CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS FIRST PUBLIC PLENARY OF ITS 2019 SESSION

The Conference on Disarmament this morning held the first public plenary of its 2019 session, hearing statements by the Secretary-General of the Conference, the President of the Conference, and a list of countries on various topics.

Michael Møller, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was his sincere hope at this critical and historical juncture that the work of the Conference would play the bold and pivotal role that it had played in the past. The Agenda for Disarmament of Secretary-General António Guterres, presented in Geneva last May, made a compelling case for a renewed sense of urgency and a collective commitment and determination in pursuing disarmament. Non-proliferation challenges persevered, with decreasing value placed on nuclear disarmament commitments, nuclear programmes that continued to be pursued, and nuclear arsenals enhanced. Cyber security challenges persisted, while the implications of new weapons systems and technologies remained poorly understood, not sufficiently addressed, and not properly reflected in current arms control regimes. Other broader changes were also at play.

Yurii Klymenko, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva, after the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament was adopted, said it was Ukraine’s responsibility as the first President of the session to lay the foundation for the work of the Conference for the whole year. At this challenging juncture, the Conference had the opportunity to create further, much needed positive impact on international security. He was confident that the Conference on Disarmament continued to be the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum and firmly believed that it could not be replaced by any other body to address the multi-faceted issues outlined in its agenda. Ukraine had started conducting necessary consultations with Member States regarding its proposal for a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, which would provide for negotiations and discussions on all core agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament, and contain reference to the work of the five subsidiary bodies, as well as a reference to the Agenda for Disarmament launched by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to be submitted to the Conference next week.

Speaking in the plenary were United States, China, Romania on behalf of the European Union, Netherlands, Morocco, Turkey, Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom, Argentina, India, Colombia and Peru.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference approved the participation of the following countries as observers to the Conference on Disarmament during its 2019 session: Albania, Angola, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, Togo and United Arab Emirates.

Concerning the request of the State of Palestine to participate as an observer, Israel and the United States said they did not support the request by the Palestinian delegation. Speaking in support of the participation of the State of Palestine as an observer were Turkey, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Bangladesh, Algeria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Viet Nam and Cuba. The President said that in light to the objections, there was no consensus for the State of Palestine to participate as an observer and the request was consequently rejected.


Towards the end of the meeting, after the President said that there would no longer be interpretation after 1 p.m. and that they would have to continue the plenary the following week, Pakistan said that it would be fine to be working with English only, and wondered why they had not envisioned an afternoon meeting. France said it wished to see the Conference work in line with the rules of procedure that provided for interpretation services during official meetings to make it possible for all delegations to work. The President said the next public plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 January to continue to hear around 12 speakers on his list as well as requests for right of reply.


Statement by the President of the Conference on Disarmament

YURII KLYMENKO, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva, after the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament was adopted, said it was an honour for Ukraine to be President of the Conference for the third time since its membership. It was Ukraine’s responsibility as the first President of the session to lay the foundation for the work of the Conference for the whole year. At this challenging juncture, the Conference had the opportunity to create further, much needed positive impact on international security. He was confident that the Conference on Disarmament continued to be the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum and firmly believed that it could not be replaced by any other body to address the multi-faceted issues outlined in its agenda. Despite all difficulties in previous years, the prolonged stalemate and the complexity of discussions held, enormous and fruitful efforts had been put in by Member States to advance the work of the Conference, especially in 2018. Notwithstanding that they were unable to reach consensus on several matters last year, there had been evident political interest in having substantive discussions on all core issues of the agenda, expressed in the active engagement of delegations in the work of the five subsidiary bodies. Ukraine believed that the Conference should capitalize and build upon all efforts made in 2018 and maintain this positive momentum.

In his national capacity, Mr. Klymenko outlined Ukraine’s prevailing priorities in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. Ukraine was deeply committed to disarmament. After the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, it had held a third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, but in 1994, Ukraine had abandoned its nuclear capability and acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In turn, it had received relevant security guarantees in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. Unfortunately, everyone knew what happened in 2014. Given the ongoing external challenges that Ukraine had been facing, including the General Assembly resolution on the problem of militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine) as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, Ukraine proceeded from the understanding that in order to protect the world from nuclear proliferation, it was worthwhile to consider the situation revolving around the violation of the current regime of non-proliferation, including the Budapest Memorandum. Given the breach of this Memorandum which undermined the whole United Nations security system, Ukraine sought the adoption of an international, legally binding agreement that would ultimately replace the Budapest Memorandum.

