CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DEBATES DRAFT DECISION TO APPOINT FOUR COORDINATORS ON CORE ISSUES

The Conference on Disarmament today discussed a presidential proposal for a draft decision under which the Conference would appoint three Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances, and a fourth Coordinator to preside over negotiations on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, the President of the Conference, said the presidential proposal for the draft decision called for appointment of Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The draft decision also called for the appointment of Ambassador Wegger Strømmen of Norway as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; the appointment of Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to an arms race in outer space; and the appointment of Ambassador Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos of Brazil as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Commenting on the draft decision, speakers stressed the importance for the Conference to end its stalemate and start substantive work. A number of speakers said that they accepted the decision. Others said there had to be further discussion of the draft, including consultations on it with their capitals.

Speaking during the meeting were the United States, Egypt, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, Russian Federation, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Italy, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Chile, Cuba, Algeria, Germany, Argentina, Nigeria, Turkey, Ireland, Japan, China and Mexico.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 27 March, at 10 a.m., when it will continue to discuss the draft decision.

Presidential Proposal

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that during the informal plenary, she had summarized the work done during the first part of the session on the basis of information gathered by the Presidents, the Coordinators, and the delegations. It contained an assessment of those activities during the first part of the 2007 session, and a presidential proposal for a draft decision, which had been drafted following extensive discussions with members.

Introducing the draft decision (CD/2007/L.1), the President said it called for appointment of Ambassador Wegger Strømmen of Norway as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussion on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; appointment of Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; appointment of Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to an Arms Race in Outer Space; appointment of Ambassador Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos of Brazil as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the threat or use of nuclear weapons; and requested all the Coordinators to present a report to the Conference on the progress of their work before the conclusion of the second part of the current session

The President recalled that, should the draft decision on the appointment of four Coordinators for specific issues be adopted, the Coordinators previously appointed by the 2007 would continue their work, as appropriate, during the second part of the current session.

Statements

CHRISTINA ROCCA (United States) praised the Six Presidents (P6) initiative, which now had given them the opportunity to break out of the morass that had plagued the work of the Conference. The United States also praised the work of the Presidents themselves. The proposal required compromise from all of them, but allowed them to return to their work: the negotiation of multilateral disarmament agreements. The United States would have preferred a clear-cut decision to begin negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty without reference to any other issues. The United States had repeatedly voiced its concern about linkage of issues, and in that respect the proposal before them was similar to the Five Ambassador's proposal which the United States opposed. The United States would, however, not oppose the proposal before them today. The Conference on Disarmament had come to the brink of irrelevance, and opposing the P6 proposal for procedural reasons would not serve the Conference.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) commended the efforts of the Six Presidents (P6) to work to revitalize the work in the Conference. Egypt took note of the proposal and would give it every consideration, both here and in its capital. It was to be hoped that enough time would be given to members to consult. The proposal was one that needed further deliberation within the Conference; it was not one that was to be considered on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. It was an ongoing endeavour, and Egypt would contribute to the deliberations on it.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) also thanked the Six Presidents for their proposed draft decision L.1. The proposal might be a compromise but it offered a great deal – both in terms of substance, with the call for a commencement of negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and in offering the Conference on Disarmament a way out of the stalemate it had been in for such a long time. Australia supported the draft decision.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that this was a momentous time for the Conference on Disarmament. The United Kingdom had made it clear on a number of occasions that it attached considerable importance to getting the Conference back to work. The United Kingdom therefore supported the Six Presidents (P6) proposal, which would get the Conference back to substantive work after a decade.

The United Kingdom recalled that when it was first founded, the purpose of the Conference had been to get "militarily significant" States to engage with other members of the international community on matters of disarmament. Draft decision L.1 dealt with matters of top priority for the United Kingdom – to begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Other delegations, however, had raised other issues of concern to them, and so the draft decision had included the beginning of substantive discussions on a number other issues. As a "militarily significant state" the United Kingdom had the obligation to undertake negotiations on matters that were not of interest to them, but of interest to other States. The United Kingdom therefore supported the draft decision. The Conference was on the brink of a historic decision. However, the window of opportunity was a small one, and the time to act was now

JAYANT PRASAD (India) welcomed the unveiling of the proposed draft decision of the Six Presidents (P6), which it would refer to its capital for consideration. In its general approach, the proposal took on all the core issues before the Conference, and in that spirit was similar to proposals which India supported. The inclusion of the four core issues in the Conference's future work showed the care taken to take into account the concerns of all. However, India drew attention to the fact that not all four core issues were treated the same in the proposal. Here, India reiterated its commitment to a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable treaty on fissile material. Parameters should be defined before negotiations on such a treaty were commenced. India had a multilateral vocation, and was ready to contribute to a consensus, should the Conference decide to establish appropriate parameters and a framework for working.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) thanked the Six Presidents (P6) for their proposal on the organization of the work for the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 contained in document CD/2007/L.1. The Russian Federation was not fully satisfied with the proposal, but would not object to adoption of that proposal by consensus.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said that Brazil had always given its full support to the structured and informal debate of the Six Presidents (P6) process. From Brazil's perspective the full engagement of all delegations during the informal discussions indicated the will to get back to real negotiations. Brazil supported draft decision L.1 and encouraged all Members to reflect on the important moment they were living now and the need for them to start their work in the Conference on Disarmament.

DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia) appreciated draft decision L.1 as a possible solution to the stalemate in the Conference, which had had such an influence on them. Colombia maintained its flexibility on the negotiation of a fissile material treaty, as well as on the other issues in the draft decision. Colombia was referring the document to its capital for consideration, but could say now that they were finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

DIEGO BELEVÁN (Peru) said, in line with Peru's earlier statements, Peru fully endorsed the work of the Six Presidents of 2007 and the consultations undertaken, which had been faithfully reflected in draft decision in CD/2007/L.1. Peru supported the proposal. The proposal was reasonable and Peru hoped that a decision to adopt it could be taken as soon as possible so that they could get down to work. What was required now was political will.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said Italy anticipated acceptance of the Presidential draft decision as it stood, as it represented the best possible chance to bring the Conference on Disarmament back to its original mandate.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan sought the opportunity to adopt a programme of work that allowed for consensus. Each of the four core issues had a specific history and background. Previous decisions had maintained the need to strike a balance between all four issues, and Pakistan hoped that that balance would be maintained. The Presidential draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 reflected ingenuity and demanded a great deal of flexibility from all concerned. Pakistan would refer the proposal to its capital for further instructions. However, it was important to state that national security interests of Member States should be fully taken into account in all the work of the Conference.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said the Netherlands had said before that more light was needed in this historic hall to enlighten the Conference. He had insisted on the imperative need for new ways of thinking and working. Those new ways of thinking had begun under the Presidency of Poland in 2006, and the launching of the Six Presidents initiative. The balanced and extremely delicate package before them now was the end of that road. No respectable international body could stand 10 years of discussion without any tangible results. The time for decision was now or never. The Netherlands commended the extraordinary efforts undertaken to draft the proposal, and approved the results, taking into account the exceptionally conscientious way it had been brought about and the balanced composition of the 19 countries that stood behind it.

The Netherlands appreciated the procedural concerns voiced by India. However, it should be remembered that in negotiations nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. That was the basic international rule of diplomacy. That should provide sufficient assurances when there were fears of surprises or arbitrariness.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) offered Chile's full support for the work of the President. They could not continue to afford the luxury of wasting significant resources. The Conference had to get going. Chile supported in a firm and categorical manner the balanced, intelligent proposal contained in document CD/2007/L.1. That proposal was made on the basis of numerous consultations in both formal and informal meetings. They should not waste the opportunity that had been built up with so much effort before them now.
RESFEL PINO ÁLVAREZ (Cuba) said that the proposal before them would allow the Conference to return to its mandate of negotiation of substantive matters. The delegation of Cuba would send the proposal back to its capital for consideration. Knowing the position of the Government, there were other issues that Cuba would have liked to have been incorporated in the draft decision, but Cuba would give the proposal every consideration.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) took note of the proposal and would transmit it to Algeria's capital, where it would be treated with all the consideration it deserved. The proposal reflected the four core issues before the Conference, and so was in line with the Five Ambassadors proposal, which was a point in its favour.

With regard to procedural matters, Algeria noted that the procedures provided for in the proposal were open-ended; the mandate holders were not limited to this session, as required by the rules of procedure of the Conference. It should be indicated that the Coordinator or ad hoc committee involved was only designated for the session under way. With regard to substance, the wording on the paragraph on nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances was a bit weak and should be strengthened. On negative security assurances, it might be better to come closer to the language that had already been accepted by everyone. On nuclear disarmament, Algeria had some proposals that it would like to discuss with the President. Algeria, too, wished to get back to substantive work.

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany), said that the initiative of the Six Presidents (P6) established in 2006 had been taken up to another level, fostering the hope that the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament could be finally broken, and substantive work begun. The proposal before them was honest, balanced, comprehensive, fair and mature. But it was also a compromise. Germany did not see any viable alternative. Therefore it agreed with the United Kingdom that they were on the brink of a historic decision, and also that the window of opportunity was narrow. They needed to move quickly to adopt this decision.

MARCELO VALLE FONROUGE (Argentina) said that Argentina would support a consensus decision on draft decision L.1. Argentina had no objections whatsoever to the text, which would allow the Conference to begin substantive negotiations on the basis of the proposal.

ANGBARA AWANEN (Nigeria) said that Nigeria joined previous speakers in expressing appreciation for the Six President (P6) efforts to move the Conference on Disarmament forward. Nigeria welcomed the draft proposal before the Council. Nigeria would study the proposal carefully with a view to making the Conference work for all of them.

AHMET ÜZÜMCÜ (Turkey) said the presidential draft decision would be conveyed to the Turkish capital for a decision. As a preliminary analysis, it appeared to be the best possible compromise and opportunity to break the deadlock. Turkey was encouraged by the positive atmosphere in the Conference today and hoped that they would be able to move forward.

PAUL KAVANAUGH (Ireland) reiterated Ireland's former statements commending the Six Presidents (P6). Ireland recognized that the proposal before the Conference represented the best chance for a collective compromise solution. The P6 had promoted equity, compromise and collective work. Procedural excuses should no longer be a mask for substantive differences. Ireland supported the proposal of the P6 of 2007 and looked forward to a qualitatively different second session.

SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said Japan commended the valuable efforts of the Six Presidents to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work after years of impasse. The proposal was balanced and reflected concerns of Member States collectively and respectfully. Japan hoped that all the Members of the Conference would be flexible enough to support this proposal.

CHENG JINGYE (China) thanked the Six Presidents for their work to get the Conference back to work. China would relay the proposal to its capital, where it was sure it would receive full and careful attention. At the same time, China wished to associate itself with the comments made by Algeria. This was not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and all Members had the right to propose amendments and make comments, as they saw fit.

CLAUDIA GARCÍA (Mexico) thanked the Six Presidents of 2007 for the proposal before the Conference today, which would enable them to get back to work. Mexico supported the proposal.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC07017E