17 May 2006, excerpt from UN press release

An FMCT should prohibit all States from producing fissile material, and it should put an end to the discrimination between nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon States. On the other hand, the implementation of the instrument should not be restricted to future production, but should include stockpiles, as foreseen by the Shannon report. Members should build confidence by agreeing to a method of verification. Verification mechanisms would provide transparency and credibility between countries. A safeguard regime should include all nuclear installations, including those that dealt with uranium enrichment

7 September 2004, Ambassador Mohamed-Salah Dembri

"Le besoin d’efficacité qui doit leur être attaché devra se traduir aux plans fonctionnel et organique. D’abord au plan fonctionnel, un comité spécial , doté d’un mandate de négociation d’une sur le désarmement nucléaire, est la voie la plus courageuse et la plus rationnelle. C’est dans cette voie que la négociation d’une convention sur l’interdiction des matières fissiles trouve sa place. Ensuite sur un plan organique, la convergence des efforts et des aspirations de tous vers la conférence du désarmement, seul organe de négociation multilatérale en matière de désarmement, conféreait aux négociations plus de légitimité et serait de nature à consolider l’engagement de toutes les nations envers la non proliferation et le désarmement nucléaires... "La suspension des négociations bilatérales pour la reduction des stocks entre Etats nucléaires, la confusion du civil et du militaire duans l’utilisation de l’espace extra atomsphérique projettent de lourdes inquietudes. C’est pourquoi l’Algérie continuera à appeler à la creation au sein de la Conférence du Désarmement le plus rapidement possible d’un comité de négociations sur ces questions."

26 January 2006, Ambassador Hamza Khelif, excerpt from UN press release

Outer space was part of the heritage of mankind, and the militarization of outer space was a source of instability. The Conference was the appropriate place to deal with this issue.

3 August 2006, Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, excerpt from UN press release

Current negotiations between the super powers and other States on limiting the threats of proliferation addressed the question of negative security assurances and safeguards bilaterally. Perhaps, providing negative security assurances in the framework of an international agreement was better that piecemeal. The Conference on Disarmament remained the best forum to establish a legally binding instrument in which nuclear-weapon States would refrain from threat or use of weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

4 September 2007
M.Idriss Jazairy

« En effet, le package proposé par le Groupe des Présidents comprenant un projet decision CD/2007CRP6, le projet de décision CD/2007/L et le pojet de déclaration présidentielle complémentaire CD/2007/CRP5 présente un progrés significatif qui pourrait conduire a surmonter les difficultés actuelles et aboutir a un compromis sur le programme de travail. Mais force est de constater que le contenu de ce package n’s pas encore atteint le stade requis de maturation sur le programme de travail. »

27 March 2007, Ambassador Hamza Khelif, excerpt from UN press release

[Algeria] said that during the informal and formal meetings last Friday, Algeria had pointed out that the mandates concerning nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances in draft decision L.1 could be improved upon, in line with the conclusions of the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Algeria had also inquired into the annual periodicity of the programme of work. The President, in her statement today, had said that the programme would be valid for 2007. On that score, according to the Rules of Procedure, the agenda and the programme of work were adopted on an annual basis. Algeria reiterated its difficulty with the open-ended mandates for the Coordinators as formulated in the draft decision, and asked that there be specific language added to the draft decision that the Coordinators were "appointed for the duration of the current session".

On the substance of the draft decision, Algeria noted that it was still awaiting a response from its capital, and hoped to have that by next Thursday.

26 January 2006, excerpt from RCW CD Report

Algeria called the A5 agenda the most “objective and realistic basis” for a Programme of Work.

16 June 2005, Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry

"Also, with the understanding, of course, that the purpose of this discussion and of raising any other issue, which may be raised in the course of these meetings, would be to try to move towards an agreement on a program of work. With this regard, we think that the A5 proposal remains relevant, as well as, of course, the other proposals which have been made there in after including the Food for Thought Paper presented by the distinguished Ambassador of the Netherlands, when he exercised with such competency the presidency of this meeting."

26 June 2007, Argentina on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela

“A positive sign for non-nuclear states would be the prompt initiation of negotiations towards a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices…the scope of this instrument should give certain treatment to the issue of fissile material stockpiles and verification provisions should also be included.”

16 May 2006, excerpt from UN press release

Argentina reaffirmed support for an international instrument that was non-discriminatory, multilateral, and verifiable with regards to the production of fissile materials. Argentina was of the view that the treaty should not be limited by the exclusion of materials or processes, as otherwise the prohibition of production of materials for nuclear use would be incomplete.

