CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DRAFT DECISION

The Conference on Disarmament today heard from 14 Member States concerning the draft decision presented last week by the President of the Conference on behalf of the Six Presidents. The draft decision calls for the appointment of three Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions in the Conference on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances, and a fourth Coordinator to preside over negotiations on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

At the start of the meeting, Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, the President of the Conference, reassured Conference Members that the adoption of the draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 would not prejudice the future work and negotiations on its agenda items. The proposal was fully compatible with the Rules of Procedure of the Conference, and, as provided for in the Rules, the draft decision would be valid for the 2007 session of the Conference.

A majority of the speakers today supported the proposal, or associated themselves with the position of the European Union, as announced by Germany, that the European Union would not object to draft decision CD/2007/L.1 as it now stood. The fact that the proposal was a compromise was often raised. France, for example, felt the proposal placed an excessive emphasis on nuclear disarmament, at the expense of general and comprehensive disarmament and non-proliferation, and would have liked the question of Man Portable Air Defence Systems and the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors to have been included. Most European delegations appeared to agree with Bulgaria, that while the draft decision might not be perfect, it represented their best chance to get back to work.

Algeria, Iran and Egypt said that they had not yet heard from their capitals on the proposal. Algeria reiterated its difficulty with the open-ended mandates for the Coordinators as formulated in the draft decision, and asked that there be specific language added to the draft decision that the Coordinators were "appointed for the duration of the current session". Iran stressed the need to maintain the balance between the four core issues in any work of the Conference, as the Five Ambassadors proposal had done, and reiterated its position that any negotiations on fissile materials had to be within the framework of the Shannon Mandate. Egypt emphasized that, despite a dislike for the irregular "take-it-or-leave-it" approach that had been expressed regarding the proposal, Egypt would remain flexible in its consideration of the draft decision.

China had numerous questions regarding both procedural and substantive issues surrounding the draft. Was the draft decision equal to the programme of work, was it an exceptional case, or was it formulated under the Rule of Procedure that provided that the Conference could establish subsidiary bodies when it felt it was ready to negotiate substantive treaties? China also asked whether the appointment of a Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues "related" to an arms race in outer space meant that fixed objects in outer space would be included in the discussions.

Nigeria also made a statement on negative security assurances on behalf of the Group of 21 (G-21), saying the Group considered that the conclusion of such an instrument would be an important step towards achieving the objectives of arms control, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.

Also speaking today, were Austria, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Poland, and the Republic of Korea.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 29 March, at 10 a.m., when a decision will be taken on draft decision CD/2007/L.1.


Statements

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference on Disarmament, speaking on behalf of the Six Presidents (P6) for 2007, thanked those delegations across the regional groups which last Friday had spoken in support of the Presidential draft decision contained in document CD/2007/L.1. At the same time, a few delegations had sought further clarifications on that document, mainly relating to the methods of work and procedures. In the spirit of transparency, the President wished to address those points, in order to assist in assessing the proposal.

With regard to the question of balance, the P6 firmly believed that the proposal had been carefully crafted to reach a compromise between different views, priorities and interests, and what was realistically achievable in relation to short-term and long-term objectives of Member States. It was stressed that the proposal reflected the views of Member States, and that, in its chapeau, draft decision L.1 stated that the Conference would decide on the draft decision without prejudice to future work and negotiations on its agenda items.

It was the P6's firm view that the proposal was fully compatible with the Rules of Procedure of the Conference. The Rules of Procedure clearly stated that the work of the Conference could be conducted under any arrangement agreed by the Conference. The Conference was the master of its own Rules of Procedure, and their role was to facilitate the Conference's work. With regard to the draft decision, members were informed that, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it would be valid for the 2007 session of the Conference.

