CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES THEMATIC DEBATE ON REVITALIZATION OF ITS WORK AND TAKES UP ITS DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT

The Conference on Disarmament this morning concluded its thematic discussion on the revitalization of its work and started its consideration of its draft annual report to the General Assembly.

In the discussion on the revitalization of the work of the Conference, Algeria said that the Conference was being held hostage by the lack of political will and as a result the whole nuclear disarmament process was jeopardized. Nigeria said that it was necessary for measures to be taken to review and expand the membership of the Conference, foster greater engagement with civil society and perhaps more importantly, for Member States to demonstrate the political will and commitment necessary to break the current deadlock and move the Conference forward. Iran agreed that the problems of the Conference were rooted in the lack of political will of the Member States, adding that the early commencement of negotiations within the Conference on a nuclear weapon convention was the urgent need of the disarmament machinery today. China said that abandoning the Conference was not the right way to solve its problems and it did not support establishing new mechanisms outside the Conference.

Canada said that it was disappointed with those who argued that there was little wrong with the situation of the Conference and nothing could be done about it. They had to ask themselves how long they could wait for things to change, how long they could express frustration but not act. Belarus noted that the negotiation of treaties in the Conference in the past had been preceded by agreement at the highest levels, but there was no agreement, even at the level of national experts, as to the scope and details of a fissile material cut-off treaty. Argentina said that the financial resources of the Conference for next year should not be affected so that should the circumstances change, the Conference must be ready to resume negotiations.

Speaking in the discussion on the revitalization of the Conference were Algeria, Nigeria, Iran, China, Canada, Belarus and Argentina.

The President of the Conference, Ambassador Hellmut Hoffmann of Germany, said that this had been a very constructive round of discussion on revitalization of the work of the Council. It was quite clear that there were quite divergent views as to the diagnosis and the remedy for the Conference, but there was common agreement that they were faced with the stalemate of the Conference.

Concerning the draft annual report of the Conference to the General Assembly,
speakers stressed that the report should be factual in its reflection of the work of the Conference and should follow the traditional format and tone. Most agreed that the draft was a good basis to move forward, but noted that specific proposals would be presented to the Secretariat. Some said the report was too “rosy” while others praised the balance that had been struck.

At the end of the discussion, the President said that this had been a very interesting first exchange and he was pleased with the remarks that they had heard; they were not that much far apart in their positions. Next week, he intended to hold a brief plenary and then close it to start the actual drafting on the basis of the amendments in an informal meeting. If necessary, additional meetings would be held.

Speaking on the draft report were Algeria, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Netherlands, United States, France, Ireland, Cuba, China, Australia and Chile.

At the beginning of the meeting, Kazakhstan made a general statement concerning the International Day against Nuclear Tests to be observed on 29 August. Also, the President of the Conference welcomed the participation of young diplomats from 25 Member States of the United Nations in the 2012 United Nations Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 4 September, when the Conference will continue its discussion on its draft annual report in a brief public plenary, to be continued in an informal meeting. The Conference will conclude the third and last part of its 2012 session on 14 September.

General Statement

Kazakhstan congratulated the Conference on the occasion of the International Day against Nuclear Tests to be observed on 29 August. To commemorate the third anniversary of the International Day against Nuclear Tests, Kazakhstan was hosting the 2012 Astana-Semipalatinsk Forum “From nuclear test ban to a nuclear weapons free world” starting 29 August. It would welcome more than 200 delegates representing 75 countries. Hosting this kind of annual international meeting, Kazakhstan continued to further promote multilateral endeavours aimed at outlawing any type of weapons of mass destruction, first and foremost of nuclear weapons, as well as ensuring a broader support for a nuclear test ban regime. Kazakhstan would also like to announce that on 22 August, the Government had launched a new international campaign entitled “ATOM”, acronym for “Abolish Testing. Our Mission.”

Statements on Revitalization of the Work of the Conference

Algeria reiterated its attachment to the Conference on Disarmament as the sole disarmament multilateral negotiating body. International security conditions and the many challenges and threats that it faced represented the need for the Conference to carry out its mandate. Its stalemate was jeopardizing its relevance and credibility and Member States must make progress and work together to preserve it. The understanding of the situation of the Conference on Disarmament required a deep understanding of the dynamic relationship between the mandate of the Conference - its environment and the institutional framework - and the mandates of other negotiating frameworks which could influence the work of the Conference. The gridlock of the Conference was not chiefly linked to the methods of work of the Conference but to the lack of political will and the combination of political factors due to divergences between States and groups of Member States as to the priorities and dosages of the mandate. The Conference was being held hostage by the lack of political will and as a result the whole nuclear disarmament process was jeopardized. The consensus rule was meant to protect the national security interests of all States on an equal footing. The Conference could consider using a simplified approach to the programme of work without setting up subsidiary bodies with detailed mandates. This would enable the Member States to keep the Conference alive. Algeria did not believe that the items on the agenda of the Conference were out of date. Nuclear weapons were still the most serious threat today.