26 June 2007, Argentina on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela

“Nuclear disarmament is a priority for the countries subscribing this declaration. We reiterate our conviction that the existence of nuclear arsenals as part of the military doctrines of countries in possession of this kind of weapons discourages the efforts that could be made in other bodies related to international security.”

23 June 2005, Ambassador Marcelo Valle Fonrouge, excerpt from UN press release

It was disconcerting that the Conference, the only multilateral forum to negotiate disarmament issues ... had not established a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament. Setting up such a subsidiary body would constitute progress.

13 June 2006, Ambassador Marcelo Valle Fonrouge, excerpt from UN press release

"Argentina supported the setting up of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to study basic principles, confidence-building measures and the drafting of an instrument capable of preventing the weaponization of outer space. In that regard, the mandate on prevention of an arms race in outer space set out in the Five Ambassadors' proposal and the food for thought document circulated by Ambassador Sanders, were a good basis on which to begin."

7 July 2005, Minister Alicia de Hoz, excerpt from UN press release

ALICIA DE HOZ (Argentina) said Argentina was convinced that NSA would make a positive contribution to international peace and security. Argentina urged nuclear weapon States to grant more effective assurances to non-nuclear weapon States that they would never use these weapons against them.

26 June 2007, Argentina on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela

“In this regard, we would like to jointly express our full support for the proposal of the six Presidents of the Conference, presented as Document CD/2007/L.1, and its Complementary Presidential Statement.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador Marcelo Valle Fonrouge, excerpt from UN press release

[Argentina] said that Argentina would support a consensus decision on draft decision L.1. Argentina had no objections whatsoever to the text, which would allow the Conference to begin substantive negotiations on the basis of the proposal.

13 June 2006, Ambassador Marcelo Valle Fonrouge, excerpt from UN press release

"The mandate on prevention of an arms race in outer space is set out in the Five Ambassadors' proposal"

21 June 2007

“Most significantly, we have ripened our understanding of FMCT to the point where it is ready for negotiation without preconditions.  Negotiation of an FMCT is the most practical step this Conference can take to address nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament.” 

17 May 2006, statement by Ambassador Caroline Millar

"An FMCT should contain basic provisions including a commitment to end production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, appropriate definitions and a mechanism for review. And it should deal with the status of pre-existing fissile material stocks. On this point, Australia sees an FMCT as a forward looking treaty that proscribes - or 'cuts off' - further fissile material production. A most effective treaty would be an FMCT that provides for appropriate measures to verify parties' compliance with their obligations. But this should not be a pre-condition for launching negotiations."

13 February 2007, Ambassador Caroline Millar, excerpt from UN press release

Australia firmly believed that all nations should have unhindered access to space for peaceful purposes… Australia would like to hear from China, in particular, on any prior analysis they had undertaken on what effect their launch would have on other countries' outer space assets. This was an opportunity for the Conference to clarify certain matters, including confidence-building measures for outer space.

21 June 2007

“The L.1 proposal and the subsequent Presidential statement and accompanied explanatory document are the result of extensive and painstaking consultation.  They represent a fair and just compromise by all.  They may not be what each of us has wished for—that is clear—but it should be what we can all accept to ensure that this conference contributes to furthering our collective interests in strengthening international security.” 

23 March 2007, Ambassador Caroline Millar, excerpt from UN press release

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) also thanked the Six Presidents for their proposed draft decision L.1. The proposal might be a compromise but it offered a great deal – both in terms of substance, with the call for a commencement of negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and in offering the Conference on Disarmament a way out of the stalemate it had been in for such a long time. Australia supported the draft decision.

2 February 2006, Ambassador Michael Smith

"We have been one of the vast majority of delegations that have shown flexibility in supporting the various proposals for a program of work put forward during this period."

3 March 2005, Ambassador Wolfgang Petrisch, excerpt from UN press release

In conclusion, Ambassador Petritsch said that he hoped that the Conference on Disarmament, which had been in abeyance for too long, would soon start to also profit from a cooperative spirit in order to move forward the important work that needed to be done on the issues of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances.

2003 CD

“Nonproliferation is not the answer. It is simply not enough. We must step up to the task of disarmament if we are serious about making the world safe from weapons of mass destruction.”

