CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES SECOND PART OF 2009 SESSION, DURING WHICH IT AGREED ON A PROGRAMME OF WORK

The Conference on Disarmament this morning concluded the second part of its 2009 session, during which it was able to break its 12-year deadlock and adopt a programme of work. This morning the Conference heard from representatives of Germany, the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Colombia, Ireland, Turkey, Iran, China, Egypt and Mexico, who continued to discuss two draft decisions – on the appointment of chairs and special coordinators and on a schedule of activities – aimed at implementing the work programme. It also heard an intervention from Kelvin Thomson, an Australian Parliamentarian, who spoke about the work of the Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the disarmament area.

In a farewell speech, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany made some personal remarks regarding the way forward on negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). He disagreed that they would first need to discuss the underlying definitions and agree on them, which he believed would be a guarantee of failure. There was a triangular relationship between definitions, scope and the possibility of effective verification; they had to be treated in parallel and had to be finely tuned to each other throughout the negotiations. Moreover, if the verification task were entrusted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it would require a dramatic overhaul of that body. A gradual increase in IAEA inspection capacity would be possible with the acceptance of IAEA verification of fuel cycle plants in nuclear weapon States on a voluntary basis, as a part of a steady phase-in. That would at the same time alleviate one of the unequal features of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the fact that non-nuclear States had to submit all their fuel cycle activities to safeguards while nuclear weapon States so far had no such obligations.

In the ensuing debate, States took positions on the two draft decisions before the Conference. Many felt that it was necessary to “keep up momentum” so they could begin substantive work as early as possible. A couple of speakers expressed their delegation’s disappointment that, one month after the adoption of the programme of work, the Conference was not “up and running” and even felt that the “atmosphere of frustration and inertia” which they had just dispelled by the adoption of the programme of work had resurfaced again.

Other States, however, were of the view that clarifications were still needed on some aspects of the two draft documents. In particular, it had been suggested that the special security interests of the non-nuclear weapon States that did not belong to a military alliance or enjoy a security umbrella deserved special consideration – even in procedural matters – so that they were better placed to protect their interests.

China crystallized the debate by providing the metaphor of building a high-rise building, noting that they all shared the objective of building the high rise, but that some delegations, like China, insisted that they needed to build a very solid foundation for it. China also felt it was not right to criticize those who wished to take more time as if they were trying to block the work of the Conference and lose the "good momentum". The questions that had remained unresolved were important ones, such as the length of mandates of the chairs, how the rotations would work, where the rolling text would come from and how meetings would be arranged. After a month there had still not been any discussion on these substantive details. Many of the speakers who preached against haste, however, like Iran, indicated their belief that, through the consultations with the President in the intersessional period, they would be able to agree on a modality of work and begin negotiations at the upcoming session.

At the end of the meeting, it was also decided to invite Thailand to participate in the Conference's 2009 session as an observer.

Draft decision CD/1867 on the implementation of CD/1864 (the adopted programme of work) is a proposed list of names for the appointment of chairs of the four working groups and the three special coordinators.

Draft document CD/1866/Rev.1 is a proposed schedule of activities for the meetings of the Conference on Disarmament the four working groups and the three special coordinatorships from 29 June to 18 September 2009.

The Conference on Disarmament will hold the third part of its 2009 session from 3 August to 18 September.

Statements

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference, bid farewell to Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany. Ambassador Brasack had worked effectively in the fields of multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation, always displaying great competence, human qualities and much wisdom, leaving them an example to follow in successfully completing their work. On behalf of the Conference and on her own behalf, she expressed best wishes for his success and happiness in his new functions

BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany), in a farewell statement, said he fully shared the view expressed by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in "In Larger Freedom", that success through multilateralism was not always guaranteed, but that "States have no reasonable alternative to working together, even if collaboration means taking the priorities of your partners seriously to ensure that they will take seriously your own in return". In applying those principles they had come at last to an important turning point on 29 May 2009: the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. Yet there was no room for complacency – the expectations of the international community towards the Conference on Disarmament had clearly risen. Also, a programme of work was not yet action, but the promise of action. They could not afford to get into "sleepwalking mode" again. In spite of the adoption of the programme of work, it was obvious that differing perceptions and priorities persisted. Remaining barriers of mistrust and possible hidden agendas and maybe even secret reservations would have to be brought to light and broken through, on a daily basis, as soon as negotiations and substantial discussions on all issues started. It was not only the mandatory task of the Conference to negotiate, it was also its mandatory duty to do so – and that in an effective manner with meaningful and lasting outcomes in the shortest possible period of time – Mr. Brasack underscored.

