CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONSIDERS PROPOSAL ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

The Conference on Disarmament today discussed a draft proposal for civil society participation, and considered issues pertaining to its rules of procedure, including a new proposal on the establishment of a working group to review its methods of work.

Jorge Lomonaco, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in an opening statement, presented a revised draft proposal regarding civil society participation which he hoped addressed the concerns of Member States. The President said he favoured a much more liberal approach, with greater openness and transparency for civil society participation, but he had made concessions in the hope that Member States would also be willing to compromise to adopt it.

In the ensuing discussion, States raised many concerns about the possible participation of civil society in the Conference on Disarmament. Those concerns included what criteria would be used to grant requests for participation, more broadly what ‘added value’ civil society could bring to the Conference, whether civil society presence would be detrimental given the Conference’s sensitive subject matter of issues of national security, and its impact with regard to United Nations conference, logistic and security procedures. Questions were also raised about the definition of ‘civil society’ and ‘non-governmental organizations’. Many States recommended waiting until after the Civil Society Forum planned for 19 March 2015, under the auspices of the Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, before making a decision.

The following States spoke in the discussion on civil society participation: Belarus, United States, Russia, Senegal, France, Egypt, Japan, Switzerland, Netherlands, India, China, Italy, Argentina, Iran, Sweden, Turkey, Algeria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Spain.

Mr. Lomonaco devoted the remainder of the meeting to issues pertaining to the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament, saying its differences could only be bridged by changing its culture. He distributed a draft proposal to establish a working group to make recommendations to better facilitate the substantive work of the Conference.

The following States spoke in the discussion on issues pertaining to the Rules of Procedure: Egypt, Japan, Belarus, Algeria, United Kingdom, Australia, Russia and Belarus.

The Conference on Disarmament next meets in public at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 11 February to hold an interactive discussion on the expansion of its membership. The Conference also decided to hear from Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) regarding the Institute’s operational problems.

The Conference also decided to meet in public at 10 a.m. on Friday 13 February to take action on the two draft proposals on civil society participation and establishment of a working group to review methods of work. The meeting would also conclude the Presidency of Mexico of the Conference on Disarmament.

Opening statement by the President

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, put forward a request from Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), to address the Conference on Disarmament during its plenary on 11 February 2015 with regard to the operational problems UNIDIR was currently experiencing. The Conference decided to hear Ambassador Gyarmati.

The President said today he wished to continue efforts to adopt a decision regarding civil society participation at the Conference on Disarmament. He proposed a discussion on other issues pertaining to the rules of procedure of the Conference should follow.

Following the views expressed on the first draft proposal on civil society participation (CD/WP.585) the President said the draft had been drastically revised in order to reflect all concerns. The President said he favoured a much more liberal approach, with greater openness and transparency for civil society participation, but he had made concessions in order to secure adoption of the proposal. The more conservative character of the new draft (CD/WP.585/Rev.1) was in line with practices within other United Nations fora, said the President, hoping that Member States would be willing to compromise to adopt it.

Discussion on the draft proposal regarding civil society participation

Belarus asked the President to clarify whether he was opening up participation in the Conference on Disarmament to the general public, or just to members of civil society who could provide expertise and constructive contributions. If it was the former, Belarus said it could create difficulties not only for the conference services but also the security services. What if there were topless ladies screaming from the public gallery throwing bottles of mayonnaise, asked Belarus.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, replied that he heard Belarus’s concerns but did not understand because members of the public were already entitled to attend plenary meetings of the Conference and sit in the public gallery, and so in theory could already drop mayonnaise onto delegates. The general public could only enter the United Nations Office at Geneva through strict security measures, he continued, and only persons who had been given a specific pass could enter meeting rooms. Further, said the President, he did not agree that listening to civil society would contradict or impede the negotiating mandate of the Conference on Disarmament. Rather he was convinced listening to them would be a very useful input. Was Belarus willing to propose some language that would ease its concerns?