8 June 2006, statement by Ambassador Wolfgang Petrisch

"As we have stated on previous occasions, the EU supports the establishment of a subsidiary body at the CD to deal with this matter on the basis of a mandate, which will be the subject of an agreement by all"

27 March 2007, Ambassador Wolfgang Petrisch, excerpt from UN press release

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria) welcomed the Six Presidents (P6) proposal tabled last Friday. Austria felt it was a very balanced and fair proposal and had a real chance of working. Therefore, Austria supported it wholeheartedly.

16 March 2004, Minister of Foreign Affairs Reaz Rahman

"Bangladesh supports the negotiating mandate for a nondiscriminatory, multilateral and international and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devises. Negotiations should extend to existing stockpiles without which any such treaty will be incomplete."

16 March 2004, Minister of Foreign Affairs Reaz Rahman

"The onus lies on countries that have the capability to reach outer space to ensure that outer space is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. We are convinced that prevention of an arms race in the outer space is possible only through a legally binding international instrument. We hope there will be an early commencement of negotiations, for an international legally binding treaty to prevent deployment of arms in outer space."

16 March 2004, Minister of Foreign Affairs Reaz Rahman

"Non-nuclear state parties to the NPT have a legitimate right to receive an unconditional assurance form the Nuclear weapons states that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them. It is, therefore, critically important that renewed and vigorous efforts are taken on a priority basis to conclude a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to provide security assurances to Non-nuclear weapon states."

16 March 2004, Minister of Foreign Affairs Reaz Rahman

"The A5 proposal, as it has come to be popularly known, represents a cross-regional initiative for a Programme of Work for the CD. The proposal does not necessarily meet all expectations. But we must not forego the "good" in search of the "best". This may never happen. In our view, the proposal seems balanced and a good basis for reaching a consensus."

8 June 2006, Ambassador Sergei Aleinik, excerpt from UN press release

"Belarus considered the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space to be one of the most important areas concerning international security and arms control. Belarus also recognized that there were some lacunae in the existing legal framework concerning outer space. Technological developments meant that it was necessary to continue to work to adopt legally binding norms to prevent an arms race in outer space."

3 August 2006, Ivan Grinevich, excerpt from UN press release

Belarus does not have nuclear weapons and attach great importance to the provision of legally binding assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to non-nuclear-weapon States

20 June 2006, Ambassador Sergei Aleinik, excerpt from UN press release

Belarus said the basis for a broad consensus on the Conference on Disarmament's programme of work based on the Five Ambassadors proposal existed. Activating the work of the Conference on other spheres would be possible only when the key issues were solved, nevertheless, it was appropriate to maintain the current wording of item 5, new forms of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, on the Conference's agenda.

17 May 2006, Ambassador Alain Van Gucht. excerpt from UN press release

"The Conference should seize this opportunity to contribute once more to a form of multilateralism that responded to the challenges that should be addressed together, of which the use of fissile materials by terrorists was not the least. Negotiations on a non-discriminatory and universally applicable cut-off should begin as soon as possible. Belgium would take part in such negotiations without imposing any pre-conditions."

28 June 2007

“With regard to the scope of this treaty, obviously Brazil is totally in favor of the Shannon Mandate and we too want to see it in the negotiation on verification of stockpiles.” 

26 June 2007, see Argentina

18 May, 2006, Ambassador José Artur Denot Medeiros

"We believe that a Fissile Material Treaty should be non discriminatory, multilateral, internationally and effectively verifiable. Nonetheless, as we have indicated previously during this first phase of our work this year, the fact that there are different positions on the specific aspect of verification should not impede the start of negotiations."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

16 March 2006, Ambassador José Artur Denot Medeiros

"As we have witnessed during the structured debate held under your presidency on items 1 and 2 of our Agenda, there are innumerous important issues that can shape us a substantive framework for discussions at an ad hoc Committee for dealing with nuclear disarmament. For this reason, it is misleading to argue that the proposal to create an ad hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament would represent just a tactical move to prevent the early start of negotiations of a fissile material treaty."

13 June 2006, Mr Da Rochas Paranhos, exerpt from UN Press Release

"Prevention of an arms race in outer space was a subject to which Brazil attached great importance. In that sense, Brazil favored the establishment in the Conference of an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with that issue, in accordance with the revised Five Ambassadors' proposal."

