CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which it held a general debate on the way forward in the work of the Conference.

In his first address as president of the Conference on Disarmament, Wang Qun, said that in preparation for China’s presidency he had had nearly 40 bilateral consultations with various parties in the Conference and it was his general impression that on one hand, relevant parties were still apart on issues and it was difficult to break the current impasse, while on the other hand, all parties had demonstrated greater political will and more constructive attitudes this year. China would work to fulfil its responsibility and mandate as Conference president based on the following principles: giving fair and equal weight to the concerns of all countries and treating all core agenda items in a balanced way; safeguarding the Conference’s authority and its democratic tradition and rule of law in accordance with the Rules of Procedure; ensuring an open, transparent process based on the collective efforts of all Conference on Disarmament Member States; and seeking common ground while reserving differences so as to identify consensus while maintaining momentum.

During the general discussion speakers congratulated Mr. Wang on his assumption of the presidency of the Conference and many delegations expressed their sympathies and condolences for the people and government of Japan.

It was noted that in the Conference on Disarmament they sometimes lost track of what was going on in the outside world, meaning the General Assembly. The General Assembly was not satisfied with the work of the Conference and it had told the Conference it wanted them to start work, but they had not done so. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was an intrinsic step on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons. In order to get to that point they needed three things: a commitment to disarm, an agreement to stop testing, and a stop to the production of the raw material to make nuclear weapons. The litmus test for the General Assembly would be whether the Conference had done what they considered to be meaningful work; too often they got into the minutiae of rules and regulations and they needed to ask themselves how what they were doing contributed to meaningful work.

Conference members spent a great deal of time discussing the indicative timetable that Mr. Wang had proposed for his presidency. Some delegations said they needed more time to review the timetable, while other speakers said that at first glance it seemed to cover ground that they had already covered under the first two presidencies this year so perhaps they should reconsider how their time and energy was allotted to agenda items. Other speakers expressed concern that the number of meetings on the timetable would be an inconvenience to some delegations and that by returning to informal meetings they were taking a step back. Several delegations expressed a preference for holding their discussions in formal plenary meetings rather than informal meetings.

In response, Mr. Wang said that he had developed two indicative timetables, both based on practices established under previous presidencies and he hoped one of the two would be agreeable to the delegations. Many delegations had expressed concern that they had not been consulted in the drafting of the proposed timetables, and Mr. Wang said that it was physically impossible to meet with every delegation and that was why he had consulted with the regional coordinators and the other five Conference presidents.

Speaking this morning were Senegal, Sri Lanka, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Morocco, Nigeria, Italy, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, Bangladesh, France, Pakistan, the United States, Chile and Mexico.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 24 March 2011 when the Conference will discuss agenda items 1 and 2, the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters, and the programme of work.


Statements

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), in his first statement as President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that in preparation for China’s presidency he had had nearly 40 bilateral consultations with various parties in the Conference and it was his general impression that on one hand, relevant parties were still apart on issues and it was difficult to break the current impasse, while on the other hand, all parties had demonstrated greater political will with more constructive attitudes this year. The Conference on Disarmament had started off on very good footing with structured and orderly work under the previous two presidents and Mr. Wang said he had learned a lot from the excellent job they had done. As one of the permanent members of the Security Council and one of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons States and as a major developing country, China felt honoured to assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. They were also keenly aware of the historical responsibility on their shoulders. He assured the members of China’s readiness to fully cooperate with all parties in a concerted effort to move the Conference on Disarmament into substantive work as soon as possible to promote the multilateral disarmament process.

Mr. Wang went on to say that China would work to fulfil its responsibility and mandate as Conference president based on the following principles: giving fair and equal weight to the concerns of all countries and treating all core agenda items in a balanced way; safeguarding the Conference’s authority and its democratic tradition and rule of law in accordance with the Rules of Procedure; ensuring an open, transparent process based on the collective efforts of all Conference on Disarmament Member States; and seeking common ground while reserving differences so as to identify consensus while maintaining momentum.

