PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT SAYS SOME CAPITALS NEED MORE TIME TO CONSIDER PROPOSAL TO START SUBSTANTIVE WORK
The President of the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden, said today that some capitals needed more time to consider the draft Presidential proposal to restart substantive work in the Conference, and two other documents, and this time should be given.
In the meantime, the President said, the three documents remained on the table. She recalled that last week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations reminded all decision makers of the importance of the opportunity before them. The Conference had come a long way: it had an almost-consensus, but this was not enough. The last hurdles needed to be crossed, and this was what all needed to do together.
Speaking about the three texts, delegations said that they were steps towards a correct direction, which had laid down a good foundation to reach consensus. It had been the norm for the Conference to collectively seek solutions to address the fundamental concerns of its constituents. The spirit of compromise and mutual accommodation should prevail in order to reach, at the end of the day, a solution that would not necessarily be entirely satisfactory, but acceptable to all parties. With a balanced programme of work, the Conference could start its substantive work and play a major role in strengthening the peace and security of the existing international system.
However, several speakers also raised queries and concerns about the status and matter of the complementary document to the Presidential proposal. They said several capitals were still examining the texts, in particular their national security implications, and therefore could not yet pronounce themselves in this regard. Substantive problems needed to be taken care of by a convoluted and inclusive process that could not be resolved by a Presidential statement, no matter how rich this may be. The credibility of the Conference hung by a thread, which would surely be severed by returning to the status quo ante.
Speaking this morning were the Representatives of China, Pakistan, Iran, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Ukraine and Japan.
The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be on Tuesday, 26 June at 10 a.m. The Conference will conclude the second part of its 2007 session on Friday, 29 June.
Statements
ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden), Outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that the Conference had before it three documents: L.1, which was submitted three months ago in conclusion of the work done during the first part of the session; CRP.5, worked out in open-ended Presidential consultations during the second part; and a draft decision establishing the inter-relation between the previous two documents. It was the President’s assessment that these three documents, taken together, constituted a realistic basis for a programme of work. Delegations had worked in a constructive spirit, and important compromises had been made on all sides. The three documents left the door open for all to pursue their respective interests and priorities in the course of the substantive work that would follow. The Conference on Disarmament was now closer than it had been for many years to breaking the decade-long deadlock.
Ms. Borsiin Bonnier said Sweden’s Presidency was coming to a close, and before it did, she wished to establish whether the Conference had reached the point where all delegations were prepared to join the consensus on basing the programme of work on the three documents. She therefore asked whether there was any delegation which was not, at this point in time, in a position to go along with the consensus to begin substantive work on the basis of the three documents taken together.
JINGYE CHENG (China) said the questions the President had raised required some time to study. Over the past few weeks, as the President, Ms. Borsiin Bonnier had made tremendous efforts to bring forward the work of the Conference, and China expressed admiration and gratitude for her contribution, which would remain long in memory. After a serious consultation, she had put forward the three documents. China believed these had been measures towards a correct direction, which had laid down a good foundation to reach consensus on L.1. At the same time, there were still some queries and concerns concerning the status and matter of the complementary document. China believed it would be more reasonable and clear for the complementary statement to be an integral part of L.1., and that the wording of paragraph 3 of the draft complementary statement left room for further improvement. China also shared the remarks made by the Ambassador of Egypt on Tuesday on a treaty on fissile material. China reaffirmed its position to support breaking away from the deadlock. At the same time, there should be substantive work on the agenda items of prevention of an arms race in outer space and others. This would be helpful for the promotion of the international process of disarmament and non-proliferation, and to safeguard international peace and security. China wished to join other parties in further and continued efforts, and by giving play to the spirit of compromise and mutual accommodation in order to reach, at the end of the day, a solution that would not necessarily be entirely satisfactory, but acceptable to all parties.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan appreciated the efforts of the President over the last weeks. As part of these, she had presented a draft Presidential decision, and she had said this could square the circle, and clarify the relationship between the two documents. Pakistan considered that it could further complicate the process of consultations. It was the collective duty of the Conference to address the fundamental anomalies in the Presidential draft decision. The latter did not help to move forward, and Pakistan’s capital was still evaluating and processing these. Pakistan was committed to multilateralism and the revitalisation of the Conference on Disarmament. It had been the norm for the Conference to collectively seek solutions to address the fundamental concerns of its constituents. Without revisiting the text of L.1, solutions had to be found, and these could be found in the text itself. At this point, the capital was examining the three documents together, and the implications for Pakistan in this regard, and thus could not commit itself yet.