28 June 2007

“We have taken the political decision to support the L.1 document because we think this is the right way to proceed.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos, excerpt from UN press release

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said that Brazil had always given its full support to the structured and informal debate of the Six Presidents (P6) process. From Brazil's perspective the full engagement of all delegations during the informal discussions indicated the will to get back to real negotiations. Brazil supported draft decision L.1 and encouraged all Members to reflect on the important moment they were living now and the need for them to start their work in the Conference on Disarmament.

16 March 2006, Ambassador José Artur Denot Medeiros

"As we have consistently pointed out in this forum, Brazil supports the A-5 proposal or a variation thereof. Therefore, a compromise solution for a program of work should necessarily include the four core issues - nuclear disarmament, fissile material treaty, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances."

27 March 2007, Ambassador Petko Draganov, excerpt from UN press release

Bulgaria associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. While it might not be perfect, the proposal before them represented their best chance to get back to work, and they were not likely to get another such opportunity soon. The time was now.

14 July 2005, Ambassador Dimiter Tzantchev, excerpt from UN press release

Bulgaria would support any initiative that might become a basis for consensus within the Conference on its programme of work. The delegation of Bulgaria had worked accordingly over the years, having the sincere desire to bring the Conference back to its substantive work.

20 March 2007
Ambassador Paul Meyer

“It is my pleasure today to introduce a new Working Paper prepared by Canada on the connection between verification and scope in an FMCT…The paper starts from the premise that an effective verification mechanism is an important element of any non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament agreement…The paper also recognizes that the characteristics of an appropriate verification mechanism depend to a large degree on the scope of the agreement. It also bears in mind that the verification system should, at least initially, build upon existing verification tools used by the IAEA…”

2 March 2006, Ambassador Paul Meyer

"For the Canadian Delegation, we would put at the top of the list the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty which would in our opinion represent a significant nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation accomplishment and one for which the international community has long seen the Conference on Disarmament as the right forum to undertake. We would like to initiate these negotiations promptly and have, on a national basis, already demonstrated considerable flexibility as to the nature of the mandate under which such negotiations could get underway."

13 February 2007, Ambassador Paul Meyer

“Canada is convinced that transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities can contribute to reducing threat perceptions and increasing security among states.

8 June 2006, Ambassador Paul Meyer

"One key element of a multilateral architechture for space security will be the negotiation in the CD of an appropriately scoped legally-binding ban on space based weapons. Canada welcomes the contribution that many delegations have made to this end. We call upon all delegation to play their respective parts in enabling the re-establishment of a PAROS Ad Hoc Committee to discuss and consider the possible contribution to international peace and security of a treaty to ban space-based weapons"

3 August 2006, Ambassador Paul Meyer

Canada thinks that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be the best and most logical forum for discussion of security assurances, as they are a key benefit of adherence of the Treaty for non-nuclear weapons states. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compromise and constructive engagement, and with a view to seeing progress in the CD (…) we could accept consideration of security assurances within the context of the Conference."

23 June 2005, Ambassador Paul Meyer

"The proposed mandate for this committee, contained in the A5 proposal and the Food for Thought Non-Paper, calls for it to exchange information and views on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to attain the objective of nuclear disarmament and the cessation of the arms race. We think discussions under this broad mandate could benefit from a more focused approach that would take up more specific topics and measures relevant to the nuclear disarmament efforts."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

16 May 2006, Ambassador Juan Martabit, exerpt from UN press release

"Chile proposed an incremental approach to verification. First, production of fissile material could be monitored. Subsequently, stockpiles and facilities for containing such material could be included."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

23 June 2005, Ambassador Juan Martabit, excerpt from UN press release

Negotiations on the basis of the Shanon Mandate to establish a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament should be supported. Chile insisted on the irreversibility in the process of nuclear disarmament. It recognized that progress had been made in the reduction of nuclear warheads.

23 June 2005, Ambassador Juan Martabit, excerpt from UN press release

Chile also favoured the start of negotiations on a legally binding statement to establish guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

23 March 2007, Ambassador Juan Martabit, excerpt from UN press release

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) offered Chile's full support for the work of the President. They could not continue to afford the luxury of wasting significant resources. The Conference had to get going. Chile supported in a firm and categorical manner the balanced, intelligent proposal contained in document CD/2007/L.1. That proposal was made on the basis of numerous consultations in both formal and informal meetings. They should not waste the opportunity that had been built up with so much effort before them now.

2 February 2006, Ambassador Juan Eduardo Eguiguren, excerpt from UN press release

Chile was at the disposal of the Conference in terms of its willingness to cooperate with any efforts to move forward. The Five Ambassadors proposal had great support within the Conference and could even get more support with some improvement.