Against this backdrop, Ukraine continued to support negative security assurances and believed that complete and irreversible nuclear disarmament was the only guarantee of humanity’s protection from the deadly consequences of forcible use of nuclear weapons. Ukraine encouraged the universalization of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was the next logical step essential to constrain the nuclear arms race and Ukraine advocated for the immediate commencement of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty within the framework of the Conference. Outer space was the common heritage of mankind; it must be used solely for peaceful purposes and should not become an arena for competitive strategic policies. The Conference must remain close to new and emerging challenges in the field of international security, which also demanded new approaches to the disarmament process, including gender sensitive measures.

In conclusion, Mr. Klymenko said that the potential of the Conference on Disarmament had not been exhausted yet. This year marked the fortieth anniversary of the Conference, and he hoped that its Member States would show keenness to consolidate efforts in order to overcome the existing stalemate. Ukraine had started conducting necessary consultations with Member States regarding its proposal for a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, which would provide for negotiations and discussions on all core agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament, and contain reference to the work of the five subsidiary bodies, as well as a reference to the Agenda for Disarmament launched by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to be submitted to the Conference next week.

Statement by the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament

MICHAEL MØLLER, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was his sincere hope at this critical and historical juncture that the work of the Conference would play the bold and pivotal role that it had played in the past. The Agenda for Disarmament of Secretary-General António Guterres, presented in Geneva last May, made a compelling case for a renewed sense of urgency and a collective commitment and determination in pursuing disarmament. Non-proliferation challenges persevered, with decreasing value placed on nuclear disarmament commitments, nuclear programmes that continued to be pursued, and nuclear arsenals enhanced. Cyber security challenges persisted, while the implications of new weapons systems and technologies remained poorly understood, not sufficiently addressed, and not properly reflected in current arms control regimes. Other broader changes were also at play. With these realities severely testing the limits of the multilateral and normative disarmament architecture, this Conference ought to be able to demonstrate that it was ready to take on the responsibilities bestowed upon it. He urged the Conference Members to use the power of multilateral diplomacy to address today’s global disarmament challenges.

Mr. Møller said the establishment of the five subsidiary bodies in 2018 showcased the depth and breadth of substantive discussions that could take place in this Conference. The substantive work done in these five subsidiary bodies had resulted in the consensual adoption of four reports. This had not been possible for years and provided a solid basis to explore further work within this Conference, including eventual technical discussion. Mr. Møller said he believed that inclusive discussions on civil society, gender groups, youth, academia, think tanks and experts was important to that end. He intended to continue supporting an exchange with these communities, including through organizing the annual Civil Society Dialogue.

Requests for Observer Status during the 2019 Session of the Conference

The Conference approved the participation of the following countries as observers to the Conference on Disarmament during its 2019 session: Albania, Angola, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, Togo and United Arab Emirates.

Concerning the request of the State of Palestine to participate as an observer, Israel and the United States said they did not support the request by the Palestinian delegation. Speaking in support of the participation of the State of Palestine as an observer were Turkey, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Bangladesh, Algeria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Viet Nam and Cuba.

The President said that in light of the objections, there was no consensus for the State of Palestine to participate as an observer and the request was consequently rejected.

Statements

United States said it would like to speak about the importance of compliance with arms control obligations and the consequences when States violated arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. The United States was increasingly finding that Russia could not be trusted to comply with its arms control obligations and that its coercive and malign actions around the world had increased tensions. Its actions, policies and behaviour were not those of a responsible State actor. The Russian threat in its entirety must be viewed in order to understand its gravity, from disinformation campaigns, to arms control violations, to attempted annexations of its neighbour’s territory, and the development of advanced and new types of nuclear delivery systems. Russia’s destabilizing activity sought to play spoiler in efforts to achieve and maintain global stability while enabling its contemporary revisionist geopolitical ambitions.

