CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM CANADA, ARGENTINA, CHINA, PAKISTAN AND NEW ZEALAND
The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements by Canada, Argentina, China, Pakistan and New Zealand.
Ambassador Jürg Streuli of Switzerland, the President of the Conference on Disarmament, opened the meeting with a few concluding observations, as this was the last meeting of the Conference under the Swiss Presidency. Noting that each Presidency during this year had marked a stage in the process of adopting the proposal for a programme of work (CD/2007/L.1 and associated documents), he stressed the need for that process to continue until a consensus was arrived at. The Conference should not expect spectacular positions, but should resign itself to a slow progress. He then paid homage to Ambassador Paul Meyer, who had represented Canada at the Conference since 2003, and was today leaving to take up other functions.
Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada said that if, despite best efforts, Conference Members were unable to agree on a way to resume work, they should look to other forums for carrying that work forward. However, he urged the Conference not to give up the vital enterprise in which the current and future well being of their societies was so closely bound up.
Argentina briefed the conference on the results of a regional seminar on Conventional Weapons, held in Buenos Aires on 30 and 31 July 2007.
China defined its position on the proposals for getting the Conference back to work, saying it intended to continue participating in a constructive manner in the ongoing consultations and hoped that States would remain confident and patient while continuing to take account of the differing interests and points of views of States.
Pakistan also further clarified its position on the proposals, noting that it had serious and substantive concerns. Pakistan reiterated its position, as put forward recently by the National Command Authority, the apex body responsible for the formulation and development of Pakistan's strategic policy and systems, in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and verifiable fissile material treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all States.
New Zealand said it appeared to agree with the position of Pakistan regarding a fissile material treaty. Where they differed, was that New Zealand did not believe that it was necessary to set preconditions before negotiations had even begun.
The next plenary of the Conference will be on Tuesday, 21 August, at 10 a.m., under the Presidency of Syria, and in the presence of the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte.
Statements
JÜRG STREULI, President of the Conference on Disarmament, noting that this was the last meeting of the Conference under the Swiss Presidency, wished to make some concluding observations on the work that had been carried out during this session. Each Presidency during this year had marked a stage in the process of adopting the proposal for a programme of work (CD/2007/L.1 and associated documents),and that process had to continue until a consensus was arrived at. They would take it up again next session. It was difficult to imagine that all the progress and achievements of the 2007 session would not be resumed in one way or another in 2008. There was very little time left. The closer they came to a consensus, it appeared, the more the consensus building process slowed down and became more complex.
The Conference should not expect spectacular positions, but should resign itself to a slow progress, Mr. Streuli said. However, there were still delegations that could not accept the current proposals. He had received a slight amendment to the text of the complementary presidential statement (CD/2007/CRP.5), while keeping L.1 unchanged. Consultations had revealed that those changes could achieve consensus. However, they still did not reflect acceptance of L.1 by the Conference on Disarmament. He was therefore withdrawing the proposal, but that did not mean it would disappear from future discussions. Along with the three related documents (CD/2007/L.1, CD/2007/CRP.5 and CRP.6), the distribution today of the reports of the seven coordinators (CD/1827) allowed the main thrust of the work of the Conference this year to be reflected as a basis for future activities. What was needed was simply more time.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in a farewell statement, said that it was with mixed emotions that he took the floor to say farewell after four years in Geneva. On the one hand, this was a forum that had witnessed some valuable dedicated discussion of major issues of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. On the other hand, it was also a body that had failed to fulfil its primordial raison d'être throughout his entire stay and for six years previous to his arrival. In a speech made to the Conference in 2003, a Member had noted that the Conference could not and should not wait for international circumstances to become more propitious to start work. That sentiment could equally well apply to the Conference's situation four years later.
If, despite best efforts, Conference Members were unable to agree on a way to resume work, they should look to other forums for carrying that work forward. If States were serious about accomplishing something in the field of multilateral arms control, they would find the appropriate vehicle to so that. Only those States whose motivations were open to question would cite the limitation of any particular forum to justify inaction on the underlying issues. Earlier this year under the skilled leadership of the Six Presidents the Conference had briefly glimpsed what it would be like to be part of a serious, active forum again. Canada urged the Conference not to give up that vital enterprise in which the current and future well being of their societies was so closely bound up.
MARIELA FOGANTE (Argentina) briefed the conference on the results of a regional seminar of States of Latin America and the Caribbean on Conventional Weapons, held in Buenos Aires on 30 and 31 July 2007, which had been co-organized by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The seminar had been opened by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Argentina, and had been attended by 25 representatives from Latin American and Caribbean States, as well as representatives of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs and other relevant stakeholders. The focus had been confidence-building measures and transparency in armaments. They had looked for positive synergies between the UN Register of Conventional Arms and a regional instrument on conventional weapons, and had discussed General Assembly resolution 61/89, on an arms trade treaty establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. By that resolution a group of experts had established to examine the issue, and seminar participants had placed particular emphasis on the involvement of non-governmental organizations in that endeavour. The UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons was also discussed and suggestions were made to further strengthen work in that area.
CHENG JINGYE (China) shared the assessment made by the President on the current state of the Conference on Disarmament. Over the past year, all members of the Conference, including the Six Presidents (P6) and the Coordinators, had made useful efforts towards revitalizing the work of the Conference. The P6 proposals and the complementary presidential statement represented a good basis for reaching a consensus. However, those documents (L.1, CRP.5 and CRP.6) were not a solution that had received unanimous support, hence the need for further efforts.
China wished to recall the ideas it had elaborated on document CD/2007/L.1, and the complementary presidential statement in the 21 June meeting of the Conference. China intended to continue participating in a constructive manner in the ongoing consultations and hoped that States would remain confident and patient while continuing to take account of the differing interests and points of views of States.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said that Pakistan appreciated the work by all the Conference Presidents to evolve consensus around the Presidential draft decision and the draft complementary presidential statement. Pakistan was immensely grateful to China for urging the Conference to work with member States that had concerns on those texts. Pakistan had serious and substantive concerns.
Following a 2 August meeting, the National Command Authority, the apex body responsible for the formulation and development of Pakistan's strategic policy and systems, had issued a press release reiterating Pakistan's position in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and verifiable fissile material treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all States. At the heart of the problems in the Conference were competing security interests of its Members. Pakistan was therefore in favour of decisions that were comprehensive, balanced, and relevant to the work of the Conference.
DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said that Ambassador Meyer's statement had provided a reality check for the Conference on how it was to approach its future work – if indeed it was to have any future work. New Zealand also thanked China and Pakistan for their statements with regard to their national positions. There was a need to maintain confidence and patience, as China had said. There were obviously also limits as to how long confidence could be maintained. New Zealand hoped that those countries that still had difficulties with L.1 would work to resolve them quickly.
New Zealand appeared to agree with the position of Pakistan regarding a fissile material treaty. Where they differed, was that New Zealand did not believe that it was necessary to set preconditions before negotiations had even begun. New Zealand was also pleased to note that Pakistan's position took the security of all States into consideration. That meant that the position of non-nuclear weapon States would be considered. Non-nuclear weapon States were eager to begin work on a fissile material treaty as a basis of nuclear disarmament. However, it would be necessary to move quite quickly. Otherwise the little confidence that was left would be dissipated.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC07038E