CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS ANNUAL REPORT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND CLOSES 2008 SUBSTANTIVE SESSION
The Conference on Disarmament this morning adopted its annual report to the General Assembly and closed its 2008 substantive session after hearing statements from Finland, Pakistan, Viet Nam, France speaking on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Colombia speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, Argentina, Zimbabwe and China. Many of the speakers expressly urged the adoption of a proposal for a programme of work, while others called for a redoubling of efforts towards achieving a future consensus which was seen as a “not impossible task”.
Finland, France on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland and Argentina all reiterated their support for the adoption of the programme of work contained in draft Presidential decision CD/1840 in their interventions. They had to “avoid the danger of the Conference sinking into irrelevance ... [which] ... would prompt States to increasingly turn to other ways of negotiating international disarmament commitments,” Finland warned. The European Union stressed that document CD/1840, in contrast to its predecessor (CD/2007/L.1), included additional elements that took into account the viewpoints of different countries that had expressed concerns about the original proposal. Switzerland also made a plea for revisiting the Council’s rules of procedure in light of its current impasse, in particular the consensus principle, which could be used to disable progress on procedural matters.
Pakistan underscored that there was no “panacea that could fix the Conference's problems”. It noted that the impasse in the Conference was owing to divergences in national security interests of its members as perceived at the highest levels of decision-making. While expressing optimism that “diplomats had the skills to craft consensus even in situations which appeared to be intractable”, Pakistan recalled that, in the search for consensus, their instinct had to tell them that a particular issue was amenable to compromise.
China, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe all observed that the progress made in 2008 laid a good foundation for their work next year.
In concluding remarks at the meeting, Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandez of Venezuela, President of the Conference, said he could not fail to express his concern, which had also been reflected in many of the statements that they had heard today and during the past year. It was indispensable that they come up with a concrete programme of work and he wished that in 2009, by redoubling their efforts, they could achieve that goal.
The annual report of the Conference (CD/WP.550 and CD/WP.550/Amend.1) details the organization of work of the Conference over the 2008 session, including the participants in the work of the Conference; attendance and participation of States not members of the Conference; the agenda and programme of work for the 2009 session; the expansion of the membership of the Conference; a review of the agenda of the Conference; improved and effective functioning of the Conference; and communications from non-governmental organizations. It also contains summaries of the substantive work of the session.
The report notes that the 2008 Presidents of the Conference appointed Coordinators for agenda items 1 to 7 and decided on the organizational framework of the Conference, without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work. The Coordinators, under the authority of the 2008 Presidents, chaired informal meetings on agenda items 1 to 7 - cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments - and reported in their personal capacity on their results.
The report notes that the Conference has achieved substantive progress by conducting important thematic debates on all agenda items and had advanced considerably in its efforts, but could not yet reach consensus on a programme of work. In that connection, it also sets out the introduction and content of draft decision CD/1840 submitted by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference on 13 March, containing a draft programme of work.
According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions three of four core issues identified by the Conference: nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States. On the fourth item, a Coordinator would be appointed to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus "providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations". Draft Decision CD/1840 builds on an earlier proposal submitted by the 2007 P-6 (CD/2007/L.1), and its related documents CRP.5 and CRP.6, combining those three texts in a single document.
The Conference decided that the dates for the three parts of its 2009 session will be from 19 January to 27 March for the first part; 18 May to 3 July for the second part; and 3 August to 18 September for the third part.
Statements
GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela), President of the Conference, in a brief opening statement, bid farewell to Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan who had been appointed as his country's representative to China, thanking him for his contributions to the Conference. He also welcomed to Geneva the new Ambassadors from Finland, Italy, the Republic of Korea and Austria.
The Members of the Conference then adopted the annual report of the Conference on Disarmament for 2008 to the General Assembly (CD/WP.550 and CD/WP.550/Add.1) by consensus.
