CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES DEBATE ON DRAFT DECISION TO APPOINT FOUR COORDINATORS AND START SUBSTANTIVE WORK

The Conference on Disarmament today continued its discussion on the presidential proposal for a draft decision to appoint four Coordinators on four core issues and start substantive work. The Conference decided to postpone action on the proposal until tomorrow.

Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, President of the Conference, responding to some additional queries on draft decision CD/2007/L.1, observed that after the Conference adopted the draft decision, they would be in a position to establish a schedule of activities. After that, the decision, taken together with the schedule of activities, would for all practical purposes constitute a programme of work. In terms of the Rules of Procedure, the Coordinators functions would be comparable to those of a subsidiary body. The President also reiterated that, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the framework would be valid for the duration of the 2007 session of the Conference.

Most speakers today expressed their support for the proposal, noting that although it was a compromise, the proposal was first and foremost a decision about getting the Conference on Disarmament back to work. Venezuela said it would go along with a consensus on L.1, but trusted in the near future negotiations on a multilateral treaty to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would begin. Romania supported the compromise proposal, and hoped that States that were not ready today to adopt it were prepared to take the consequences of their actions: they could no longer complain of a lack of will to reach multilateral decisions. China said that each Member State had its right to evaluate the proposal. Some needed more time, others less. That was only natural. China objected to challenges or doubts that had been raised by some Member States on that issue.

Also speaking this morning were the delegations of Belarus, Ukraine, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Friday, 30 March, at 10 a.m., when a decision is expected to be taken on the draft decision CD/2007/L.1.

Statements

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the Six Presidents (P-6) had striven in an impartial and objective manner to reflect the wish of the collective membership of the Conference on Disarmament to return to work after 10 years of impasse. The momentum generated had resulted in the tabling of the Presidential draft decision contained in document CD/2007/L.1.

In her statement at the plenary meeting on 27 March, the President had made some clarifications with regard to several procedural points that had been raised by some delegations. Since then, additional clarifications had been sought as to whether the draft decision constituted a programme of work and whether the Coordinators would constitute subsidiary bodies. With regard to the first point, after the Conference adopted the draft decision, they would be in a position to establish a schedule of activities. After that, the decision, taken together with the schedule of activities, would for all practical purposes constitute a programme of work. With regard to the second point, paragraph 19 of the Rules of Procedure stipulated that the work of the Conference should be conducted in plenary meetings, as well as under any additional arrangements agreed by the Conference. The appointment of Coordinators was such an arrangement. Their functions would be comparable to those of a subsidiary body. As the P-6 had previously stated, the Rules of Procedure would fully apply to the Coordinators and the meetings they presided over. With regard to the duration of the draft decision, the President reiterated that, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it would be valid for the duration of the 2007 session of the Conference.

The President then called for the formal plenary to close to allow for consultations to determine if Members were ready to take action on the draft decision CD/2007/L.1. When the meeting reopened in plenary, the President announced that delegations wished for extra time and so the draft decision would be considered at a plenary meeting to be held tomorrow, Friday, 30 March, at 10 a.m.

DIEGO IBARRA MARTINEZ (Venezuela) thanked the Six Presidents of 2007 for providing the proposed draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1, which would allow the Conference to get back to work. Venezuela supported the commencement of negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and though the proposal did not fully fulfil those expectations, it was a tangible step forward. The proposal would allow negotiations to begin on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, while discussions were begun on the subjects of nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Venezuela would go along with a consensus on L.1, if such a consensus could be achieved. Nevertheless, Venezuela wished to recall some of its positions of principle. Venezuela did not possess nuclear weapons, and trusted in the near future negotiations on a multilateral treaty to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would begin. Control of conventional weapons and non-proliferation were also issues of high priority for Venezuela. Finally, Venezuela wished to underscore its position that any fissile material treaty had to include a verification mechanism.

DORU-ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania) thanked the Six Presidents for the proposal contained in L.1, and said Romania supported the position expressed by the European Union at the last plenary meeting of the Conference. Romania called for all members to support the proposed draft decision, or at least not to oppose it. Because of the rotating presidency, Romania observed that many delegations had tried before to find a way to break the deadlock in the Conference. Over the past three years significant signs of flexibility had been shown by delegations. The Conference should not reject such signs. Compromise did not mean working on a proposal forever until it was acceptable to everybody – that was to give them the task of Sisyphus, forever rolling the stone up the hill. There was a time when a make-it-or-break it proposal was on the table. That time was now. They should not complain about a lack of political will; there was a very strong political will in all corners of the chamber: whether it was for the proposal or not. While there had been a number of failures in the international disarmament arena, there had also been the positive examples set by the 2006 Convention on Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Convention review conferences. Surely there were lessons to be learned from those events. Romania hoped that States that were not ready today to adopt this decision should be prepared to take the consequences of their actions: they could no longer complain of a lack of will to reach multilateral decisions.

IVAN GRINEVICH (Belarus) stated that Belarus had received clear instructions from its capital to support the proposal contained in CD/2007/L.1.

YEVHEN BERCHEDA (Ukraine) said that the draft presented last week by the Six Presidents might not be the best in Ukraine's view, but it represented the best chance for bringing the Conference on Disarmament back to constructive work. That document was an important step towards arms control, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. They all wanted to have flexibility. Ukraine supported the proposal on the programme of work, and hoped that those who had not yet made a decision would support this effort of the Six Presidents. The proposal would strengthen the work of the Conference.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that of course a decision could be postponed; in fact, they had already done so now until tomorrow. They could make that decision again and again. But would circumstances really be different next week or next month? It was true, the proposal had only be on the table since last Friday, but really they had been working on this document since last January, and even since South Africa held the Presidency of the Conference in 2006. Whatever Members decided, it would be about the same question: were they going to get back to the work they were supposed to do? The Netherlands recalled an observation made by Adlai Stevenson when he had been a UN Ambassador: that all progress had resulted from people who had taken unpopular decisions. No one was giving up anything by adopting this decision: they were all winners. They would thereby be showing the world that they were serious about disarmament. Once this session was over, there was simply nothing left to say.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that taking a decision by the end of this week was proving difficult, but United Kingdom thought they were close. There had certainly been no bullying involved. The United Kingdom very much supported the Six Presidents initiative and the collective will that it had attempted to harness. The United Kingdom hoped that capitals were quite clear, that while the decision covered many items on the disarmament agenda, it was foremost a decision about getting the Conference on Disarmament back to work so that it could shoulder the challenges of the twenty-first century. It was also worth noting that the present text was not much different from the organizational framework that had been agreed upon earlier this year.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said that this was not the moment to speak eloquently. If they wanted to start an eloquence competition this meeting could go on forever. If they wanted quotations from famous politicians or wise men, China could give a lot of those, from philosophers thousands of years old. However, China was not sure that would help solve the Conference's problems. Each Member State had its right to evaluate the proposal. Some needed more time, others less. That was only natural. China objected to challenges or doubts that had been raised by some Member States on that issue.