CHINA CLARIFIES POSITION ON DRAFT DECISION TO START SUBSTANTIVE WORK IN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament today heard China clarify its position on a presidential draft decision aimed at starting substantive work in the Conference, and then listened to Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, Cuba, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, Egypt and the Netherlands reiterate their position on the proposal and comment further on it.

Presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1 calls for the appointment of four coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on the issues of nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances; and to preside over negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Ambassador Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka, outgoing President of the Conference, noted that the presidential draft decision had been on the table since 23 March. She said the Six Presidents of the Conference continued to have confidence in L.1 and believed that it could allow the Conference to start its substantive work. Many delegations had made enormous efforts and showed flexibility, and it was only fair to note that such efforts should be reciprocated.

China, presenting its views on the proposal, said in order to make it more balanced and acceptable to all parties, there was still room for improvement. On the work mechanism, China wanted ad hoc committees to be set up separately to start work on the core issues instead of the proposed coordinators. On the prevention of an arms race in outer space, China hoped that the mandate could spell out the possibility of negotiating a new instrument. On negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), General Assembly resolutions and final documents of the Review Conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty all carried express provisions on negotiations on this topic, and it was the view of the Chinese delegation that the negotiating mandate in proposal L.1 should be in accordance with these provisions and consistent with them.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, called on the Six Presidents of the Conference to continue their efforts and hoped that they would continue in a transparent way to consult on L.1 in a multilateral framework as this was the appropriate and acceptable fashion to work. Iran underlined that views expressed by members of the Conference on procedural and substantive issues on the proposal should be carefully taken into account in order to result in a balanced programme of work and to cover the concerns of all the members. Cuba also appealed for all views to be taken into account and hoped delegations would have the possibility to express views in an open fashion in order to reach a compromise. Pakistan noted that there was a need to deal with the anomalies both on substance and procedure. Egypt also stated that all efforts had to be made so that all comments by all delegations could be taken into consideration.

Nigeria said the Conference should not try to look for the least common denominator, nor should some bask in victory while the others surrendered. It was for the collective good that the Conference build up an international security architecture. The Six Presidents proposal was a good start for breathing life into the Conference. Canada, meanwhile, said the real emphasis had to be put on getting started and procedure should not stand in the way of substance. Substantive work should be the priority. The great concern should be, as the clock ticked away, would they just talk, or would they actually work on the core issues. The Netherlands said that there was a real danger that this year in the Conference would turn out to be much worse than previous years, which was very regrettable. It had looked for a while like the Conference was going upwards, but now it seemed that it was going backwards.

In final remarks, the President of the Conference assured all delegations that comprehensive consultations with all were available to the Conference and had been fully availed of by the President. She said there was now a need to redouble efforts to persuade and convince those who were not convinced to get the Conference back to work. She hoped this could be achieved.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 31 May under the presidency of Sweden.

Statements

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), Outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the presidential draft decision CD/2007/L.1 had been on the table since 23 March. Since then, a majority of Member States of the Conference on Disarmament had continued to express support for the proposal. However, some delegations had requested more time for consultations with their capitals. During the presidency of Sri Lanka, she had taken due note of the concerns and problems expressed about procedural points. Every effort was being made to engage these delegations. However, she wished to underline that it was now more than eight weeks since the proposal had been presented, and the Conference still had 12 more weeks to undertake substantial work this session. The Six Presidents of the Conference continued to have confidence in L.1 and believed that it could allow the Conference to start its substantive work. Many delegations had made enormous efforts and showed flexibility, and it was only fair to note that such efforts should be reciprocated. She asked delegations who had requested more time for consultations if they had anything to tell the Conference now.

CHENG JINGYE (China) said during the course of the past few months, the President had made unremitting efforts to move forward the work of the Conference, and China appreciated this. The Presidency of the Conference had tabled a presidential draft decision in L.1 and China attached great importance to the proposal and had studied it carefully. Now, China wished to present its views on the proposal. On the whole, the Six Presidents proposal suggested simultaneous work on the four core items in the Conference, and in that sense, it bore some resemblance to China’s position and it could be the basis for work in the Conference. However, China had some concerns and had raised many questions which the President had clarified. China was grateful, but the clarifications had not fully met China’s concerns. In order to make this proposal more balanced and acceptable to all parties, there was still room for improvement.