Belarus, in response to the President, recalled its statement in a previous meeting emphasizing how much it welcomed contributions from civil society. Belarus proposed the wording in the draft be adapted to specify civil society organizations which had expertise related to international security and disarmament. Voicing another concern, Belarus said there were more than 300,000 civil society organizations in the world; would there even be enough seating for those representatives in the Conference Chamber? It would be difficult to accommodate even 3,000 people in the Council Chamber said Belarus, urging the Conference to be practical in its thinking.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, replied that today he saw only two persons sitting in the public gallery. If the Conference had 300,000 applications for attendance then perhaps they would need to review matters, but at this stage he had no reason to see that the public gallery would be flooded with thousands of participants interested in the Conference on Disarmament.

United States stated it maintained a broad dialogue and partnership with civil society on disarmament issues and valued their input into national policy decisions. Bearing in mind the potential contributions of civil society, the United States asked a number of questions regarding practicalities of the proposal. What was meant by a Conference meeting being designated ‘closed’ and what was meant by the term ‘attend’ – did it mean the right to observe or the right to request the floor? Would civil society only be invited to speak during certain plenaries, and would States have the right of reply? Currently civil society representatives sat in the public gallery without microphones and name plates. Was the intent to provide reserved seating in the Conference Chamber?

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the Rules of Procedure established the concept of ‘public’ meetings, so ‘closed’ was the opposite; civil society would not attend them. It was proposed that civil society would only speak at a specially designated session, meaning that in other sessions civil society could attend but not have the right to speak. Member States were entitled to the right of reply in response to statements from civil society.

The purpose of the exercise was to bring civil society down from the public gallery to the meeting room, continued the President, so a reserved space would be required. If civil society were still to be confined to the upper gallery then there was no point continuing this discussion on civil society participation, he said. If participation in the Conference on Disarmament became so successful that there were queues of civil society representatives wishing to attend, then limiting their numbers could be considered. The Conference would have the option of accepting or rejecting a request from a civil society representative either on the basis of their relevance or for issues of space, he clarified.

Russia said it seemed some comments dealt with the modalities of the issue rather than the draft, suggested waiting for the results of the Civil Society Forum due to be held in Geneva on 19 March. Russia said it seemed that civil society organizations, in their great majority, had a national background and their common denominator been the national interests of the States represented at the Conference. In that respect, if the opinion of a non-governmental organization represented the national interest of a State would that be fully incorporated into the statement of a State, asked Russia, otherwise it would be as if a bomb had been planted that would explode later. What if a non-governmental organization expressed an opinion that was contrary to that of a State represented in the Conference on Disarmament? Russia said it worked actively with civil society and sought to reflect the variety of opinions. It also emphasized that the decision being considered was irreversible in nature.

Russia said substantial efforts were being made to help the Conference on Disarmament emerge from the difficult situation it had been in for 18 years. Once the Conference moved into negotiations its unique nature in discussing issues of national security would be evident – would it be a good idea to have non-governmental organizations present at that point? Experts already had the full opportunity to share their point of view with the Conference, agreed on a case by case basis, said Russia. Therefore there was no obstacle to civil society participation as things stood and an additional decision was not necessary. Russia gave the example of the Mexican delegation, which included a representative of a non-governmental organization, asking why they would they be given the floor if their views were not fully in line with national security interests? Furthermore, said Russia, the draft gave civil society a higher status and aligned them with intergovernmental organizations, which was unfair because intergovernmental organizations were intergovernmental and had a broader expert potential than national civil society organizations. Russia asked why the most important part of the decision – the procedure that would allow civil society to participate – was only put in a footnote in the draft. Russia said the draft could allow participation of organizations that had nothing to do with questions of disarmament, such as human rights or humanitarian organizations, or even an organization that had nothing to do with disarmament or politics but was very active, FEMEN, which organized all sorts of acts which could only be condemned. Such participation would only make the Conference’s work more difficult.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in response to Russia, said the footnote referred to was precisely in place to address the relevance of a civil society organization to the work of the Conference. He said the term ‘non-governmental organization’ by definition meant organizations which may or may not share the views of the Government of their country, although many non-governmental organizations were international organizations and not from one particular country. That they may not share the view of the Government was precisely why their participation was wanted, said the President, unless delegates did not want to hear a different view from that of national Governments. Hearing a different viewpoint was the whole purpose of civil society. The delegation of Mexico did indeed include a representative of civil society, said the President, and his views were not intended to align with those of the Government but rather to broaden and enrich thinking, not sit in the margins of the room. The status quo was not working and would not end the 18 year stalemate, but the President was convinced civil society participation could.

