CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS AGENDA, PRESIDENTS OF 2007 SESSION OF CONFERENCE APPOINT COORDINATORS
The Conference on Disarmament today adopted its agenda and heard statements by Japan, Germany on behalf of the European Union, France, Kenya, Italy, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Egypt, Australia, Syria, India and Morocco. Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and China also responded to remarks made in the statement by the European Union.
The adopted agenda of the Conference includes the following items: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international agreements 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, including radiological weapons; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; transparency in armaments; and consideration and adoption of the annual report and any other report, as appropriate, to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali of South Africa, the President of the Conference, said the Conference had agreed to the appointment of Coordinators by the 2007 Presidents of the Conference for all items on the agenda and the organizational framework without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work. Under the authority of the 2007 Presidents of the Conference, the Coordinators would arrange and chair deliberations dealing with the agenda items in a comprehensive manner. The Coordinators would report the outcome of the discussions on the relevant agenda items to the 2007 Presidents of the Conference, who in conjunction with each of the Coordinators, would finalize the report on the progress achieved on each of the agenda items.
In the extensive statement delivered by Germany, the European Union, among other things, said it was very concerned about a recent test of an anti-satellite weapon. Such a test was inconsistent with international efforts to avert any arms race in outer space.
The European Union said it fully shared the concern over Iran’s nuclear programme expressed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council. There was no dispute about Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The issue at stake was Iran’s failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. The European Union also continued to be gravely concerned by the situation on the Korean peninsula and called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to observe its obligations under the NPT, refrain from any further tests of a nuclear device and re-establish the moratorium on long-range missile testing.
Responding to these remarks in right of reply, China said that as noted by the Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of China, the test had not been aimed at any country and had not posed any threat to any country. China had always supported the peaceful use of outer space and it opposed any militarization of outer space. China would never participate in any arms race in outer space.
Iran said that it had already reiterated that due to the technicalities of Iran’s case, it did not believe that this was an appropriate issue to discuss at the Conference. Iran had dealt closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its peaceful nuclear programme. All the States parties to the NPT had a right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. This inalienable right could not be undermined under any pretext, and any attempt to do so would be an attempt to undermine a pillar of the NPT and the NPT itself. Iran could not be forced to suspend this right. Iran preferred a diplomatic solution to this issue.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the missile launch undertaken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a full-fledge exercise of its national rights and no one had the right to criticize it. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically refused all Security Council resolutions and would not be bound by them. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not a party to the NPT and was not bound by it either. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was very concerned about the allegations made by Germany which made no mention of the fundamental causes and the ringleaders which compelled the country to take this course.
Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, and the President urged the speakers in the exchange of right of reply to refrain from further political discussions which repeated similar debates at the Security Council on these issues, to avoid getting into discussions of a bilateral nature and to concentrate on the work of the Conference.
General statements were also made by Japan, France, Kenya, Italy, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Egypt, Australia, Algeria, Syria, India and Morocco.
The Conference agreed to requests by Albania, Georgia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen to participate in the work of the Conference during 2007 as observers.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 30 January.
Statements
SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said last year, under the Six Presidents initiative, intensive discussions on each agenda item were carried out through the structured, focused debates on the traditional agenda of the Conference. This year, the Conference needed to build on these developments and prove that it could contribute to the formation of international disarmament and non-proliferation norms. Japan was convinced that the proposed organizational framework could facilitate the achievement of this objective if the Conference Member States worked actively within it. Japan supported the framework and commended the efforts of this year’s Presidents of the Conference in its formulation and urged its early adoption.
Japan attached paramount importance to the early commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). Japan aimed to enhance deliberations on the substance of
an FMCT for the early conclusion of negotiations once they began, through specific comments on the draft treaty and working papers already circulated. On the other hand, when the time came to discuss the other main agenda items of the Conference – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space, as well as other issues - Japan was committed to engaging in an active debate in accordance with the schedule of the Conference.
