CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS 2015 SESSION, HEARS MESSAGE FROM UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON

The Conference on Disarmament today opened its 2015 session, hearing a message from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in which he warned the Conference that its role as the single standing negotiating forum for multilateral disarmament risked being overtaken by events.

In the Secretary-General’s message, which was delivered by Michael Møller, Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Acting Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, Mr. Ban acknowledged the determined and creative efforts over the past year to bring the Conference back to work. However, he noted that the Conference’s mandate was to negotiate and ultimately, the effectiveness of the Conference would be judged on a single criterion: its ability to conclude disarmament treaties. Increasingly, governments and civil society were looking outside the Conference to make progress on disarmament. As more of these efforts came to fruition, the role of the Conference on Disarmament as the single standing negotiating forum for multilateral disarmament risked being overtaken by events. The Secretary-General urged the Conference to regain the sense of shared responsibility and do its part to advance peace and security through disarmament.

Mr. Møller, briefing the Conference on the plans for an informal civil society forum on the Conference on Disarmament, which he would be hosting in his capacity as Acting Secretary-General of the Conference, said that in order to allow for better preparations, including the raising of the necessary funds for civil society participation and for the organization of the meeting, the forum had been postponed from 12 December to 19 March, and they were now making steady progress towards holding the forum on that date. Invitations would be extended to all Member States and Observer States of the Conference on Disarmament. Over 100 civil society organizations from all regions of the world would be invited to participate in the forum and would be invited on the basis on the disarmament relevance of their work. The forum would be organized in the form of interactive panel discussions, focussing on the four core issues of the Conference: nuclear disarmament, FMCT, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Each panel would comprise of representatives of Conference Member States and civil society organizations. A fifth panel to wrap up the discussions and consider the way forward was also being planned.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco of Mexico, said it was an honour for Mexico to assume its responsibility as President of the Conference on Disarmament at this particularly challenging junction where it had an opportunity to make a positive impact in the current international security arena. Mexico was deeply committed to disarmament and the enabler of Mexico’s foreign policy was multilateralism. Mexico’s Presidency was highly committed to make every effort to contribute to the Conference facing its challenges. He had convened informal consultations in December 2014 and had invited all Member States to meet with him along with their respective regional groups, as well as the informal group of observer States and members of civil society. He invited all to be creative and constructive and to help the President overcome the artificial limitations that they had been building for more than a decade to distinguish between rules, traditions and mythology and to provide incentive for the much needed political will that was essential for the Conference to fulfil its mandate and to contribute to the construction of a safer world.

Speaking in the general debate today were Latvia on behalf of the European Union, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, United States, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Morocco, Belarus, Argentina, Turkey, France and Algeria.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference adopted its agenda and agreed on the request by a number of countries to participate in the 2015 session of the Conference as observers. The countries are Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brunei Darussalam, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Jordan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 January. The President of the Conference also indicated that there would be public plenaries on Wednesday, 28 January in the morning and afternoon, and on Thursday, 29 January in the morning.

Message of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to the Conference

MICHAEL MØLLER, Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Acting Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, read out the message of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: “It gives me great pleasure to greet the Conference on Disarmament as it opens its session for 2015. The need for progress in multilateral disarmament is greater than ever. Increasing tension and instability around the world have severely diminished the prospects for new arms control measures, and are jeopardizing existing arrangements. Unresolved regional disputes are putting pressure on disarmament and non-proliferation norms.

Modernization programmes for nuclear weapons are under way in all countries that possess them – steps that could lock in new types of warheads and their means of delivery for decades to come. And instead of seeking the peace and security of a nuclear-weapon-free world, many actors seem poised to retreat back into the false security promised by doctrines of mutually assured destruction.

These trends threaten to reverse the gains over the past two decades in the reduction of the global stockpile of deployed strategic weapons, and to undermine prospects for future progress. The urgent need for nuclear disarmament has also become more apparent as the international community comes to understand more about the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Beyond the immediate death and destruction such weapons can cause, the socio-economic and environmental impacts would be catastrophic, with the poor and vulnerable being the most severely affected.

