CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM INCOMING PRESIDENT, ALGERIA AND JAPAN ON SIX PRESIDENTS PROPOSAL

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from Sweden as the incoming President of the Conference and from Algeria and Japan on draft decision CD/2007/1, which aims to start substantive work at the Conference, and from Peru which introduced the Presidential conclusions from the Conference on Cluster Munitions held in Lima last week.

Presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1 calls for the appointment of four coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

In an introductory address, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden, incoming President of the Conference, said that the Six Presidents (P6) proposal contained in CD/2007/L.1, was not designed to be a grand overall platform of compromises between political or substantive positions, ambitions or priorities of either the delegations or the P6. Instead, L.1 was a simple, practical proposal for their work. It was an inclusive and enabling proposal. No political or substantive position taken here, or elsewhere, had been compromised. All delegations would be able to pursue their respective priorities in the course of the work. Furthermore, CD/2007/L.1 upheld the negotiating perspective that the Conference had been established for. Her first and foremost task now was to establish whether members would be able to find a way to move forward on the basis of draft decision L.1, or not. Together with her P6 colleagues, she would need a few days to establish what way forward she could possibly propose. As soon as she felt able to propose anything, or had drawn any conclusions, she would put it to all delegations for consideration, collectively and in an open fashion.

Algeria said that, despite the pessimism expressed by many delegations, Algeria, for its part, remained optimistic and still hoped that draft decision L.1 could gain the consensus it needed. Algeria asked for the Conference to organize, as soon as possible, formal meetings on L.1 to allow all delegations to voice their opinions and to embark on an interactive dialogue that would permit them to find a solution. One plenary meeting a week appeared insufficient for that task.

Japan ardently hoped that the P6 Proposal could be adopted as it stood, and that the Conference on Disarmament could finally get back to work. On the other hand, they needed to take due account of the expressions of concern and requests for clarification that had been voiced. To that end, there might be some value in examining the means to resolve those issues, including a supplementary explanation by the President.

Peru also spoke, outlining the Presidential conclusions following on the Lima Conference on Cluster Munitions, which had been held in Lima, Peru, last week, from 23 to 25 May. The Lima Conference had been convened to commence negotiations on a multilateral, legally binding instrument to prohibit the use, manufacture, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, as well as the establishment of mechanisms for international cooperation and assistance that could ensure appropriate care for survivors and their families, the clearing of contaminated areas, education on the risk posed by such weapons, and the destruction of stockpiles of cluster munitions. Differences of opinion had emerged as to whether what was sought was a technical treaty or whether the humanitarian aspect had to guide the work of the Oslo process. What was clear was that there was a real will to reach a consensus between those that sought a wider and those that sought a narrower scope. Peru noted with particular satisfaction that, during the course of the Conference, 28 new States had joined in supporting the Oslo Declaration, adopted by 46 States in February 2007.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 June.

Statements

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden), Incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, began by paying tribute to the diligent efforts of the Presidents and Coordinators that had preceded her to bring the work of the Conference forward. All of their efforts and meticulous consultations with each and every delegation, on an equal basis, had made it possible for the Six Presidents (P6) to put before the Conference a proposal for work during the remaining parts of this session – draft decision CD/2007/L.1. That document was not designed to be a grand overall platform of compromises between political or substantive positions, ambitions or priorities of either the delegations or the P6. Such attempts at grand political compromises had been tried many times before and had stymied the Conference for almost a decade.

Instead, L.1 was a simple, practical proposal for their work, Ms. Borsiin Bonnier stressed. It took as its basis where they actually stood at this point in time, the fruit of their collective work so far, and it proposed a way to organize and focus the Conference's work for the remaining part of the session –
nothing more, and nothing less. There were no preconditions. The results were not prescribed or assured in advance, but would have to emerge in the course of actual work. It was an inclusive and enabling proposal. No political or substantive position taken here, or elsewhere, had been compromised. All delegations would be able to pursue their respective priorities in the course of the work. Furthermore, CD/2007/L.1 upheld the negotiating perspective that this forum had been established for.

Draft decision L.1 had been on the table for about two months now, Ms. Borsiin Bonnier observed. Questions had been asked and replied to in a number of formal and informal meetings open to all. Delegations had expressed their views, and had been listened to. Most delegations were ready to move forward on the basis of L.1, but a few were still hesitating, or awaiting instructions. Meanwhile, the positive spirit and optimism that had prevailed during the first part of the session was gradually giving way to more negative attitudes, and concerns that they might slide back into the old and futile deadlock. That was the delicate situation today, as Sweden took over the Presidency.