RUDIGER LUDEKING (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was strongly committed to reaching consensus on a programme of work and supported all genuine efforts undertaken towards that end. Getting the Conference back to fulfilling its function as the single multilateral forum at the disposal of the international community for disarmament negotiations was all the more important against the backdrop of the security challenges that the world was facing today. Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control remained indispensable elements of cooperative security between States and were essential for effectively addressing those threats. The European Union attached a high priority to the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and called for the immediate commencement of such negotiations in the Conference. The new momentum that was created in the course of last year’s discussions on the subject must be seized. The early conclusion of a non-discriminatory, universally applicable treaty should remain the goal. Pending the achievement of this goal, the European Union urged all States to declare and uphold a moratorium on the production of fissile material.
Preventing an arms race in outer space was an essential condition for the strengthening of strategic stability and for the promotion of international cooperation in the freedom off exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes by all states. The European Union was very concerned about a recent test of an anti-satellite weapon. Such a test was inconsistent with international efforts to avert any arms race in outer space.
Getting the Conference back to substantive work and in particular starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would have a significant positive impact on the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review process that would start at the end of April with the first session of the Preparatory Committee in Vienna. The European Union was looking forward to fruitful and substantive discussions with a view to building consensus on the three mutually reinforcing pillars of the NPT: non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The European Union also reaffirmed its strong support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it considered as one of the pivotal pillars in the non-proliferation and disarmament framework, together with an FMCT.
The importance of maintaining the authority and integrity of the NPT was underlined by the serious regional proliferation challenges that the international community was facing. The European Union fully shared the concern over Iran’s nuclear programme expressed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. There was no dispute about Iran’s right under the NPT. The issue at stake was Iran’s failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. The European Union continued to support efforts to find a negotiated long-term solution and urgently called on Iran to suspend all enrichment related activities to allow a return to the negotiating table.
The European Union also continued to be gravely concerned by the situation on the Korean peninsula. It called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to observe its obligations under the NPT, refrain from any further tests of a nuclear device and re-establish the moratorium on long-range missile testing. It also called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to adopt a constructive attitude to the six party talks.
In conclusion, the European Union called upon all partners of the Conference on Disarmament to take a constructive approach towards the FMCT that was one of the most pressing items on the agenda of the Conference. Starting FMCT negotiations would underscore the relevance of a multilateralist approach to security and would testify commitment to a multilateral treaty system which provided the legal and normative basis for all non-proliferation efforts.
JEAN-FRANCOIS DOBELLE (France) said everyone recognized the usefulness of the intensive consultations which the President had been holding since last autumn. France was convinced that the Conference was on the right track and this was the only way to make further progress to revitalize the work of the Conference this year. The Conference must be guided by a resolve to preserve what had been achieved in 2006 and to build on it so as to continue the momentum started last year. The Conference must work in a pragmatic way to adopt a programme of work to allow it to work in a down to earth way. The organization of work that the President was proposing gave the Conference the best compromise to allow it to take up all the items on the agenda in a balanced way and show certain focus on some issues. France urged other Member States to give their support this proposal and to show open-mindedness on the methods of work proposed. France was confident of the work of the six presidents and believed that their proposal offered the best prospects to make progress in the work of the Conference,
The European Union statement had stressed the priority attached by the Conference to the immediate launch, without preconditions, to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This concern was obviously a fundamental point in the position of France at the national level as was pointed out by the President of the Republic a year ago. France believed that the raison d’être of the Conference was to work to build an approach to disarmament which could help to alleviate the sad toll that humanity paid in the excessive number of conflicts and which could contribute to regional security.
Conventional weapons killed more than 500,000 persons around the world annually. France hoped that this year, the Conference would be able to study in more depth control of conventional weapons. France was among the countries which were seriously concerned about the illicit transfer of conventional weapons, including man portable air defence systems (MANPADS), into the hands of terrorist groups. France was prepared to keep the Conference informed about the initiative which it was guiding concerning work to combat the illicit transport of small and light weapons. The essential item facing the Conference today was the adoption of the agenda. The President was familiar with the position of France that the wording of the agenda was no longer enough to deal with the security challenges facing the world. France was ready to work with everyone, within its usual reservations, so as not to block the excellent programme of activities which was being proposed by the Presidents.