Against this backdrop, the international community simply cannot afford a Conference on Disarmament that does not help us move towards the goal of a safer world. I would like to acknowledge the determined and creative efforts over the past year to bring this Conference back to work. I am encouraged that you have found ways to continue deliberations on matters of substance, despite the long years of impasse. Yet, the Conference on Disarmament was not designed to deliberate. Your mandate is to negotiate. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Conference will be judged on a single criterion: its ability to conclude disarmament treaties.

Increasingly, governments and civil society are looking outside the Conference to make progress on disarmament. On 24 December, we celebrated the success of the latest such achievement with the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty. In the area of outer space, the United Nations General Assembly has strengthened support for the implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures and examined the question of the non-placement of weapons in outer space. This month, the group of governmental experts reconvened to continue to deliberate on how to deal with fissile materials.

As more of these efforts come to fruition, the role of the Conference on Disarmament as the single standing negotiating forum for multilateral disarmament risks being overtaken by events. Past achievements of the Conference show its potential. I urge you to regain that sense of shared responsibility and do your part to advance peace and security through disarmament. In that spirit, I wish you success in the year ahead.”

Mr. Møller said he joined the Secretary-General in wishing the Conference a productive session. As part of his efforts to help take forward the work of the Conference, he had proposed last year the holding of an informal civil society forum on the Conference, and he would update the Conference on preparations of this forum later this morning.

Statements

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, proposed that the order of business of their meeting this morning start with the adoption of the agenda, then the adoption of the requests for observership for the session, followed by the delivery of the message of the United Nations Secretary-General and statements by delegations who wished to speak. It was so decided.

Ambassador Lomonaco said it was an honour for Mexico to assume its responsibility as President of the Conference on Disarmament at this particularly challenging junction where it had an opportunity to make a positive impact in the current international security arena. Mexico was deeply committed to disarmament and the enabler of Mexico’s foreign policy was multilateralism. In 2015, the nuclear age would be 70 years old and the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would also see their seventieth anniversary. Seventy years had passed, and there were still 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world despite significant reductions made in recent years. Today, the international community had taken advantage of multilateral fora to resolve their differences and reach agreements. The multi-dimensional, comprehensive and progressive nature of human security was changing paradigms and priorities of decision-making processes and public policies among the contemporary international community. Global security of the twenty-first century must be based on international law and the unrestricted protection of human beings. In this context, Mexico was convinced that multilateral fora existed to help all stakeholders to find peaceful solutions to their challenges through decision-making processes that could lead to agreements that could benefit all. Mexico had a long-standing record of support to the Conference on Disarmament because of the high priority that it attached to disarmament, multilateralism and the value of forging agreements to achieve a safer world. That was precisely why Mexico had been highly critical of the complacency in which the Conference had fallen into for it had failed to fulfil its mandate for over 18 years. In spite of this, Mexico’s Presidency was highly committed to make every effort to contribute to the Conference facing its challenges.

Ambassador Lomonaco said that he had convened informal consultations in December 2014 and had invited all Member States to meet with him along with their respective regional groups, as well as the informal group of observer States and members of civil society. He invited all to be creative and constructive and to help the President overcome the artificial limitations that they had been building for more than a decade to distinguish between rules, traditions and mythology and to provide incentive for the much needed political will that was essential for the Conference to fulfil its mandate and to contribute to the construction of a safer world. He had circulated a letter requesting their input on elements of the programme of work. 2015 represented an opportunity to modify the dynamics and overcome the inertia that had prevailed in previous years and return promptly to multilateral diplomacy looking for concrete results.

