Conference on Disarmament Discusses a Non-Paper Presented by the P-6 on a Draft Programme of Work for 2022
The Conference on Disarmament today discussed a non-paper presented by the P-6 on a draft programme of work for 2022.
Ambassador Li Song of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, introducing the non-paper distributed last Friday by the P-6 on a draft programme of work, said it was based on the decision adopted by the Conference in 2018 and took into consideration the proposals and experiences of the Conference over the last three years. Its aim was to assist Member States to reach consensus on the organization and work of this year. It would allow the Conference to give more time and energy to the priority subjects as soon as possible, keep this forum moving, and allow it to engage in substantive work by setting up relevant subsidiary bodies according to the agenda items.
At the end of the meeting, Ambassador Li thanked all delegations for their ideas and suggestions, which would be studied and taken into consideration. Some delegations had said they were still waiting for instructions from their capitals. He hoped that by Thursday, the Conference would be able to hear more comments on the draft programme of work. The President said his team would discuss the opinions and comments made and he hoped that they would continue via informal consultations to offer feedback. He was already making plans to meet with regional groups this week, as well as to hold bilateral consultations. He would listen further to feedback and comments from delegations on Thursday.
The Conference heard general statements by South Africa, Cuba, Cyprus, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Speaking on the non-paper were Egypt, Russian Federation, Brazil, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina, France, Spain, Netherlands, Colombia, India, Cuba, Germany, Democratic People’s Republic Korea, Peru and Algeria.
The United States, Ukraine and the United Kingdom spoke in right of reply.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Conference decided to allow Lebanon and Niger to participate in the work of the Conference as observers during its 2022 session.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 February. During that meeting, the Conference will continue to hear general statements as well as continue discussions focusing on a programme of work.
General Statements
South Africa said the 2022 session of the Conference was taking place against the backdrop of several challenges affecting international disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control efforts. The inability of the Conference to deliver on its responsibility as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum ranked very high amongst these challenges. The continued impasse was not sustainable and would increasingly affect the relevance and stature of the Conference. To restore confidence, the Conference needed to find compromises to allow it to resume its substantive work. In South Africa’s views, the security environment should not be an excuse for inaction. South Africa remained committed to engage in substantive work on all agenda items of the Conference, including issues that it viewed as being ready for negotiation, such as a fissile material treaty, a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, as well as other effective measures towards nuclear disarmament. The Conference must guard against conferring on itself a discussion mandate as opposed to a negotiating mandate. Increased flexibility by all members of the Conference was needed, as well as a willingness to move beyond narrow interests.
The first anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was 22 January. South Africa urged all countries that had not done so to ratify this treaty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remained the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and should be preserved and strengthened. However, lack of implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations and related commitments, as well as the modernisation of nuclear arsenals by nuclear-weapon States were contributing to global tensions and insecurity. The Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would provide States parties with the ability to translate words into concrete actions through the equal implementation of all three pillars of the Treaty.
Cuba said the Conference had already accomplished a lot in the previous meeting with the return of the practise to approve requests made by observer States. This practise was undermined for several years by one delegation and Cuba hoped that it would now be possible for all States to participate in the work of the Conference. Cuba thanked the President for the presentation of a non-paper on a draft programme of work. Promoting a programme of work was the main task of any President. Cuba supported the draft. The Conference needed to be pragmatic and avoid items that blocked consensus. Cuba maintained its clear position supporting the mandate of the Conference to carry out negotiations. The Conference was not a forum for political discussions. Clear political will was needed to launch substantive negotiations within a broad and comprehensive programme of work.
Cyprus welcomed the decision taken at the previous meeting by which the Conference approved the requests submitted by all United Nations Member States wishing to participate as observers in the work of the Conference on Disarmament in 2022. Cyprus was pleased and honoured to resume its long-served position as an observer of the Conference and was convinced that the Conference must remain open for participation by all United Nations Member States. Cyprus added its voice to those pointing to the pressing need not to allow bilateral issues to impact on the decision-making process of the Conference, as such approaches unnecessarily politicised and intoxicated the discussions. Cyprus attached great value to the role of the Conference as the world’s only multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body. It supported efforts aimed at revitalising the work of the Conference in order to retain its primary mandate: to address international security challenges and negotiate disarmament and arms control agreements. Trust and confidence were indispensable as the Conference strived to galvanise political will and show flexibility towards a functional and results-oriented work.