MARIA NZOMO (Kenya) said that as an active member of the Conference, Kenya remained concerned over the lack of significant progress that had characterized the Conference for close to a decade. An incremental and coordinated approach would lead to the development of a comprehensive plan of action for the attainment of a nuclear-free world. This should be based on the 13 practical steps agreed upon in 2000 under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Kenya appealed to all members of the Conference to rededicate themselves to the course of nuclear disarmament and arms control. Disarmament was indeed an important pillar in global efforts to achieve international peace and security. It could not be over emphasized that development could not be achieved without peace and security. The Conference must focus on and take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament which were achievable in the short term while at the same time embarking on a path towards a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime. Kenya firmly believed nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were two sides of the same coin that had to be pursued simultaneously. A selective approach could only lead to further discordance and stalemate. It was only through flexibility and compromise that multilateral diplomacy could succeed.
CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that as stated in the rules of procedure of the Conference, the forum must adopt its agenda for the year at the beginning of each annual session. Italy was confident that the Conference would be able to adopt the agenda as soon as possible. As a “Friend” of the Presidents last year, Italy had assisted them in the task of reviewing the agenda and had found that the agenda was inclusive and did not limit the work of the Conference. It was appropriate for dealing with current disarmament and security issues, and comprehensive and flexible enough to accommodate all issues of concern. Italy could accept that last year’s arrangement for the agenda could serve as a basis for the activities of the Conference this year. On that basis, the Conference should determine which concrete items of the broad agenda were mature for substantive work and which items needed further discussion. Italy hoped that through these preliminary deliberations that it would be possible to reach a stage where it appeared that there was a basis for negotiations on specific issues. In that case, the Conference could establish subsidiary bodies such as ad hoc sub committees, working groups, technical groups or groups of governmental experts.
Italy wanted to underline the importance to be attached to high-level political participation in the deliberations of the Conference. Invitations should be extended this year not only to all Foreign Ministers of Member States but also to other dignitaries and in particular to the heads of international organizations and institutions which dealt with the issues relevant to the Conference. Upgrading the level of participation was a way of crafting the political consciousness and political will which were necessary for the Conference to resume its work. Some steps could also be made to acknowledge the attention and contribution that non-governmental organizations present in Geneva dedicated to the deliberations of the Conference.
MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said every time that the Conference on Disarmament commenced its work, there was always the hope that the new session would bring forth fresh ideas so that the Conference could make progress and achieve a tangible outcome in the area of disarmament. This common expectation had long stayed unfulfilled and the Conference could not let this hope remain unanswered. As a result of the slow progress of the reduction and abolishment of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular of nuclear weapons, as well as the increase in the production and sophistication of conventional weapons, the task of addressing them had become more daunting. There was also growing concern at the emergence of new challenges such as the illicit use and transfer of small arms and conventional weapons in the world’s conflict areas as well as into the hands of terrorists. These challenges needed to be addressed collectively and to this end, the Conference must demonstrate its willingness and resolve in this historic forum.
Indonesia was of the view that the current agenda as contained in document CD/WP.545 reflected the needs and challenges that the Conference needed to address. Such a flexible agenda allowed Member States to include any issues it deemed necessary under any one item. Indonesia had no objection to supporting the adoption of the agenda for 2007. Indonesia believed that the problems linked to disarmament and non-proliferation, whether they pertained to weapons of mass destruction or to conventional weapons, involved too great a risk to be addressed unilaterally. A multilateral and inclusive approach should be used as the basis of the work of the conference.
Finally, the Indonesian Government had approved the ratification of the Convention on Anti-personnel Landmines. Indonesia would soon be joining more than 150 States parties to the Ottawa Convention and would be contributing actively to the creation of a mine-free world.
CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said the work of the Conference this year had a particular importance as it would set the tone for the future viability of the Conference. Building upon the progress made last year, the Conference Member States should intensify and deepen their understanding with a view to reaching a consensual decision on the programme of work. They should strive diligently not to lose the momentum created by last year’s discussions. The Republic of Korea welcomed the concerted efforts by the Six Presidents of 2007, and believed that to make the most of their initiative, it would be desirable for a more detailed organizational framework with a specific timetable for each session to be circulated as early as possible. This would allow sufficient time for the full preparations by the Member States.
The Republic of Korea believed that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was the only issue ripe for negotiations in the Conference. However, it was ready to actively participate in the discussions on the other agenda items as well without prejudice to the result of such deliberations. The Republic of Korea also fully supported the draft agenda and believed it was broad and inclusive enough for any Member to raise any issue of its concern related to international peace and security. He urged all delegations to exercise maximum flexibility to allow the Conference to swiftly adopt the agenda and to begin substantive work as soon as possible and in a positive frame of mind.
AMIN MELEKA (Egypt) said South Africa assumed the Presidency of the Conference at an important juncture full of challenges. Everyone needed to strive to reverse the negative effects of inaction that had plagued the Conference in recent years, and had cast shadows of doubt over the relevance of multilateral efforts in the field of disarmament. The continuation of this could only adversely affect the common efforts to enhance international peace and security and decrease tensions. The core problem lay in the lack of political will of some Member States to address disarmament within the context of the Conference based on agreed priorities. Any genuine movement in the Conference would not materialize unless the collective interests and agreed priorities were equally considered, devoid of selectivity.
Egypt hoped the draft organizational framework which was prepared by the Presidents of the Conference for 2007 would provide a productive outcome. Egypt also welcomed the idea of appointing a Coordinator for each agenda item. Egypt had always called for the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work for the Conference which took into account the priorities of the international community based on the results of the First Special Session of the General Assembly on the United Nations on Disarmament.
For Egypt, nuclear disarmament remained the top priority in the Conference and it should remain at the forefront of the Conference’s work in the new session. It would be regrettable if the Conference remained unable to take any effective steps towards nuclear disarmament. Egypt was committed to the Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament regime. It disturbed Egypt that despite the passing of 39 years since the NPT came into force and despite its indefinite extension, it continued to face extremely dangerous challenges. Egypt sincerely hoped that the current session of the Conference was ready to shoulder its responsibilities as the only international multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament, especially with regards to issues of critical importance to the international community.
CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said as President of the Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the Landmine Ban Convention, Australia warmly welcomed Indonesia’s ratification of the Convention. Australia was working actively to promote the universality of the Convention, particularly in the Asian region. She also placed on the record Australia’s deep appreciation for the efforts of the President to prepare for the work of the Conference this year.
Right of Reply
ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran), exercising his right of reply in reference to Germany’s remarks on behalf of the European Union concerning Iran, said that Iran had already reiterated that due to the technicalities of Iran’s case, it did not believe that this was an appropriate issue to discuss at the Conference. Iran had dealt closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its peaceful nuclear programme. All the States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had a right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. This inalienable right could not be undermined under any pretext, and any attempt to do so would be an attempt to undermine a pillar of the NPT and the NPT itself. Iran could not be forced to suspend this right. Iran preferred a diplomatic solution to this issue.
Iran questioned how did one measure confidence building and whether confidence building could be taken to mean depriving Iran of its rights under the NPT. The Security Council and the Conference were not the place to discuss NPT issues, the right place was at the IAEA.