LATVIA, speaking on behalf of the EUROPEAN UNION said the European Union was a strong supporter of the United Nations and effective multilateralism. The role and contribution of the United Nations disarmament machinery remained crucial and irreplaceable. The European Union reiterated its longstanding commitment to the enlargement of the Conference and strongly supported the appointment of a special coordinator in this respect. The European Union was disappointed that the Conference in 2014 did not succeed in beginning negotiations. However, there had been some encouraging developments. The Informal Working Group to assist in developing a programme of work and the structured discussions under the schedule of activities had allowed for constructive and open debate and the European Union hoped these exercises could be built upon further with a view to commencing negotiations and fulfilling its primary purpose at the earliest opportunity. The European Union welcomed enhanced interaction between civil society and the Conference and looked forward to the informal meeting to be held on 19 March this year. For the European Union, the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the Conference of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, on the basis of document CD/1299, and the mandate contained therein, remained a clear priority. The European Union appealed to all delegations to show flexibility. The European Union welcomed the substantive and highly interactive discussions held at the two meetings in 2014 of the Group of Governmental Experts on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. The European Union aimed to further promoting transparency and confidence-building measures including an international code of conduct for outer space activities.

GERMANY said that this year, the Conference was going into its nineteenth year of stalemate. In order to overcome the existing deadlock, they must continue to look for new solutions. In this context, Germany would like to stress once again the need to improve the Conference’s working methods and to expand the Conference by admitting new members. The deteriorating international security and disarmament environment called for the Conference to live up to its purpose. However, given the failure of the Conference to produce substantial and actionable results in recent years, they were confronted with scepticism, frustration and even cynicism. The long lasting stalemate of the Conference had resulted in calls for pursuing the development of disarmament instruments outside the Conference. Doing this might weaken the Conference not only heavily but maybe irrevocably. This would be detrimental to the United Nations disarmament machinery as a whole. Therefore, their point of departure must be progress towards a balance programme of work. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a landmark in the field of international non-proliferation and disarmament instruments. Therefore, they must combine their efforts to make this year’s NPT Review Conference a success. Negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 were of high importance in the context of the NPT and should commence as soon as possible. The Group of Governmental Experts meetings in 2014 and 2015 on this issue were important stepping stones towards such a treaty. Transparency and confidence-building measures including an international code of conduct for outer space activities as a first step towards future arms control in space should remain on the agenda of the Conference. The continuing stalemate of the Conference remained a serious concern and they must all combine their efforts to overcome this deadlock. Political will was needed to do so and Germany called upon all Conference members to work towards a solution.

NETHERLANDS said they needed to make progress on disarmament and the Conference, with all its flaws, was still the best vehicle they had to deal with all core issues. They should work together in the Conference to keep on trying to identify possible ways forward. Creativity and flexibility were key and they should concentrate on a programme of work to allow for an immediate start of negotiations. The Informal Working Group did not produce a programme of work last year, however, the Netherlands believed that the discussions that they had had in the Informal Working Group had been very useful and it did not believe that it had exhausted its existence. The Netherlands saw the Informal Working Group as an alternative route later in the Conference year. With the Working Group, they were on the right track when it came to discussing creative ways to get the Conference back to work. The Netherlands remained open to discuss the possibility to renew the mandate of the Informal Working Group in order to continue this constructive and creative process. Last year’s schedule of activities had allowed for some in-depth discussions and the Netherlands would like to see some sort of follow-up to these discussions. The discussions last year on a treaty banning the production of fissile material had once again shown that this topic was most ripe for negotiations. The final report of the Group of Governmental Experts on FMCT should give the Conference input to continue their discussions on this topic and hopefully lead to negotiations in a not too distant future. There was also value to continuing discussions on prevention of an arms race in outer space.