Mr. Brasack wished to make a few forward-looking, very personal remarks as regarded negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which he stressed he had not put forward to his capital for agreement. He had heard the view put forward that once the FMCT negotiations started, they would first need to discuss the underlying definitions and agree on them. That alone might take more than a year. He believed that such a view was wrong and would be a guarantee of failure or at least endless delay. Definitions were a servant to the intended scope [of the treaty]. They should enable, and facilitate, verification, and not prevent verification or make verification less feasible, more cumbersome, technically more difficult or too expensive. There was a triangular relationship between definitions, scope and the possibility of effective verification, and accordingly they had to be treated in parallel and had to be finely tuned to each other throughout the negotiations. If the verification task were entrusted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – and no other option seemed feasible or affordable – that would require a dramatic overhaul of that body, in particular as regarded the inspection system and inspection resources. A gradual increase in IAEA inspection capacity would be possible with the acceptance of IAEA verification of fuel cycle plants in nuclear weapon States on a voluntary basis, as a part of a steady phase-in. That would at the same time alleviate one of the unequal features of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the fact that non-nuclear States had to submit all their fuel cycle activities to safeguards while nuclear weapon States so far had no such obligations. In his view, the setting up of a Group of Scientific and Safeguards Experts with practical experience in the implementation of IAEA safeguards, as regarded the technical as well as the legal aspects, was now an immediate requirement, and Germany had made such proposals on many occasions over the past two years. Finally, he warned that without an immediate binding moratorium on any further production of fissile material for explosive purposes, a premium would be put on complicating matters unnecessarily and delaying the FMCT negotiations.

GAROLD LARSON (United States) began by noting that many in and outside of the Council Chamber had observed a new spirit and a new optimism in the arms control realm, and even that this year might be in fact the beginning of a renaissance of disarmament and non-proliferation progress. The United States felt that renewed sense of mission acutely. The Administration had already begun numerous efforts which were widely seen as aiding that process, stated most categorically perhaps, by President Obama in April when he stated America's "commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons". The United States was pursuing that goal via a number of tracks, including negotiations with the Russian Federation to draft a follow-on treaty to the START treaty of 1991, and to secure ratification [by Congress] of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Internally, the Administration had begun a number of intensive "blank slate" reviews of its defence and security policies.

In the Conference on Disarmament, the United States was encouraged by the sense that the United States' renewed flexibility had contributed significantly to the adoption of a programme of work, and its charge to the Conference to begin negotiations on a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The achievement of the 29 May consensus owed much to the collective hard work, flexibility, innovation and commitment to advancing international security demonstrated by the delegations in the Conference. The United States recognized that, as the work programme moved forward, delegations had to be confident that there would be full opportunity to exercise their national security obligations under the rules of procedure. At the same time, it was confident that those rules did provide the necessary protections throughout the process of deliberations. With that assurance in mind, the United States joined the many delegations that had called for rapid agreement on draft texts CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 in order to meet their common goals and obligations.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) noted that the Conference on Disarmament could not function in isolation from the global environment since they worked on the basis of equal security for all. The positive developments that the world was witnessing had helped to resolve the stalemate in the Conference. After 10 long years, the Conference had adopted a programme of work that envisaged working groups on four core issues – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, outer space and a fissile material treaty. All four were equally important and progress in the form of legally binding instruments was the way forward. The Conference could not afford to ignore any of them, as they reflected a delicate balance of interests among the Member States. They also had to proceed with due diligence and foresight, so as to avoid any unforeseen pitfalls. Pakistan, therefore, believed in a cautious and calculated, yet constructive and proactive approach. They had to prepare for their future work, not for the next few days or weeks, but for the months and years ahead.

The next step was to decide on the chairs of the working groups and special coordinators and to finalize the calendar of activities for the remaining part of the 2009 session. In that regard, a number of delegations, including Pakistan, had made proposals and sought clarifications on some aspects of the two draft documents before the Conference. Among them was the suggestion that the special security interests of the non-nuclear weapon States that did not belong to a military alliance or enjoy a security umbrella deserved special consideration – even in procedural matters – so that they were better placed to protect their interests. Pakistan encouraged the President of the Conference to preserve with consultations towards a consensus on those issues and was ready to constructively engage in the process.