17 May, Ambassador Jingye Cheng

"FMCT negotiations in the CD should be based on the mandate contained in the Shannon Report. We belive that the right approach to achieve the "cessation of production of fissile material" is to adopt a legal instrument through negotiations. At the same time, we are of the view that future FMCT negotiations should not involve the issue of stockpile."

23 June 2005, Ambassador Hu Xiaodi

"Concerning the mandate for the Ad Hoc Committe on Nuclear Disarmament, China supports the reasonable positions of the G21."

24 January 2007, excerpt from UN press release

As everyone was aware, China had been advocating for the conclusion of an international instrument or treaty for outer space at the Conference, and along with the Russian Federation, had already submitted some treaty elements on the prevention of deployment of weapons in outer space and prevention of use or threat of use against space objects.

26 January 2006, Mr. Deng Hongmei, excerpt from UN press release

The danger of weaponization of outer space was increasing with each passing day. China stood for the negotiation of a legal instrument aimed at preventing weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. As the body mandated by the United Nations in disarmament and arms control, the Conference was the most preferable place for such negotiations.

13 June 2006, Mr Juhan Zhang

"Due to the complex nature of verification of outer space activities, which bears on the security interest of all countries, as well as to technical and financial constraints of verification, currently it is extremely difficult to negotiate a verification provision. For the time being, to put on hold the verification issue until conditions are ripe, and to negotiate a treaty without verification provisions could be a practical alternative."

3 August 2006, Ambassador Jingye Cheng

"China supports the Conference on Disarmament to establish, in accordance with the relevant mandate as contained in the A5 proposal, an ad hoc committee on NSA so that it can start substantive work in negotiating an international legal instrument in security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states. We can also agree to the negotiations of a protocol on security assurance for non-nuclear weapon states within the framework of the NPT."

16 August 2007
Ambassador Cheng Jingye

“Mr. President, over the past year, all the parties of CD, including 6 Presidents and Coordinators, have made useful exploration and tiring efforts with a view to revitalize the work of the CD, P6 proposal, and related Presidential Declaration, have laid a good foundation for the future work of the CD, and they may become a platform for breaking the deadlock of CD. Of course we also feel that the above documents are not a solution that has received unanimous support—hence there is a need for further efforts.
At the same time, I wish to recall the ideas raised by China on 19th June on document L1 and its Supplementary Declaration—that is the Supplementary Declaration, once an integral part of L1—will make it more rational and lucid. The wording of the Declaration in paragraph 3 has room for improvement.”

21 June 2007

“At the same time we still have some worries and concerns concerning the status and content of the Complementary Statement—rather we have some queries and concerns. We believe it would be more reasonable and clear for the Complementary Statement to be an integral part of L.1. We also believe wording of paragraph 3 of the Draft Complementary Statement leaves room for further improvement.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador Cheng Jingye, excerpt from UN press release

CHENG JINGYE (China) thanked the Six Presidents for their work to get the Conference back to work. China would relay the proposal to its capital, where it was sure it would receive full and careful attention. At the same time, China wished to associate itself with the comments made by Algeria. This was not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and all Members had the right to propose amendments and make comments, as they saw fit.

26 January 2006, excerpt from RCW CD Report

China called it [the A5 proposal] “balanced in relative terms”...

China reminded the conference that it had made “significant concessions” in order to support the A5 as a Programme of Work, and said it would not be in a position to support Peru’s proposal (CD 1757) because of its weakened Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) mandate.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

6 March 2007
Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros, excerpt from UN press release

One the issues to which Colombia attached priority importance was the commencement of talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. That appeared to be the issue the most ripe for action in the Conference. Such a treaty should be transparent, address the question of stocks, contain effective verification measures, and should be undertaken without preconditions or linkages to any other negotiations.

22 May 2006, Ambassador Rafael Quintero Cubides, excerpt from UN press release

"Colombia still favoured the start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The future treaty should be an integral instrument of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. It should be based on three pillars: it should be non-discriminatory; effectively monitored; and should guarantee the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

6 March 2007, Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros, excerpt from UN press release

Although Colombia did not possess any nuclear weapons or indeed any weapons of mass destruction of any kind, or even a significant nuclear programme, it had worked actively to advance the cause of disarmament and non-proliferation.