ITALY said that effective multilateralism and the contribution of United Nations disarmament machinery were crucial in the field of disarmament. The Conference remained the unique forum established and specifically devoted to negotiate multilateral treaties and it was of utmost importance to preserve its primary role on promoting substantive negotiations related to disarmament and non-proliferation and to overcome its current deadlock. Last year, the Conference did not succeed in agreeing on a negotiating mandate on the core issues of the agenda, but encouraging developments had emerged from the general framework of their activities and it would be appropriate and constructive to build on and continue to focus on those positive elements as they approached this forthcoming session. The commencement of the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices remained for Italy a clear priority and it welcomed the substantive and fruitful discussions held within the Group of Governmental Experts. Italy also underlined the need to assure an effective follow-up to the suggestions put forward by the Acting Secretary-General of the Conference, Michael Moller, in particular the opportunity to discuss on how to update the working methods of the Conference and the relation between the Conference and civil society. Italy looked forward to the informal Conference on Disarmament and Civil Society Forum which would take place on 19 March. In Italy’s view, it was essential to participate constructively and substantively to all relevant discussion, including in the framework of the Conference, on nuclear disarmament with a clear focus on practical and effective measures and to avoid creating shortcuts that would not contribute to mutually reinforce the goals of disarmament and non-proliferation.

UNITED STATES remained ever-ready to work tirelessly with other Conference on Disarmament Member States to help overcome the continuing impasse and it retained faith in its unique and enduring potential. Amidst the accumulating frustration, it was essential to accentuate the opportunities for dialogue, while preserving the Conference’s core mission as a negotiating body. The United States was open to continuing the useful, substantive dialogue that Member States conducted under the dual-track approach employed in the 2014 session. The United States believed that this approach held promise for identifying issues on the agenda of the Conference that could be ripe for negotiation. It hoped that such discussions would not simply repeat last year’s exchanges, but build on them to identify and seek to broaden areas for agreement. The United States was also prepared to engage in discussions on ways to improve the working methods of the Conference, if other Member States were also willing to do so. While the United States did not believe that the current impasse fundamentally had results from the rule of procedure of the Conference or its working methods, there was some scope for improvements and it would have no objection to explore alternative methods within the parameters of the rule of consensus, which was critical to the Conference. While the United States supported and stood prepared to continue to contribute to meaningful dialogue on all issues on the agenda, negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty consistent with the Shannon report and mandate contained remained the priority of the United States in the Conference. An FMCT remained a central component of their nuclear disarmament agenda and was a goal overwhelmingly endorsed by the international community. The United States was actively participating in the ongoing work of the Group of Governmental Experts on an FMCT, not aiming at bypassing the Conference but as an illuminating path forward on FMCT, a path for the Conference itself to follow. The United States could not support schemes to hotwire disarmament obligations through other channels that bypassed the Conference.

BRAZIL said that under the schedule of activities, the Conference had held structured and substantive discussions on all the items listed in its agenda. This formula had proven to be productive and it was important to ensure discussions would continue, preferably in a formal setting, and gather momentum with a view to reaching a compromise agreement that would enable the resumption of negotiations within the Conference. The Conference’s stalemate was unacceptable and two decades was a long time to remain stagnant. Urgent action was needed in order to foster closer links between the Conference and the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the United Nations Security Council and other bodies of the United Nations disarmament machinery. It was high time to renew efforts within the multilateral system to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Brazil did not understand the reasons why the Conference was unable to negotiate a treaty on negative security assurances. The negotiations aimed at nuclear disarmament must take place within the existing multilateral system, either at the Conference on Disarmament or at the United Nations General Assembly, giving voice and vote to all States. The Conference could not be held hostage to the negotiation of a fissile material treaty, as dictated by the proponents of a step-by-step approach. If it was not possible to launch negotiations on any of the core issues of the Conference, it was perfectly legitimate to resort to the United Nations General Assembly.

