CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ADOPTS ANNUAL REPORT AND DISCUSSES HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON DISARMAMENT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning adopted its annual report to the General Assembly and discussed the upcoming high-level meeting on disarmament that will take place on 24 September in New York on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament and taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations.

At the beginning of this morning’s meeting, Ambassador Anatole Fabien Marie Nkou of Cameroon, President of the Conference, said that the Conference was now in a position to adopt the 2010 report of the Conference on Disarmament. Before the adoption of the annual report, the United States, Syria, Australia, Italy, the Russian Federation and India took the floor to propose minor editorial comments and to inform the Secretariat that they had submitted additional documents to be included in the report.

After the adoption of the annual report, the President said that the Conference was alive and would continue to live. The report they just adopted provided the convincing proof that they had worked and they were very careful about the mandate entrusted to them. Leaving the fact that they had not been able to adopt a programme of work aside, they still had done a lot of work. He said that this was probably the last meeting of the 2010 session, but that he was ready to convene a plenary or an informal if the need arose during the intersessional period. His mandate was not finished yet and he would make his final remarks in January.

In the discussion on the upcoming high-level meeting, Brazil said that it could not discern, throughout the session, a clear political will from the part of the nuclear weapon States. Brazil was not sure that all regional groups had the same desire to change the situation. The refusal to adopt a programme of work and the avoidance of real negotiations on nuclear disarmament were political attitudes.

As the stalemate continued, with no early prospects for negotiations in sight, Canada said that the consensus rule under which the Conference operated might have been appropriate for the Cold War, but it was no longer suited to today’s multi-polar environment in which the old regional blocks had lost their relevance. Canada, as the first President of the Conference in 2011, intended to invest its time and energy into achieving a consensus on a programme of work that included negotiations.

The United States said that they were under no illusion that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would be negotiated rapidly; it would take years. This was why they had to start acting now. The Conference was not the sole disarmament negotiating forum; it was the sole standing one and there was room for other possibilities outside of the Conference.

France said they did not agree with the Brazilian assessment that there was no political will on the part of the five nuclear powers. Starting negotiations on a cut-off treaty had been their permanent and constant political will.

The United States, Australia and France also noted that at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, States parties had adopted an action plan which served as a roadmap and which also looked at the substantive work the Conference should deliver. Australia said that next week in New York, States would have a possibility to support this document. France said that the plan of action adopted there proved that the international community was ready to look at nuclear disarmament in a global and balanced matter.

India said that a substantive programme of work had been adopted in 2009 and the Conference should be encouraged to return to that situation to allow it to start substantive work. India would also welcome a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament. They hoped that all those who wished to strengthen the role of the organization in disarmament matters would join consensus on the convening of such a session.

Pakistan said the Conference on Disarmament had delivered two important instruments after the end of the Cold War. Thus, blaming the Conference as a relic of that period was not correct. Pakistan, as a responsible nuclear weapon State, would continue to deliver so that the Conference on Disarmament could achieve its mandate.

The third and last part of the 2010 session of the Conference on Disarmament will conclude on 24 September, and the first plenary of the Conference’s 2011 session will take place on 24 January 2011.

Statements

ANATOLE FABIEN MARIE NKOU, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Cameroon), expressed his most sincere gratitude for the delegations’ cooperation and flexibility during the consideration of the draft annual report. They were now in a position to adopt the 2010 report of the Conference. After the adoption of the annual report, the President said that the Conference on Disarmament was alive and would continue to live. The report they just adopted provided the convincing proof that they had worked and they were very careful about the mandate entrusted to them. Leaving the fact that they had not been able to adopt a programme of work aside, they still had done a lot of work. However, the work was not finished. It was important for all to continue working on the wording of the draft resolution of the General Assembly on the report of the Conference on Disarmament.

LUIZ FELIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that a number of colleagues had repeatedly voiced complaints about the inactivity of the Conference. Blame was bestowed on the institution itself or on the rules that governed it. They even heard comments about Geneva not being a propitious location. It was of course especially comfortable to be able to attribute the responsibility to one Member State. At this point in time it was necessary for him to say that he could not discern, throughout the session, a clear political will from the part of the nuclear weapon States. He was not sure that all regional groups had the same desire to change the situation.

Having assured one of this year’s six presidencies and having consulted one by one all delegations and having met all regional groups, he had a clear picture. He thought that the Conference functioned as a political body. The simple fact that, since the beginning of the year, they had negotiated on different possibilities for a programme of work was in itself evidence of the political significance of the Conference. That came from the political pre-eminence of the matter itself. The refusal to adopt a programme of work and the avoidance of real negotiations on nuclear disarmament were political attitudes. The same could be said on the other actions to find a way forward. All institutions could be reformed and many delegations were ready to go back to a special session of the General Assembly in order to examine the matter. Others preferred to keep lamenting the status quo and the, so they said, waste of time and money. Time was certainly relevant when they dealt with highly political issues albeit it might be of extended duration. As for money, he doubted that States judged multilateral structures in terms of cash flow. Brazil was prepared to continue the search for a safer and more democratic international system in the Conference.

MARIUS GRINUS (Canada) said that Canada believed that the high-level meeting was a timely opportunity to discuss the multilateral disarmament machinery and particularly the Conference on Disarmament. For Canada it was deeply regrettable that, since 1998, the Conference had not undertaken disarmament negotiations, which was its sole mandate. The First General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament had acknowledged that the Conference was intended to be accountable to the larger global community, and not just to itself. Since 1998 they had failed the peoples of the world. As the stalemate continued, with no early prospects for negotiations in sight, Canada found it increasingly untenable that 65 States took upon themselves the job of multilateral disarmament negations, given the failure of this group to fulfil its mandate. In particular, it was of concern that the Conference was becoming an obstacle, and not a vehicle, to such negotiations.

