CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM ARGENTINA ON BEHALF OF SEVEN COUNTRIES, MEXICO AND SWITZERLAND AS INCOMING PRESIDENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from the incoming President, Ambassador Jurg Streuli of Switzerland; Argentina on behalf of seven other countries in support of the proposal of the Six Presidents, and appealing for negotiations to start on a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile materials for explosive devices; and a farewell statement by the Ambassador of Mexico.

Ambassador Jurg Streuli of Switzerland, incoming President of the Conference, said since 1998, the year of the previous Swiss Presidency, the Conference had not been able to agree on a format for beginning negotiations on any new international instrument in the field of arms control and disarmament; this was without doubt its primary task. However, since 2005, work within the Conference had developed progressively. A decision, early in the third part of the 2007 session, was a realistic goal for the Conference, given the concerns that had been expressed by some and the time needed to address them. This was a situation where the rationalities of the individual members could become the collective irrationality of the whole. It was the duty of the Conference, the duty of all present, to overcome this delicate situation as soon as possible, and to reconfirm the legitimacy of the body.

Argentina, speaking also on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, said current threats in international security required immediate action from all States of the international community. Several challenges in disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in recent years showed the need for efforts to fully implement and strengthen the current regime. Nuclear disarmament was a priority for countries. A positive sign would be the prompt initiation of negotiations towards a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. Multilateralism was an effective tool in order to pursue the need for disarmament and create a safer world for all.

Ambassador Pablo Macedo of Mexico said that despite progress, the Conference had not been able to fulfil its main function: to negotiate. It should not deceive itself. The combined efforts of the latest Presidents and others had culminated in the proposals submitted some weeks and months back. Mexico had thought that a programme of work would at last be adopted, and the Conference would at last get down to substantive work, that he would leave behind a Conference that was revitalized, but that was not to be. There were still legitimate concerns from some delegates as to the form and substance of the proposals. All should show flexibility, so that progress could be made.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 28 June at 10 a.m., when the President will present the Presidential report on the second part of the 2007 session of the Conference, which will reflect the work done under the Presidents during that part.

Statements

JURG STREULI (Switzerland), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in an opening statement, said this was the second time since 1998 that Switzerland had assumed the Presidency, and the first time that it did so as a member of the United Nations. This underlined the semi-autonomous nature of the Conference, and the political will of Switzerland to play a greater and more active role in the field of international security policy, in particular in the field of arms control and disarmament. Since the end of the Cold War, Switzerland’s policy on security had been characterised by a desire to assume its share of responsibility through participating more actively in efforts to support a global policy on security - a policy which was based on cooperation at both the regional and global levels, and which had the aim of reducing the risks of armed conflict and human suffering.

Since 1998, the year of the previous Swiss Presidency, the Conference had not been able to agree on a format for beginning negotiations on any new international instrument in the field of arms control and disarmament; this was without doubt its primary task. However, since 2005, work within the Conference had developed progressively: focused and structured debates on the so-called four core issues, the emergence of the P6, the continuation of the P6 architecture under an organisational framework that paved the way for two rounds of structured debate on all items of the agenda in the first part of the 2007 session. Most importantly, through creative approaches and, after formal and informal consultations in a variety of formats, there were now three documents before the Conference.

The three documents, taken together, were a realistic basis for a programme of work, and the way forward left the door open for delegations to pursue their national interests and priorities during the phase following the adoption of the draft decision. It was clear that some capitals needed more time to study these documents, which remained on the table. A decision, early in the third part of the 2007 session, was a realistic goal for the Conference, given the concerns that had been expressed by some and the time needed to address them. This was a situation where the rationalities of the individual members could become the collective irrationality of the whole. It was the duty of the Conference, the duty of all present, to overcome this delicate situation as soon as possible, and to reconfirm the legitimacy of the body.

Mr. Streuli also paid tribute to the work of the Ambassador of Mexico, Pablo Macedo, who was leaving Geneva, and who had played a crucial role during his Presidency in 2004 to bring the Conference back to substantive work. He wished the Ambassador success and happiness for the future.

ALBERTO DUMONT (Argentina), speaking also on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, said current threats in international security required immediate action from all States of the international community. Several challenges in disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in recent years showed the need for efforts to fully implement and strengthen the current regime. The United Nations was the proper framework for this, and Argentina expressed the need for prompt action to initiate substantive negotiations.

The statement expressed full support for the proposal of the six presidents of the Conference presented in Document CD/2007/L. 1 and the complementary Presidential statement. This document was based on multiple and transparent consultation and translated the compromises accepted by members of the Conference on Disarmament into a programme of work. The call for flexibility was reiterated. Nuclear disarmament was a priority for countries. A positive sign would be the prompt initiation of negotiations towards a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. Its scope should give treatment to the issue of fissile material stockpiles and compliance verification provisions. The obstacles the Conference faced could be overcome if the political will existed. The Conference was empowered to create subsidiary
bodies in order to accomplish the tasks it was undertaking. Procedural matters had been used to prevent progress on substantive issues. It was hoped the Conference on Disarmament would not fall victim to this but rather offer a response that would favour progress on disarmament. Multilateralism was an effective tool in order to pursue the need for disarmament and create a safer world for all.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), in a farewell statement, said he was sincerely grateful for the very kind words addressed to him and on his work in the Conference. He congratulated Mr. Streuli for assuming the Presidency. He also expressed appreciation to the President’s predecessors. When, at the beginning of 2002 he had arrived in Geneva, the Conference on Disarmament seemed to be stuck, and after a number of years of frustrating lack of work, it was not clear that it could move forward. However, in five years it had moved from paralysis to great activity, with dialogue initiated, and a number of proposals examined with the aim of coming up with a programme of work. The worrying immobility had been broken, and the dialogue initiated in 2004 had done away with certain misunderstandings.

However, agitation should not be confused with activity. Despite progress, the Conference had not been able to fulfil its main function: to negotiate. It should not deceive itself. The combined efforts of the latest Presidents and others had culminated in the proposals submitted some weeks and months back. Mr. Macedo had felt that a Programme of Work would at last be adopted, and the Conference would at last get down to substantive work. He had believed that he would leave behind a revitalised Conference, but that was not to be. There were still legitimate concerns from some delegates as to the form and substance of the proposals. All should show flexibility, so that progress could be made. Substantial issues should be dealt with as they came up - work should begin. He would follow the work, or the agitation, of the Conference closely from Mexico.