ZIMBABWE said the Conference was marking its eighteenth year of stalemate on the programme of work, which had been hindering substantive negotiations. As a peace-loving nation, Zimbabwe had an impressive record in the sphere of disarmament, exemplified through the ratification of a number of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation treaties. Zimbabwe was also a party to the Pelindaba Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, through which all countries from the Africa region committed themselves to ban the manufacture, acquisition and testing of nuclear weapons. Zimbabwe was of the strong view that the existence of nuclear weapons in the world remained a major threat to international stability, peace and security. As long as nuclear weapons existed in the arsenals of one nation, nuclear proliferation, vertical or horizontal, could not be halted. Zimbabwe attached great importance to all the four core agenda items of the Conference; nuclear disarmament remained a top priority. Zimbabwe would like to stress the importance of the democratisation of the Conference and it hoped that consultations would continue in 2015 on the question of the expansion of the membership of this body. It was also concerned over the exclusion from participation of members of civil society organizations and looked forward to the CD-Civil Society Forum slated for 19 March 2015.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA hoped the Conference would take a major step towards its revitalization under the Presidency of Mexico. The Republic of Korea shared with deep concern that the Conference on Disarmament remained dormant. During 2014, the Conference on Disarmament had put forward several renewed attempts, including establishing the Informal Working Group, and had considered possible options for a programme of work. They had also had structured discussions on each agenda item. All of these efforts demonstrated the deep commitment of the Members of the Conference to their mandate to take this august forum forward. However, the 2014 session had not been completely satisfactory as it had marked another year without agreement on a programme of work. They should not underestimate the value of the progress that they had made last year, including through the dual track approach. They should build on this progress and maintain the momentum. In 2015 the Group of Governmental Experts on fissile materials would conclude its sessions and it was working on the elements to be included in its report, including recommendations on possible aspects that could contribute to a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Republic of Korea hoped that the consensus of the Group of Governmental Experts would give positive impact to the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May and that this momentum could be switched into concrete progress in the Conference on Disarmament, improving the prospect of starting substantive work on this topic this year. Although the Republic of Korea was strongly committed to start substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament, they should not lower the bar to the point that the authority of the Conference was undermined. The Conference should operate as a negotiating body and the Republic of Korea hoped that it could agree on a programme of work at the earliest time possible. FMCT was the most ripe and urgent for negotiation.

SWEDEN said the lack of substantial work in the form of negotiations in the Conference was very disappointing and a major concern. Nevertheless, efforts had to continue in order to reach the end of the impasse. According to an reasonable measurement, it had already lasted for much too long. Sweden also welcomed the increased level of attention nuclear disarmament, resulting from a series of conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Also, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference would need to produce tangible results so that nuclear efforts could indeed move forward. The humanitarian perspective on nuclear disarmament should help the international community achieve concrete results in this regard at the Review Conference. On some of the other current issues in the Conference, Sweden would like to see merit in a more focused discussion on the working methods of the Conference. The Acting Secretary-General’s proposals from last year remained important as a point of departure. Sweden would also be open to intensified discussion on the matter of enlargement of the Conference. However, none of this could, of course, be a substitute for efforts to achieve negotiates on substance.

MOROCCO reiterated the commitment of Morocco to work towards achieving their common goal of seeing the Conference resume its effectiveness and prominence as the single multilateral negotiating organ for disarmament issues. For 18 years, and although the Conference had been able to adopt a programme of work in 2009, the Conference had paradoxically become an unmoving instance in a rapidly moving global situation. People were challenging the validity of the Conference and its legitimacy as the only forum to negotiate disarmament affairs. These questions and concerns were challenging the Conference and incited its Members to scale up their efforts in order to give life to this negotiating body and lead them to total nuclear disarmament. The resumption of the negotiation of international disarmament instruments within the Conference today was not only a need but an emergency in this situation of unprecedented rise of terrorism. This situation challenged the Conference and called on its Members to put aside their differences and to think about, in an innovative fashion, the security challenges of the twenty-first century so that they could meet the hopes that the international community had placed in the Conference on Disarmament. In order to bring the Conference out of its extended hibernation period, Morocco felt that it was high time for Member States to demonstrate real political will to begin substantive negotiations whilst being committed to an inclusive global approach on all disarmament aspects. Morocco reiterated its unflagging support to the implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone and a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East and was deeply disappointed about the postponement of the Helsinki conference of 2012 on the Middle East. This conference was crucial and would create a climate of confidence and trust among the countries of the region.