7 July 2005, Ambassador Rafael Quintero Cubides, excerpt from UN press release

Colombia was convinced of the merits of the multilateral system and had adhered to the international instruments on disarmament and was a party to the Tlatelolco Treaty which established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and granted negative security assurances to countries in the region. Colombia understood the right of non-nuclear weapon States of receiving NSA and believed it was a matter of urgency that the Conference on Disarmament commenced negotiations on the four main issues identified under the A5 proposal, including NSA.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

23 March 2007, Mr. Daniel Avila Camacho, excerpt from UN press release

DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO (Colombia) appreciated draft decision L.1 as a possible solution to the stalemate in the Conference, which had had such an influence on them. Colombia maintained its flexibility on the negotiation of a fissile material treaty, as well as on the other issues in the draft decision. Colombia was referring the document to its capital for consideration, but could say now that they were finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

29 January 2004, Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros

"La propuesta de los Cinco Embajadores ha venido haciendo camino gracias a su flexibilidad, lo que ha permitido incorporar ajustes que la acercan cada vez mas a su adopcion por este foro."

30 January 2007,
Ambassador Antonio Fernandez Palacios

“Cuba also joins those who support the beginning of negotiations in this Conference on an international treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons which responds to the objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament.”

9 February 2006, Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernandez Palacios

"We join those who support the beginning of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty that would address both non-proliferation and disarmament objectives."

30 January 2007,
Ambassador Antonio Fernandez Palacios, excerpt from UN press release

[Cuba and the NAM] had also emphasized the need to commence negotiations as soon as possible on a phased programme with established time limits for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention.

9 February 2006, Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernandez Palacios

"Cuba is convinced that the only effective solution to the problem of proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction is their total elimination: therefore, Cuba considers that the Conference should establish an ad.hoc Committee to negotiate on nuclear disarmament."

30 January 2007, Ambassador Antonio Fernandez Palacios

“…We support the beginning of negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space.”

13 June 2006, Mr Gonzalez, excerpt from UN Press Release

" The 10 years of discussion on prevention of an arms race in outer space already undertaken in the Conference meant that, from a technical standpoint, the Conference was closer to an agreement on prevention of an arms race in outer space than on Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. In addition, the international community had once again expressed its unmistakable desire that an arms race in outer space be prevented, by adopting General Assembly resolutions 60/54 and 60/66, which were voted by an overwhelming majority in each case."

6 March 2007, Mr. Pino Alvarez, excerpt from UN press release

In that context, and unless some progress was made on the abovementioned, the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States could not be delayed any longer.

9 February 2006, Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernandez Palacios

"We also support, as one of the top priorities in this forum, the launching of negotiations on an international legal instrument on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon states."

23 March 2007, Mr. Pino Alvarez, excerpt from UN press release

RESFEL PINO ÁLVAREZ (Cuba) said that the proposal before them would allow the Conference to return to its mandate of negotiation of substantive matters. The delegation of Cuba would send the proposal back to its capital for consideration. Knowing the position of the Government, there were other issues that Cuba would have liked to have been incorporated in the draft decision, but Cuba would give the proposal every consideration.

6 February 2007, Mr. Han Sung Il, excerpt from UN press release

[DPRK], responding to Japan's statement regarding nuclear tests, said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was fully committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, as they had many times reiterated in the past. It was, however, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's sovereign right to conduct nuclear tests. It was not a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It had not been the choice of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to do that. It had been forced to withdraw from the NPT when it had tested the weapon, because of the growing threat of a nuclear power against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea wished to assure Japan that its nuclear weapons did not threaten other countries, including Japan. Such weapons were only a deterrent against attack by nuclear weapon States in the future. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was for its part committed to do its best to work towards the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world.

2 March 2006, Ambassador Ri Tcheul

"My delegation supports the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament and to start negotiations on the issue."

8 June 2006, Ambassador Ri Tcheul

"The fact that the existing relevant international legal instrument lack the provisions to fully check the deployment of space weapons, as well as the abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM), the pursuit of missile defense systems, etc, give rise to the deep concern that outer space might be reduced into military monopoly. A new international legal instrument for comprehensive and effective prevention of an arms race in outer space is urgently required in the light of the circumstances in which certain space-related agreements have been abrogated or insufficient and the move to establish space weapon systems is practically in place"