Venezuela said it gave great importance to the work of the Conference on Disarmament as an important part of the disarmament machinery and it should be preserved and strengthened. The stalemate must be overcome and everyone must work to ensure that they had a balanced programme of work. The future and relevance of the Conference were directly linked to true demonstrations of political will and substantive commitments. The Conference must make sure that it paid attention to the legitimate security interests of States under all agenda items and in line with the rules of procedure, including the rule of consensus. Venezuela took note of the non-paper on the draft programme of work and had sent it to its capital to be reviewed.
The international security situation was very difficult. Unfortunately, the Conference was not able to harness its potential to carry out negotiations toward legally binding instruments. Venezuela reiterated its commitment to international law and to prevent new forms of domination that were very dangerous; these included measures that were applied by some countries present in the Conference and Venezuela denounced these policies. Venezuela was ready to move toward legally binding instruments based on consensus that could deal directly with the standing issues of international security from a broad perspective, including nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, negative security assurances and other issues on the agenda.
Saudi Arabia said the Conference was in a state of paralysis and they had to look at the reasons that undermined its work and step up efforts to break the status quo and preserve the role of the Conference. All countries must demonstrate more flexibility and political will and good intentions to allow the Conference to implement its mandate to strengthen international peace and security.
Statements on the Non-Paper Presented by the President and the P-6
Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, introducing the non-paper distributed last Friday by the P-6 on a draft programme of work, said it was based on the decision adopted by the Conference in 2018 and took into consideration the proposals and experiences of the Conference over the last three years. Its aim was to assist Member States to reach consensus on the organization and work of this year. It would allow the Conference to give more time and energy to the priority subjects as soon as possible, keep this forum moving, and allow it to engage in substantive work, by setting up relevant subsidiary bodies according to the agenda items. He hoped to hear the feedback of Member States on this non-paper and their ideas. He would strengthen informal consultations among parties with the purpose of coming up with a formal draft of a work programme by the end of this week. He would also continue to hold bilateral consultations with all parties concerned.
Egypt supported the simplified approach proposed by the P-6 in the non-paper which struck a very good balance by getting the Conference back to work and establishing subsidiary bodies. This would allow the Conference to start substantive work on the four core items of the agenda and other items in a comprehensive and balanced manner and pave the way for negotiations. All needed to be pragmatic, realistic and work in good faith.
Russian Federation said the priority task for the Conference was agreement on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work, which should provide for the possibility of negotiations, or at least pre-negotiations on agenda items. A simplified programme of work which just provided for a list and calendar of meetings for the Conference could not be considered as a full programme of work. Even if adopted, it would not assist in the start of substantive work within the Conference. The non-paper was repeating what was considered to be a successful experience of the past, and therefore it should be done through the adoption of a decision of the Conference. Russia proposed to change the title to “draft decision on the work of the Conference on Disarmament for 2022” instead of “draft programme of work” and then it was prepared to consider this non-paper positively.
Brazil said it viewed the non-paper as an excellent basis for negotiation and fully supported the President’s approach. However, in paragraph 4 on “recognising that there is no consensus for launching negotiations on any issue at this time” deserved some improvement. They should strive for language that abided by the mandate to negotiate legally binding instruments while reflecting the realities on the negotiation dynamics of the Conference. A paragraph which provided a sober statement of facts about the stalemate in the Conference should be drafted, while signalling their intention to make the necessary progress. It would read as follows: “Recognising the current challenges for reaching consensus for launching negotiations on any issue at this time”. Brazil also supported the creation of five subsidiary bodies and the allocation of agenda items provided in the non-paper. It insisted on the need for an actable geographic distribution on the nomination of the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies. What was the rationale for assigning only four half days of discussion for each subsidiary body, as this was less time than envisioned in previous drafts of the programme of work and the decision taken in 2018?