BELARUS said Belarus saw the Conference on Disarmament as a unique multilateral negotiating body of global significance dealing with issues of disarmament and arms control and it was in favour of resuming substantive work in the Conference. Belarus would also be prepared to support the expansion of the membership of the Conference on the condition that the broadest possible consensus could be achieved among delegations on this particular matter. Belarus also supported the wider involvement of civil society in the work of the Conference. Belarus did not believe that the start of negotiations in the Conference was being hampered by the rules of procedure governing its work. Quite the opposite, the existing rules of procedure were balanced. The principle of consensus that was enshrined in the rules of procedure was a guarantee that the interests and national security of the Member States would be taken into account and was a guarantee of the inclusiveness of the documents that the Conference could develop. All the initiatives to reform the Conference needed to be carefully balanced in terms of their impact on the aforementioned key principles. The Conference was not fulfilling its negotiating role because of a misbalance of interests and different views inside it on how to ensure both national and regional security. To correct this situation and to find international consensus, time was required as well as substantive efforts, particularly by the Permanent Members of the Security Council. The Conference should continue to seek compromises aimed at beginning negotiations. Belarus was in favour resuming the negotiating process in the Conference this year and did not have any pre-conditions for the adoption of a programme of work. Belarus would be prepared to support the adoption of a negotiating mandate on any of the key issues such as nuclear disarmament, fissile material, preventing an arms race in outer space or negative security assurances. For Belarus, the national priority remained the issue of prohibiting new forms of weapons of mass destruction. It would be useful to hold focused debates on all agenda issues.

ARGENTIA said Argentina had had a number of initiatives in the area of disarmament and was convinced that the best path to follow to overcome this paralysis was to begin substantive negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament pertaining to the various issues on the agenda. Argentina welcomed any attempt to provide creative solutions and would look carefully at all initiatives that would arise which would allow the Conference to have an open debate that was transparent and inclusive. However, in order to overcome what was bogging down the Conference, this could only go through clear political rules demonstrated by the Members of the Conference. They must not divert attention away from the real reasons for the Conference being bogged down. Argentina supported any measures that supported a commitment to non-proliferation and comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons. Argentina had demonstrated its clear commitment to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Argentina viewed with concern the very small progress made on nuclear disarmament after 45 years of the entry into force of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and it considered that the Review Conference of the NPT, which would take place in 2015, would give all a chance to think about its outcome and find a way to fully achieve its implementation. Argentina also paid tribute to the work of the Group of Governmental Experts on an FMCT. Argentina was in favour of flexible solutions that would promote this dialogue and ensure that the debate was successful. The priority now was to establish a programme of work for the Conference.

MICHAEL MØLLER, Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Acting Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that following his briefing to the Conference in late September on the plans for an informal civil society forum on the Conference on Disarmament, which he would be hosting in his capacity as Acting Secretary-General of the Conference, he was pleased to update the Conference on the preparations as promised. In order to allow for better preparations, including the raising of the necessary funds for civil society participation and for the organization of the meeting, the forum had been postponed from 12 December to 19 March, and they were now making steady progress towards holding the forum on that date. Concerning participation, invitations would be extended to all Member States and Observer States of the Conference on Disarmament. Over 100 civil society organizations from all regions of the world would be invited to participate in the forum and would be invited on the basis on the disarmament relevance of their work. Letters of invitations would be going out to those who would be invited to be part of the panels, both from non-governmental organizations and Member States, and as soon as feedback was received, a list of speakers would be shared with the Conference. The forum would be organized in the form of interactive panel discussions, focussing on the four core issues of the Conference: nuclear disarmament, FMCT, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Each panel would comprise of representatives of Conference Member States and civil society organizations. A fifth panel to wrap up the discussions and consider the way forward was also being planned. All panels would be moderated by UNIDIR. He was also still working on securing a high-level speaker to deliver a keynote speech that hopefully would set the tone for the forum. The forum would not have a formal report, but a Chair’s summary would be produced which would be made available. Fund raising efforts continued for the estimated cost of around $ 50,000. He reiterated his commitment to initiate a dialogue between the Conference on Disarmament and other actors in the field of disarmament, particularly civil society organizations.