12 February 2004, Ambassador Ri Tcheul

"Unconditional security assurance against the use of nuclear weapons to Non-Nuclear States becomes a vital issue for nuclear disarmament and in the context of the purpose of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is an escapist act to pursue nothing but non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, evading the issue of Negative Security Assurances. This issue is essential to the existence of Non-Nuclear States and the promotion of the global nuclear disarmament. In the past more than fifty odd years, Nuclear Weapon States disparately declared their commitments to security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons. However, in reality, nuclear threat by Nuclear Weapon State against Non-Nuclear States is being openly uttered and even integrated into its policy, as their commitments are unilateral, conditional and legally unbound. It proves that the unilateral commitments made by Nuclear Weapon States could never prevent a nuclear war. From this point of view, the DPRK delegation insists that the doctrine of preemptive nuclear attack should be abandoned. It also insists that a legally-binding international arrangements to assure unconditionally non-nuclear states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and aiming at the total elimination of all nuclear weapons should be secured."

2 March 2006, Ambassador Ri Tcheul

"Program of work of the CD should be comprehensive and balanced one acceptable to all. Though the A-5 proposal falls short of this delegation's hope, it ahs expressed its position from the spirit of multilateralism that it supports the A-5 proposal and that this proposal could serve as a basis of our efforts for agreeing upon a program of work."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

12 March 2007,
Ms. Maria Fernanda, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, excerpt from UN Press Release

Ecuador also advocated transparent negotiations leading to a fissile material convention, which should include existing stockpiles and a verification mechanism.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

12 March 2007, Ms. Maria Fernanda, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, excerpt from UN press release

[Ecuador] said that the emergence of new threats had made it imperative for countries to prevent nuclear proliferation of all types, and to move forward as a matter of priority, and on a sustained basis, to realize a comprehensive nuclear disarmament programme. Ecuador supported international instruments for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and was opposed to an arms race in outer space.

12 March 2007, Ms. Maria Fernanda, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, excerpt from UN press release

Ecuador was opposed to an arms race in outer space.

12 March 2007, Ms. Maria Fernanda, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, excerpt from UN press release

In terms of negative assurances, Ecuador was in favour of an international legally binding treaty that would prevent those who had nuclear weapons from threatening to use them against non-possessor countries.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

30 March 2007, Mr. Carlos Santo Repetto, excerpt from UN press release

CARLO SANTOS (Ecuador) said that Ecuador supported the proposal to appoint the four Coordinators that had been proposed last week.

28 June 2005, Ambassador Naela Gabr, excerpt from UN press release

NAÉLA GABR (Egypt) said there were many principles that should be taken into consideration when negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT ) and nuclear disarmament must remain a main priority for the Conference on Disarmament. Member States must fulfil their responsibility to reach complete nuclear disarmament. In view of Egypt's continued support for disarmament, it had presented several initiatives in that regard, including a proposed programme of work presented on behalf of the Group of 21 and a draft mandate for the Conference on Disarmament, which took into consideration the various concerns of the members of the Conference on Disarmament. Egypt had also adopted the General Assembly resolution setting the goal of creating the FMCT. Egypt reaffirmed its position that a ban on fissile materials would not be effective if it was solely to ban the future production of fissile material and believed that it should include existing stockpiles of fissile materials as well; the position of Egypt on this matter was reflected in Ambassador Shannon’s report. The verification of compliance by all parties of the existence of fissile material was considered a cornerstone for the FMCT. Egypt was of the view that there should be a complete and comprehensive inventory for all counties taking into account such material so as to ensure that this material was monitored internationally and in a legal manner."

24 January 2007, Mr. Amin Meleka

“Nuclear disarmament remains Egypt’s top priority in the Conference on Disarmament… The emphasis on arms control and the bilateral efforts, which at the time were hailed as achievements, can not be regarded as alternative to the implementation of the commitment contained in Article VI…We would like to reiterate the centrality of the 13 practical steps [outlined in 2000 Review Conference of NPT to implement Article VI] which in our view, represent an internationally endorsed roadmap to fulfill the obligation of nuclear disarmament.”

6 March 2003, Ambassador Naela Gabr

“We are disappointed that our Conference has not yet responded to the two calls made to it by the 2000 NPT Review Conference to establish an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament.”