In terms of a work plan, Mr. Wang said that he envisaged three plenary meetings devoted to the programme of work in order to explore their maximum common denominators. In the meantime, he envisaged continued substantive discussions on the various agenda items as well as exchanges of views on the following additional issues: new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; transparency in armaments; expansion of Conference on Disarmament membership; and participation of civil society in the work of the Conference. To ensure the quality of discussions, China would maintain close communication and consultations with as many members as possible and it also looked forward to more intense exchanges with Observer States as China valued their important role and contributions in advancing the multilateral disarmament process. China also attached importance to the role of civil society and would conduct dialogue and communications on relevant issues with representatives of civil society and relevant media.

In conclusion, Mr. Wang said that the momentum disarmament currently enjoyed was not easy to come by so they should all treasure it. He urged all parties to join hands and channel their efforts into reactivating the substantive work of the Conference on all fronts in promotion of advancing international arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.

FODE SECK, (Senegal), congratulated Mr. Wang on China’s assumption of the presidency of the Conference and also expressed his thanks to the two previous presidents. He assured Mr. Wang of Senegal’s continued and full support for the work of the Conference and any initiatives that would be undertaken to break the impasse that had blocked their work for so long. Mr. Seck also expressed Senegal’s condolences for the people and government of Japan for the terrible natural disasters that had battered the country. There was no inevitability in the stalemate that had lasted for more than a decade. This phenomenon of marking time stemmed from a clear lack of political will and transparency to the detriment of everyone. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged them to find a way out of the impasse and Senegal urged delegations to step up their efforts to find a consensus on a programme of work. The non-paper submitted by the previous president, Mr. Oyarce of Chile, represented a good starting point for these efforts. Mr. Seck called on nuclear weapons States and producers to show more transparency in the production and sale of weapons. It would be useful if these States could take part in negotiations on a treaty on the arms trade. Senegal was committed to such a treaty as well as the conclusion of an instrument that would take the place of simple unilateral declarations for the non-use of nuclear weapons, regional disarmament, the strengthening of nuclear weapons free zones and zones of peaceful cooperation, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Senegal reiterated the appeal for convening a special session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament in the hope that all relevant stakeholders would manage to breathe new life into all the bodies dealing with disarmament and he welcomed more involvement from civil society in the work of the Conference.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE, (Sri Lanka), congratulated Mr. Wang on China’s assumption of the presidency and said that Sri Lanka strongly supported the leading role played by China, together with the Russian Federation, in negotiating a draft treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space. Sri Lanka welcomed this initiative as a basis toward adopting an international binding instrument. Sri Lanka had taken a keen interest in achieving this objective and in this context Egypt and Sri Lanka had alternately been submitting to the General Assembly a resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Sri Lanka continued to be concerned about the existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use or threat of use, as it posed a menace to humanity, and therefore it joined the collective voice for the elimination of nuclear weapons in national arsenals. Pending this achievement, Sri Lanka was of the view that there was an urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Sri Lanka encouraged nuclear weapons States to reduce nuclear danger through the de-alerting of nuclear weapons and diminishing the operational readiness of weapons systems. Sri Lanka stood ready to work within the framework of the Conference toward achieving this objective as it was their joint commitment and responsibility to their peoples. Sri Lanka also fully supported Mr. Wang’s proposals to hold informal meetings of the Conference on its agenda with appointed coordinators. Constructive dialogue on the core issues would enable them to better arrive at a common understanding towards the adoption of a programme of work. Only through confidence building and equal respect for the security of all Member States would they be able to achieve the much needed consensus towards this end.

SO SE PYONG, (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), congratulated Mr. Wang on China’s assumption of the presidency and thanked him for his intervention and said he was sure the way forward that Mr. Qun had laid out would do a great deal to help revitalize the work of the Conference on Disarmament and Mr. So wished him all the best and reiterated the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s willingness and commitment to the work of the Conference.

