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

The Conference on Disarmament today heard a statement from Iran on draft decision CD/2007/1, which aims to start substantive work at the Conference, setting out Iran's position. The President of the Conference also made a statement in which she undertook to draft a presidential statement complementary to the Six Presidents (P6) proposal to address clarifications sought and to alleviate concerns raised by delegations on the draft decision.

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.

Iran expressed its desire to end the deadlock in the Conference, but noted that that should be done in a balanced manner. The four core issues identified by the Conference had to be subject to an equal treatment. To that end, Iran requested that L.1 also establish ad hoc committees to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States. Iran also stressed that a fissile material treaty should be internationally and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and non-discriminatory, and should cover past and present stockpiles. Iran stressed that negotiations for such a treaty should be undertaken within the framework of the Shannon mandate. Those issues should also be included in the P6 proposal.

Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden, President of the Conference, agreed with the suggestion voiced at the last plenary that it would be worthwhile to work out a presidential statement complementary to the Six Presidents proposal set out in document CD/2007/L.1, in which clarifications sought could be addressed and concerns alleviated. To that purpose, she outlined a schedule for informal consultations for the coming days. At the next plenary meeting, on Tuesday, 12 June, the results of the consultations would be put before the Conference. If the process had been fruitful, it was hoped that delegations would then also be ready to proceed towards a decision on a programme of work for the remaining weeks of the session.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 12 June, when the Conference will continue its consideration of the P6 proposal L.1.

Statements

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden), President of the Conference on Disarmament, in opening remarks, recalled that on Thursday last week, as she assumed the Presidency, she had pledged to explore whatever possibilities there might be to find a way out of the delicate situation in which the Conference found itself, so as to establish a programme of work for the remaining part of the session which all delegations could live with.

It had been suggested that one way forward might be to work out a presidential statement complementary to the Six Presidents proposal set out in document CD/2007/L.1 in which clarifications sought could be addressed and concerns alleviated. If there was a genuine readiness to begin serious work along the lines proposed in L.1, then a clarifying complementary presidential statement might be very helpful. If, however, the heart of the problem lay in serious political or military reluctance to embark on the kind of work outlined in L.1, then no presidential statement, no matter how cleverly crafted, would take them out of their deadlock. Ms. Borsiin Bonnier, for her part, strongly believed that they should approach the situation in good faith, and that it would be worthwhile to make as serious attempt to address the issues involved through a complementary presidential statement.

To that purpose, Ms. Borsiin Bonnier outlined a schedule for the coming days. Among other things, delegations were invited to informal consultations in which a draft presidential statement would be presented on Thursday, 7 June at 4 p.m. Those consultations would continue on Friday, 8 June at 11 a.m. On Tuesday, 12 June, at the next plenary meeting, the results of the consultations would be put before the Conference. If the process had been fruitful, it was hoped that delegations would then also be ready to proceed towards a decision on a programme of work for the remaining weeks of the session.

ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said that he was talking the floor to present the national position of Iran on the Six Presidents (P6) proposal contained in document CD/2007/L.1. Iran wanted the Conference on Disarmament to end the deadlock and get back to its work in a balanced manner in which the priorities of the Member States were equally taken into account.

However, Iran felt that there were numerous procedural as well as substantive problems regarding document L.1, which should be dealt with in an open and transparent negotiating process. In that regard, Iran appreciated the President's efforts to conduct open-ended informal consultations. Iran expected to focus on the text of L.1 to resolve its problems. Procedural issues, including the mechanism to conduct the tasks of the Conference, needed to be in accordance with the rules of procedure.

The four core issues identified earlier by the Conference had equal value and they had to be subject to an equal treatment. In Iran's view, nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances were the highest priority to be negotiated in the Conference. Given the overall global security environment, the necessity for the Conference to be seriously involved in nuclear disarmament was becoming ever more pressing. Therefore, Iran requested the Conference to establish ad hoc committees to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States.

With regard to a fissile material treaty, that should be an internationally and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and non-discriminatory treaty, which covered past and present stockpiles. Iran stressed that the negotiation process on a possible fissile material treaty should be undertaken within the framework of the Shannon mandate.

Iran wanted the P6 proposal to include the issues it had outlined.