CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT UNABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS ON DRAFT PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning was unable to reach consensus on a draft programme of work presented by the President of the Conference, Ambassador Hisham Badr of Egypt.

Pakistan said that unless Pakistan’s concerns were clearly addressed by the Conference on Disarmament, it was not possible for it to join consensus on the draft proposal contained in CD/1933rev1. Pakistan did not want to see the Conference become irrelevant, but given the choice between national security and the future of the Conference on Disarmament, Pakistan’s national security would take priority. However, Pakistan said it remained ready to work with the Conference to find that magic formula for it to begin substantive work.

In concluding remarks, the President of the Conference said that Egypt valued the Conference on Disarmament as the single, multi-lateral negotiating forum for disarmament. It had repeatedly expressed its disappointment that the Conference had not been able to advance to negotiating treaties, especially on nuclear disarmament, which had been identified by the United Nations General Assembly Disarmament Committee as a priority. Egypt had presented a draft programme of work which was balanced and would allow substantive work to begin without infringing on the national security of any Member State. No single programme of work could satisfy all members, but the draft programme of work CD/1933rev1 had provided a vehicle which all delegations, all passengers, could board, that was flexible and robust but not so rigid it would break apart along the way.

Speakers who took the floor said that at a time when the planet faced a grave threat from the existence of almost 23,000 nuclear weapons, it would be remiss not to agree on a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament which would allow present and future generations the right to life and the right to peace. Another speaker noted that the raison d'être of the Conference was to negotiate. If it did not start, it could not know what the outcomes would be, for example on stockpiles. Almost all speakers agreed that the draft programme of work CD/1933rev1 was a compromise document and not as ambitious as they would have liked, especially in terms of a negotiating mandate, but that they would support it so the Conference on Disarmament could finally begin substantive work.

Addressing the Conference today were Cuba, Colombia, Iraq, Belarus, Pakistan, Italy, Algeria and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.


The Conference on Disarmament will next meet in public on Tuesday 20 March at 10.a.m. when Ethiopia will assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The Presidency of the Conference rotates among its Member States for four-week periods according to the English language spelling of the countries’ names.


Statements

Cuba said that recent statements confirmed the importance that States attached to the Conference, but it must recall the insistence of some to circumvent the Conference and negotiate disarmament issues in other fora. Cuba did not support that view. It was Member States’ responsibility to support the Conference. Cuba favoured attributing a negotiating mandate to the proposed working group on nuclear disarmament, in order to negotiate a gradual plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2025, naturally under strict international controls. The working group on fissile materials should be able to carry out broad assessments of the topic, including stockpiles. The draft programme of work had significant limitations, but Cuba believed it was a concrete step in the right direction, and should be used as a negotiated tool acceptable to all. Cuba was very proud that it had no types of weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, but at a time when the planet faced a grave threat from the existence of almost 23,000 nuclear weapons it would be remiss not to agree a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament which would allow current and future generations the rights to life and to peace.

Columbia said although the proposed programme of work was not the one most delegations would have chosen, it had a number of positive elements. It was positive, balanced, captured the security considerations of States, had a clear timetable and provided early nominations for coordinators responsible for the working groups. The document could have been more ambitious on providing for negotiating mandates or a coordinator responsible for expansion of membership of the Conference. However Columbia supported the document. Columbia did understand the sensitivities of some Conference members but appealed to all delegations to show flexibility. Ambiguity in the language of the mandates was important as if the Conference spent too much time working on specific wording it may lose the window of opportunity to move out of its deadlock. Iraq said it had found that CD/1933rev1 represented an acceptable balance that could serve as a basis for work. Some found it less ambitious than they would have hoped, but Iraq was aware that many countries had diverging priorities. Iraq approved the document and said it would enable the Conference to pursue discussions on the four core issues in a serious way, particularly nuclear disarmament which was hugely important in Iraq’s region. Iraq hoped for consensus on the document. Belarus said it supported the document which brought hope. Belarus shared the view of other delegations that the document could ideally have been more ambitious, but said that the more the Conference sought to meet the ideal the less ideal it became. The document focused on four core issues, and under it a delegation could raise any issue it would like to deal with.