RI TCHEUL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in right of reply concerning the remarks of Germany on behalf of the European Union concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regretted very much that the European Union had broken the constructive atmosphere within the Conference at a time when the urgent priority of the forum was to agree on the agenda. Since accusations were made against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it was his duty to respond. The missile launch undertaken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a full-fledge exercise of its national rights and no one had the right to criticize it. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically refused all Security Council resolutions and would not be bound by them. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was not bound by it either. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was very concerned about the allegations made by Germany which made no mention of the fundamental causes and the ringleaders which compelled the country to take this course. Policies over the past half century, including sanctions, and the United States calling the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea part of the axis of evil, had left the country with no alternative but to take defensive measures to safeguard itself against all of this. This was a bitter lesson drawn by the reality of the world today where the jungle laws prevailed. The weapons of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were a deterrent to ensure the security of the State, and would not be used to threaten anyone. The Government had reiterated time and again that it would not use nuclear weapons first nor allow any transfer of nuclear technology. The Government had done its utmost to make the six party talks move forward well, but success depended on the attitude of the United States.
Under these circumstances, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believed that it was not fair to point fingers at the self-defense actions of the Democratic People Republic of Korea which was the victim, while ignoring the offender, the United States. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to be uncompromising with attempts to provoke it and would take strong countermeasures accordingly.
RUDIGER LUDEKING (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a right of reply with regards to the statements made by Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said first, he wanted to refer to some of the points made by Iran. The European Union begged to differ with regard to characterizing Iran’s case as a mere technicality which was not relevant to the work of the Conference. This was one of the primary foci in the European Union’s statement. The European Union was concerned about the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), mainly in that the pursuit by Iran of a secret nuclear programme over 20 years was a clear challenge to the NPT. The NPT contained the inalienable right to the useful use of nuclear energy. However, it also contained a number of obligations and those should be observed. The extended period of Iran’s non-compliance with regards to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was also a concern. It was only fair to ask Iran to re-establish the confidence of the international community in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities. The European Union had made wide-ranging offers but Iran had left them on the table. It did not help for Iran to continue to disregard the requests and requirements of the international community as expressed by the IAEA and the Security Council.
The resolutions adopted by the Security Council concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran had established legally binding obligations by them which should be fulfilled. Regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the European Union would not hide its disappointment because it saw in the statement a rehearsal of well-known responses. The European Union deplored that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea saw fit to simply disregard the validity of Security Council resolution 1780 which was binding. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made reference to it not being a State party to the NPT. This question was still open. The European Union did not consider that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had exercised in an effective manner its right to withdrawal under article 10 of the NPT. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rightly referred to the risks of the jungle laws gaining ground, and this was exactly why the European Union was persistent in calling on that country to comply with its obligations under the NPT and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The European Union took positive note of the assessment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the recent contacts in Berlin between that country and the United States. The European Union hoped the six party talks would be rapidly resumed and would result into an agreement.
CHENG JINGYE (China), speaking in a right of reply, said that in the remarks made today, reference was made to the test. What he wanted to do was tell the Conference what the Spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry had said in a news briefing which stated China’s position on the test. The Spokesperson said that recently, China had conducted a test in outer space. The test had not been aimed at any country and had not posed any threat to any country. China had always supported the peaceful use of outer space and it opposed any militarization of outer space. China would never participate in any arms race in outer space.
The position of China was very clear. As everyone was aware, China had been advocating for the conclusion of an international instrument or treaty for outer space at the Conference, and along with the Russian Federation, had already submitted some treaty elements on the prevention of deployment of weapons in outer space and prevention of use or threat of use against space objects. China hoped that the Conference on Disarmament would be able to start substantive work on this issue as soon as possible. China also wished to make a brief reference to its concern about the tone and manner of some delegations used in the Conference which could have a negative effect on the work of the Conference.
Statement by the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament
SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said many of those attending this meeting of the Conference were gradually starting to have the feeling that the debate was not going in a positive direction, and this was concern to him too as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Conference. He appealed to all delegations, in particular those involved in the exchange of right of reply and political discussions. The political discussions repeated similar debates at the Security Council on these issues. The Member States of the Conference should not concentrate on these political problems so much, but should work on solving the problems of the Conference which they had not been able to solve so far. Such an approach would be more conducive to the whole disarmament process.
