CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES REVISED PACKAGE FOR THE 2020 PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament met today to discuss the revised package that Carlos Mario Foradori of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, had presented to the delegations on 24 February.

The revised package contained a draft proposal for a programme of work of the Conference on Disarmament for 2020 (CD/WP.626/Rev.2) and a draft decision on the appointment of coordinators of the subsidiary bodies and the timetable for subsidiary bodies meetings (CD/WP.627/Rev.1).

In his introductory remarks, Mr. Foradori stressed the obligation of Member States to adopt a programme of work or to accept the responsibility for the consequences otherwise. The revised package before the Conference was a result of consultations with the delegations and regional coordinators, said the President. Stressing the importance of giving delegations the space to explain their positions and deepen the dialogue, he called upon the States to work with common sense and good faith to reinitiate the work of the Conference, which was needed now more than ever.

During the session, South Africa, Mexico, Japan, Australia, Iran, Syria, Austria, Germany, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Spain, Venezuela, Sweden, Turkey, Belgium, France, Pakistan, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba and Switzerland took the floor to comment or explain their national positions on the package.

Iran also spoke in the right of reply in the context of the high-level dialogue which the Conference had concluded on 26 February.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 3 March at 3 p.m.

Statements

South Africa reiterated its commitment to a functioning Conference on Disarmament and welcomed the opportunity to discuss the revised draft, both formally and informally, so that the Conference could move forward with the consensus. South Africa cautioned against rushing into its adoption, since building the consensus was hard work and was not easy. It was also important to ensure a very inclusive process, stressed the delegation.

Mexico welcomed the flexibility and giving the delegations more time to analyse the proposal. Noting that the revised version was far removed from the working document considered on 14 February, Mexico asked why this change in approach. The Conference then should be consistent with the 2018 document and build a text that would lead to a genuine consensus.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the previous text had not been viable and had thus not been accepted by some delegations. The new revised text included the changes put forward by some delegations, which many others had accepted as a viable text. No one could say they were caught by surprise and did not have time to consult with their capitals.

Japan welcomed the President’s efforts to build consensus on the package and his approach to allow delegations sufficient time to consult with their capitals. The proposed text was consistent with the 2018 document and there were no obstacles to its adoption. Sharing the President’s sense of urgency, Japan expressed full support for the proposal, which should be adopted before the upcoming 2020 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

Australia said that the revised proposal was not new and was not significantly different from the previously presented version. It protected the interests of everyone in the room and allowed the Conference to resume work. Australia commented on the diverging understandings of what a programme of work was supposed to be and remarked that, although some delegations wished it to have a negotiating mandate, it did not seem possible now; a programme of work was a tool that would bring the Conference to that point.

Iran recalled that many officials who had addressed the Conference during the high-level segment had stressed the importance of preserving the negotiating mandate of this unique body and avoiding the attempts to turn it into a deliberative mechanism. It was important to continue to hold consultations before the new draft was put to a decision, and to avoid the rush to adopt something that lacked the basic elements that must be reflected in a programme of work.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Conference had been deliberating a programme of work for 22 years, which showed that there was no rush. It was trying to adopt a programme of work in line with rules of procedure, a draft that, while not perfect, was feasible. The President stressed that the proposal was a result of long-lasting and intensive consultations that aimed to build common ground.

Syria remarked that the documents presented by the Argentinian presidency were markedly different from the package presented by the Algerian presidency. Thus, it would have been judicious to hold consultations on the new proposal and hear the views of delegations. Welcoming the efforts of the P6, Syria said that the proposed document required more consultations and improvements and it was ready to support the efforts to build consensus.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that the new draft indeed contained new elements; otherwise, it would have been a previous proposal which had not been accepted. The presidency was deeply engaged in consultations and would continue to develop a feasible text.

Austria welcomed the reminder by the President of the obligations of Member States vis-à-vis the proposed text. As a member of the P6, Austria welcomed the many positive comments received during the consultations and urged the States to also give a helping hand. The proposed document contained the language agreeable to everyone, and adopting a programme of work would be an important sign that there was still life in this body.

Germany said that to lead the Conference out of the impasse, the Algerian presidency had reverted to the language agreed in 2018 and had tabled the revised text on 24 February, thus giving the delegations ample time to consult with their capitals and clarify their positions. Germany hoped that at the end of the discussion today, the Conference would adopt a programme of work that would bring it back into the working mode.

Iran said that the intensive consultations had been held on the Algerian, rather than on the Argentinian proposal, and called for an informal discussion during which the delegations could undertake substantive discussions on the draft.

Republic of Korea expressed strong support for the revised proposal, which was a result of the intensive consultations by the President and P6, and had received the support of almost all delegations and regional groups. Given the current security challenges, the Conference must waste no time; to maintain its credibility, it must not let go of this rare opportunity and the cooperative spirit.

Egypt stressed the importance of breaking the deadlock, which must not be achieved at the expense of the mandate of the Conference. The revised documents substantially changed the essence of the Algerian proposal, Egypt said and urged the Presidency to ensure that the language was fully aligned with the 2018 text. There was also a need to capture the discussions in the subsidiary bodies, which in 2018 had held their discussions in an informal setting. Egypt was convinced that the proposed coordinators of subsidiary bodies would discharge their duties with the highest level of professionalism, impartiality and integrity.