ALI REZA MOAIYERI (Iran) said Iran appreciated the efforts undertaken to reach a programme of work, and had clearly expressed on 5 June 2007 that there were problems dealing with L.1, both of procedural and substantive nature. Iran was ready to engage in negotiations for the preparation of a balanced programme of work. The efforts of the President raised a glimmer of hope that in these consultations, concerns raised by delegations would be raised. There were still substantive unanswered questions on the text. With regards to L.1, the Conference was in a situation of take it or leave it. Explanation and clarification on the method of work and the outcomes and future decisions of the Conference were indeed valuable, but it should be borne in mind that the document itself required serious improvement. Substantive problems needed to be taken care of by a convoluted and inclusive process which could not be resolved by a Presidential statement, no matter how rich this may be. The document fell short of addressing priorities thoroughly and comprehensively. Iran had always supported an internationally verifiable and comprehensive document on fissile material. The negotiation process on fissile material should be in the context of the Shannon mandate. Iran believed that with a balanced programme of work, it would start its substantive work and play a major role in strengthening the peace and security of the existing international system.
ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER, President of the Conference on Disarmament, said the situation was clear: some capitals needed more time, and this should be given. In the meantime, the three documents remained on the table. It now remained for the President to express some comments of her own, and she wished to express heartful thanks. Delegations had worked seriously and patiently in what had been a strenuous process. She thanked them for their trust and cooperative spirit, and begged them to keep it up until the common goal was reached: to put the Conference back to work. She also thanked the Director-General for his personal and firm support throughout, and for his wisdom when advice had been sought. Thanks also went to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to all members of the Secretariat. Whatever had been achieved so far was a collective endeavour. She wished to assure the Incoming President of her full support when he took over. The seven coordinators were also thanked, as without their work, near consensus would not have been reached. Unfortunately, they had been kept in waiting during the second part of the session, but throughout this they had been standing ready to begin work immediately on any decision. At every plenary meeting the outside world had eagerly followed attempts from the balcony. The representatives of civil society, who had worked to uphold the link between the Conference and those whom it served, she also thanked for their support. As the delegations needed to continue their quest for consensus in a positive spirit, so did these need to continue to support the Conference in its positive quest. Last week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations reminded all decision makers of the importance of the opportunity before them. The Conference had come a long way: it had an almost-consensus, but this was not enough. The last hurdles needed to be crossed, and this was what all needed to do together.
JOHN STEWART DUNCAN (United Kingdom) expressed sincere appreciation for the President's perseverance in trying to find a consensus to move the Conference forward. The United Kingdom would continue to support that position and remained ready to join a consensus in future. The United Kingdom's longstanding support for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty – which went to the heart of the United Kingdom's responsibilities and commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as a nuclear weapon State – was well known. The United Kingdom once again commended the Six Presidents (P6) for that visionary exercise that had been a key part of the renaissance of the Conference on Disarmament.
There was no one in the room who did not understand the importance of collective agreement on L.1, the United Kingdom observed. However, it was the fruit of a series of compromises, including the institution of the P6, which had enabled the in-depth discussion over the past 18 months. L.1 was not just important for the political issues it addressed, but as a statement by the Members that they wished to retain the Conference as an important and vital part of the international disarmament machinery. The price of indecision would be a high one. They had come a long way in 18 months, and they had all shown a willingness to go the extra mile, and yet the Conference had not been able to translate that into a political reality. L.1's principal aim was to capture the success they had achieved over the past year and to move forward. That was the political decision with which Members were now confronted.
PIETER VON DONKERSGOED (Netherlands) said what was clear from the work over the last weeks was that one of the profound problems faced was the open-ended character of the Conference: it lacked a sense of urgency that could be found in conferences that had an end date. The Conference on Disarmament did not have this, and it led to a situation that there was not enough urgency to proceed. The President’s efforts were very much appreciated, but it had not been said that proposals would be made with regards to the documents on the table, so the Conference on Disarmament could come to a conclusion. There was a procedure at most conferences to do such when the end came in sight. Text proposals on every remaining problem should be put forward, so that a solution could be reached.