Pakistan underlined key considerations. Almost all delegations speaking in the past few weeks had drawn attention to the complex international security landscape. The Conference should play its part, but in order for it to do so, some basic ingredients should be in place: trust, understanding of mutual concerns, and willingness to abide by the central arms control tenant of ensuring equal security for all States. Pakistan reiterated the significance of realism, a comprehensive and balanced approach, and respect for the fundamental principle of undiminished security for all. There was currently no consensus to commence negotiations on any agenda item. Creative drafting could only do so much. The Conference should first start with the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work. While the non-paper may not be ideal or representative of what the Conference aught to do, it still represented a good and realistic basis to frame the work for 2022, keeping in mind that no one subsidiary body was the singular domain of one regional group or the other. Ensuring an equitable representative and objective appointment of coordinators was necessary.
Mexico said it had been very clear that the Conference should fully implement its mandate for negotiations. Any programme of work should include and reflect the negotiating nature of this body and comply with its mandate. In reality, negotiations and adoption of disarmament documents should not be subject to any conditions but should be a way to improve the situation of international peace and security. What was lacking to launch negotiations was the lack of political will. All of this should somehow be reflected in the draft. The proposal for a draft programme of work should include two additional paragraphs to reflect these issues. It should recall the need to conduct multilateral negotiations with the aim of reaching agreement on concrete issues, and that the current international situation should give additional impetus to multilateral negotiations. Mexico did not consider subsidiary bodies to be bodies to carry out negotiations. The 2018 subsidiary bodies in the Conference were an example of work that replaced negotiations under a programme of work adopted by consensus. If the Conference did not give a specific mandate to the subsidiary bodies, they ran the risk that the coordinators would have to decide what the specific mandate was, and this would only lead to the continuation of procedural discussions. The non-paper also did not cover many of the substantive concerns.
Argentina said that the non-paper was a good foundation. Argentina was ready to fully cooperate with the President and the other members of the P-6 in order to be able to have a balanced and comprehensive programme of work that would satisfy all delegations. It would be beneficial for the Conference to change the text of PP4 to ensure that it had a more positive context. Argentina supported what was proposed by Mexico but had its own proposal. “Recognising that there was a need to build consensus as soon as possible to start negotiations on substantive issues”. This would avoid a precedent of giving the Conference a mandate only for discussions. In the operative part, Argentina was in favour of the creation of subsidiary bodies that enjoyed balanced geographical representation and regretted that they did not have a mandate to carry out negotiations.
France said the non-paper was a very good starting point. The Conference was trying to set up the subsidiary bodies, but these bodies should have clear guidance so perhaps the non-paper should be more specific, or they would be facing a problem when the meetings of the subsidiary bodies began and they considered what they actually had to do. The non-paper needed to be bolstered by issues that had reached a great deal of maturity and the first issue was a fissile material cut-off treaty. France supported expanding this document and including items that other delegations supported.
Spain said it believed that the rules of procedure did not require a programme of work to have a mandate for negotiations, they only referred to a schedule of activities. In the current circumstances, discussions were part of negotiations as in discussions delegations could make their positions clear and create space for negotiations. The Conference was not ready to start negotiations today but perhaps in a few weeks or months it would be ready. Therefore, Spain was reticent about the inclusion of paragraph four. In general, the non-paper was a very good document that could help the Conference start structured work.
