CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT FAILS TO ADOPT PROGRAMME OF WORK UNDER FIRST PRESIDENCY OF 2015

The Conference on Disarmament today failed to reach consensus on a draft Programme of Work for the 2015 session.

In opening remarks the President of the Conference, Jorge Lomónaco of Mexico, reminded delegates that the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament was not to reach agreement; its mandate was to negotiate, and adoption of a programme of work would allow the Conference to do just that. Today the delegates had an opportunity to make history and to make the Conference on Disarmament relevant again.

After hearing comments from delegations on the proposed text, the Conference took action on the draft programme of work. Although the vast majority of delegations expressed support for the draft Programme of Work, consensus was not reached: Iran asked for more time to consult with its capital, and Pakistan opposed the draft by proposing amendments to the draft relating to the start of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty under the Shannon mandate.

The President said the record should show that one delegation objected to the adoption of the draft programme of work. He regretted that the Conference had once again lost an opportunity to contribute to a safer world and that the rule of consensus was being applied to avoid negotiations. The Conference had a mandate to negotiate substance, not the programme of work, he emphasized.

Representatives of the following countries spoke in the meeting: Russia, Ireland, Algeria, Austria, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Sweden, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, India, Iran, Pakistan, Chile, Japan, Switzerland, Egypt, Germany and Belarus.

The next public meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will start at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 February.

Opening remarks

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the purpose of the Conference on Disarmament was to negotiate. Not all negotiations reached agreement every time but that should not prevent negotiations from starting. The mandate of the Conference on Disarmament was not reaching agreement, it was negotiating, he stressed.

The items considered in the programme of work were contained in the agenda for the 2015 session, which was already balanced and there was no need to further negotiate it. All issues would be treated equally, at least procedurally, and negotiations on these issues would progress on their own merit, said the President. The Conference must start substantive work which meant taking action on the draft programme of work today. It was not perfect, he said, but the question was whether delegations could live with it and whether they were ready to negotiate on issues of lesser priority in exchange for negotiations on issues of higher importance.

He pointed out that in the recent past, the Conference had spent almost all of its annual cycle on negotiating a programme of work and that approach did not work. Adopting the programme of work early would allow the Conference to address the items on the agenda and start negotiating. Today delegates had an opportunity to make history and to make the Conference on Disarmament relevant again.

Discussion on the draft Programme of Work

Russia welcomed the President’s efforts and said Russia had received, as had other delegations, an invitation to take part in a high-level segment meeting of the Conference. It asked how that would be compatible with the calendar of work contained in the draft Programme of Work.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that his plan was to have ten sessions each week which included statements by high-level dignitaries.

Ireland said if adopted the programme of work would enable the Conference to start negotiations, and it supported the draft. Achieving progress on any of the issues would depend on the collective task of carrying out the negotiations.

Algeria said that it would go along with the document if consensus was achieved.

Austria recognized that all delegations had different priorities and for Austria the humanitarian impact demonstrated at recent conferences around the world showed the urgency of nuclear disarmament. Austria was ready to accept the draft and appealed to all delegations to do the same.

Peru said that it had no opposition to the draft and endorsed it entirely.

Colombia said adoption of the draft programme of work, as presented by the President, would break the deadlock of the Conference.

Brazil fully supported the draft programme of work as presented within the parameters indicated by the President in his statement today.

Sweden confirmed that Sweden could join the consensus and hoped that others could do the same.

Ecuador confirmed its support of the draft programme of work and said the time had come to heed the call of the international community for the Conference to begin the negotiations, pursuant to its mandate.

Kazakhstan expressed full support for the document and would join the consensus.

India said it had a positive assessment of the programme of work and that it would not stand in the way of consensus.

Iran said that it took the proposed draft very seriously but such a substantive proposal needed thorough consideration by delegations and regional groups, and given the very limited time given for consideration by capitals, Iran was unable to join the consensus. The effort to give the Conference new momentum should not give way to impulsiveness, and negotiations should not be triggered for the sake of negotiations, said Iran. Iran requested more time to consider the draft.

Action on the draft Programme of Work

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that there was a strong support for the adoption of a programme of work for this session, and one voice asking for more time. Negotiations would provide the space to discuss views and positions; no member needed to feel obliged to accept the result of a negotiation. The carefully balanced package proposed contained nothing new and delaying action on the draft would not make a difference, he said, as the positions of delegations had not changed for years and would not change in the foreseeable future. Waiting would not increase the chances of the adoption of the draft programme of work. The President said that he would not negotiate the programme of work because more time would not change the outcome, and submitted the draft programme of work for action.

Statements regarding action on the draft Programme of Work

Iran said that the request for more time was quite reasonable and it had not yet received any instruction from the capital. There was no need for hasty action.

