CONFERENCE HEARS STATEMENTS FROM ITALY, ALGERIA, ISRAEL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND INCOMING PRESIDENT

The Conference on Disarmament today heard the incoming President Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros of Peru and statements from Italy, Algeria, Israel, and the United States of America. Speakers welcomed the incoming President, and also addressed the issue of progress in the talks, as well as the yearly report of the Conference to the General Assembly, which was currently being drafted. All speakers also expressed their condolences to the Governments of the United States of America and Iraq in the context of the recent tragedies and loss of life in those countries.

The new President of the Conference, Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros of Peru, in his opening statement, said developments in the Conference’s work should be evaluated within the general process of reform within the United Nations system, and also with regard to national perceptions of security, which were all different, having an impact on the huge difficulties faced in building shared visions of nuclear disarmament and international security. This was not exclusively due to a lack of political will or to the limitations of the rules and procedures of the Conference- it was due to diverging interests, and this should not be a matter for surprise. Multi-lateral discussions were complex and took a long time to mature, and there was always a pre-negotiation phase in which people realised that there were common grounds of concern which had to be dealt with multi-laterally.

The evolution of the Conference had to be examined in the light of the present international conjuncture, speakers said, and given diverging priorities in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation today, it was hardly surprising that no compromise could be found. However, such conferences represented the triumph of civil society over war and conflict. Regarding the upsides and the downsides of the present political situation, with respect to the Middle East, the situation was not entirely positive, and it was hoped the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation from Gaza would be the first step in the implementation of the Road Map. The step taken by Israel in leaving Gaza was a very bold step, and a historic one.

The Conference also held one minute of silence in expression of solidarity with the victims and the families of Hurricane Katrina and of the recent tragedy in Iraq.

The next plenary session of the Conference will be held on Tuesday 6 September at 10 a.m.


Statements

Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros (President of the Conference and Ambassador of Peru), in an opening statement to the Conference, said the Conference began in the context of two sensitive situations causing hundreds of deaths and thousands of persons with other losses in two countries of the international community, namely the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, and the tragic events which had occurred in Iraq, causing more than 900 deaths. He expressed the deepest condolences on behalf of the Conference to the United States of America and to the Government of Iraq, and to the families of the victims. He also welcomed Ambassador Johannes Landman, the new representative of the Netherlands to the Conference.

The international situation in the field of peace and security continued to be placed between instability, challenge, and ambivalence, the President said. Some hot points of conflict were moving towards auspicious developments, such as in the Middle East, such as in Israel. At the same time, the terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom had reminded peaceful and democratic consciences throughout the world that asymmetric conflict continued to be a serious threat to international peace and security. Issues related to the difficult business of controlling nuclear proliferation reminded all that this remained a great threat to the world. All these taken together were occurring in the context of major reforms to the United Nations. Developments in the Conference’s work should be evaluated within this general process, and also with regard to national perceptions of security, which were all different, having an impact on the huge difficulties faced in building shared visions of nuclear disarmament and international security.

This was not exclusively due to a lack of political will or to the limitations of the rules and procedures of the Conference- it was due to diverging interests, and this should not be a matter for surprise. Multi-lateral discussions were complex and took a long time to mature, and there was always a pre-negotiation phase in which people realised that there were common grounds of concern which had to be dealt with multi-laterally. Consensus should be built on a text that made new contributions to reconciling differences and emphasising points of convergence, Mr. Cuadros said. Talks would be held from the point of view of the conviction that all States present could come to an agreement based on constructive realism. A compromise solution was essential, as well as an affirmation of political will in the context of acquired experience. What was at the stake was the future viability of the Conference in the context of the reform of the United Nations, he concluded.

Carlo Trezza (Italy) said one of the tasks to be accomplished at this time of year was the drafting of the yearly report of the Conference to the General Assembly. The evolution of the Conference had to be examined in the light of the present international conjuncture: the difficulty in reaching substantial results was not only a prerogative of the body. Given diverging priorities in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation today, it was hardly surprising that no compromise could be found. The objective difficulties of making progress at this stage should be mentioned to the General Assembly not as a justification but as a challenge that the body was ready to confront together with their resolve to overcome it. The concept, widely expressed during the debates, that a solution to problems was also a matter of political will, and therefore deserved to be addressed at the political level should be contemplated in the report. It should also report that new significant efforts made this year to find an understanding on a program of work, underscore that the Conference held a constructive and vigorous thematic debate on the core issues of the agenda, with the active participation of many delegations, and state that all the Presidents which had succeeded each other this year had made their best efforts to revitalise the Conference. The Conference could not work in a vacuum, and should be in tune with issues that were relevant to the current international security environment.

Johannes Landman (Netherlands) said he wished the President all success in the leadership of the Conference, which had a rich past, and, he hoped, a rich future. He also wished to join in the condolences expressed. Further, he noted that such conferences represented the triumph of civil society over war and conflict.

Idriss Jazaïry (Algeria) said with respect to the Presidency, it was exercised for too short and ephemeral a period. There was a need for greater continuity in the action of the entity, and the plans of Ambassador Cuadros in this regard were applauded, and the issue should be further discussed. Regarding the upsides and the downsides of the present political situation, as mentioned by the President, with respect to the Middle East, the situation was not entirely viewed as positive, and it was hoped the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation from Gaza would be the first step in the implementation of the Road Map. Acts of violence had taken place recently on both sides. The problem of the Conference was not a problem of methodology or procedure, it was a question of substance. There was a lot of sense in the necessity at some stage to try and focus on the issues that needed to be grappled with at a high level. The glass was half-full in terms of performance. It was suggested that the issues of the Conference be raised by Heads of State at the upcoming Summit in New York.

Itzhak Levanon (Israel) said he hadn’t planned to take the floor, but his colleague had introduced into this forum matters of politics which compelled him to say that it would have been preferable for the distinguished Ambassador of Algeria to have supported what he said by saying that the step taken by Israel in leaving Gaza was a very bold step, and a historic one.

Thomas Cynkin (United States of America) said he wished to express heart-felt thanks to those who had expressed sympathy for the victims of the Katrina Hurricane, and found it touching and moving that the Presidency had begun his role in that manner.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC05033E