FIONA PATERSON (United Kingdom) thanked the 2009 Six Presidents (P6) Platform, and in particular Ambassador Jazairy [of Algeria], for tremendous efforts which had brought the Conference to a point in time where they could resume their rightful role, that of negotiating badly needed arms control and disarmament treaties to ensure global security. The United Kingdom was fully committed to implement the historic commitment undertaken on 29 May this year, the programme of work. The achievement reached this year had been done through collective hard work, flexibility and innovation. It was the United Kingdom's hope that – while respecting colleague’s sensitivities – they would be in a position to meet and talk in working group format when they returned for the third part of the 2009 session.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) expressed the full support of the Republic of Korea to move the work of the Conference forward. With the adoption of decision CD/1864 (containing a programme of work) amidst thunderous applause in this Chamber, many expected that the Conference would immediately begin its substantive work of negotiation after its decade-long stalemate. However, a month had passed now and, much to everyone’s disappointment, the atmosphere of frustration and inertia which they had just dispelled from the room had resurfaced again. The beginning of substantive work was being delayed by procedural matters, such as the appointment of chairmen of working groups and special coordinators, as well as the schedule of activities. Given the future implications that basic structures of negotiation and discussions might have on their future work, the way that they set up the framework of their work could not be overemphasized. In that regard, he saw some logic behind the words directed by some delegations to documents CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 and believed that they ought to be duly taken care of in one way or another.

It would be ideal if they could address these concerns before taking up substantive work. Indeed, it was true that documents CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 contained some ambiguities. However, here it was most realistic and inevitable to maintain “constructive ambiguity” for some time to come. Moreover, once they began their work, there would be ample space and time to have more constructive discussions on those concerns within each working group and special coordinators’ session. As far as document CD/1867 was concerned, on the list of chairs and special coordinators, the Republic of Korea had no reservations at all. However, the Republic of Korea wished to share its understanding with other members that nothing in the rules of procedure would preclude any member of the Conference from serving as a chairs or special coordinators of subsidiary bodies, as long as they were chosen by consensus. The Republic of Korea supported the adoption of documents CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 and asked others to show flexibility once again, as they did a month ago, so that they could keep up momentum and they could begin substantive work as early as possible.

DANIEL ÁVILA CAMACHO (Colombia) acknowledged the important work of Ambassador Brasack, whose contributions and ideas had helped the Conference on Disarmament in its work. Colombia also expressed its support to the Conference President and reiterated its firm endorsement of the documents introduced in the present session (CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867).

JAMES O'SHEA (Ireland) noted that it was over a month since the Conference had adopted its programme of work. Like the Republic of Korea, Ireland had to express some disappointment. It would have hoped that by this stage – the end of the second part of the 2009 session – the Conference would have established working groups and special coordinatorships up and running.

Mr. O’Shea wished to address the statement of Pakistan “that the special security interests of non-nuclear weapon States that do not belong to a military alliance or enjoy a security umbrella deserve special consideration, even in procedural matters, so that they are better placed to protect their interests”. Ireland was one such State. In procedural matters, as Ireland saw it, all States Members of the Conference should be on an equal basis. Also, if that remark was intended to refer to the issue of the positions of Western Group chairs and special coordinators, Ireland saw the roles of the occupants of such positions as being to work in the interests of the Conference as a whole and not to “protect their interests”.

VEHBI ESGEL ETENSEL (Turkey) said, with regard to the decision taken by the Conference on 29 May, that Turkey, like others, hoped that they would be able to implement the decisions made. Turkey fully supported the two documents (CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867) and hoped that consensus could be reached as soon as possible.

HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran) said the Conference had a golden opportunity under the Australian Presidency to reach an important agreement on the modality to implement the Conference's programme of work. They should use all means ability to do that, or they would face a serious setback in their work. Iran was quite optimistic that they would be able to realize that goal under Australia’s presidency. Time was short and they needed to move fast. However, they also needed to be vigilant and quite wise in outlining the steps for a smooth and possible decision on implementing the programme of work. Such a decision required a common understanding on the key elements of the modality envisaged for the implementation of the programme of work, in particular with regard to the fair allocation of time to the ad hoc groups and the special coordinators. The timetables for the their meetings had already been worked out through the consultations. They were therefore only one short step from a final decision for the Conference’s programme of work to be implemented.