Pakistan regretted that despite the questions they asked for clarification on in Tuesday’s meeting (13 March 2012) it remained in a state of confusion. Pakistan first wanted to put on record its deep appreciation for the constructive and transparent manner in which the President had conducted his consultations. In different circumstances the document CD/1933rev1 would have become the basis of work in the Conference. Unfortunately, and that was no fault of the President, conditions that existed outside of the Conference, in the real world, were somewhat different. Pakistan recalled the issues on which it sought clarification; first that the agenda item on fissile materials amounted to negotiations; second was a question why all four core issues were not to be treated equally. Pakistan said that as members of the Group of 21 they had agreed that the highest priority should be attributed to nuclear disarmament, which led to the third point, that with regard to fissile material. They would be called to deal with elements of a treaty on fissile materials, whereas the agenda for nuclear disarmament was only to deal with nuclear disarmament: there was a distinction between the way they were asked to deal with nuclear disarmament and fissile materials. The fourth issue was with paragraph 2 of the document which referenced the Shannon mandate and used the sentence ‘while dealing with all related matters’, which referred to reduction of fissile material stocks.

Given the peculiar security situation which Pakistan faced, which had become worse even in the last year, and where the stakes were so extremely high they were of an existential nature, there was no room for ambiguity. In Conference negotiations Pakistan would always take a position which protected its security interests. In doing so it was not acting differently from any other State. While Pakistan had problems with negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty there were countries that had problems with the other core issues on the agenda and had opposed negotiations in those fields. Unfortunately, unlike Pakistan, those countries had not clearly stated their reasons for opposition. Unless Pakistan’s concerns were clearly addressed by the Conference on Disarmament it was not possible for it to join consensus on the draft proposal contained in CD/1933rev1. Pakistan did not agree with those who argued, either implicitly or explicitly, that if there were no negotiations in 2012 on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty then the Conference on Disarmament would become irrelevant. The fact was that there had been no negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty for the past 13 years and no negotiations on nuclear disarmament for more than 30 years. In all that time there had been no argument that the Conference had become irrelevant. Pakistan did not want to see the Conference become irrelevant, but given the choice between national security and the future of the Conference on Disarmament, Pakistan’s national security would take priority. However, Pakistan said it remained ready to work with the Conference to find that magic formula for it to begin substantive work.

Italy said there were parts of the document it liked and some it did not, but the first priority must be to get the Conference working again, especially on fissile material. The raison d'être of the Conference was to negotiate. If it did not start, it could not know what the outcomes would be, for example on stocks. Negotiations would not undermine national security. It was the outcome of negotiations that could potentially undermine national security, if they were not conducted properly. Italy said that it would not have blocked consensus on CD/1933rev1.

Call to Adopt the Draft Programme of Work by Consensus

HISHAM BADR, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Egypt) called upon Member States of the Conference on Disarmament to adopt the draft programme of work in document CD/1933rev1.

Pakistan expressed its inability to join consensus on the document for the reasons it had just explained. It also responded to the statement of Italy in which it said that negotiations were not against the national security interests of States, but the consequences of them were. When a country faced an existential threat there was absolutely no room for ambiguity. Pakistan had been very transparent and upfront with its decision, and stated clearly where it drew the line. It could not agree to any process that implicitly or explicitly involved negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty which did not envisage reducing stockpiles.

HISHAM BADR, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Egypt) announced that there was no consensus among Members, so therefore CD/1933rev1 had not been adopted.

Algeria said it was unfortunate that there was not yet sufficient maturity in the Conference to be able to agree a programme of work. Algeria would like to draw Member States’ attention to the need to reflect on some formula that would allow substantive deliberations in any form. The Conference on Disarmament could not allow the rest of the year to pass without doing any work.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea thanked the President for his great contribution and said they remained ready to contribute to any future work.

Concluding Remarks

HISHAM BADR, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Egypt) said the end of today’s meeting concluded the Egyptian Presidency, and he thanked all delegations for their kind words on his Presidency. Egypt valued the Conference on Disarmament as the single, multi-lateral negotiating forum for disarmament. It had repeatedly expressed its disappointment that the Conference had not been able to advance to negotiating treaties, especially on nuclear disarmament, which had been identified by the United Nations General Assembly Disarmament Committee as a priority. The approach of the Egyptian Presidency had been to return to basics. Until it was achieved, the role of any President was to achieve a programme of work. Egypt had presented a Programme of Work which was balanced and would allow substantive work to begin without infringing on the national security of any Member State. No single Programme of Work could satisfy all members. The President said he had tried to clarify the mandate of working groups to the best extent possible, and that any further clarification would necessitate substantive work. Only then could the Conference deal with challenges and move ahead. CD/1933rev1 had provided a vehicle which all delegations, all passengers, could board, a flexible and robust vehicle but not so rigid it would break apart along the way. Egypt promised its full support to the incoming Presidency of Ethiopia, a country with which it was forever linked through history and geography, and said it would continue to provide its full support.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC12/013E