Statement by the President of the Conference
GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa), President of the Conference, appealed to all the delegations to avoid getting into discussions of a bilateral nature and to concentrate on the work of the Conference.
Second Right of Reply
ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran), in a second right of reply, said he had prepared a long answer to respond to three issues raised by the European Union: A for assumptions, B for behaviour and C for context. However he would not read them out after the appeals by the Secretary-General and the President. This however, did not mean that Iran had no answers. For now, he just had one simple question: who had started this.
RI TCHEUL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, taking account of what the Secretary-General and the President had said, said he wanted to mention three things. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been very disappointed about the accusations coming from a certain group of countries which tried to express its interest in the Korean Peninsula, and advised them to take into account the facts that everything had its causes and consequences. That group of country should pay attention to the causes, not only the consequences. On the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Security Council resolutions, the position of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was exactly the same. He wished to advise that group of countries to be more objective and to refrain from political polemics if it was really concerned about moving forward the work of the Conference.
RUDIGER LUDEKING (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a second right of reply, said that he wanted very briefly to make the point that all the issues that he had raised in the statement of the European Union were directly relevant to the work of the Conference and the review process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were not bilateral. None of the points he had raised were of a bilateral nature but they were of international concern.
ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran), speaking in another right of reply, said since Germany had said this issue was of international concern which was related to the work of the Conference and was not a bilateral issue, then Iran had to respond. So on A for assumptions, the European Union had made a number of significant assumptions which needed to be deconstructed. One was that Iran had been involved in a secret process. That was not the case. Through cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran had resolved all these issues step by step. Another assumption was that Iran was somehow against the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its obligations. Iran was not. Rather, Iran was one of the founding members of the NPT, and was cognizant of the treaty and how important its three pillars were and of its rights under the treaty. These and other assumptions had to be deconstructed.
Concerning B for behaviour, the historical context of Iran’s relationship with countries should be taken into account. This was a insult to the Iranian people. Historically, States had said Iran could not have a railway network, and could not even have a steel factory. Still, the Conference was not the place for what the President had called bilateral issues. This was the beginning of an important year for the Conference, yet the way the Conference behaved reflected the general behaviour by States. Several references had been made to Security Council resolutions. In 1980, when Iraq had invaded Iran, the Security Council had never condemned the Iraqi regime. When Iran nationalized its oil in the fifties, the Security Council had said this was a threat against international peace and security. The Security Council said nothing about the possession by a certain State of nuclear weapons, while discussing Iran’s enrichment activities.
As for C for context, in the global context, certain countries were trying to stop the South, especially the Middle East and Iran, from progressing on the nuclear issue. They were talking threat of military force. This context should be taken into account.
Finally, Iran was a member of the NPT, was cognizant of its rights under the treaty, and would remain within the framework of the treaty and would work under it.
Statements on the Adoption of the Agenda
GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa), President of the Conference, said that as it had been agreed in the informal session, she wished to ask the Conference if it could adopt the agenda as distributed last Monday in document CD/WP.545. It was so decided. She also asked the Conference if it was willing to agree to the requests by Albania, Georgia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen to participate in the work of the Conference during 2007 as observers. It was so decided.
Following the finalization of the aforementioned informal consultations, there was an understanding in the Conference that it agreed to the appointment of Coordinators by the 2007 Presidents of the Conference for all items on the agenda and the organizational framework without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference on its programme of work. The Conference would be able to review and adjust the organizational framework if deemed necessary. Under the authority of the 2007 Presidents of the Conference, the Coordinators would arrange and chair deliberations dealing with the agenda items in a comprehensive manner. The following persons were being appointed as Coordinators by the Presidents:
Ambassador Wegger Strommen of Norway for agenda item 1 entitled cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament;
Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy for agenda item 2 entitled prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters;
Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada for agenda item 3 entitled prevention of an arms race in outer space;
Ambassador Carlos Paranhos of Brazil for agenda item 4 entitled effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
Ambassador Petko Draganov of Bulgaria for agenda item 5 entitled new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, including radiological weapons;
Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia for agenda item 6 entitled comprehensive programme of disarmament;
and Ambassador John Ducan of the United Kingdom for agenda item 7 entitled transparency in armaments.