Netherlands said the whole idea behind the subsidiary bodies in 2018 was to try to find consensus where it could be found. The Netherlands agreed with colleagues who had said that the Conference must try to find a negotiating basis on certain subjects. For the Netherlands, the Conference had been pretty successful in 2018, coming up with consensus documents for four of the subsidiary bodies and in the Conference itself. For the Netherlands, this was still the basis for their work. The world was not the same as in 2018 but the progress they had made was still there and should not be disregarded. For the Netherlands, some subjects were ready for negotiations but the Conference could not agree on this and that was why they were considering this approach. The Netherlands agreed with what Russia said about the title of the non-paper and the Conference could consider what Russia had said, calling it “a draft decision on the work of the Conference”. The Netherlands also supported what Argentina proposed. It also believed that the mandate of the subsidiary bodies and the number of meetings had to be discussed. For subsidiary body two, the Netherlands believed it to be about fissile materials, but that needed to be made clear. Since 2018, support for a fissile material cut-off treaty had only increased, so it was clear that this topic merited further explicit attention. But others saw otherwise so a compromise was necessary.
Colombia said the non-paper was a sound basis for discussion. It was a constructive text which met the concerns of delegations. As Brazil had said, they were currently confronting challenges that were undermining the possibility of holding negotiations, but they should not anticipate the results that they might achieve in substantive discussions. That was why Colombia supported the proposals of Mexico and Argentina as they made up a more positive approach forward. Colombia would have preferred launching negotiations on some subjects but it was aware that some delegations were not ready for this. Colombia hoped that the work of the subsidiary bodies would allow those delegations to consider their positions and overcome their concerns. Colombia believed regional balance should be upheld among the coordinators of the subsidiary bodies. It was aware of differences of opinion between delegations and hoped that all could demonstrate flexibility.
India said it hoped that common grounds could be found this year in the Conference that enabled it to pursue substantive work. Over the years, the Conference had achieved progress and common understanding on several issues. There was a need to reflect this progress in the programme of work. India was awaiting its capital’s comments on the non-paper. Meanwhile, it noted that while the non-paper aimed at establishing subsidiary bodies, it was a substantial dilution of the 2018 document. In 2018, the subsidiary bodies had clear mandates which allowed focused discussions. India did not want the efforts of the past presidencies and the respective coordinators to go to waste. The Conference needed to build on past gains. The way the draft programme of work was framed now, it was not clear how it was any different from the thematic debates conducted under various agenda items during the last three years. The proposed draft did not contain any reference to the Conference’s core mandate of negotiating legally binding instruments. The draft needed to signal intent, to make progress, like Brazil said. The mandate of the subsidiary bodies could not be delegated to the subsidiary bodies or their respective coordinators. India reiterated its position on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Without diminishing the priority of nuclear disarmament, India supported the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference of a fissile material cut-off treaty. It was the most opportune topic for commencement of negotiations in the Conference.
Cuba expressed full support for the non-paper. The Conference had been in a state of stalemate for 25 years, despite the efforts made by many. This should make the Conference seek new solutions. The mandate of the Conference was to negotiate legally binding instruments, not for it to be a body for deliberations. The programme of work should contain a schedule of activities that was in line with the agenda and would then depend on the consensus of all of those present. The subsidiary bodies were also an option that had been explored and were not satisfactory. Nothing in the rules of procedure linked a programme of work to the creation of subsidiary bodies with a specific mandate for negotiations. There was a lack of political will by some States to negotiate disarmament instruments, but it was contradictory to have this in a document created by the Conference. There needed to be a separation between the general mandate for negotiations and the specific mandate that any subsidiary body may have. The draft programme was a sincere approach to try to find a solution and it was an excellent foundation for the work of the Conference.
Germany said it supported the President’s approach, which was a common sense approach to bring the Conference back to work, avoiding red lines and building on consensual elements of the past. The Conference should not waste too much time in discussing details. Germany was in favour of resuming the 2018 subsidiary bodies in 2022 in order to re-start fruitful discussions on all topics in a balanced manner.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the proposed text was concise and clear, without any complexity. It was balanced and could contribute to overcoming the long-standing deadlock in the Conference and take it forward. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea supported the non-paper and as one of the P-6, would continue to work closely to deliver a programme of work as soon as possible.
Peru said it had sent the non-paper to its capital for review. The position of Peru was that the non-paper was not an ideal document as it did not refer to any specific mandate for negotiations. At the same time, Peru realised what was happening in the world right now and the stalemate in the Conference. Peru supported the pragmatic approach of the non-paper. It was not ideal but may help build trust in the Conference, therefore it was a very good basis for negotiations.