Algeria considered that the draft report was an attempt which sought to reflect on a factual basis the work of the Conference. However, it could be improved to spell out more clearly the status of the schedule of debates and to better reflect the content of the debate on the different themes.

Nigeria said the longstanding inability of the Conference to act on its mandate was damaging its reputation and credibility. As they came to the end of yet another barren session, despite the best intentions and courageous efforts, Nigeria would like to register its profound disappointment in seeing that under-achievement seemed to have become a perennial feature of the Conference. In order to revitalize the Conference, Nigeria considered it necessary that measures be taken to review and expand its membership, foster greater engagement with civil society and perhaps more importantly, for Member States to demonstrate the political will and commitment necessary to break the current deadlock and move the Conference forward.

Iran said the problems of the Conference were rooted in the lack of political will of the Member States. The Conference on Disarmament remained the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament and Iran did not see any alternative body that had the potential to replace it. The specific composition, wide agenda and the special rules of procedure gave the Conference a unique position. Iran believed that promoting the work of the Conference could not be achieved by changing the format or the modality of the rules of procedures or their interpretation of the rules, mainly the rule of consensus. The Conference was not a single issue venue and lack of consensus on the scope of negotiation on one issue could not prevent delegations from starting negotiation on others. The early commencement on negotiations within the Conference on a nuclear weapon convention was the urgent need of the disarmament machinery today and if they started this negotiation in the Conference, they would be in a position to comprehensively tackle all the core issues in the agenda of the Conference in a balanced manner and revitalize the Conference and whole disarmament machinery. The radical proposal of negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty outside the Conference was neither feasible nor acceptable.

China said the Conference on Disarmament was the most appropriate forum for multilateral disarmament negotiations. Abandoning the Conference was not the right way to solve its problems. China supported the rules of procedure of the Conference with the consensus principle at the core and favoured starting its substantive work on the basis of a comprehensive and balanced programme of work. China did not support establishing new mechanisms outside the Conference. They should proceed by taking a long-sighted view and focusing efforts on kick-starting substantive work at the Conference rather than replacing it. They should also remain patient and explore ways to break the deadlock by looking for solutions acceptable to all. They should be fully cognisant of the impact of the international and regional situation on the work of the Conference and take practical measures to accommodate each other’s legitimate security concerns so as to create favourable external conditions for the Conference to break out of the stalemate.

Canada thanked the President for the first draft of the report which represented a factual if somewhat rosy picture of the work of the Conference. The discussion on revitalization of the Conference remained important and timely and several interesting proposals had been made. Canada supported calls by a number of States that the Member States had to take a good and hard look at the rules of procedure to see if they could be adjusted. At the same time, Canada was disappointed with those who argued that there was little wrong with the situation in the Conference and that nothing could be done about it. The greatest enemies of the Conference were those who were willing to watch its slow decline, content with the status quo inertia. They had to ask themselves how long they could wait for things to change, how long they could express frustration but not act. The Conference had failed to heed the call by the General Assembly to fulfil its negotiating mandate and now they must be prepared for the General Assembly to take up these issues in October and consider how best to proceed with the work of the Conference in 2013.

Belarus said Belarus fully supported delegations which said that the main reason for the absence of negotiations was the absence of political will. When some noted the previous successful negotiations in the Conference, they forgot that these negotiations were preceded by agreement at the highest levels. Concerning a fissile material cut-off treaty, there was no agreement at the highest level, not even at the level of national experts, concerning its scope and other details, and that was the reason for the absence of progress in the Conference. So they should not blame the rules of procedure. Concerning proposals on procedural questions, Belarus respected proposals concerning reform of the Council but this question must be approached very carefully. The present system of presidency of the Conference was very democratic. Many had forgotten that if the Conference did start negotiations, then the role of the President would become less important and the chair of the ad hoc committee on the negotiations would become more important and his or her appointment would not be limited in time. It was also counterproductive to have a negotiating process take place outside the Conference.

Argentina wished to underscore the point raised by Argentina last year pertaining to the financial resources of the Conference. The Conference’s financial resources for next year should not be affected. Argentina would not want to see the resources affected in 2013 as the circumstances might change and the Conference must be ready to resume negotiations. Argentina was keen to underscore that fundamental point and position.