OMAR HILALE, (Morocco), expressed Morocco’s sincerest condolences and sympathies for the people of Japan. He then congratulated Mr. Wang on his assumption of the presidency of the Conference as well as the two previous presidents for their work. Morocco had advocated a balanced and progressive approach in the Conference on Disarmament to all four agenda items and they supported Mr. Wang’s approach to a programme of work. They looked forward to more engagement with Observer States and Morocco was flexible on the format of the interactions with civil society. He reaffirmed Morocco’s resolve to make a constructive contribution to the work of the Conference and the adoption of the programme of work.

KAYODE LARO, (Nigeria), congratulated Mr. Wang on his assumption of the presidency. Nigeria believed in and encouraged all positive efforts to move the Conference on Disarmament out of its deadlock and believed the Rules of Procedure were the basis for carrying out the work of the Conference. Efforts should be made to consult all delegations as they were all important. There should not be a preference in consultations and based on the rule of consensus all delegations should be treated equally. He then conveyed Nigeria’s deepest condolences for the country of Japan.

Turning to housekeeping issues, WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that he had handed out a paper, document CD/WP.565, with an indicative timetable for China’s presidency and he proceeded to provide more information on this timetable. Through his consultations he had determined that all parties wanted to see the Conference on Disarmament get back to substantive work and on the basis of these views he suggested that in addition to the plenary meetings they should hold informal meetings on the four core agenda items. His ideas on informal meetings were virtually the same as those reflected in the working document of the Belgian president last year (CD/WP.560). Based on the concept of consensus and the good practices of the Conference he had invited the ambassadors of Bangladesh, Brazil and Belarus to be the coordinators to facilitate discussions on nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and agenda items 5 to 7 respectively. After consultations on how to schedule the informal meetings on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, they had decided it would be held during the third week of the Chinese presidency. They had not decided on a coordinator for this agenda item and they were still in consultations on this item so they would announce this coordinator at a later date, as well as the name of the coordinator for negative security assurances. What needed to be stressed was that the indicative timetable was proposed without prejudice to rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure, which assured the right of any Member State to raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference during plenary meetings.

GIOVANNI MANFREDI, (Italy), said that they had received the tentative timetable only last night and Italy had a few concerns regarding the distribution of time among the various items and would like time to think about it before approving the tentative timetable. If they approved it today it would be a bit premature.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), said Japan was committed to working closely with Mr. Wang and supporting his presidency. In terms of the indicative timetable, Mr. Suda asked why the agenda would be discussed in informal meetings as he felt they had already progressed under the Canadian and Chilean presidencies to discussing it in formal meetings and he felt it was a bit regressive to go back to informal meetings. He also expressed concern about the number of meetings in the coming weeks, and while his delegation was wiling to attend all meetings, they would need time to look over the schedule and think about it.

HELLMUT HOFFMAN, (Germany), said that they had received the indicative timetable after 6 p.m. last night and they would have preferred to have a bit more time to consult about it informally and to consult with their own authorities on it. There was no question they had to deal with programme of work under any presidency and it was only natural that they dealt with items on the agenda of the Conference, but the question was how to do this in practical terms as far as allotting time to various subjects. They had gone through the core agenda items twice this year and they needed to reflect a little more on how to allot time and intensity to various agenda items.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), responding to the issues raised, Mr. Wang asked how much time delegations would like to review the indicative timetable and Italy and Germany said that they needed a few days to consult with their capitals and their partners in regional groups within the Conference. Mr. Wang said that his indicative timetable was not novel and had been done before, namely under the Belgian presidency and the very purpose was to avoid confusion and to build consensus. It was merely a piece of paper that enabled them to work forward.

JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), congratulated Mr. Wang on his assumption of the presidency. He said that perhaps he had been in the Conference on Disarmament for too long as he felt they sometimes lost track of what was going on in the outside world outside of these splendidly painted walls. From the United Kingdom’s perspective, they welcomed Mr. Qun’s proposal, which was useful. The outside world was not satisfied with the work of the Conference and by the outside world he meant the General Assembly. The General Assembly had told them it wanted them to start work and they had not done that. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty was an intrinsic part on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons and it required three things: they needed a commitment to disarm, an agreement to stop testing, and a stop to the production of the raw material used to make nuclear weapons. It was disappointing that some of the most vociferous proponents of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty refused to join them in informal meetings outside of the Conference on Disarmament. They all knew these events were going on so they should be adult about it and participate. The litmus test was whether the General Assembly would consider that meaningful work had been; too often they got into the minutiae of rules and regulations so they needed to ask themselves how what they did would contribute to meaningful work.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said he took note of all the observations and welcomed the views expressed on the timetable. He had conducted almost 40 bilateral consultations and he would have liked to have conducted more, but he was human and it was physically impossible to talk to every single delegation. He had also consulted with members through the mechanism of the regional coordinators and the P-6 and he would remain as open and transparent as possible and open to Members’ guidance and views. He circulated this paper so that there would be no surprises and delegations would be aware of what he had in mind.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), said the Group of 21 had met hurriedly this morning and had agreed to express flexibility for the programme that Mr. Wang had proposed, but they expressed a preference for things to be discussed in formal plenary meetings so they preferred to have deliberations held in these sessions. Perhaps they should apply the ancient Chinese proverb Mr. Qun had used last week of more haste, less speed and allow delegations more time to consult the timetable and get back to him with their views. As the speaker from the United Kingdom pointed out, there were events that were happening in parallel to the Conference and this needed to be taken into account as well.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that it was true he had invoked the ancient Chinese proverb that said more haste less speed, but he had also quoted Chairman Mao who said seize every hour, seize ever day.

MARIO MIRANDA DUARTE, (Portugal), welcomed the initial remarks of the president in which he said that he would devote more time to the question of enlargement of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament and Portugal looked forward to this discussion very much.

OGUZ DEMIRLAP, (Turkey), said Turkey wanted to be consulted in all matters and without consultations they could not join consensus on any issues.

AKIO SUDA, (Japan), asked whether it was better to go back to informal meetings or to continue with formal meetings and Japan’s other concern was that the number of meetings outlined on the indicative timetable might pose an inconvenience to some delegations.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), in response to the issues raised, said that it was virtually physically impossible to consult every delegation, especially concerning something that was based on established practice. He apologized if they had not had the chance to consult with every delegation, but that was why he had asked the regional coordinators to consult with their members. He said the secretariat was handing out an alternative formula for their consideration, which contained an alternative indicative timetable, document CD/WP.566, that was based on the practice established by the previous presidencies and he hoped that it would be agreeable to delegations so he asked them to review the document and then they could discuss this option at more length.

HELLMUT HOFFMANN, (Germany), said that there was nothing that said that every single presidency had to go over every agenda item during its four week tenure. He reiterated his previously expressed desire that the six presidents coordinate their presidencies so that they could better allocate their time for the discussion of various agenda items. In terms of having more plenary meetings each week, there had always been a gentlemen’s agreement that they would have two meetings per week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Mr. Hoffmann suggested that the delegations be given until Thursday to look over the indicative timetables, consult with their capitals and then revisit the issue on Thursday morning.

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said that both indicative timetables he had presented were based on established practices, but he was open and flexible in terms of the approach they took. In terms of having more meetings per week, it was the same exact timetable that was used during the Chilean presidency so he was not sure why there were misgivings about this. In terms of procedure, he had asked the regional coordinators to explain to the delegations that there would be two options in case the first indicative timetable was not suitable. He stood ready to be as accommodating as possible.