Her first and foremost task now was to establish whether members would be able to find a way to move forward on the basis of draft decision L.1, or not. Ms. Borsiin Bonnier pledged to spare no efforts to explore whatever possibilities there might be. Together with her P6 colleagues, she would need a few days to establish what way forward she could possibly propose. As soon as she felt able to propose anything, or had drawn any conclusions, she would put it to all delegations for consideration, collectively and in an open fashion. From delegations she asked for patience and that they try and refrain from accusing, blaming or lobbying against each other. She urged them to do their best to rekindle the cooperative and constructive spirit that had prevailed during the first part of the session.

DIEGO BELEVÁN (Peru), at the outset, wished to reiterate the unconditional support of Peru to the constructive and progressive proposal that had been put forward by the Six Presidents (P6), as well as the transparent and inclusive manner in which consultations had been undertaken in the first few months of the current session. Peru then briefed the Conference on the conclusions issued by the President of the Lima Conference on Cluster Munitions, which had been held in Lima, Peru, last week, from 23 to 25 May. The Lima Conference, which had been convened to commence negotiations on a multilateral, legally binding instrument to prohibit the use, manufacture, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, which caused unacceptable harm to civilians, as well as the establishment of mechanisms for international cooperation and assistance that could ensure appropriate care for survivors and their families, the clearing of contaminated areas, education on the risk posed by such weapons, and the destruction of stockpiles of cluster munitions, had fully met the objective set of considering all of those issues.

Peru said the majority of Conference participants shared the view that victims constituted the principal focus of the work begun in Oslo in February 2007. It was also quite clear that prevention was the most effective means of reducing the negative impact of cluster munitions. Here, education on the risk of such weapons was crucial. It was also important to complement and enforce international humanitarian law and existing humanitarian instruments in force. The discussions had also underscored the interdependency between the various elements related to clearing cluster munitions affected areas, as well as the particular responsibility borne by those countries that had used cluster munitions to provide information, including coordinates of where such munitions had been used, and the need for them to provide assistance in their subsequent clearance. Some participants suggested the possibility of establishing a fund for victims of such munitions. In terms of definitions, there had been a number of different positions expressed in regard to which cluster munitions were covered under the Oslo agreement, as well as the necessity of maintaining an equilibrium between humanitarian aspects and military usefulness of weapons. It also emerged that there were differences of opinion as to whether what was sought was a technical treaty or whether the humanitarian aspect had to guide the work of the Oslo process. What was clear was that there was a real will to reach a consensus between those that sought a wider and those that sought a narrower definition.

In general conclusions, there was a clear political will to move towards a solution to the problems faced by populations because of the use of cluster munitions. It was equally clear that this was an issue with cross-cutting implications, that called for manifold and targeted solutions. Peru noted with particular satisfaction that, during the course of the Conference, 28 new States had joined in supporting the Oslo Declaration, adopted by 46 States in February 2007.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said that, today, the Conference found itself in a situation that had been very well captured in the President's speech a moment ago. The President had captured the feeling of pessimism that had overtaken many delegations in the Conference. Algeria, for its part, remained optimistic. Algeria still had hopes of draft decision L.1 gaining the consensus it needed – provided all delegations showed flexibility and mutual understanding to try to resolve the issues and to meet the concerns voiced by some delegations. During the last plenary, Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, had called for transparent consultations on L.1. In that regard, Algeria asked for the Conference to respond to that call, by organizing, as soon as possible, formal meetings on L.1 to allow all delegations to voice their opinions and to embark on an interactive dialogue that would permit them to find a solution. One plenary meeting a week appeared insufficient for that task. Time was not on their side. Algeria hoped that L.1 could still be adopted during this session.

YOSHINOBU HIRAISHI (Japan) said Japan was convinced that all countries shared in the necessity of returning the Conference on Disarmament to substantive work and in creating a legal framework to facilitate further progress on disarmament and non-proliferation. Presidential draft decision L.1, which had been based on consultations with all Member States, was a well-balanced and practical compromise. Taking consolation in the fact that there was no single proposal that could fully satisfy all Conference on Disarmament Member States, Japan ardently hoped that the P6 Proposal could be adopted as it stood, and that the Conference on Disarmament could finally get back to work. On the other hand, they needed to take duly into account the expressions of concern and requests for clarification. To that end, there might be some value in examining the means to resolve those issues, including a supplementary explanation by the President. Consequently, Japan appreciated and supported the President's efforts to reach agreement through the further conduct of informal consultations, in particular with those countries that had voiced their concerns.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC07023E