disarmament. And with regard to item 7 on transparency in armaments, the Russian Federation approached transparency in armaments in the context of confidence building and it supported such measures. The Russian Federation was ready not to object to the re-establishment of a Special Coordinator or Head of the Working Group on transparency in armaments.

ERIC DANON (France) said like everyone in the room, France would have preferred for the Conference on Disarmament to have adopted a programme of work, but it could say now that the debates that had been organized had been very interesting and of a very high quality and that the Conference had been able to work without a programme of work. Thanks to the Canadian Presidency, the Conference would have a model of organization and discussions to follow. France also thanked the President for his transparency during consultations. In the absence of a programme of work, France believed it was possible to work either through the plenary meetings or the side events. The side events could be useful on the substantive issues, like that organized by Australia and Japan on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He had been reluctant at the beginning of the side event on the substance of the debate, and then had been pleasantly surprised by the debate. Compared to the discussions held a few years ago on the question of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, there were new elements on the table concerning definitions. There was true pressure and willingness to deal with this issue, pressure in favour of negotiations, and it was shared by a vast majority of countries. Concerning Israel’s statement on agenda item 7 on transparency in armaments, one point raised had to do with the definition of the transfer of weapons through terrorist entities. Politically France supported dealing with this issue, but the problem was how to implement it. In New York there were six working groups trying to define terrorists and they had been unable to do so. The approach that was adopted in the framework of the treaty on trade in weapons supported the criteria that a country could decide whether or not to export arms to another country or another entity, which allowed them to make great progress. Concerning Brazil’s remarks, France would work fully with Brazil to coordinate on issues of the reality of the nuclear threat to countries which had set up nuclear weapons free zones. Concerning the Russian intervention on new subjects and information security, this was a recurrent aspiration of all in Geneva and France always encouraged the Conference to deal with new subjects and threats. France was willing to work on new issues, but without forgetting the real priorities before the Conference, i.e. threats linked to nuclear proliferation and the need to stop nuclear weapons.

WANG QUN (China) said concerning the statements on the side events, China had clearly stated its position at the plenary on 8 February. China was not in favour of and did not participate in side events concerning a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. These side events lacked the extensive participation of the relevant parties. Any conclusions coming from such side events did not have any status in the work of the Conference. This was why China did not endorse or acknowledge any conclusions from such side events. This was in the interest of safeguarding the authority of the Conference and the wide participation of Member States. The Conference on Disarmament was the only proper venue for any negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. China hoped that negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would start as soon as possible in the Conference and in accordance with the rules of procedure. China appreciated Canada’s leadership as President of the Conference, the work of the Conference had been conducted in an orderly manner and a good momentum was taking shape which was a good foundation for the work and future progress of the Conference. China thanked the President, hoped that the States parties would cherish and safeguard this momentum, and hoped that Chile as the incoming President would make efforts to facilitate early progress in the work of the Conference.

FRANCOIS ROUX (Belgium) commended Canada for its excellent presidency of the Conference and wished Chile good luck. Belgium reassured the P6 of the full support of Belgium to move the work of the Conference forward and break the stalemate. The obstacles were many and Belgium was willing to work with all Member States with no exception. In international relations nothing remained frozen for ever and Belgium hoped that the Conference would be able to benefit from the interesting developments around it to move to a nuclear free world as defined by the Conference. Belgium attached importance to the issue of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and confirmed its availability to discuss substantive issues relating to it.