Ambassador HELLMUT HOFFMANN of Germany, President of the Conference, said that this had been a very constructive round of discussions on revitalization of the work of the Conference. It was clear that they had quite divergent views as to the diagnosis and remedy concerning the Conference, but they did have a common agreement that they were facing a stalemate in the Conference.

Statements on the Report of the Conference to the General Assembly

Ambassador HELLMUT HOFFMANN of Germany, President of the Conference, said that the advance English copy of the report had been distributed on 23 August and today the draft report in all the other United Nations languages was available. The report took into account the work of the Conference until 20 August and listed all documents that had been issued till that day. The secretariat would fill in the blank spaces related to the number of meetings until the end of the session. Today, they would hear comments of a general nature in the formal setting of the plenary. Next week, they would continue this briefing then would start the actual drafting process in an informal plenary meeting. Delegations were requested to make concrete proposals in writing to the Secretariat by 30 August, and those proposals would be compiled and sent out on 31 August.

Algeria made specific proposals concerning the draft report, concerning the reflection of the words of the Secretary-General, they wanted the wording to be improved to give a positive spin to the work of the Conference. Also the section on the programme of work of the Conference was boiled down to one specific activity, the proposal made by Egypt, and the other work and proposals on this issue since the beginning of the year should be reflected. Egypt said that concerning what Algeria had just said, the Egyptian proposal did have a different status than the other proposals because it had been tabled and action had been taken on it, but unfortunately there was no consensus. Other proposals had not been tabled officially. Egypt agreed that the report should be factual, presenting the proper facts. India noted that reports of the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly had a format and tone that had become traditional. India looked forward to the consultations in an informal setting. It would make suggestions to the draft but believed that the draft offered a good basis to move forward. Pakistan agreed that the draft was a good basis to move forward. It wished to reiterate that the draft report should be factual and follow the structure of past reports. Pakistan wished to caution that in the debate on revitalization of the work of the Conference, there had been divergent views on how this should happen and there was no consensus in the room about how this divergence should be communicated to the General Assembly. The report writing should be clinical and factual and avoid use of adjectives and judgements. Iran also agreed that the draft report was a good basis. There were different diagnoses and treatments for the problems of the Conference. Some countries may see the report as rosy while others may see it as too negative. They should ensure that consultations were carried out to make sure that the text was acceptable to everybody.

Russia said that if they were describing the colours in which the report was written, Russia would describe it as black and white, reflecting the actual facts. Russia supported the draft report as it presently stood. Netherlands said the main fact was that the Conference had again been unable to make progress on a programme of work and this should be reflected in the report. The Netherlands believed that the report was too rosy like Canada said, and they should work on elements to give a factual description of the situation that they were in. The Netherlands would find a “positive spin” very difficult to understand. Given the state of affairs, unfortunately all was not very rosy. United States said its capital thanked the President and the secretariat for the impressive first draft. It was a pretty good document and the United States appealed to colleagues to focus on the very important negotiations awaiting them in New York. The United States sympathized with what Egypt had said. France said that its capital believed that this was an excellent report which relayed the facts and it was not necessary to enter into endless discussions as it would be very difficult to find the balance on points of view on the state of the Conference.

Ireland said the balance in the report was extremely good. Ireland agreed with the point made by Egypt. They would start looking at the amendments next week but he believed a very reasonable balance had been struck with the draft. Cuba said that the report was a good basis for the discussions that they would have over the next few weeks. There were a number of lacunae or flaws in the draft and these would be flagged by Cuba. Cuba was in favour of a report that reflected factually everything that was discussed. China said the report should be a comprehensive, balanced and objective reflection of the work of the Conference. The draft was a very good foundation for further consultations. There was still some room for further improvements in some paragraphs. China hoped for open and transparent consultations to ensure a text that was acceptable by all. Australia echoed the comments of Ireland regarding the balance of the draft report. Chile said the draft had two chief merits. It reflected the landscape as objectively as possible to the real world. There was a certain element of subjectivity in the draft but it contained the appropriate balance. The political message in the report was very important. In any document of this nature and level of sensitivity, there could be room for amendments. Chile hoped that they could preserve the initial balance that it contained.

Ambassador HELLMUT HOFFMANN of Germany, President of the Conference, said that this had been a very interesting first exchange and he was pleased with the remarks that they had heard; they were not that much far apart in their positions. Next week, he intended to hold a brief plenary and then close it to start the actual drafting on the basis of the amendments in an informal meeting. If necessary, additional meetings would be held.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC12/031E