With regard to the timetable, the P-6 believed that there was a practical need for flexibility. Therefore, the P-6 would propose a suitable draft timetable in consultation with the Coordinators for the consideration of the Conference, after a decision had been taken on the draft proposal. With regard to the appointment of Coordinators for specific issues by the Conference, during their consultations, the prevailing view had been that the current method of working with Coordinators had been useful and appropriate and therefore it should be continued and further elaborated. Those Coordinators were accountable to the Conference, which would appoint them. The meetings chaired by the Coordinators would be informal in nature unless otherwise decided by the Conference. The Rules of Procedure of the Conference would apply to the meetings presided over by the Coordinators.

Finally, in keeping with the undertaking that had been given by the P6 at the beginning of the year, the P6 intended to conduct a formal plenary on Thursday, 29 March at 10 a.m. to take a decision on CD/2007/L.1.

MARTIN I. UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 (G-21), reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons existed, so would the risk of their proliferation. Recognizing that danger, the G-21 had consistently called for the conclusion of a legally binding international instrument providing security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The G-21 was convinced that these arrangements, once enshrined in a legally binding instrument, would not only build trust within their ranks, but would also strengthen their security and the peace and security of the international community. The G-21 welcomed the informal consultations that had been held within the framework of the Conference on negative security assurances, as reflected in the Six Presidents initiatives, and noted with satisfaction that there was no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out. While various approaches existed, the Group considered that the conclusion of such an instrument would be an important step towards achieving the objectives of arms control, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was very much encouraged by the constructive, structured and substantive discussions of the past weeks, brought about by the six 2007 Presidents "organizational framework". The momentum that had developed as a result of the initiative taken jointly by the P6 last year had clearly been brought to an even higher level. There was a new spirit prevailing in the Conference, which fostered their hope that the deadlock could be overcome, and significant work could begin again in the Conference. The European Union would not object to the proposal presented by the P6 in document CD/2007/L.1 as it now stood.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria) welcomed the Six Presidents (P6) proposal tabled last Friday. Austria felt it was a very balanced and fair proposal and had a real chance of working. Therefore, Austria supported it wholeheartedly.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that, this year, for the first time ever, the Six Presidents (P6) had submitted to the Conference a draft decision that would allow the Conference to resume its institutional task: to negotiate international disarmament treaties. Italy subscribed to the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Together with a large number of Member States of the Conference belonging to almost all regional groups, Italy had already indicated last Friday that it could accept that decision. It was demand-driven and a fair and honest compromise based on the elaboration of previous proposals familiar to all delegations on which they had been working for years. Italy respected the necessity of consulting with capitals on this important matter, but the time had come for a decision. As all Members would recognize, the review process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would be initiated next month, would benefit enormously from a positive outcome of their deliberations here in Geneva.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS DOBELLE (France) said the Conference on Disarmament was at an important turning point. In the spirit of compromise, France was prepared to not block a consensus adoption of the draft decision before them. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was an indispensable addition to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to the process of nuclear disarmament. In that context, France warned that any amendment aimed at strengthening or enhancing the proposal regarding negative security assurances would foil the attempt to reach consensus. France was not completely satisfied with the proposal: there was an excessive emphasis on nuclear disarmament, at the expense of the issues of general and comprehensive disarmament and non-proliferation. The question of Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) and the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to non-State actors were other issues of priority importance that France would have liked to have seen included. However, France repeated that it would not block the decision and called on other Members to join in that compromise as well.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said that during the informal and formal meetings last Friday, Algeria had pointed out that the mandates concerning nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances in draft decision L.1 could be improved upon, in line with the conclusions of the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Algeria had also inquired into the annual periodicity of the programme of work. The President, in her statement today, had said that the programme would be valid for 2007. On that score, according to the Rules of Procedure, the agenda and the programme of work were adopted on an annual basis. Algeria reiterated its difficulty with the open-ended mandates for the Coordinators as formulated in the draft decision, and asked that there be specific language added to the draft decision that the Coordinators were "appointed for the duration of the current session".

On the substance of the draft decision, Algeria noted that it was still awaiting a response from its capital, and hoped to have that by next Thursday.

ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said Iran had not yet heard from its capital regarding the proposed draft decision, and therefore reserved its opinion. Iran stressed the need for a thorough analysis of that proposal. Iran had always insisted on a balanced and coordinated approach to the programme of work of the Conference, and that equal priority be assigned to the four core issues it had identified to ensure that balance. For Iran, nuclear disarmament and internationally legally binding agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons were the top priorities. It was indeed necessary to maintain the balance between the four core issues in any work of the Conference, as the Five Ambassadors proposal had done. In that connection, Iran appeared unsure as to whether the present draft decision had maintained that balance. With regard to a fissile material treaty, Iran reiterated that any negotiations on that subject had to be within the framework of the Shannon Mandate.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) welcomed the clarifications on the draft decision made by the President in her statement. The President's statement would be forwarded to Egypt's Capital for consideration, and it would be taken into account in formulating a position on the draft decision. In spite of the desire expressed not to entertain any amendments to the present text – which was contrary to the normal procedure in the Conference – Egypt was nevertheless prepared to approach the proposal with a flexible spirit.

ANTON PINTER (Slovakia) said Slovakia associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. However, despite some excitement last Thursday, during the discussions in the Conference Slovakia had been experiencing the feeling of déjà vu. The lack of determination or will to go beyond traditional concepts was palpable; 10 years of inaction had left its impact on the dynamics of the Conference. He recalled the words of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who in his last address to the Conference had said the time was ripe for it to act. Slovakia said that, if it did not, the very existence of the Conference was indeed in peril.

ANDRZEJ MISZTAL (Poland) said Poland associated itself with the statement of the European Union made by Germany. Poland gave its full support to the Presidential proposal on a programme of work, and, indeed, to the whole platform for the Six Presidents (P6) of 2007. Poland welcomed the fact that the ideas in the proposal reflected deliberations made so far in the Conference, and that it was a compromise. Poland gave the proposal its wholehearted support, and called on other delegations to do so as well.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said that the proposal before them gave a sense of renewed promise that the Conference on Disarmament would get back to work on substantive subjects. The Republic of Korea fully supported the proposal. The draft decision contained in CD/2006/L.1 was well balanced and reflected the discussions in the Conference, and the Republic of Korea invited all Members to support it.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany), said Germany was very encouraged by the structured discussions of last week, and wholeheartedly welcomed the draft decision tabled by the Six Presidents of 2007 contained in document CD/2006/L.1. Germany gave its full and unequivocal support to the draft decision L.1 as it stood. Germany called on all delegations to show the utmost flexibility in this matter; there was no real alternative to adopting that approach.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said China placed the utmost priority on seeing the Conference get back to work. In that connection, China had some questions about the draft decision before them. In China's understanding of the Rules of Procedure, the programme of work was to be adopted at the beginning of the year. What was then the relationship between CD/2007/L.1 and the programme of work as provided for in the Rules of Procedure? Was the draft decision equal to the programme of work? If so, why had it not been designated as a programme of work? Or was this draft decision an exceptional case? Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure provided that the Conference could establish subsidiary bodies when it felt it was ready to negotiate substantive treaties; was that the Rule that the draft decision had been filed under?

China also wished to highlight that the draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 diverged substantively from the Five Ambassadors proposal, and China wished to know if that was also the view of the Six Presidents. China noted that the mandates of the three Coordinators to be established on the subjects other than a fissile material treaty – on negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) – did not differ substantially from the current Coordinators. Finally, China wished for clarification on the language to appoint a Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues "related" to an arms race in outer space, which appeared to include more than just placement of arms in outer space. Did the language in the draft decision mean that fixed objects in outer space would be included in the discussions?

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said that it was Bulgaria's sincere hope that the continuity in the work of the 2006 and 2007 Presidents, combined with the good will of the Members, would bring the Conference back to substantive work this year. Bulgaria associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. While it might not be perfect, the proposal before them represented their best chance to get back to work, and they were not likely to get another such opportunity soon. The time was now.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC07018E