HANNU HIMANEN (Finland) observed that in today's world peace and security had to be addressed from a global perspective. For that simple reason, Finland was a strong supporter and advocate of effective multilateralism, and a full and continuous supporter of the Conference on Disarmament, the world's single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. The Conference could justifiably be proud of having created international norms on disarmament, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was finalized at the Conference. Finland urged all States that had not yet ratified the CTBT to do so as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, for the past decade the Conference had done little but rest on its laurels. That immobility was a source of growing concern and frustration for countries such as Finland, which believed in multilateral disarmament negotiations. They had to avoid the danger of the Conference sinking into irrelevance. That would prompt States to increasingly turn to other ways of negotiating international disarmament commitments. That, as far as Finland was concerned, was not in anyone's true interest. Finland was therefore encouraged by the draft proposal for a programme of work presented by the six Presidents (P-6) of 2008 contained in document CD/1840. Finland urged all members to join consensus on that programme of work and to move forward in a constructive spirit of engagement, which would set the scene for restoring the Conference's role in the multilateral disarmament architecture.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), in a farewell statement, observed that the discussions and negotiations on the Conference’s annual report to the General Assembly, adopted today, had been brisk, transparent and productive. Pakistan's position on CD/1840 had been reflected in CD/1851 which had been submitted as an official document of the Conference and which was reflected in the report adopted today.
He did not pretend to have a better vision for the Conference on Disarmament. He had no silver bullet, nor did he know of a panacea that could fix the Conference's problems. The impasse in the Conference was owing to divergences in national security interests of its members as perceived at the highest levels of decision-making. The Conference itself was not to be faulted because all delegations came here to work hard and produce results. Negotiations on the four core issues had been elusive because of the shifting priorities of the most influential actors. The Conference on Disarmament was not all about the Conference on Disarmament. It was a hub, a fulcrum for all disarmament-related activities in Geneva and beyond within the United Nations system. Conference on Disarmament delegations supported the Biological Weapons Convention and the Conventional Weapons Convention regimes. They also influenced and shaped decisions in the First Committee of the General Assembly. Therefore, despite the absence of negotiations in the Conference, it had performed the role of catalyst. That said, he agreed that they did not need surrogates; they needed the real thing. Consensus building was a difficult exercise but it was not an impossible task. Diplomats had the skills to craft consensus even in situations which appeared to be intractable. But to reach consensus their instinct had to tell them that a particular issue was amenable to compromise.
PHAM QUOC TRU (Viet Nam) noted that Viet Nam had the honour to be the first Conference on Disarmament President for 2009. Viet Nam expressed its total determination to conduct the consultations during the intersessional period with all the Member States of the Conference with a view to taking helpful steps to start the work of the Conference next year. The task would obviously be facilitated by smooth cooperation among all, particularly the Presidents for the 2008 and the 2009 sessions. Viet Nam would listen to all colleagues so as to ensure the best possible conditions for the success of the Conference in 2009. The success of the 2009 session was subject to the common efforts of all members of the Conference. Therefore, Viet Nam appealed to all delegations to approach that session with an open mind and in a spirit of compromise, flexibility and renewed determination that would allow the Conference to get back to substantive work.
ERIC DANON (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, underscored the importance of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral forum for international disarmament negotiations. The European Union had always worked in favour of the adoption of a programme of work for the Conference and would spare no efforts to ensure the revitalization of that forum so that substantive negotiations could begin. The European Union had been encouraged by the informal discussions undertaken during the 2008 session of the Conference, in which it had taken an active part. It welcomed the momentum developed in the Conference since the establishment of the six Presidents (P-6) platform in 2006, and its continuation in 2007 and 2008. That momentum had given rise to the 2008 P-6 proposal for a programme of work contained in document CD/1840.
The European Union reiterated its position that it was ready to accept proposal CD/1840 as it stood. The European Union attached high priority to the negotiation, without preconditions, of a multilateral and non-discriminatory treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, which was the subject most ripe for negotiation in the Conference. Document CD/1840 was a compromise that represented concessions made by all parties. That document, in contrast to CD/2007/L.1 and its subsidiary documents, included additional elements that took into account the viewpoints of different countries that had expressed concerns about the original proposal. Supporting adoption of document CD/1840, the European Union expressed once again its willingness and determination to get the Conference out of its current impasse. It was long past time that each delegation showed its flexibility and its responsibility in accepting to join the consensus so that they could once again start up work within this forum. For the European Union, the annual report should have faithfully reflected the determination of the Conference to maintain its potential as a negotiating forum so that it could realize that potential in the near future. Nevertheless, the European Union was ready to join the consensus on the Conference report inasmuch as it reflected the reality of the deliberations held this year.
