CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT APPOINTS COORDINATORS AND ADOPTS TIMETABLE FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES

The Conference on Disarmament today adopted a decision in which it appointed five coordinators of subsidiary bodies established by the decision CD/2119 of 16 February and also adopted the timetable of the subsidiary bodies. The Conference also heard a number of delegations outlining measures taken in response to the use of what the United Kingdom claims to be the nerve agent Novichok in Salibsury on 4 March, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats from their territories.

Ambassador Sabrina Dallafior, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, presented draft decision CD/WP.607, which contained all necessary provisions toward the appointment of the five coordinators to lead the work of the subsidiary bodies established by the decision CD/2119 of 16 February, as well as a timetable for the subsidiary bodies, which were allocated a similar amount of time. The drawing up of the timetable was a fairly complex process that had to account for a number of constraints, said the President, and recognizing that it would not meet all the expectations, urged indulgence and understanding. The President introduced an oral amendment to the timetable, namely, moving the meeting of subsidiary body 1 from the afternoon of 20 August to the morning of 23 August.

The Conference on Disarmament then adopted the decision CD/WP.607 as orally amended, by virtue of which the Conference appointed Hasan Kleib, Ambassador of Indonesia as coordinator of subsidiary body 1(Cessation of the arms race and nuclear disarmament); Robbert Jan Gabriëlse, Ambassador of the Netherlands as coordinator of subsidiary body 2 (Prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters); Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota, Ambassador of Brazil as coordinator of subsidiary body 3 (Prevention of an arms race in outer space); Michael Biontino, Ambassador of Germany as coordinator of subsidiary body 4 (Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons); and Yury Ambrazevich, Ambassador of Belarus as coordinator of subsidiary body 5 (New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; Comprehensive programme of disarmament; Transparency in armament; Emerging and other issues relevant to the substantive work of the Conference could also be considered, in accordance with CD/2119).

In terms of the timetable, each subsidiary body would follow the same pattern and hold seven sessions; they would start with an initial segment made up of two sessions held in the same week, and then hold, a few weeks later, the main segment comprised of four sessions. Each would conclude its work by a wrap-up individual session in August 2018 to address matters linked to reporting.

The delegations congratulated the Conference on Disarmament on the adoption of this important decision, which addressed key concerns of the Member States. It was a result of the efforts of the three Presidencies – Swiss, Swedish and Sri Lankan, and the will of the delegations to compromise in a constructive spirit. The adoption of the decision was just the first step; the overarching goal remained the negotiations, and the Conference was urged to continue to work toward the adoption of a programme of work. It would be up to the Member States to decide whether its adoption was a big, or a small step for the Conference, a delegation noted.

Ravinatha Aryasinha, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in his farewell remarks, underlined that the ambiguity contained in CD/2119 had not been an accident, but a conscious decision designed to help the Conference out of the stalemate. With the adoption of the decision today, the cost of standing in the way of the Conference moving forward had just become greater.

Russia, Netherlands, China, Germany, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Sweden and Pakistan also took the floor.

With regard to the 4 March incident in Salisbury in the United Kingdom, Australia said it would expel two Russian diplomats for actions inconsistent with their status, in a reaction to the shocking use of the nerve agent in the United Kingdom, the first use of chemical weapons on European soil since the second World War. The United States said it would expel 48 Russian diplomats and would demand that Russia close its Consulate-General in Seattle by 2 April; in response to Russia’s malicious contempt for the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, steps were being taken in concert with more than a dozen partners from around the world. Germany said that the expulsion of four Russian diplomats from its territory was a sign that Germany would not leave attacks on its closest allies without a response; this decision must also be seen against a background of a recent cyber operation against Germany which could be attributed, with high likelihood, to Russian sources. Netherlands agreed with the conclusion of the Council of Europe that it was most likely Russia that was responsible for the 4 March attack and said it would expel from the country two Russian diplomats within two weeks. Ireland agreed that the appalling attack in Salisbury was most likely the responsibility of Russia and stressed that the perpetrators of the crime must be held accountable. Ukraine had decided to expel 13 Russian diplomats from its territory and stressed that the joint response must remain tough to prevent further loss of lives and disrespect for international order.

China took note of the positions of the concerned parties and urged all States to act on evidence and impartial investigations, and to undertake actions that would stand the test of history. Belarus stressed that the use of chemical weapons must be investigated by the relevant and internationally recognized mechanism, and rejected the use of unilateral coercive measures, political or economic, as they eroded trust between governments and peoples. Syria stressed the need to have exhaustive verification conducted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was also the relevant place to discuss such matters.

United Kingdom assured of its calm and calculated pushback on Russia’s attempts to undermine the international rules-based system. The United Kingdom was humbled that its actions had catalysed such a strong, shared response, by many States that suffered from Russia’s hostile actions, States that felt the threat from Russia more keenly each day, and States that deplored Russia’s actions to undermine the collective peace and security on which all depended. In the light of a wave of expulsions of Russian officials from 23 States over the past 24 hours, Russia needed to pay heed.