PAUL VAN DEN IJSSEL (Netherlands) said the Netherlands wished to present its position on item 7 of the agenda on transparency in armaments. Transparency in armaments was very important as a confidence building measure and as an important instrument for clarification and implementation. The Netherlands was committed to transparency regarding conventional weapons and issued an annual report in this regard. Since the UN Register of Conventional Weapons had been created, the Netherlands had been providing it with data annually. The Netherlands also sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly on the UN Register. As for weapons of mass destruction, transparency was very important, but the issue should be taken up in the appropriate forums. The Netherlands favoured maximum transparency and was open to suggestions, but it could not see how discussions on this transparency in the Conference would have added value. As for exploring a ban on the transfer of weapons to terrorists, the Netherlands agreed this was an important issue but they had to consider whether discussing it within the Conference or in another forum was better. The Netherlands thanked Australia and Japan for organizing the side event on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and Switzerland for hosting it. The discussions had been useful and the interaction between the diplomats and the experts had been very encouraging. The Netherlands strongly supported similar events in the near future.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) thanked Australia for presenting an oral report on the side event on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which had been a national initiation from Australia and Japan. India had participated in this side event as it had done in similar side events in the past. The sponsors had stated that these discussions were neither negotiations nor pre-negotiations and were without prejudice and an objective exercise to increase the understanding of positions. As India had stated in its remarks on 3 February, India attached importance to the Conference as the single multilateral negotiating forum and expected the conference to negotiate instruments on global positions including commencing negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. It was essential that all relevant countries participated in the negotiations. It was obvious that discussions on the sidelines of the Conference could not be a substitute for negotiations in a subsidiary body of the Conference. India thanked Canada for its efforts as President and assured the incoming Presidency of Chile of its full cooperation.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) thanked Canada for conducting the Presidency in a transparent way and assured Chile as incoming President of Pakistan’s fullest cooperation. They had just heard support from speakers about the side event organized by Australia and Japan on definitions in a Fissile Material Cu-Off Treaty. Pakistan did not participate in this side event on a matter of principle. Pakistan was not against side events and did participate in them, but it felt that this kind of side event would undermine the work of the Conference itself and Pakistan felt it should not contribute in something that could undermine the Conference as the only multilateral negotiating forum. The Conference was the only forum in which they could engage in negotiations if the situation was right. Pakistan had seen no added value in the side event. It would not contribute to the work of the Conference. Some sensed that side events could be a pre curser to the negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty being taken outside the Conference, and delegations wishing to do so were welcome, but Pakistan would not participate in such alternative negotiations and it suspected that a large number of countries would not participate either, some on principle, and some because they would no longer have the comfort of consensus. The Conference should think about this.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said Switzerland wanted to talk about the status of work in the Conference at this juncture. Switzerland thanked Canada for all its efforts during the Presidency of the Conference in the past few weeks. Although the Conference had still not been able to adopt a programme of work, they had at least had structured plenary sessions and Switzerland hoped that similar exercises would continue under other Presidents. It was a good start and a good use of time, and the discussions were of good quality. They showed the willingness of the overwhelming majority to start negotiations and meaningful work and not to waste more time. While negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty were a much needed and logical next stop, the other issues on the agenda of the Conference were very important too. Regarding the side event on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, Switzerland had been impressed by the strong participation of delegations and experts in the talks and the outcome could be an important contribution to the work of the Conference. The verification of such a treaty and its scope could be dealt with in the same way as well as other issues in front of the Conference. Switzerland supported these side events, but this approach would only complement and never substitute the official meetings of the Conference. Switzerland hoped that the efforts to reach consensus on a programme of work would continue and it encouraged future Presidents to use the Canadian model and hold more thematic discussions. Switzerland also welcomed discussions on housekeeping issues, like the relations with civil society and the expansion of the membership of the Conference and discussing the rules of procedure. Switzerland did not believe that these issues would take away concentration from the main issues.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said they had listened carefully to the statements on the side events which were recently held and were grateful for them. The side events were a most useful opportunity for an exchange of views and Algeria participated in them all. Algeria though would like to recall its position that these side events had nothing to do with the activities of the Conference. Any political interpretation which they might have heard today would not affect their position on other side events. The discussions on the four core issues were important and it was also important to discuss agenda items 5, 6 and 7 as they had done today. Algeria would like to continue to discuss them in the future. However, the Conference had discussed six agenda items, but no reference had been made to agenda item 2 on the prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters. This item was still on the agenda and as long as there were nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war was still hanging over them and they wanted it to be included in future discussions. Algeria had listened to the proposals made on the issue of transparency in armaments, but noted that other international fora could discuss some of the proposals, like the definition of terrorism. The Conference on Disarmament did not have a mandate to look at definitions of terrorism, and they could make things more complicated.

TAMAR RAHAMIMOFF-HONIG (Israel) apologized for taking the floor again, but she wanted to thank France and the Netherlands for the comments and their recognition of the need to discuss the transfer of weapons to terrorists. Israel was well aware of the debate on the definition of terrorism, but there was agreement on what constituted terrorism acts, so perhaps they could approach it from that side.

KAM WOON-AN (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea wanted to echo the statements by many made on the side event on definitions in a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. It was very important and constructive. The Republic of Korea believed it was like a mental exercise in preparing for the main game, and it encouraged others to initiate other efforts. No decision was frequently the worst decision and no action was frequently the worst action. The Republic of Korea thanked all for trying to activate the Conference.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) wished to take its opportunity to thank all who had participated in organizing the side event. Many delegations had been enthusiastic about starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as soon as possible. Many delegations had participated in the side event and found merit in it. Japan and Australia would continue these efforts in the near future.

CEZARY LUSINSKI (Poland) said Poland wished to thank Australia for providing the Conference with the opportunity to exchange views along with experts in the side event. These were informal talks but they helped them keep in touch with the scientific community. Poland was grateful to those who organized this exercise.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI (Italy) said Italy wished to express its satisfaction with how the Canadian presidency had conducted its work during its mandate. The Italian delegation had sat through the three days of the side event on definitions in the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and had been favourably impressed by how it had been conducted. Italy had hoped that it would be a useful educational experience and it was. Educational experiences should be encouraged and not discouraged. It would be great if Australia and Japan could repeat this exercise on other topics. Other countries could also organize side events on other core issues.

GYULA SOMOGYL (Hungary), speaking in his national capacity, thanked the President for his excellent work. He had heard some say the side events “undermined” the work of the Conference and felt obliged to react to this. He would like to give an analogy: in the Middle Ages, sometimes strong winds affected the walls of cathedrals, so the master builders used the idea of supporting walls to support the cathedral. They were built on the inside and could not be seen from the outside. Hungary saw the side event by Australia and Japan as such a support wall to the work of the Conference. Hungary would like to see more events and was ready to participate in them.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada), President of the Conference on Disarmament, joked that he could already feel the power and glory slipping away from Canada to Chile. He thanked all those who had thanked him, and thanked all those in the Conference for their generosity in seeing him in all the bilateral consultations and also in the regional context. He would also like to thank representatives of civil society and Observer States. He also thanked regional coordinators and the Secretariat of the Conference who had worked so diligently with him. He pledged his constant and persistent engagement with his P6 colleagues, especially Chile as the next President. On a programme of work, they had had some thoughtful exchanges of views on all four core issues, and he noted that there were certainly some members who would like to explore other items on the agenda outside of the core issues. He hoped the momentum and spirit of the discussions would continue.

For use of information media; not an official record

DC11/010E