TURKEY said Turkey had listened carefully to the Secretary-General’s message to the Conference, which had contained wise recommendations on disarmament and non-proliferation issues and encouraged the Conference to move forward. The Conference was a unique platform and it had a special responsibility for disarmament and non-proliferation. All should strive to maintain the relevance of the Conference. Turkey hoped that the Conference would resume substantive work this year. Last year, detailed and frank discussions had been held under the schedule of activities. The Informal Working Group on a programme of work had also yielded fruitful discussions. The next step must be to agree by consensus on a programme of work to pave the way towards the commencement of negotiations on an FMCT, and it must also materialize advances on other agenda items, including substantive work on the core issues. The problems faced by the Conference were not created by its procedures, membership or internal dynamics; it had to be acknowledged that there was a certain malaise throughout the disarmament fora and machinery, both at the international and regional levels. It was also true that the Conference did not operate in a vacuum. This year marked the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The good and health functioning of the NPT was a fundamental goal for Turkey and it was working toward ensuring that the Review Conference was a success.

FRANCE said France would like to see the Conference play an active role in disarmament and to achieve this, they had to take into account what had been achieved over the last few years: document 1299 and the mandate contained therein, and CD/1864, which remained a crucial benchmark document for the Conference. To challenge these documents would represent a step backwards. In 2014 significant progress was made. The schedule of activities had made it possible for the Conference to have unparalleled substantive discussion on all the four key topics, which confirmed that the issue of a treaty banning the production of fissile material was ripe. It was not enough and France’s objective was the beginning of negotiations on fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference in response of the priorities set. The Conference must therefore agree on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of negotiations of an FMCT. The work of the Governmental Group of Experts would continue in 2015; it had resumed last week in Geneva. Their aim was to produce a report which would contain the crucial elements required to facilitate the negotiation of an FMCT in the Conference in accordance with document 1299 and the mandate contained therein. 2015 would be an important year for disarmament and France’s priorities included the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the negotiation in the Conference of an FMCT; the entry into force of the arms trade treaty and the lethal autonomous weapons systems. France was committed to the Conference on Disarmament. The principle of consensus in the Conference was a guarantee for all States and their legitimate security interests to be represented. The Conference must build upon what had been achieved in document 1299 and build upon CD/1864 that were adopted by consensus. If the Conference could not agree quickly on a programme of work, France would be in favour of extending the Informal Working Group on a programme of work for 2015. France also supported the civil society forum due to take place shortly, and this exercise must be inclusive, with all points of view expressed.

ALGERIA said the Conference had been faced with this deadlock for years, which was sad and disappointing as nuclear weapons were a threat to all humanity. Algeria paid tribute to the Secretary-General for his commitment to nuclear disarmament and fully supported his assessment reflected in his message today. The international community was in need today more than ever to achieve a multilateral development in the field nuclear disarmament. Progress would have a positive impact on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in 2015, particularly on the holding of a conference on a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. Algeria regretted that the Helsinki Conference had not been held, which had been one of the main conclusions reached by the 2000 Review Conference. Negative security assurances was one of the priorities of the programme of work to be submitted. Algeria paid great importance to the prevention of an arms race in outer space and believed that the Russian and Chinese project and the initiative of Russia on a code of conduct were very important contributions.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that he was not sure that he could subscribe for the calls for the renewed establishment of the Informal Working Group on a programme of work as in his view this pre-empted failure on efforts to approve a programme of work. Mexico was committed to a constructive approach and would make every possible effort for the adoption of a programme of work. In his circular letter sent out on 15 January, he had requested States to provide input on elements that they believed should be included in the programme of work and other suggestions. He asked States to provide this input before noon on Friday, 23 January. There would be public plenaries on Tuesday, 27 January in the morning, on Wednesday, 28 January in the morning and afternoon, and on Thursday, 29 January in the morning.

ALGERIA asked how exactly the meetings of the following week would be structured in order to make its participation more effective and concrete.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he would try to give structure to the sessions and information would be provided to States as soon as it was available.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/002E