Russia rejected the unfounded and unjustified accusations made against it by the United Kingdom and stressed that such serious accusations must be based on reliable and verified information. Russia wondered why the United Kingdom did not share the proof and evidence with Russia and also wondered why the United Kingdom did not choose the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as a venue for this discussion.

In her concluding remarks, President Dallafior noted that much remained to be done to revitalize the work of the Conference and meet the many challenges, including to ensure that the subsidiary bodies were productive.


The Conference on Disarmament has now concluded the last plenary of the first part of its 2018 session. The second part will start on 14 May 2018, and the date for the first plenary will be communicated in due time.


Statements on the Decision CD/WP.607

Russia congratulated the Conference on the adoption of this important decision and recognized the efforts of the President to reach compromise. The decision confirmed that joint efforts could help solve all difficult issues facing the Conference on Disarmament and move to the substantive matters on its agenda.

Netherlands extended gratitude to President Dallafior and her Swedish and Sri Lankan predecessors, and said, as a coordinator of one of the subsidiary bodies, that five of its meetings would be dedicated to the ban on the production of fissile material, one to other matters, and the final meeting would be a wrap up.

China congratulated the President on successfully reaching a consensus and adopting the decision that addressed key concerns and was a basis for all subsidiary bodies to carry out their work. China stressed the importance on following this package solution, noting that any deviation would put the work of the subsidiary bodies in question.

Germany said that the adoption of the decision today was the end of a long uphill battle and a result of the efforts of the three Presidencies – Swiss, Swedish and Sri Lankan, and the will of the delegations to compromise in a constructive spirit. Germany was very pleased to be a coordinator of the subsidiary body on the effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Ravinatha Aryasinha, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in farewell remarks, noted that the adoption of the decision today would make his imminent departure from Geneva very happy. He commended the President for the manner in which she had brought about the consensus in the Conference, which would now be able to focus on its substantive work. Ambassador Aryasinha also commended the work of the Ambassador Bard, the previous President of the Conference. Sri Lanka made its best contribution to the international community when it led from the centre; CD/2119 had not been an accident and the ambiguity it contained was a conscious decision designed to help the Conference out of the stalemate. It represented a balance between flexibility and safeguards, and, as noted by the Secretary-General, was the best start that the Conference had had in nearly two decades. The rule of consensus had not been the reason for the stalemate, the lack of political will was, said the Ambassador and noted that with the adoption of the decision, the cost of standing in the way of the Conference moving forward had just become greater.

India said that the adoption of the decision was just the first step; the overarching goal of the Conference on Disarmament remained the negotiations. India was ready to work constructively with the coordinators on the substantive work of the Conference.

Brazil congratulated the three Presidents and said that, as a coordinator of the subsidiary body on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, Brazil would start from the common understanding and would seek to identify, through discussions, areas of potential work. Brazil was conscious that the decision 2119 stood on a delicate balance and as such required progress on all fronts.

Indonesia, the coordinator of the subsidiary body on the cessation of the arms race and nuclear disarmament, would seek the constructive engagement of Member States in the subsidiary body and would work closely with coordinators of other subsidiary bodies.

Viet Nam said that this important decision was an excellent alternative to the Conference on Disarmament being locked in the absence of a programme of work, and expressed hope that the Member States would continue to seek the way toward agreeing on a programme of work.

Sweden warmly congratulated the Swiss Presidency on the success in seeing through the decision and said that it would be up to the Member States to decide whether its adoption was a big, or a small step for the Conference.

Pakistan was pleased to see that the issues that had blocked the Conference had been resolved and it was today able to successfully adopt a decision with a package of actions that represented a consensus. Pakistan would work constructively with all the coordinators and hoped that all Member States would do the same.

India said it had been a pleasure to work with Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka, and wished his all the very best.

Pakistan expressed appreciation for the work of the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka, in the Conference on Disarmament and also in the Human Rights Council, and wished him the very best.

Statements Concerning the 4 March Attack in Salisbury, United Kingdom

Australia said it would expel two Russian diplomats for actions inconsistent with their status in a reaction to the shocking use of the nerve agent in the United Kingdom, the first use of chemical weapons on European soil since World War II. Such an attack should not be tolerated by any sovereign nation.

United States said that the 4 March attack on its closest ally, the United Kingdom, was a reckless act which could not go unanswered. In response to this outrageous violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and breach of international law, the United States would expel 48 Russian diplomats and demand that Russia close its Consulate-General in Seattle by 2 April. The Salisbury attack was only the latest in a long series of Russian efforts to undermine international peace and stability. Russia had shown malicious contempt for the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, and sought, repeatedly, to distort and subvert the Western institutions. “When you attack our friends, you will face serious consequences”, said the United States to the Russian Government, noting that steps were being taken in concert with more than a dozen partners from around the world. Russia must cease its recklessly aggressive behaviour.