Senegal, said it spoke as a country that had experienced situations civil society playing an outstanding role in ensuring that change – including two new Presidents – happened peacefully. Senegal suffered an influx of weapons and much instability; civil society played a role of oversight, support and early warning which was very valuable to countries in the region. For those reasons Senegal fully supported the President’s draft decision. It was reassured by the prior condition of authorization to take the floor. After 18 years the Conference could not continue to hold the same fears about the participation of civil society, concluded Senegal.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said some States were attempting to link today’s draft decision and the Civil Society Forum scheduled for 19 March 2015. They were separate matters and there was no link between the two, he emphasized. The Forum was being organized by the Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Acting Director-General of United Nations Office at Geneva, in his personal capacity. It had nothing to do with civil society participation in the room, he said, encouraging States to make a distinction between the two.

Japan said it placed great importance on civil society contribution to disarmament issues particularly non-proliferation and disarmament education. The proposal was a positive step which had motivated the discussion within the Conference. Japan recalled a proposal by the President of the Conference in July 2014 to establish a working group and queried whether it would be helpful to establish an informal working group to take up the issue of civil society participation. Japan welcomed the forthcoming Civil Society Forum on 19 March which it suggested may contribute to considerations.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in response again insisted on the importance of making a distinction between the Civil Society Forum in March, which would not discuss civil society participation, and the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament.

France said it strongly supported anything that brought new dynamism to engagement between public authorities and civil society in a national and multilateral context, including on disarmament issues. For that reason France supported the holding of a Civil Society Forum on 19 March. The exercise should be inclusive and diverse in nature; all the different types of civil society protagonists should be represented: non-governmental organizations, academia and perhaps even the private sector. There was a distinction to be made between civil society and non-governmental organizations, said France, citing the example of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). However, said France, Member States should not lose sight of the specifics of the Conference, which was an intergovernmental body dealing with negotiation. There should not be a situation where the participation of civil society impinged upon its work. France asked about the wording of the draft proposal and the difference between the terms ‘civil society representatives’ and ‘non-governmental organizations’.

Egypt said it understood that the term ‘civil society’ was more general than the term ‘non-governmental organizations’, and said broader wording could be useful.

Switzerland said civil society had shown, over the last 15 years in many fora, the added value it could bring to discussions on disarmament. Switzerland supported the President’s proposal to move away from the status quo but said the participation of civil society should not be made more complicated than necessary. Civil society representatives should have the relevant expertise to be able to provide added value to the Conference’s work. As the Conference dealt with sensitive issues it should not be open for just anyone to attend. Switzerland asked a question about the parameters of such involvement and said it was not opposed to amending the Rules of Procedure if necessary. Switzerland noted that ad hoc decisions had been made in the past to allow non-governmental organizations, such as The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), to address the Conference, and said that approach was desirable.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that each President of the Conference only had four weeks to do his or her work. Four weeks was not long enough to make any meaningful contribution. Therefore, said the President, he had to pick his battles and picked civil society. Had he had more time he would have also addressed the participation of international organizations.

Netherlands said in general it was in favour of the draft and civil society participation: as long as they had expertise they brought great added value. Netherlands agreed with Switzerland that the participation of international organizations brought great added value. Although the President saw a difference between today’s meeting and that of 19 March, the Netherlands said it needed clarification regarding the two footnotes in the draft regarding one-year approval, and regarding ‘written submissions’.

The Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament took the floor to answer the question regarding communications from civil society. He explained that the Secretariat currently received communications from civil society, who were able to place written submissions at the entrance to the room, as per the Rules of Procedure.

India said while the Conference was a Member States-driven body, it valued the contributions from civil society, non-governmental organizations and academia on issues of disarmament. India assessed any decision to enhance their participation within the framework of the Rules of Procedure. As expressed by many delegations, the proposal in the draft decision in effect represented a modification of the Rules of Procedure. India said it was not against the decision – indeed it was a very important subject for India – but it shared the view that the proposal needed greater discussions. India also looked forward to the Civil Society Forum on 19 March. Although it heard the President’s view that there was no linkage between that event and the draft decision, the Forum may still be informative for Member States.

China said the new draft proposal took into account the realities of the Conference on Disarmament’s work. China attached great importance to the efforts of civil society and non-governmental organizations in promoting issues of disarmament and non-proliferation and supported efforts to strengthen the participation of non-governmental organizations through proper means. The Civil Society Forum on 19 March would be an excellent opportunity to exchange views with all parties on the questions concerned. Although the Forum was said to be different from the draft decision, China took the view that the essence of the Forum was an exchange of views between the Conference and civil society representatives, and its result would serve as a reference for civil society participation in the Conference. The Conference had many agenda items involving the national security and military interests of States, including non-proliferation and the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). Having carefully studied the revised draft, China believed some questions needed further clarification, particularly on the definition of ‘civil society’ and of ‘non-governmental organization’.

The Secretary of the Conference on Disarmament, responding to a request from the President for a description of the Civil Society Forum planned for 19 March 2015, said in planning the Forum the Acting Secretary-General Michael Møller considered whether it should focus on substantial or procedural issues, or both. After a lengthy reflection he chose to focus on substantive issues, which meant that the Forum was organized around the four core issues of the Conference. There would be four panel discussions on those four core issues allowing an exchange of views between Member States, experts and civil society. The event would conclude with a wrap-up session to take stock of what was discussed. Therefore the Forum was not about processes, it was not about the ways and means of how civil society could participate in the Conference, but rather it created space for interaction on the core issues. The Acting Secretary-General viewed it as a first step in the establishment of a dialogue between civil society and the Conference.

Italy said it favoured the strengthening of interaction with civil society and non-governmental organizations, and that the Conference would only benefit from their participation. It would allow the Conference to receive their valuable external expertise and ideas. Italy valued the initiative of Acting Secretary-General Michael Møller to convene a Civil Society Forum in March and, while aware of the differences of the two actions, was interested in the possibilities of organizing it as a recurring event. It was true there was no link between the two initiatives but there was interest of the representatives of civil society to contribute in the event. The Conference needed a fresh look at the matter and had to be better aware of how civil society viewed the issues being debated in this Forum.

Argentina noted that the President said he was ‘picking his battles’ asked about rewording the phrase ‘official interaction’ in the Spanish version of the draft, and whether it was a translation issue.

Iran raised asked about the phrase ‘allow a greater and more formal interaction with civil society’ in the English version of the draft and asked whether civil society would need credentials, and what criteria would be used to examine their credentials and determine their relevance to the Conference.

Sweden thanked the President for the revised draft and agreed it was a relatively modest proposal. Sweden took a positive view of civil society participation and would be prepared to support the proposal.

Turkey said suggested the phrase ‘non-governmental organizations whose activities were relevant to the work of the Conference on Disarmament’ could be included in the draft text to define the sort of non-governmental organization that could be included. Turkey said although it was aware the Civil Society Forum on 19 March was a totally different event many statements had inevitably linked the two, particularly regarding the amendment of the Rules of Procedure.