Concerning the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia had developed, produced, flight-tested and fielded a ground-launched cruise missile, known as the 9M729 or SSC-8, with a range capability between 500 and 5,500 kilometres, in direct and continuing violation of the Treaty. It was time for Russia to take demonstrable steps to return to compliance by verifiably destroying all SSC-8 missiles, launchers and associated equipment in order to come back into compliance with the Treaty.

As for the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United Kingdom’s investigation into the assassination attempt on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom had concluded that two Russian nationals were responsible for the attack using a highly toxic nerve agent. The United States urged Russia to meet and fulfil all of its obligations under the Convention. Russia continued support for and defense of the Assad regime’s brutal tactics against its own people, including the use of chemical weapons. After addressing the Russian position concerning the Biological Weapons Convention, the Open Skies Treaty, regional issues, and Ukraine, the United States said Russian violations of arms control agreements and malign activities were not just a bilateral issue for the United States or a regional issue in Europe. The Russian approach disregarded human life and often posed a direct threat to public safety in many countries. It was the policy of the United States that violations of arms control agreements should be challenged and corrected. The dire situation faced today concerning the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty did not mean the United States was walking away from arms control.

China said the Conference on Disarmament had witnessed the profound transformation of the international landscape over the past 20 years. The emerging market economies in developing countries called for new concepts of global governance and the establishment of a more just and reasonable international order, thus constituting an important force to uphold multilateralism and to meet global challenges. It was increasingly important and urgent for United Nations Member States to make concerted efforts to maintain global strategic stability by strengthening international arms control and disarmament processes and strengthening the authority and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime. Through reform and opening up over the past 40 years, China had maintained a steady growth in its overall national strength and international influence, and had extensively participated in the international system. Progress in multilateral arms control could never be achieved in a vacuum, nor should the Conference on Disarmament conduct its doors behind the closed doors of this chamber. As the most authoritative and professional mechanism in multilateral arms control and disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament should stay true to its raison d’être and keep up with the times. It should work creatively with a more open and inclusive approach, and a more flexible and practical manner in light of the current international political reality so as to renew its vitality. China reaffirmed its support to the President and colleagues in a joint effort to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament.

Sharing preliminary ideas, China said the Conference should open further to the international community and it was necessary to make new political decisions on its membership enlargement. Conference Member States should be open to a new agenda and new items, while advancing the traditional work of the Conference, and they should be more open to the improvement of methods of work in the Conference. China supported reaching a comprehensive and balanced programme of work for the Conference. The work of the five subsidiary bodies last year constituted encouraging progress, and this momentum should be continued.

Romania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, stressed the need to preserve and further advance general arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation processes, and called for further progress on all aspects of disarmament and non-proliferation to enhance global security. As they approached the 2020 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all must do their utmost to uphold and strengthen the Treaty’s role as a key multilateral instrument reinforcing international peace, security and stability. The Treaty remained the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The European Union also continued to actively promote universalization and prompt entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, advocate immediate negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, support further work on nuclear disarmament verification in the United Nations group of governmental experts and in the international partnership for nuclear disarmament verification, and the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East. The European Union called to preserve the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Strong political will was required if they were to break the impasse in the Conference and focus on substantive work this year. They should continue to explore the possible modernisation of the working methods of the Conference. Noting the adoption of four substantive reports for the first time in years in 2018, this provided a solid basis to build on in 2019. They should not lose time in a protracted procedural debate, but build common ground on all core items so that they were better prepared to start negotiations when the overall context so allowed. The European Union supported the President’s efforts to reach an agreement on a programme of work. The establishment of subsidiary bodies could allow further structured and technical discussion throughout the 2019 session in order to bring the Conference back on track as soon as possible and the European Union supported such an approach. The longstanding priority of the European Union was to immediately commence in the Conference negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Negative security assurances could be an important confidence building measure which strengthened the nuclear non-proliferation regime, contributed to nuclear disarmament, and enhanced regional and global security. The European Union and its Member States remained strongly committed to the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It looked to further opportunities to engage with non-governmental organizations, academia, industry and research institutions. It also emphasized the importance of the full and equal participation of women and men in all decision-making and action, including in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Netherlands said the start of the 2019 session of the Conference took place in a global security environment in which progress on disarmament in all its aspects was more urgent than ever. Addressing the challenges to existing norms and technological developments through building on existing norms and the development of new disarmament measures should be the key focus of the 2019 session. The Netherlands viewed the work and outcomes of the subsidiary bodies in 2018 as a step forward and the Conference should build upon these outcomes to continue their substantive work towards the commencement of negotiations. On the programme of work, the Conference should take a pragmatic approach, which should be a simple and technical document that included a schedule of activities for the session ahead. When taking such a pragmatic approach, the programme of work would serve as a scheduling tool, rather than a barrier for the commencement of substantive work. The Netherlands’ top priority was the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