Ms. Mtshalia said the Coordinators would report the outcome of the discussions on the relevant agenda items to the 2007 Presidents of the Conference, who in conjunction with each of the Coordinators, would finalize the report on the progress achieved on each of the agenda items.
CHENG JINGYE (China) said China welcomed the organizational framework for this year’s session of the Conference. In the statement just made, the President had elaborated the assignments of the Coordinators. China extended its appreciation to those Ambassadors who bore the heavy responsibility of chairing the discussions on the respective agenda items. The progress of the Conference hinged on the concerted efforts of its members. In order for the Conference to move forward in its work, all Member States should demonstrate their flexibility and take others’ concerns into due consideration. This was the only way to narrow down their differences, thus ultimately breaking the deadlock on the programme of work. It was China’s sincere hope that the forthcoming discussions, building on the efforts of last year, would contribute to achieving this goal at an early date.
HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said according to what Algeria had understood in the informal meeting concerning the organization of work proposals, the appointment of the Coordinators was an initiative from the Presidents of the Conference and the Coordinators would work under the authority of the Presidents. It was under that understanding that Algeria had not objected to the proposal. But according to the second paragraph in the statement by the President, it could be understood that the Coordinators were appointed as a decision by the Conference. Algeria encouraged the initiative but did not understand it to be a decision of the Conference. And the reports by the Coordinators on the progress of work would reflect the views of the Coordinators and the Presidents, but not the Conference.
GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa), President of the Conference, said the Coordinators were not Special Coordinators, but were appointed under the prerogative of the Presidents of the Conference.
HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) congratulated the Conference on the adoption of the agenda. As noted in the informal plenaries, this agenda addressed the priorities of international peace and security. There was no threat to the international community greater than nuclear weapons and their utilization. If the Conference wished to make progress, it must give priority to the main threat to international peace and security – nuclear weapons. On that basis, Syria looked forward to the question of nuclear disarmament receiving the attention of the Conference and delegations looked forward to discussing the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, a region which had suffered greatly as a result of the foreign occupation of its land.
With concern to agenda item 2 on prevention of a nuclear war, during the past year, one of the items which had been addressed was the prohibition of the production of fissile material. Syria called on the Conference to start discussing a treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.
What had transpired this morning was not encouraging and Syria hoped that all delegations would act in a credible way and would be objective in addressing various issues, whether of a bilateral or international nature. A question today was asked by a State which had always followed international laws and which was not threatening any country with occupation. At the same time, the actions of another country which did not follow international law, which occupied the territory of others, which exercised terrorism and which flouted international resolutions were ignored. No one had addressed this extremely serious manner. The Conference must deal with this manner in an objective way. It was not possible for the Conference to make progress while ignoring the genuine security concerns of other countries and the world.
JAYANT PRASAD (India) said India was glad that the response of the President to Algeria had clarified the announcement on the appointment of the Coordinators as being made by the Presidents, and that the role of the Coordinators was different from the Special Coordinators who had had a specific mandate and who were appointed by the Conference and not the Presidents.
MOHAMMED BENJABER ( Morocco) wished to repeat what was raised by Algeria and India on the appointment of the Coordinators. Morocco welcomed the appointment of the Coordinators who were appointed by the Presidents and were a prerogative of the Presidents. The drafting of the second paragraph of the statement by the President had given rise to some misgivings, but now things were clear. The Presidents would have the only contact with the Coordinators.
ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said Iran shared what the others had mentioned about the relationship between the Coordinators and the President and was happy for its clarification.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC07003E