Algeria said the non-paper was a very good foundation for the work of the Conference. Hopefully it would lead to substantive work and to negotiations. In order to ensure that the Conference had sufficient time to deal with issues of substance, it would be necessary to hold a two-level approach, distinguishing between making a framework of a programme of work and the actual implementation that covered the details and the consideration of points of disagreement. It should be a standardised approach that was simplified in order to have a uniform framework to take into account the work programme and reflect the concerns submitted. It should also be flexible to allow the Conference to adapt its work to any possible evolution of the situation and should explore the opportunities offered by the rules of procedure and the practice of the Conference. Establishing a structure for the purpose of negotiations on different agenda items in a comprehensive and balanced manner was an important step that could help the Conference in its efforts to reach consensus, either through the work of subsidiary bodies or ad hoc committees or any other bodies. It should focus on points of agreement and points of disagreement. The Conference should come back to a simplified programme of work.
Ambassador LI SONG of China (Disarmament), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said all suggestions would be given serious consideration. As for the time allotments for subsidiary bodies, and appointment of coordinators, the P-6 were consulting on this. The multilateral arms control schedule for 2022 was already busy, with for instance two major review conferences in August. Therefore, when the P-6 had been working, they had envisioned that if the Conference could adopt this programme of work next week, they would be able to plan the meetings of the subsidiary bodies. If this work moved forward smoothly, they could consider finishing the schedule of meetings of the subsidiary bodies before August. This had been their basic thinking. All delegations were thanked for their ideas and suggestions, which would be studied and taken into consideration. Some delegations had said they were still waiting for instructions from their capitals. He hoped that by Thursday, the Conference would be able to hear more comments on the draft programme of work. The President said that all the ideas and positions expressed were indeed still within the framework of their discussions over the past three years. As all the work of the Conference was related to negotiations, the final purpose was of course to engage in negotiations of legally binding instruments. All shared a consensus on this. What they faced now was whether they could weave a proper net and reach consensus on engagement in substantive work. The President said his team would discuss the opinions and comments made and he hoped that they would continue via informal consultations to offer feedback. He was already making plans to meet with regional groups this week, as well as to hold bilateral consultations. He would listen further to feedback and comments from delegations on Thursday.
Right of Reply
United States, speaking in right of reply in response to the egregious statement made by the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation on 3 February, said Russia had described the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its members as aggressors and it had belittled the sovereign and independent State of Ukraine. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a defensive alliance and did not have aggressive intent toward any country, including Russia, and did not seek confrontation. The United States was committed to the first path of dialogue and diplomacy, which provided the only durable solution to the security concerns of the United States, its allies and Russia. President Putin now faced the choice of dialogue and diplomacy, or a path that would lead to conflict, severe consequences and international condemnation.
Ukraine, speaking in right of reply in response to the remarks of the Russian Federation in the course of the previous meeting, said that the Russian Federation was trying to enforce on the international community its own parallel reality. Russia today represented a security threat to Europe due to the continued military pressure and blackmailing. Russia must be addressed, not based on what it was saying but based on what it was doing. The threat of further escalation by Russia remained high. If the ongoing build-up around Ukraine continued, Russia would amass enough troops to launch an additional full-scale invasion into Ukraine. Russia’s categorical demands on the non-extension of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the east could not and would not be accepted. Currently, the joint urgent task was to ensure a de-escalation on the Ukrainian-Russian border.
United Kingdom, speaking in right of reply in response to the far-fetched elements of the statement delivered by the Russian Federation last week, said that facts on the ground showed clearly that Russia was the aggressor and that it had created this crisis by deploying more than 100,000 troops and heavy capabilities to Ukraine’s borders. Russia also had significant deployments in Belarus. The United Kingdom fully supported Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its right to defend itself. Furthermore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a defensive alliance that did not threaten Russia. The Conference on Disarmament was not the forum for such discussions.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different
as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
DC22.006E