Algeria said civil society played important early warning and oversight functions. It raised awareness when States fell short in dealing with challenges related to international security. The Conference on Disarmament should not be out of step with the impetus of civil society in other fora. For that reason Algeria was very supportive of a greater openness to civil society so it could contribute to the Conference’s deliberations in a fashion consisted with their allotted role. Algeria suggested that only non-governmental organizations actively working on agenda items should be included and asked whether civil society would be allowed to make statements on agenda items and receive internal working documents.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said it welcomed honest interaction between civil society and the Conference on Disarmament. However, civil society organizations should be invited based on the relevance of their work to agenda items. Requests from civil society should be carefully screened and approved by the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference could benefit from lessons learned following the Civil Society Forum on 19 March, including the selection of participants. As the Acting Secretary-General had invited more than 100 civil society organizations to the Forum there could be benefits in examining the selection criteria of them.

South Africa said recalled its statement last week on the matter and thanked the President for his efforts and for both draft proposals. South Africa had been engaged in efforts to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament and the issue of civil society participation was vital to that. South Africa would certainly support the draft proposal. It had seen the role civil society played in sharing expertise in other disarmament fora and saw how the Conference would similarly benefit.

Brazil said for the record it agreed with South Africa and supported the draft proposal. In fact, it was prepared to support the original draft. Brazil said in fact the Civil Society Forum would be much more likely to be successful if the question of their participation – their legitimacy – had already been answered by the Conference on Disarmament. Civil society was relevant by definition, said Brazil.

Spain said the Conference had a mandate to negotiate not debate, and therefore civil society involvement did raise questions. However, the caution incorporated into the draft answered those concerns. Civil society should not solely be non-governmental organizations but also include academia and experts. The draft should be interpreted in a practical spirit and the balance struck must be maintained in future. An alternative would be to hold the Civil Society Forum annually, suggested Spain.

Russia recalled that the Civil Society Forum was originally planned to ascertain how civil society could discuss disarmament issues on the Conference’s agenda in a relevant manner. The Forum was supposed to see whether civil society could offer anything new that would break the deadlock of the Conference. The Forum was a very good opportunity to assess the level of professionalism, the criteria and the value-added of non-governmental organization participation. The Conference risked opening the door to a situation where there would be a long list of non-governmental organizations that were unknown to States; the question of criteria was very important.

Russia also spoke about the latest treaty between the United States and Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, START 2, and said frankly it did not believe that treaty would have been possible with the participation of non-governmental organizations. It would have been highly unlikely to achieve agreement on very sensitive issues if proceedings were immediately reported in the mass media, said Russia. The Arms Trade Treaty was something different, noted Russia. Russia spoke about the participation of non-governmental organizations in the United Nations First Committee, and how it no longer had principle of consensus and followed the rule of the General Assembly where documents could be adopted by a simple majority. Russia asked how the Conference on Disarmament would be any different to the First Committee in that case. The Conference on Disarmament was close to reaching agreement on a draft programme of work but the final attempts had not been made – now efforts were being made on an issue that was not that important to the work of the Conference. A compromise was close but the Conference should focus on the main issues before it.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said precisely because there was no universal definition of ‘civil society’ the proposal left it open for the Conference to grant requests for participation. The President offered an oral amendment – civil society representatives would not be allowed to speak, except in the special dedicated session. He agreed with Brazil that if there was a link between the draft decision and the Civil Society Forum in March, it was the other way around to that voiced by many delegates today.

In response to Russia’s comment regarding the START negotiations, the President emphasized that the draft allowed for closed meetings – any sensitive negotiations could take place in private. The President reminded the Conference that the Civil Society Forum was not a Conference decision but rather the personal initiative of the Acting Secretary-General Michael Møller. Had Mr. Møller submitted his initiative for the decision of the Conference on Disarmament it would most likely still be under discussion, said the President. The President said he did not share the view that the Civil Society Forum was to assess the value of participants and he hoped Members would not attend for that reason.

United States recalled Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament Michael Møller’s comments last year in which he suggested the holding of an informal civil society forum hosted by the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, adding that “If the experience was practical the Conference on Disarmament may decide to adapt the Rules of Procedure to allow more future participation”.