Concerning the work mechanism, the work was supposed to be under the responsibility of coordinators. However, the coordinator mechanism was too informal and it would not ensure effective and substantive work on the items. In the past, substantive work had been carried out by ad hoc committees and there was no precedent of coordinators in the Conference. China saw no convincing reason why the Conference should not follow past practice. China wanted ad hoc committees to be set up separately to start work on the core issues.

On the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the position of China was known and this issue was of top priority to China. China had called for the drafting of a new international legal system under a treaty on the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space. As a sign of flexibility, China could agree to start a substantive dialogue, but in order to avoid it becoming rhetorical, China hoped that the mandate could spell out the possibility of negotiating a new instrument.

On negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), China had always supported negotiations on an FMCT and its position remained unchanged. General Assembly resolutions and final documents of the Review Conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995 and 2000 all carried express provisions on negotiations on an FMCT. It was the view of the Chinese delegation that the negotiating mandate in the proposal L.1 should be in accordance with these provisions and consistent with them.

As for the nature of the Six Presidents, some ground rules must be set up. The rules of procedure of the Conference must be followed so that the work was followed in an orderly fashion. The rules of procedure said there should be a programme of work adopted at every annual session, including a meeting calendar or timetable. If the Six Presidents proposal was further amended and made acceptable, it would then constitute a programme of work. China noted the President’s explanations on this matter. China also hoped that the validity period of the Six Presidents proposal was spelt out in an appropriate way. China wanted to see an end to the stalemate in the Conference. It wanted the proposal to take up the concerns of all the delegations, and in that way, an early agreement on the Six Presidents proposal would be good. China hoped that the above mentioned points would be reflected in the proposal and hoped that this would revitalize the Conference.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group attached great importance to the Conference on Disarmament in its capacity as the single multilateral negotiating forum in the field of disarmament. The Arab Group considered it to be the appropriate forum to reach negotiated solutions acceptable to everyone in order to help them face the difficult challenges facing the international community, especially those which were the result of the continued existence of massive arsenals of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear proliferation. Therefore, the Arab Group voiced deep concern in view of the continued impasse experienced by the Conference. The draft proposal L.1 was a very positive foundation that could allow the Conference to discharge its responsibilities. The Arab Group greatly valued the efforts made by the Presidents of the Conference since the start of the 2007 session, and the Arab Group would not spare any efforts in order to overcome the obstacles and to bring closer view points so that a balanced programme of work which was acceptable to everyone was reached. The Arab Group called on the Six Presidents of the Conference to continue their efforts and hoped that they would continue in a transparent way to consult on L.1 in a multilateral framework as this was the appropriate and acceptable fashion to work.

ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said Iran had carefully listened to the statement of China. As Iran had expressed earlier, there were serious comments and questions on the procedural aspects as well as the substantive aspects of L.1 The views expressed by members of the Conference in this regard should be carefully taken into account in order to result in a balanced programme of work and to cover the concerns of all the members. The four core issues identified by the Conference were equally important and equal treatment should be applied to them.

ABEL LA ROSA DOMINIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba had listened carefully to the statements made this morning and once again wished to reiterate its position in this forum. The Conference was closer than ever before to resuming its work, and Cuba considered the document submitted by the Six Presidents to be a good basis for beginning substantive work. Cuba also reiterated its feeling that there were varying views that called for open exchanges of views in which delegations which had doubts and concerns should have an opportunity to clarify them. Cuba appealed for those views to be taken into account and hoped these delegations would have the possibility to express views in an open fashion in order to reach a compromise.