Pakistan thanked the President for drafting and circulating the draft programme of work and said that the position of Pakistan had already been clearly stated: Pakistan could not start the negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) under the Shannon mandate, but was ready to join the negotiations on any other issue of the agenda. If the issue of the stockpiles would be included in the mandate of the FMCT, Pakistan would stand ready to start negotiations. FMCT was being treated in a preferential manner, said Pakistan and proposed amendments to paragraph (6.a) of the draft in order to bring that issue in balance with other issues on the agenda. With the exception of paragraph (6.a) Pakistan was ready to accept the draft programme of work word for word, said the representative.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that there was no rule of procedure preventing the Conference from taking action because a delegation had not received instructions from the capital. The President reiterated that the draft programme of work was not to be negotiated.

Pakistan said in that case it objected to the draft programme of work. It also said that there were several delegations which were not ready to negotiate on certain issues and warned that the forum should not be turned into a negotiating forum for a FMCT.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said Pakistan’s request for the amendment was summarily refused by him, and the question should be asked to delegates to raise during negotiations.

The President said the record should show that one delegation objected to the adoption of the draft programme of work. It was regrettable that the Conference had once again lost an opportunity to contribute to a safer world and that the rule of consensus was applied to avoid negotiations. The delegates should be persistent in seeking the beginning of negotiations on relevant agenda items.

Chile said that there was nothing new in the draft programme of work, there were no surprises and more time would yield nothing. Chile stood ready to support the draft.

Russia asked what would be the next steps with regard to draft programme of work.

Japan said that it might be possible to reach consensus on the schedule of activities and requested the President to allow more time for additional consultations.

Switzerland paid tribute and expressed gratitude to the President for his efforts in seeking adoption of a programme of work. Switzerland agreed that negotiations did not pre-empt the conclusions and regretted that the programme of work hadn’t been adopted, leaving the Conference once again unable to start work. There was a need to foster political will to forge ahead. It was also important to consider the expansion of the membership of the Conference and provide responses to the expectations of States that had followed the work for years, and to consider the inclusion of the civil society.

Egypt assured the President of its support for his efforts and suggested a delay of the action on programme of work till Monday, which would provide more time for consultations.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the adoption of the programme of work had been blocked and he would not reopen the process.

Algeria said that draft programme of work was like a work of art, and that it was now the property of the Conference. Decision-making should be deferred to give delegates more time to consider the draft, and maybe it could be adopted next week. The resumption of thematic discussions started in 2014 would not help take forward the work of the Conference, said Algeria, because they took place in informal settings. A simplified version of the programme of work could perhaps launch fruitful discussions, laying the groundwork to consensus on the programme, Algeria suggested.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, agreed with the points made concerning informal discussions. The draft was a compromise itself and was intended to fulfil the mandate of the body, which was to negotiate on all issues on the agenda. What had been done in recent years was to negotiate on the programme of work and Mexico sought to avoid that. In the past when the Conference was functional, the programme of work would be adopted within the minutes of the morning of the first session of the year; it was never intended to be negotiated. The Conference had a mandate to negotiate substance, not the programme of work.

Brazil said that there was an objection regarding only one action of the programme of work, and wondered whether it would be possible to consider the rest of the proposed draft. Could the General Assembly help establish a shadow programme of work, given the inability of the Conference to adopt its own programme?

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the suggestion by Brazil was food for thought and should be reflected upon.

Germany said it had sincerely hoped that the efforts of the President would have been successful and that Germany was ready to go along, even if it was not happy with the entire package. Only one subparagraph in the proposal was contentious, said Germany and suggested that the entire draft could be further explored. Germany appealed for room for consultations, formal or not, to explore the ways forward.

Belarus urged the President to continue the consultations and said that the discussion today showed that there was only one subparagraph that blocked the adoption; perhaps the revision of that paragraph would be a solution. Another solution may be the adoption of the programme of work without that agenda item.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that Mexico also had principles, and one of them was that the time of the Conference on Disarmament should not be wasted on negotiating a programme of work; it should be devoted to negotiating substance.

Russia asked whether the President would continue to submit the draft programme of work for action.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that there was no point, as it had been rejected today.

India expressed appreciation for all the efforts to take forward the programme of work and shared the disappointment that it had not happened today. India raised the issue of increasing backlogs of the official records (verbatim records) of the Conference which were directly related to availability of resources to the Secretariat. It urged that a solution be found to address this problem which was depriving Members of the Conference from obtaining credible information on the work of the Conference. It requested the Secretariat to undertake a research on ways of resolving the problem.

JORGE LOMONACO, President of the Conference on Disarmament, announced that the next public meeting of the Conference on Disarmament would be at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 February.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/005E