Concluding Remarks

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he had consulted with Acting Secretary-General Michael Møller who had no opposition to the draft. He thanked delegates for the very interesting debate. The President said he read philosophical differences of opinion on the value of civil society participation behind many of the interventions, questions and concerns. Because of that, the Conference needed to reach a certain conclusion and draw closure to the issue on Friday. Therefore he offered two verbal amendments to the draft: adding the words “working in the field of international security, arms control and disarmament” to the sentence “Representatives of civil society […] should be allowed upon request to attend meetings of the Conference”. In the second operational paragraph the words “non-governmental organizations” should be supplemented with “representatives of civil society”. The President asked delegations, in their discussions with their Capitals, to ask why they were able to accept exactly the same procedure in the Non-Proliferation Treaty but not in the Conference on Disarmament.

Statement by the President on issues pertaining to the Rules of Procedure

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said he would devote the remainder of today’s meeting to issues pertaining to the Rules of Procedure. The President said the differences in the Conference on Disarmament could only be bridged by changing its culture and evoked the call of the Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament concerning the establishment of a subsidiary body on the methods of work.

The President distributed a draft decision (CD/WP.586) to establish a working group to review the methods of work of the Conference to provide an opportunity to codify some of the best practices that had emerged and propose a way forward. The President also made two minor oral amendments to the draft, correcting the date and adding the name of the Ambassador of Switzerland as the proposed chairperson of the working group.

The President said the Conference on Disarmament would meet on Friday 13 February to take action on the proposal.

Discussion on the draft proposal regarding the Rules of Procedure

Egypt asked about the composition of the Working Group, whether it would be a closed meeting, and to whom it was open.

Japan thanked the President for the very important proposal, and asked for clarification on three points: was the working group open, was there any limitation of participants and what did “codification of best practices” mean?

Belarus also took the floor to ask whether the working group was open to all Member and Observer States.

Algeria repeated its position that the reason for the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament lay not in the method but in deep-rooted political matters, and solutions should be sought outside the Conference.

United Kingdom said it would not rule out the establishment of a working group on methods of work but it would prioritize a focus on substantial work, particularly the reestablishment of a working group on a programme of work which would allow for more in-depth discussions, as well as a continuation of the useful informal discussions.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, clarified that the working group would not be closed, rather was open to all Member States of the Conference, as set out in the Rules of Procedure which read “unless stated otherwise all meetings were open to all Member States”. ‘Codification’ was a term which meant to see whether some of the best practices could be introduced into the Rules of Procedure as amendments or as stand-alone decisions. The President responded to the United Kingdom saying the establishment of this working group would not preclude the establishment of any other working group nor discussion of any substantive issues in plenary – it was not an either/or situation.

Australia said it did believe the Rules of Procedure obstructed the adoption of a programme of work but it was important to appraise working methods and see if there was a better way to achieve. It was helpful to look at the situation with fresh eyes and Australia would be happy to participate. It suggested new wording for the first operational programme in the draft proposal which would extend the mandate of the working group: “better facilitate the substantive work of the Conference” rather than “codify some of the best practices that have emerged”.

Russia asked what was meant exactly by “best practices” and whether it referred to fundamental key principals of the Conference’s work.

Algeria asked about the language in the draft proposal, saying the use of the idea of ‘best practices’ went away from the objective of the proposal which was to improve the functioning of the Conference on Disarmament.

Egypt expressed concerns that the report and recommendations of the Working Group would not express the views of all Member States taking part.

Belarus took the floor again to enquire what the Rules of Procedure stated with regard to the establishment of working groups.

JORGE LOMONACO, (Mexico), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said his respectful request was that the Member States concentrated upon the operational paragraphs which were the ones that would have an impact upon the work of the working group. The rest was simply context. That would enable the Conference on Disarmament to decide on something and avoid endless discussions on how to establish a working group. The President suggested an oral amendment as suggested by Australia to use the phrase “to better facilitate the substantive work of the Conference”. He proposed a second oral amendment in response to Egypt’s concern using the wording “of the views expressed by all the Members”. In answer to Belarus, the President read from the Rules of Procedure that the Conference may establish working groups open to all Member States of the Conference unless the Conference decided otherwise.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC15/007E