Morocco said after two decades of stalemate, some were trying to minimize and sidestep the Conference on Disarmament’s important achievements of the first 20 years, such as negotiations of several multilateral agreements on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons, and a comprehensive nuclear-test ban. It was a high time for the Conference to re-establish itself and pave the way to the resumption of its work on a specific, realistic and pragmatic basis, and so help all live in a more secure world. The discussions in the informal working group on the way ahead in 2017 and the work of the five subsidiary bodies in 2018 had shown that the Conference could move forward, and it should build on those in moving forward in the current session. That was why the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work was crucial; this was the responsibility of all Member States and nuclear weapon States in particular. Nuclear disarmament was of the utmost priority given the very real threat those weapons posed and the need to address them urgently and courageously, Morocco said and stressed the importance of establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East and starting negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Turkey reiterated that the prolonged stalemate in the Conference should not restrain its members to put their utmost efforts to achieve a breakthrough, which required an atmosphere of compromise and flexibility. The 2018 session was not an easy year for the Conference, and this should not be discouraging, as very positive and important steps had been taken, including the establishment of the five subsidiary bodies, while their expanded mandates and the reporting responsibilities had turned out to be their strongest aspects. Those two elements should be considered as steps forward and similar, incremental steps should be taken in the 2019 session. Each subsidiary body had held seven meetings and had submitted its report to the Conference, which had adopted four reports. The report of the subsidiary body on negative security assurances had not been adopted, Turkey said, stressing that the work on negative security assurances was essential to a number of delegations and closed the gap between several agenda items of the Conference. Those meetings and reports provided a better insight into the converging – and diverging – positions between delegations on different topics, and constituted a solid basis for the future work of the Conference.

Mexico said the Conference was turning 40 this year, but had been deadlocked half the time; the sense of urgency bestowed upon it as the only multilateral negotiating body for disarmament appeared to have been lost; and it seemed beset by complacency given the failure to fulfil its negotiating mandate. It was true that international disarmament was at a critical stage, but this had not been the first time nor would it be the last. What was regrettable, however, was the lack of the political commitment of its members to seek agreements and a tendency to point to the behaviours of others as a justification. Echoing the Secretary-General’s words, Mexico remarked that yet again, the world was feeling the tensions of the Cold War but in a more complex and dangerous environment. Resignation, recrimination and complacency would not make it possible to overcome the challenges. What was needed was to explore new ideas and seek common grounds to drive agreements, Mexico said, stressing the timely release of the Secretary-General’s disarmament agenda Securing Our Common Future. There would never be a better time than now to deliver on commitments and obligations, Mexico said, calling in particular on nuclear weapons possessing States to live up to their primary responsibilities, act in a responsible way, and fulfil the commitments they had undertaken internationally. Those were the cornerstones of an international regime.

Spain reiterated, in these delicate moments for the international security, its support for the fundamental role of the multilateral system, the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament. The work in the subsidiary bodies last year had provided an excellent platform for know-how regarding the technical and political state of the disarmament topics, so Spain remained optimistic and believed that the continued dialogue and working together would lead to an agreement. It was essential to listen to States’ security concerns but also to be open to alternative proposals on the most sensitive aspects. The rule of consensus required flexibility and negotiations, and consensus could not be achieved without prior discussions. The priority for Spain was to start the negotiations on the fissile material treaty, which would complement the Non-Proliferation Treaty, help reduce tensions, and lead to progress on other topics. The credibility of the multilateral disarmament system must be reinforced through tangible efforts and visible initiatives that would allow to look toward the future with hope. Since 1982, 27 States had requested entry into the Conference, Spain noted, calling for a reasonable increase in the number of Member States.