DON MACKAY (New Zealand) echoed the appreciation already expressed for the President's work, which had clearly brought the Council very close to consensus. No delegations had absolutely rejected the proposal, but some had merely indicated that they could not join the consensus at this time. New Zealand was confident that the colleagues in capitals would treat this matter with the urgency it was seen here. If they could not move on at this time, it brought up the issue for States of devoting resources to an endeavour without receiving any return. Hopefully they would not be in that situation and Members would hear back from colleagues quite soon as to whether they could accept the proposals, or perhaps with likely solutions to the problem.
In terms of Pakistan's comments, of course there were security implications to L.1. New Zealand regarded it so. There were numerous nuclear weapon States with stocks of fissile material, and some were increasing those stocks. That was anathema in terms of security, in particular New Zealand's national security. From New Zealand's perspective, moving forward on a fissile material treaty, which they saw as a matter of global disarmament, was imperative. New Zealand regarded proceeding with a fissile material treaty as something that would promote nuclear disarmament. Certainly, no State in this body had done more to promote nuclear disarmament than New Zealand. In New Zealand's view, such a treaty would involve verification, it would involve existing stocks, it would involve a number of controversial issues – but until they got down to negotiating such a treaty nothing could happen. The next President of the Conference should keep this issue very much alive. It would be helpful, in that regard, if the three countries that were not able at this time to join the consensus could give the Council a timeframe for responding.
CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said the President had made considerable efforts, and that the Conference had come so close to resolving a decade-old impasse reflected this. The three texts were the result of extensive and painstaking consultations, and represented a fair and just compromise. They should be what all could accept to ensure that the Conference continued to strengthen international security. The Conference had made good progress towards restoring its credibility over the last eighteen months, and had ripened its understanding of a fissile material cut-off treaty to the point that it was ready for negotiation. Australia had heard many States promote the virtues of multilateral arms control, but the persistent inability of fora such as the Conference to reach successful outcomes threatened multilateralism. The credibility of the Conference hung by a thread, which would surely be severed by returning to the status quo ante. States could not remain engaged in a body which failed consistently to achieve even the basic elements of its mandate. Success needed to be ensured this year before Ambassadors were withdrawn. This was a situation which, if not averted, could result in the body existing in name only, and this could not, and should not be allowed to happen.
YEVHEN BERSHEDA (Ukraine) said Ukraine had already carefully reflected on the draft decision presented by the Six Presidents contained in CD/2007/L.1. It might not be perfect, but it represented the best chance for getting the Conference back to work. The complementary presidential statement clarified a number of issues raised by delegations on that draft decision. Ukraine had also welcomed the President's decision to ask delegations to make a decision today. Ukraine shared the President's view that the complementary presidential statement would help to build consensus, and Ukraine supported the package of the three documents: CD/2007/L.1, the complementary presidential statement, and the draft decision linking the two.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said a few points had been made, and these required clarification. Pakistan had clearly stated in the Conference and in bilateral consultations that concerns were of a substantive nature, and these needed to be addressed in the context of L.1 itself. To say that Pakistan had only procedural concerns was not a fair comment. Pakistan wished to present a balanced programme of work, and wished work to commence simultaneously on all four core areas. There should not be substantive discussions but negotiations on nuclear disarmament. There should be amendments to L.1 to ensure that it clearly stated that the mandate on a fissile material treaty should be in accordance with the Shannon Mandate, and that it also take into account stocks. On prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances, negotiations should start with the aim of achieving legally binding international agreements to protect States from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s concerns were not purely procedural, but were also substantive, and it was ready to work with the Conference to find solutions to these concerns, and this could be done if L.1 was revisited.
Ms. Janjua said a reference was made that delegations should not look at narrow national security interests but at global security. Each delegation first had to look at national security interests and then place them in the context of global security interests of everyone. It was difficult to understand that the Conference talked about focusing on narrow national security interests of a few countries, while national security interests of other countries were being well taken care of in security arrangements and nuclear umbrellas.
SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said Japan fully supported the proposal submitted by the President of the Conference on 14 June, and hoped that Members would agree to support that proposal as soon as possible so the Conference on Disarmament could get back to work. Japan was optimistic that that would be possible.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC07031E