Immediately following the adoption of the programme of work, some questions had been raised on the future modality of the Conference to implement that programme. Those were relevant questions that needed responses. Ignoring them was not conducive to a smooth and speedy conclusion of their work. At this stage, they needed to be flexible and creative. Iran was confident that, through the consultations with the President in coming days, Iran would be in a position to agree on a modality of work and begin negotiations at the upcoming session.

LI YANG (China) noted that the statements by many delegations, especially those by Pakistan and Iran, contained a number of points that merited study. First, the Conference on Disarmament could not avoid the major concerns presented by delegations, which required substantial discussions with a view to finding a solution. Also noted was that the Pakistan delegation had brought up certain national security concerns. That was Pakistan's right. They had to try and resolve that concern, or it would be hard to imagine how the Conference would make progress.

Turning to China's position, the Ambassador reverted to the metaphor of building a high-rise building. They were at the point of laying the foundation. They all shared the objective of building the high-rise, but the difference was that China insisted that they needed to build a very solid foundation for it, a position which was shared by several delegations. However, others believed that the high-rise could be begun with little or no foundation. It was clear which position was more logical. They had to adopt a step-by-step approach. Certain delegations were in a hurry. China, back in 1958 was in a hurry. It started the Great Leap Forward, and it had suffered. Some delegations were of the view that they should spend more time for necessary procedure and frameworks for starting their work, but they were beginning criticized as if they were trying to block the work of the Conference and lose the "good momentum". However, who should really be blamed? After a month, they still did not know the length of mandates of the chairs would be, how the rotations would work, where the rolling text would come from and how meetings would be arranged. After a month there had still not been any discussion on these substantive details. Some, including Ambassador Moritan, were not interested in those questions. There was a Chinese saying, cover your ears when you want to steal a bell. Just because they were covering their ears, did not mean that the bells were not sounding. China was not only concerned about work for the 2009 session. In fact, China had no major difficulties with either of the two documents in question. What it was concerned about was the issues that would affect their future work. While the two documents might be able to resolve the issues of 2009, they could not resolve problems beyond that. Today was 2 July, perhaps only 10 members shared China's view, but China believed that by the next part of the Conference, 30 would share its viewpoint, and by 2010 perhaps all would.

OBAIDA EL DANDARAWY (Egypt) said that, like other Non-Aligned Movement countries, Egypt placed special important on comprehensive nuclear disarmament. The valid security concerns of all parties needed to be adequately addressed to ensure that consensus was achieved, which was a prerequisite for the conference's moving forward.

MABEL GÓMEZ-OLIVER (Mexico) commended Ambassador Brasack for his contribution to the Conference on Disarmament and his comments today related to a possible FMCT. Mexico hoped for the speedy adoption of documents CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867. Given that there seemed to be no fundamental objections to those documents, it was hoped that they could be adopted now and work begun on implementation of the programme of work. They needed to take advantage of the current impetus to do so. Mexico believed that by doing so they would demonstrate their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons.

KELVIN THOMSON, Member of Parliament of Australia, said that he and his colleagues here today were members of the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the, which had been asked by the Prime Minister to carry out an inquiry on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and provide a report. Their mission was similar to that of the Conference, and they would certainly take back to Australia the significance, importance and relevance of the Conference. The report was due in a month or so. In terms of what they had seen, there was a need to get real outcomes for the upcoming NPT Review Conference, to implement a number of measures, in particular the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, to strengthen IAEA safeguards and to elaborate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, among others. It was also clear that they lived in a time of significant and rising threats, but also of emerging opportunities. There was a new optimism in disarmament sphere. Evidence also suggested that there was a great hunger, at least on the part of Australians but probably in other countries as well, to make the world safe from the threat of nuclear weapons and it was hoped that their work and that of the Conference would ensure that outcome.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President of the Conference, said she had been consulting many delegations on the draft decisions CD/1866/Rev.1, on the draft schedule of activities, and on CD/1867, on the appointment of the chairs and special coordinators. It was clear that there remained a few issues of concern to some delegations that would need to be addressed before they could be put those decisions for adoption. Those concerns would be very seriously addressed and considered. Also acknowledged was that many delegations had serious security concerns. Finally, she recalled that all decisions by the Conference had to be adopted by consensus and therefore flexibility by everyone was needed if they were to find a way through.

In the interim period before the third part of the 2009 session she would undertake intensive consultations with delegations to that end. The Conference on Disarmament had adopted a programme of work on 29 May after years. They had yet to implement that decision. Their leaders and their governments were watching and waiting for them to implement that decision. They should not disappoint them.


For use of information media; not an official record

DC09035E