Conference on Disarmament Holds Plenary Meeting, Hearing from Algeria, Spain, Chile, Indonesia and Belarus as Coordinators of Subsidiary Bodies
The Conference on Disarmament this morning held a plenary meeting at which it heard from Algeria, Spain, Chile, Indonesia and Belarus as the coordinators of five subsidiary bodies.
Delegations then made statements in response, with some delegations suggesting specific input for topics to be discussed by the subsidiary bodies. Their meeting format was also a subject for discussion, with some delegations suggesting that a pragmatic approach should be taken, whereby meetings could be held informally or informally, in the interest of efficiency. Other delegations underscored the importance of transparency, voicing support for formal meetings.
Speaking in the meeting were the representatives of France on behalf of the European Union, the United States, Pakistan, France, Canada, United Kingdom, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Mexico, Japan, India, Australia and Germany.
The Conference will next meet at a date and time to be announced.
Statements by Coordinators of Subsidiary Bodies
Algeria , speaking as coordinator of subsidiary body 1 on the cessation of nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, wished to prioritise the hearing of delegations’ views and positions. Algeria would continue its work to facilitate dialogue and cooperation. Algeria looked back at the work of the Conference which was full of significant work done by the subsidiary bodies in 2018 and in the informal work of the designated Coordinators prior to that. Some technical aspects relating to that would be shared in an informal document transmitted to the Conference via the Secretariat. The document included some overarching principles on suggested improvements to the subsidiary bodies. They included the principle that the work of the subsidiary bodies should be based on the past experience of the Conference, should focus on areas of convergence, and allow all delegations to express their points of view.
Spain , speaking as coordinator of subsidiary body 2 said that four meetings of the group would be held, and a report would be drafted. Work would be done on the agenda of the Conference; on fissile material in all its forms; and on the question of what would get the Conference closer to a treaty prohibiting fissile material. Delegations were invited to discuss those proposals and any alternative ideas for the structure of the meetings was welcome.
Chile , speaking as coordinator of subsidiary body 3, said what was being proposed was based on experience from 2018. The first meeting would focus on the topic of the prevention of an arms race in space. The second meeting, to be held on May 19, would contain an introduction on what the new threats were to outer space activities. At the third meeting, there would be an exchange of views on tackling threats to outer space security. The fourth meeting would be devoted to dealing with pending observations.
Indonesia , speaking as coordinator of subsidiary body 4, noted that a proposed work plan had been circulated to delegates. Indonesia invited comments and feedback from member States, and reiterated that the topics were not exhaustive. Discussion did not preclude the ability of members to raise concerns. Along with other coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, Indonesia was committed to working with all participants and under the guidance of the President in an open and inclusive manner.
Belarus , speaking as coordinator of subsidiary body 5, which related to new systems of mass destruction, radiological weapons and transparency in armaments. The issues could be separated into new types of weapons, new technologies, and information and communication technologies. Belarus was prepared to take on other proposals made by delegations, with the Conference deciding which measures were most relevant. Three substantive meetings were expected to be held, the first of which would consider new types of weapons and their systems. The second would consider measures to support comprehensive disarmament. The third meeting could relate to agenda items 5, 6, and 7, and prospects for future work.
Statements
France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the decision establishing the subsidiary bodies, and commended the coordinators for their determination and engagement. The continued relevance of the Conference was of utmost importance for the European Union. Resuming long-overdue disarmament negotiations remained vital, and all subsidiary bodies must adopt a single coherent approach. At the same time, whatever the outcome of discussions, they should be available for reference in the future. The Conference should recognise the dramatic change in the landscape of its work, brought about by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The longstanding priority of the European Union in the Conference was to commence negotiations on a treaty to prevent the use of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.
United States was in favour of the most efficient approach possible, and did not want to prejudge where the discussions might lead. As such, a simple agreement that all delegations could raise any topic was a viable way forward. The United States appreciated the presentations by the coordinators. The United States reiterated its condemnation of the support by Belarus of Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine. All member States should consider what that aggression meant for the work of the Conference. Members should do more than utter platitudes.
Pakistan welcomed the work of the coordinating bodies, and acknowledged the skillful stewardship of the Chinese delegation in breaching the impasse of the Conference. The Conference could not insulate itself from the external context. Disarmament measures should be pursued in an equitable manner to ensure members did not gain an advantage over others. In terms of recommendations, for subsidiary body 1 the nuclear arms race should be one of the topics for work. For subsidiary body 2, a generic topic on prevention of nuclear war would be important to capture the many steps needed to address that issue. Preventing an arms race in outer space, how to halt its militarisation, and its impact on regional security should all be considered in subsidiary body 3. Subsidiary body 5 should consider new weapons systems.
China thanked the coordinators for their work on the subsidiary bodies and expressed support for coordinators’ carrying out open and transparent work with their various delegations to reach consensus. Open and transparent discussions with all delegations was important. China hoped the coordinators would work toward consensus. A generic approach should be adopted to produce a questionnaire, which could feed into the substantive work of the subsidiary bodies.
France remarked that the Conference was meeting in challenging times, with ongoing bombardment of civilians by Russian forces. The aggressive and destablising policy by Russia had a direct impact on the work of the Conference. The Conference should take that development into consideration in its work. Regarding recommendations on the subsidiary bodies, transparency in armaments build-up was important, and a principle Russia had continually undermined over recent years. Regarding negative security assurances, France was prepared to work further and in greater depth, and regarding nuclear disarmament France continued to support a positive agenda.