United Kingdom said that over the past 100 years, long periods when the agreement of new disarmament regimes had been made impossible by political and international security contexts had been punctuated by a few short windows of opportunity allowing for the adoption of new treaties. The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the 1990s would not have been possible without detailed discussions and technical work through the 1970s and 1980s. Many deplored the failure of the Conference to agree for many years on a programme of work for substantive negotiations, but this did not mean that useful work was not being done. The creation of five subsidiary bodies to discuss the Conference’s core agenda items last year and genuine efforts to identify areas of common ground had been a welcome and positive development on which it would be possible to build this year. While the security context did not appear to improve and the multilateral order was under pressure, it was incumbent on Member States to protect the existing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons regimes, and like their predecessors, continue to work hard to lay the ground for when the next window of opportunity opened.

Argentina said that since the outset of the Conference on Disarmament, Argentina had actively participated in its work, and stressed the importance of stepping up the efforts to keep this only multilateral negotiating forum for nuclear disarmament healthy and credible. The stagnation in the Conference and the lack of progress toward tangible results for the past two decades were regrettable, and this must be considered while addressing the current challenges in international security. A number of procedural issues blocked the Conference and Argentina was open to innovative and flexible proposals on the important subject of its functioning. Commending the work of the five subsidiary bodies which had provided a frank, dynamic negotiating space and a valuable input to the work of the Conference on Disarmament last year, Argentina said that their work should continue should it not be possible to make progress in formal discussions.

India said that, in the wake of a number of significant global developments, 2019 was an important year in which the international community was bank on the outcomes emerging from the work in the Conference. Creating the right atmosphere and political will to engage constructively on all items of the agenda was of critical importance, India said, noting the responsibility of Member States to carry forward the important work of last year and ensuring that the Conference on Disarmament delivered on its mandate. The failure to do so would only encourage sceptics and fuel despair and frustration, which no one wanted especially given the questions raised about the effectiveness, efficacy and relevance of the Conference. Despite the attempts to discover alternate forums, the Conference remained the most appropriate and relevant forum which enjoyed legitimacy through its mandate, membership and rules. India stand ready to support the Presidency’s efforts for a productive session in 2019.

Colombia remarked that the knowledge, commitment and capacity for negotiations could be found in this forum, which gave hope for a successful session in 2019. The Member States were committed to international peace and security, which must be supported by clear demonstrations of political will and flexibility necessary to re-establish the Conference as the main platform for multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The international reality and tensions must not be an excuse for lack of progress in multilateral agreements on those issues, but the engine that made everyone work harder. Achieving progress on substantive issues required flexibility in prioritizing and deciding which one of the issues could be indeed achieved, Colombia said, stressing that the stalemate in the Conference was unsustainable and immoral. It was essential to continue thematic discussions and build bridges with other bodies within the United Nations which worked toward the same objectives, especially the Secretary-General’s new disarmament agenda and the forthcoming work plan for its implementation.

Peru said that it was essential to send a clear message to the international community that Member States were serious in their commitments. Despite the stalemate, the Conference should not give up on the determination to move forward and bring positions together, Peru said, expressing hope that 2019 would represent a turning point. Expressing support for the beginning of negotiations in the Conference, Peru urged all Member States to show political will through the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work. All initiatives that led to general and complete disarmament enjoyed Peru’s support, with priority accorded to the prohibition and full elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons represented a crime against humanity, Peru said, which had driven its active participation in the negotiations and the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by the General Assembly. Responding to the call of the international community for a world free from nuclear weapons was a moral imperative, and Peru had been one of the first to sign the Treaty.

YURII KLYMENKO, President of the Conference on Disarmament and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that at its next plenary meeting on Tuesday, 29 January at 10 a.m., the Conference would continue with the list of speakers and requests for right of reply.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC19/02E