China took note of the positions of the concerned parties and urged all States to act on evidence and impartial investigations, and to undertake actions that would stand the test of history. All the decisions in this matter should be referred to The Hague, home of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

United Kingdom recalled that the United Kingdom had expelled from the country 23 Russian officials as a part of the response to the conclusion that Russia was most likely responsible for the use of the nerve agent on British soil on 4 March. The real reasons for this reckless act were not known, but it was difficult not to conclude that it was a deliberate attempt designed to provoke a rush reaction or to humiliate the United Kingdom. There would be no rush reaction, assured the United Kingdom, but a calm and calculated pushback on Russia’s attempts to undermine the international rules-based system. In times of adversity, its values come to the fore and the nation stood united and resolute, stressed the United Kingdom, united amongst many States that suffered from Russia’s hostile actions, States that felt the threat from Russia more keenly each day, and States that deplored Russia’s actions to undermine the collective peace and security on which all depended. The United Kingdom was humbled that its actions had catalysed such a strong, shared response. In light of a wave of expulsions of Russian officials from 23 States over the past 24 hours, Russia needed to pay heed.

Germany said that, in close cooperation with the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, Germany had decided to expel four Russian diplomats within seven days. Last week, the European Council had agreed with the assessment of the British Government that Russia was highly likely to have been responsible for the poisonous attack against Mr. Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. Russia had not yet responded to the request by the United Kingdom to successfully resolve this case. The expulsion of four diplomats was a strong signal of solidarity with the United Kingdom and also a sign that Germany would not leave an attack on one of its closest allies without a response, and it also must be seen against a background of a recent cyber operation against Germany which could be attributed, with high likelihood, to Russia sources. Russia should deal with the situation responsibly, actively contribute to the investigation and respond to the questions posed by the United Kingdom, and fully cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and disclose all the information concerning the production of Novichok nerve agent.

Belarus condemned any illegal use of chemical weapons, which must be investigated in a proper manner and by a relevant internationally recognized mechanism. Anticipating results before the investigation was counterproductive as it could compromise the investigation and bring its impartiality into question. Belarus was in principle against unilateral coercive measures, political or economic, which led to the erosion of trust between governments and peoples. The discussions on this matter should be restricted to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which had the relevant expertise.

Netherlands was shocked by the use of the military grade nerve agent in Salisbury and fully supported the United Kingdom in its investigation. Russia must provide full disclosure of its Novichok programme to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The Netherlands agreed with the conclusion of the Council of Europe that it was most likely Russia that was responsible, and said that it had notified the Russian Government of its decision to expel from the country two Russian diplomats within two weeks.

Syria stressed the need to have exhaustive verification conducted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was also the relevant place to discuss such matters.

Ireland was in complete solidarity with the United Kingdom as it dealt with the appalling attack in Salisbury, which Ireland agreed was most likely the responsibility of Russia. Chemical weapons were barbaric and the perpetrators of the crime must be held accountable.

Russia noted a number of “very confused statements” by the United Kingdom, and said that, since the identification of the chemical agent used in this case had been established by the British experts, that meant that they themselves had the chemical formula in their possession. Russia asked how long ago the United Kingdom had acquired the chemical formula for the Novichok agent and more importantly how they obtained it, whether someone had given it to the United Kingdom and under which conditions. Further, countries had to have samples to compare them and identify the agent, which meant that the British experts indeed had them. Russia stressed that the serious accusations made by the United Kingdom must be based on reliable and verified information, and then rejected unfounded and unjustified accusations made against it. Russia wondered why the United Kingdom did not share the proof and evidence with Russia and also wondered why the United Kingdom did not choose the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as a venue for this discussion.

Ukraine had decided to expel 13 Russian diplomats from its territory. Through the poisoning of its former officer Skripal in the United Kingdom, Russia had once against shown a contemptuous attitude not only toward the sovereignty of another State but also against human lives. The joint response must remain tough to prevent further loss of lives and disrespect for international order.

United States stressed that the concerns raised in the Conference on Disarmament related to one State using chemical weapons against another State. Russian officials had stated, on different occasions, that “Russia never produced the nerve agent Novichok” and that “Russia no longer produced the nerve agent Novichok” – which one was the truth, asked the United States.

United Kingdom said that everyone understood the seriousness of expelling officials working in diplomatic missions. The decisions taken by 23 countries on 26 March to do so was a demonstration of their confidence in the United Kingdom’s assessment. The United Kingdom had been monitoring Russia’s efforts at disinformation over the past several weeks, noting that the Russian media had referred to the 4 March incident as an “accident”, “suicide”; and blamed the United Kingdom, then the United States, then Ukraine, and finally the “mother in law”.

Russia drew the attention of the United Kingdom and the United States to the briefing by the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs for diplomats in Moscow during which they had given a detailed and exhaustive account of the matter.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18.023E