Canada said States should engage as much as possible in substantive discussions within the Conference, minimising procedural discussions where possible. Canada was flexible on whether meetings were to be held in formal or informal settings, provided the work was recorded in some way. Aggression toward Ukraine affected the work that was carried out in the Conference. Negotiations needed to take place in good faith, in order to bring to a peaceful end to the conflict. The war in Ukraine had shaken the conditions for international diplomacy and negotiations. Canada thanked the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies, and reiterated Canada’s priorities in that work, namely to progress the development of a fissile material cut-off treaty, and to agree on norms for preventing weapons build-up in outer space.
United Kingdom expressed support for Ukraine, and deepest sympathies for the suffering endured by the Ukrainian population. The United Kingdom concurred with the French delegation that as much detail as possible was needed in subsidiary body 2 on the fissile material cut-off treaty. Another priority was to see progress on a legally binding instrument on negative security assurances. Regarding the discussions of the Conference, the United Kingdom favoured conducting them in a formal setting.
Argentina thanked the coordinators for their work and expressed a preference for the subsidiary bodies to meet in a formal setting, as that would give them the best opportunity for success. However, if switching between formal and informal settings was needed, Argentina could also support that. On subsidiary body 4, Argentina welcomed reference to the need to focus especially on beginning negotiations on negative security assurances. Argentina preferred for the reports of the subsidiary bodies to include as much information as possible, to feed into the reports to the General Assembly.
Republic of Korea thanked the President and the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies for their work. The Republic of Korea expressed a preference for building on previous achievements and discussions in the Conference, in the interest of progress. Republic of Korea wished to prioritise work on a fissile material cut-off treaty at the earliest possible opportunity. The work of the Conference should be done in the context of establishing an international security environment. In that regard, the aggression by Russia on Ukraine put all that work at risk.
Russian Federation favoured structured work for the Conference, and in that regard thanked the Chinese presidency for their work in achieving the new framework. Regarding the decision reached on 22 February CD 22-29, the coordinators had the powers to conduct all necessary preparatory work, and Russia believed that work would differ between subsidiary bodies. The only guiding principle which the delegations and coordinators should follow should be to focus on the agenda items, and not range wider. The Russian Federation was willing to work within any format of the subsidiary bodies, formal or informal.
Mexico thanked the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies for their work, and noted that progress on those issues needed a legally binding agreement to be reached. The need for transparency meant the subsidiary bodies should work in a formal context. A number of delegations had suggested work should focus on general issues, which Mexico disagreed with. Specific issues should be the focus on the Conference’s work. Regarding the proposals raised, Mexico supported the proposal made by Argentina that the term legally binding should be included in the language used by the Conference. The placing of arms in outer space was a grave danger, and that should be addressed by subsidiary body 3. Subsidiary body 4 should look to establish nuclear free zones, and the Conference should tackle a fissile material cut-off treaty.
Japan raised the matter of Russia and Belarus’ aggression against Ukraine, since subsidiary body 5 was coordinated by Belarus. Japan again condemned that aggression, calling on the Conference to prioritise work on establishing a fissile material cut-off treaty. In reference to the work of subsidiary body 3, Japan wished to see responsible behaviour in outer space. Japan was also open to cooperating with other members on the topics they wished to raise in other subsidiary bodies. On the specific implications of Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine, Japan expressed the view that this was in contradiction with the work of the Conference, and urged members not to ignore that in their work. Regarding broad principles, Japan believed the work of the Conference should build on its existing work, and recalled that members of subsidiary bodies should agree on the topics of those bodies.
India thanked the Presidency for its skillful work in coordinating the work of the subsidiary bodies, and thanked the coordinators for all of their efforts. India was committed to being a constructive member of the Conference and would work flexibly to achieve the aims of the Conference. Progress must be made on addressing a fissile material cut-off treaty. Secondly, India believed the Conference’s current work should build on its previous work, and that subsidiary body 2 was the right forum for taking that forward.
Australia took the view that the Conference did not need to agree on an exhaustive list of topics, with delegates able to raise any topics they wished. On subsidiary body 2, the priority was to advance work on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Regarding subsidiary body 3, members should advance their work in protecting outer space. Given Belarus’ coordinating role in subsidiary 5, Australia expressed grave concern at their role in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and condemned their actions in the strongest possible terms.
Iran reiterated that the work of the subsidiary bodies should take into account the previous work of the Conference. Iran believed in the importance of establishing binding conditions on the use of nuclear weapons. There were divergent views on some issues such as the militarisation of space, and therefore Iran did not support discussing issues that did not enjoy broad consensus. As regards the modalities of operation, Iran saw value in holding both formal and informal settings of the Conference, depending on the particular needs of each session.
Germany stated that delegates should be allowed to raise any topics they believed important. The Conference should avoid lengthy discussions on procedural issues, and as for the format of the meetings, Germany believed a record should be kept of any meetings. Germany believed Russia's aggression against Ukraine was in flagrant breach of all international law. Regarding the subsidiary bodies, Germany noted that the work of subsidiary body 1 on nuclear disarmament was called into question by Russia’s apparent nuclear threats in recent days. On subsidiary body 3, shared values on how to approach outer space were needed. The work of subsidiary body 5 was undermined by Belarus’ cooperation with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Germany stood ready to cooperate with all members on the work of the Conference.
Russian Federation , acknowledging that the delegation was taking the floor a second time, noted that there were two important points which had not previously been noted. In terms of procedure, Russia supported the Conference meeting in an informal format, rather than a formal format. Also, the preliminary considerations raised by the delegates today should be submitted in writing.
Algeria thanked all delegations for their work and ongoing support. As subsidiary body 1 would be the first to commence work next week, the first plenary meeting on 15 March would be an overview on nuclear disarmament. The second plenary on 31 March would focus on convergences on substantial work including shared priorities. The third plenary on 31 May would focus on concrete proposals including approaches on nuclear disarmament, including possible effective measures such as binding legal instruments. The fourth plenary on 16 June was expected to present the report of subsidiary body 1.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
DC22.019E