Spain said that the time had come to say things clearly and express the views on the proposal. The draft proposal would not allow the immediate start of negotiations, but it could serve as a good basis to allow the States to return to the negotiating table in the near future. The proposal on the table was what was possible today; Spain thus urged the Conference on Disarmament not to lose the opportunity to make itself credible.

Venezuela pointed to the differences between the revised proposal and the document presented by the Algerian presidency, which had contained a delicate balance and flexibility. Noting that Conference could carry out its work in formal and informal plenaries, Venezuela said it would have preferred an informal format to examine the proposed document at length and urged the President to carry out more consultations, bilateral and with regional groups, especially as the tabled document had not been consulted with the Group of 21.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that rules of procedure must be interpreted as a whole, all the while taking into consideration the recommendations of the United Nations General Assembly.

Sweden said that Argentina had revised the text after the consultations and now was the time for action. The proposal was not ideal, but it was possible. The 2018 decision had been adopted because there had been the political will to do so; the lack of the political will would lead the Conference into another 20 years of discussions. Something was better than nothing; the Conference should heed the President’s call for common sense and adopt the document, otherwise, it would have, yet again, nothing.

Turkey supported the package as it stood.

Belgium supported the revised package and noted that both Algerian and Argentinian presidencies had been very careful not to pressure and rush the delegations. The proposed text was known, the Conference had consulted enough; time had come to break the stalemate and adopt a programme of work, and not just a decision on the establishment of subsidiary bodies. There was no excuse for inaction at a time when the Conference had to show it was able to move forward.

France noted that all the speakers who had addressed the Conference during the high-level segment had requested it to resume its work; today, the Conference was in the same situation, which was close to ineffective multilateralism. The lack of will to understand each other and find compromised solutions was perplexing. France called for a conversation between professionals, to delve into the substance of the work and be pragmatic, and said that France was flexible and ready to support the President.

Mexico remarked that some delegations had not been involved in consultations and noted that the latest proposal took into account the 2018 text, which had been adopted in a very specific context. If the course of action was to resume work undertaken in 2018, this was a procedural way forward, Mexico remarked and stressed that the decision pattern should not be replicated but rather adjusted to what had already occurred.
Pakistan

Pakistan recalled that many had called for a practical approach to the Conference’s work. There was a need for balance and realism, but it had been difficult to gather agreement on methods of work. The proposal on the table was a reflection of how things stand and remained the only practical option. An objective approach, which took into consideration each delegations’ concerns, was needed. Pakistan reaffirmed its engagement working towards a solution that would gather the consent of all Members of the Conference.

Netherlands said the fact that the Conference had been working on its programme of work for 1,600 hours was a puzzling paradox. The overwhelming message delivered by the Ministers during the high-level segment was to “get back to work”. The package had been elaborated in a transparent and inclusive manner, and yet, three delegations still could not agree on it. The Netherlands was not in favour of holding further consultations; no time should be wasted in working to adopt the package.

Syria suggested that the meeting be continued as informal discussion.

Norway, thanking the P6 for its efforts, expressed support for the package and urged those present to get back to work. The best should not become the enemy of the good. The proposal on the table, while not perfect, could potentially bring the Conference back to work.

South Africa, echoing comments by Syria, suggested it was time to move to an informal discussion.

Russia said the Conference was working to achieve two objectives, the “maximal” objective was to resume negotiations to develop legally-binding instruments, while the “minimal” was to resume its work. Russia stressed the need for consistency and said that the 2018 decision could not be given a new status, lest the international community become confused, and expectations were unduly raised. Agreeing to merely have a discussion that could not lead to meaningful negotiations would amount to misleading the international community.

Bulgaria said consensus still seemed a long way and stressed that there was no excuse for inaction. The delegations should make the best of the P6 proposal and propose solutions rather than outline reasons for their opposition, to allow the Conference to move forward.

Canada stressed the need to avoid polarization and stood ready to accept the Argentinian proposal, which had kept the spirit of Algeria’s proposal. Those who had reservations and proposals should voice them. This was not the 2018 package, even though some ideas and words had been recycled. Canada was eager to hear what delegates had to say and stood ready to support the Presidency’s proposal.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noted that the package was in reality presented by the P6, whose members were consulted every single step of the way. The Argentinian Presidency did not make any decision without consulting other members of the P6.

Cuba remarked that the package titled “programme of work” even though it did not amount to a true programme of work. Cuba stressed that the 2018 proposal had been made in a completely different context and said it stand ready to work with the Presidency to address two issues, namely the new proposals’ relation to the Algerian package and whether the new negotiating mandate amounted to a return to the 2018 proposal or not.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, recalled that despite the objections to the package, efforts to seek agreement had not stopped.

Switzerland said it had been ready to approve the Algerian proposal and stood ready to support the one currently on the table. While adopting a programme of work would send a positive signal, Switzerland understood some delegations wanted to have a closer look at the document and stood ready to support informal consultations.

Iran said the 2018 decisions had been taken in a context that was quite different. There was not, at the time, a package under consideration. Furthermore, the title and the preamble had been changed in the document proposed by the Presidency.

Russia said it had comments to make on the content of the document, including on the preamble and the timetable therein, which it could provide in writing.

Syria said that the context in which the Conference had adopted the decision CD/2119 [on the establishment of subsidiary bodies] was quite different from today and said that the selectivity of that decision had brought prejudice to the new draft.

Ambassador CARLOS MARIO FORADORI of Argentina, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Presidency would consider the delegations’ comments and reaffirmed his readings and availability to continue consultation with States and regional groups.