MARTIN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said Nigeria supported the Six Presidents proposal presented in document CD/2007/L.1. Like every human effort, it was neither perfect, nor irredeemably imperfect. For Nigeria, the proposal represented a way forward for the Conference to get back to work. Some said it lacked balance and equal importance should be given to the four items. Fair enough. Not one single delegation had said it was fully convinced. This was because there had to be something for everyone to take home in a proposal. The Conference should not try to look for the least common denominator, nor should some bask in victory while the others surrendered. It was for the collective good that the Conference build up an international security architecture. Nigeria encouraged all delegations not to see themselves only as national delegations but also as partners in building a global effort and urged them to look carefully at the proposal, so as not to throw away the baby with the bath water. When one could not get all that one desired, one made good with what was available, as long as it was not harmful. It was still possible to restore confidence in the Conference by getting it to start serious work. The Six Presidents proposal was a good start for breathing life into the Conference.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said she wanted to take this opportunity to thank the President for her efforts to revitalize the work of the Conference. Last week, in its statement, Pakistan had raised a number of issues and had identified different problems on substance and procedure. There was a need to deal with these anomalies both on substance and procedure. Pakistan supported the statement made by the Arab Group, particularly with regard to the request for discussions in a multilateral and transparent fashion so that all delegations could take a closer look at the proposal and ensure that it was acceptable to everyone and the Conference could then move forward in a consensual manner. Some of the points mentioned by China were also mentioned by Pakistan last week. Pakistan looked forward to more discussions on the text of the proposal.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said Canada felt it was useful having the additional input from the speeches this morning, particularly that from China, and believed that this warranted some discussion. In the spirit of trying to move the Conference to a result which reflected the collective good, Canada had a few thoughts to share and maybe a dialogue could follow. On the procedural issues raised, Canada recognized that in the past, ad hoc committees had been used as a vehicle. At the same time, there was an inherent flexibility in the rules of procedure of the Conference, and if it thought of another vehicle to get work started, everyone had an interest in that. Any arrangements had to be renewed next January anyway. Maybe the Conference should reflect on that. The real emphasis had to be put on getting started and procedure should not stand in the way of substance. Substantive work should be the priority.

Concerning the prevention of an arms race in outer space, Canada was commenting not just as an uninterested observer, and it took some objection to the statement that the discussions on questions relating to this issue would be unfocused and open to rhetoric. Canada hoped that China did not find the six weeks of discussions of prevention of an arms race in outer space, that Canada presided over, either lacking in focus nor that it had felt that they were just an engagement in rhetoric. Canada believed that there had been an important convergence on a number of axis, one of course which was on a treaty on prevention of an arms race in outer space which was dear to China and others. Canada wished to assure China that any further work on this issue would indeed have a focus and a practical orientation.

Finally, concerning a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, China had mentioned other decisions and provisions relating to an FMCT, and Canada was aware of them. However, the crucial priority was to initiate negotiations and then they would be able to work through every real issue raised by such a prospect. Was the Conference best served by arguing on what would be the perfect auspices under which it would begin its work, or was it better served with just beginning the work and seeing what kind of product they might be able to produce. There was nothing in L.1 that would inhibit a comprehensive input in negotiations on this treaty. The great concern should be, as the clock ticked away, would they just talk, or would they actually work on these core issues.

SAMEH SHUKRY (Egypt) said Egypt associated itself with the statement made by Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group. Document CD/2007/L.1 was a positive development that could constitute a good foundation to allow the Conference to discharge its responsibilities and work. Egypt had already expressed a number of points of interest and concern relating to L.1. All efforts had to be made so that all comments by all delegations could be taken into consideration. Underlining the positive position of Egypt towards this initiative and the fact that the greatest flexibility must be shown, Egypt had responded to the President’s request and had provided specific details. Egypt hoped that this would allow the Conference to discharge its work.

DANIEL PRINS (Netherlands) said half a year had now passed in the search for a new compromise and it had been an intensive period. Today, the Conference had heard speakers say that the L.1 proposal had not fully met all their concerns. If delegations still thought that all the concerns of any person could be fully met, that would be a surprising analysis. Nigeria had already stated that non one’s concerns could be fully met. It was alarming that after half a year of work, including a lot of bilateral work, there was still the idea that a compromise lay somewhere else. It did not. L.1 was in the middle. There was a real danger that this year in the Conference would turn out to be much worse than previous years, which was very regrettable. It had looked for a while like the Conference was going upwards, but now it seemed that it was going backwards.


SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), Outgoing President of the Conference, said she wished to assure all delegations that comprehensive consultations with all were available to the Conference and had been fully availed of by the President. As Sri Lanka entered its final week as President of the Conference, her own tenure in Geneva was also coming to a close, and she wished to make some farewell remarks. In her time at the Conference, culminating in being President, she had been able to see firsthand the tensions that lay in the body between those who wanted to move forward and those who by their instructions were forced to move more cautiously. They had all experienced the same optimism when L.1 was presented as a balanced effort. There was now a need to redouble efforts to persuade and convince those who were not convinced to get the Conference back to work. She hoped this could be achieved.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC07022E