JURG STREULI (Switzerland) supported the statement made by Norway to the Conference on 2 September, calling for a number of reforms in the Conference so that it could work more efficiently. Norway had also called for more creative approaches on moving forward and that they should explore the possibility of incorporating civil society which had in other processes played such an active and prominent role. Switzerland especially agreed that they should seriously reflect on the rules of procedure and the way the consensus principle could be used to disable progress on procedural maters. Indeed, a cynic would say that the consensus principle was the most efficient tool in the room – as it had single-handedly blocked them from doing what they were there to do, namely, to negotiate.
In absolute terms, 2008 was a lost year. They had wasted time they could have used to negotiate a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. They had wasted time they could have used on the other core agenda issues. But despite that, they had not moved backwards. The past year had brought them a small but important step forward. And, crucially, at the beginning of 2009, there would be a strong and solid base from which to start their work. A draft programme of work would be on the table next year and it would hopefully receive even more support than this year. Document CD/1840 remained the best possible compromise for them to start their work.
DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia), observing that they had come to the time of year when they were called on to adopt their annual report to the General Assembly, said this could be an appropriate moment to reflect on their intentions and activities and to some extent to renew the spirit of cooperation in the face of the situation they were now confronted with. It was not just the matter of creating a window of opportunity, those opportunities had to be seized. Colombia had had enough of words. It was time for action. They had to somehow overcome their chronic crisis and adopt a programme of work. Colombia considered that the P-6 proposal for a programme of work contained in CD/1840 was a solid base for continuing their work next year. That proposal demonstrated continuity in the Conference's work and offered an opportunity to advance the construction of a possible consensus.
RAÚL PELÁEZ (Argentina) said that the basis of negotiation presented to them two weeks ago (the draft report) was an excellent reflection of the work undertaken in 2008 which had tended to favour discussion on the seven agenda items. The amendments to that text testified to the spirit of compromise and flexibility of the majority of the Member States of the Conference. It was hoped that both of those elements could continue in the work of the Conference in 2009.
Argentina also thanked the 2008 P-6 for their excellent work realized over the course of this year towards the adoption of a programme of work on the basis of the document CD/1840, for which the Argentine Minister for Foreign Relations had expressed support in his speech to the Conference on 12 March this year, and which Argentina had supported in a number of different discussions at the regional level. As one of the six Presidents of the Conference in 2009, Argentina would make every effort to lay the basis for the prompt adoption of a programme of work and to revive the single multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations after more than a decade of stasis.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, thanked the President of the Conference for his efforts to ensure adoption of the annual report by consensus. As they concluded the work of the 2008 session, the Group of 21 also thanked the six Presidents of 2008 for their work in moving the Conference forward. The Group of 21 looked forward to a fruitful 2009 session and to contributing to making the work of the Conference a success next year.
WANG QUN (China), noting that they had just adopted the annual report of 2008, appreciated the President's efforts in that regard. That had helped to bring the work of the Conference to a satisfactory conclusion this year. Under the guidance of the President, Member States had carried out frank and open consultations on the report's draft, with many States putting forward suggestions for amendments. Through that process, all parties now had a more objective and clear understanding of the situation in the Conference on Disarmament and its work. It had also laid down a good foundation for their work next year. China hoped that the work of the Conference next year would continue in a harmonious atmosphere and that they would reach a consensus on the work plan so as to carry out substantive work.
Finally, China paid special tribute to Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan and his work in furthering multilateral disarmament objectives within the Conference.
GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela), President of the Conference, in concluding comments on the work of the Conference in 2008, noted that all the statements made today had acknowledged the work of the P-6 and had expressed their thanks, which was encouraging. One of his first tasks as President had been to establish the nature of the forum. It was a pluralistic and diverse forum and it would remain that way for a long time to come. Identifying objectives had been another task, including proposing negotiations and approval of the report of 2008 to the General Assembly. The form of the Presidency was also important. He had chosen a methodology that embraced dialogue, a broad approach, extensive consultations, a great deal of transparency, and above all, flexibility. Today, they were concluding the main task entrusted to them. He could not fail to express his concern, which had also been reflected in many of the statements that they had heard today and during the past year. It was indispensable that they come up with a concrete programme of work and he wished that in 2009, by redoubling their efforts, they could achieve that goal.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC08052E