The consensus rule under which the Conference operated might have been appropriate for the Cold War, but it was no longer suited to today’s multi-polar environment in which the old regional blocks had lost their relevance. The use of the consensus rule in the Conference had increasingly drifted far away from its original intent of serving as an ultimate guarantor of a State’s security. The consensus rule was now abused by a handful of States in order to block this body from starting its work. It was now an open question whether a body of 65 States could ever operate under the strict interpretation of consensus, if it was applied not only to substantive but also to procedural matters. Canada would be the first President of the Conference in 2011 and they intended to invest their time and energy into achieving a consensus on a programme of work that included negotiations. They should also not lose the opportunity of the high-level meeting, which should be a significant opportunity to re-think their approach to, and their understanding of, the multilateral disarmament paradigm, said Mr. Grinus. If the paralysis continued next year they would have achieved the dubious distinction of matching the length of the Conference’s previous spell of inaction between its re-launch in 1979 to the conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1992. Worse still, they could not even point to an equivalent to the substantive Chemical Weapons Convention negotiations. This regrettable prospect was yet another clarion call for action to end this forum’s stagnation. Thus, Canada was among those States that would like to see the outcome of, and follow up to the high-level meeting recommending and including a deadline for the Conference.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said that, concerning the high-level meeting, the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference had called on the Conference on Disarmament to adopt a programme of work. But as of today, the Conference has been unable to agree on such a programme. The United States was willing to engage on the full range of issues. They were also under no illusion that a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would be negotiated rapidly; it would take years. This was why they had to start acting now. The Conference also was not the sole disarmament negotiating forum; it was the sole standing one and there was room for other possibilities outside of the Conference. The Government had showed enthusiasm for such outside groups, but it still believed that the Conference on Disarmament ought to be able to tackle this work. Patience was running out for many States, inducing her own.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) said that Australia had already expressed their strong support for the high-level meeting in previous statements. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, States parties had adopted an action plan which served as a roadmap which also looked at the substantive work the Conference should deliver. Next week in New York, they would have a possibility to support the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference’s recommendations with regard to the Conference on Disarmament.

ERIC DANON (France) said that France understood that there was a growing sense of impatience. If the system continued to be blocked, one would have to draw conclusions. Some events however had proven to be positive this year such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The plan of action adopted there proved that the international community was ready to look at nuclear disarmament in a global and balanced matter. The five nuclear powers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty intended to implement this roadmap on nuclear disarmament in a rapid fashion.

He however did not agree with the Brazilian assessment that there was no political will on the part of the five nuclear powers. Starting negotiations on a cut-off treaty had been their permanent and constant political will. This meant that it could start at once and Mr. Danon expressed the hope that it would happen at the Conference. He also hoped that this negotiation would occur with all members of the Conference. The future would show if this would happen in the Conference or elsewhere, however the Conference would remain. He also noted that the rules of the Conference were rules they would also reproduce in another forum. On the high-level meeting, France fully supported the Secretary-General’s initiative. They felt that they were currently in a transitional phase where all multilateral bodies had started work but where only the Conference on Disarmament was still blocked. The Conference no longer reflected the current state of the world; it reflected its blockages and not its dynamics.

ALI RAO (India) said that India welcomed the opportunity presented by the high-level meeting to discuss ways and means to revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament. India believed that the objective was to demonstrate political support for the wider disarmament machinery and the Conference on Disarmament. The Chair’s summary should relate to existing forums in terms of follow-up. India had always attached the highest importance to nuclear disarmament and was ready to engage in negotiations on a nuclear disarmament convention. With regard to the work of the Conference on Disarmament, a substantive programme of work had been adopted in 2009 and the Conference should be encouraged to return to that situation to allow it to start substantive work. India would also welcome a Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament. In the meantime they could discuss the United Nations disarmament machinery in the General Assembly’s First Committee. They hoped that all those who wished to strengthen the role of the organization in disarmament matters would join consensus on the convening of a Fourth Special Session. Also, the objective of the high-level meeting should be to refocus political will, not to discuss its rules of procedure.

AFTAB KHOKHER (Pakistan) said that Brazil had presented a very apt diagnosis along with solutions. The Ambassador of India had also indicated that there was nothing wrong in the Conference and with the rules. Further, the Conference on Disarmament had delivered two important instruments after the end of the Cold War. Thus, blaming the Conference as a relic of that period was not correct. Pakistan, as a responsible nuclear weapon State, would continue to deliver so that the Conference on Disarmament could achieve its mandate. Deadlocks happened in all multilateral fora, as it happened in the Biological Weapons Convention 10 years ago, and this framework was now back on track. The Conference on Disarmament would also be revived when there was international political consensus and the only way forward was to be patient. On the high-level meeting, Pakistan had expressed its views in a previous statement. The presence of the President of Cameroon at the high-level meeting was also very much welcome and Pakistan wished that this presence be reflected as that of the President of Cameroon and not that of the President of the Conference on Disarmament,

ANATOLE FABIEN MARIE NKOU, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (Cameroon), in concluding remarks, said that this might have been the last plenary of this year’s session but that he was ready to convene a plenary or an informal if the need arose during the intersessional period. The Presidency would also stay in contact with delegations for the drafting of the resolution of the General Assembly on the report of the Conference on Disarmament. His mandate was not finished yet and he would make his final remarks in January.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC10/041E