Mr. Qun then turned to the programme of work and said a programme had been reached in 2009 in the form of document CD/1864, but more needed to be done so they could get down to substantive work. New proposals had been put forward, such as a simplified programme of work or a programme of work without mandates. These proposals had provided useful lines of thinking to explore a programme of work. Mr. Qun envisaged three plenary meetings devoted to the programme of work. During the first meeting, he would focus on the non-starters, elements that were impossible. In the second meeting he wanted to focus on the indispensable elements of a programme of work and he would use the third meeting to sum up the status of their discussions and the positions of various parties. Through the discussion, they would be able to have a clearer picture of the situation and circumvent the minefields to reach a programme of work.

MOHAMED ABDUL HANNAN, (Bangladesh), said Mr. Qun had hit the ground running and this augured well for his stewardship of the Conference. In terms of tackling the non-starters, this was indeed a provocative yet stimulating question. Bangladesh understood the programme of work must be based on consensus and enjoy the support of all delegations, with a balance between all four core issues. They underscored the need to build on informal discussions and they strongly believed the Conference was the appropriate forum for such discussions as all nuclear weapons States were members. They saw the merit of continuing discussions in both formal and informal settings, but they needed to channel this into substantive work in the form of negotiations.

JOHN DUNCAN, (United Kingdom), said he didn’t quite understand the idea of looking at non-starters and must haves, which could indeed be provocative and risky in multilateral discussions. There was the risk this wouldn’t take them very far at all and he was sure this wasn’t what Mr. Qun had in mind. Perhaps Mr. Qun could elaborate on what he had in mind during his consultations with members over the next few days; a little more clarity on how this would work would be helpful.

ERIC DANON, (France), said in order for the Conference to show that it had made headway it needed to produce a report on its work and for that it needed a programme of work. Even if the Conference worked during the plenary and informal meetings, if there was no programme of work the final report would be a procedural report and the final record would reflect that. The programme of work was a key that made it possible to report on their discussions to the General Assembly and France’s preference for the basis of such a programme was document CD/1864. His personal impression was that they would not have a programme of work this year with a legally binding negotiating mandate on the four core issues because there was no consensus. The question that arose therefore was whether it was possible to have a programme of work without a negotiating mandate, as had in fact been done in the past; they had programmes of work in the past that were mere schedules of activities. It was essential to have a programme of work to save the Conference on Disarmament from itself and France was willing to have a simplified programme of work that was a schedule of activities. It was easier to go in that direction rather than a text on the four core issues or three supplementary subjects because that would give mandates for discussion. Even a very simplified programme of work would allow them to report on their work, but they shouldn’t lose sight of their priority which was to open as soon as possible negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN, (Pakistan), said the Conference on Disarmament had a broad agenda with issues that were urgent and relevant today and they needed to be taken up urgently. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty had been rendered ineffective before it even got off the ground thanks to the actions of some States.

WALTER REID, (United States), congratulated Mr. Qun on the assumption of the presidency. He echoed some of the cautions of his colleague from the United Kingdom, and he hoped they could find common ground, but he had his doubts. The United States Secretary of State had stated US priorities very clearly, which was the start of negotiations as soon as possible on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; this was the yardstick by which they would soon be judged.

PEDRO OYARCE, (Chile), thanked everyone for the support he received during his presidency and congratulated Mr. Qun on the assumption of the presidency. Concerning the programme of work, Mr. Oyarce said it was a political topic and it should ideally be aimed at facilitating substantive work. But what made a lot of sense was what the ambassador of France said about sending the General Assembly a message that there was activity in the Conference and to do so they needed a programme of work for functional reasons, to appear productive, but also for the political background of the forum. A programme of work should strike a balance between interests and priorities.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE, (Mexico), said he felt compelled to express disappointment at the lack of prospect for adopting a programme of work as the negotiating mandate was an inherent part of the Conference on Disarmament and Mexico would support a simplified programme of work.


Concluding Remarks

WANG QUN, President of the Conference on Disarmament, (China), said the next plenary would be held on Thursday at 10 a.m.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/022E