13 February 2007, Ambassador Sameh Shoukry

"We believe that negotiation for the conclusion of an international, comprehensive, and legally binding agreement that tackles the issue of preventing an arms race in outer space remains an essential objective. Such an agreement would unquestionably, fill the existing gap which the current legal regime lacks…"

18 August 2005, Ambassador Naela Gabr, excerpt from UN press release

Ambassador Gabr said that with the beginning of the third and last part of the 2005 session of the Conference, it was evident that prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) was one of the most important topics before the Conference. Egypt welcomed the renewed interest in this vital subject. Egypt and Sri Lanka annually took turns at the First Committee of the General Assembly to present a draft resolution every year on PAROS. Egypt believed that outer space was the joint heritage of humanity and that it should be used peacefully. There was a need to adopt a legal, integrated and binding instrument in order to deal with the shortages of the legal regime on outer space. The General Assembly had urged the Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral body on disarmament issues, to start negotiating such an instrument. Egypt welcomed the efforts of the Russian Federation and China to reach an international agreement on PAROS. These efforts were an important step in addressing the militarization of outer space and would be an important contribution. Any future legal instrument should prevent militarization of outer space and should include matters of cooperation and assistance to guarantee that the use of outer space was in the interest of all humanity. There was an increasing gap between countries with capabilities to outer space and those who did not have such capabilities. The repercussions of any arms race in outer space would have disastrous effects. Egypt supported the start of negotiations within the Conference of a comprehensive system to stop outer space from being used for military reasons, and this within the framework of a programme of work for the Conference which was agreed upon by consensus.

13 February 2007, Ambassador Sameh Shoukry

“Although Egypt takes note of and welcomes unilateral declarations made by some nuclear weapon states that provide security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non nuclear weapon stats, we believe that these declarations fall short of our security requirements and do not adequately or conclusively deal with the issue. For security assurances to be effective, they must be unconditional, comprehensive, legally binding, and negotiated multilaterally…we believe that there is a pressing need to start negotiations on a multilateral and legally binding instrument to provide non nuclear weapon states with such comprehensive assurances as soon as possible."

14 June 2007

“We see that this current version, the amended version of document L1, is a good basis in addition to document L1 for the Conference to resume its substantive work and to allow us to reach a consensus that my delegation should like to join when it is completed.  The work had taken into consideration a number of the concerns that we have expressed and I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you our thanks for your understanding of our concerns.  At the same time we continue to hope that the text of paragraphs two and three would contain some amended versions in a slight manner that would contain larger clarity and precision and that is taking into consideration that we consider that we are discussing points of paramount importance to all of us.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador Sameh Shoukry, excerpt from UN press release

Egypt took note of the proposal and would give it every consideration, both here and in its capital. It was to be hoped that enough time would be given to members to consult. The proposal was one that needed further deliberation within the Conference; it was not one that was to be considered on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. It was an ongoing endeavour, and Egypt would contribute to the deliberations on it.

28 February 2006, Ambassador Sameh Hassan Shoukry

I believe that it is clear for all that no real progress at the Conference can be achieved unless equal consideration is given to the interests and priorities of all parties; this is the basis for any multilateral endeavor. We must therefore retain the Conference's annual agenda as it is, because it is the backbone of our work in the Conference. There must also be an end to attempts to circumvent or bypass the agenda, since they upset the finely balanced agreement on the agenda items which was achieved by consensus, and because the agenda is the basis of our work here and a reference that should not be touched.

24 January 2007, delivered by Mr. Rudiger Lüdeking, Deputy Commissioner for Arms Control and Disarmament of Germany

“It has again become clear last year there continue to be some differences regarding individual aspects of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), in particular verification and scope. However, rather than continuing protracted debates on these aspects the EU believes that the negotiations should start without delay and without preconditions...Pending the achievement of this goal the EU urges all States to declare and uphold a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. We welcome the action of those four States which have decreed such moratoria and urge others to follow suit.”

6 February 2007, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany on behalf of the EU

“The EU recognizes the importance, from the point of view of nuclear disarmament, of the programmes for the physical protection of the destruction and elimination of nuclear weapons and of fissile material as defined under the G8 Global Partnership…We also continue to work towards universal adherence to the NPT.”

24 January 2007, delivered by Mr. Rudiger Lüdeking, Deputy Commissioner for Arms Control and Disarmament of Germany, excerpt from UN press release

Preventing an arms race in outer space was an essential condition for the strengthening of strategic stability and for the promotion of international cooperation in the freedom off exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes by all states. The European Union was very concerned about a recent test of an anti-satellite weapon. Such a test was inconsistent with international efforts to avert any arms race in outer space.

13 February 2007, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany on behalf of the EU

“Implementing Nuclear Weapons Free Zones is a way of enhancing negative security assurances on a regional basis.”

28 June 2007, delivered by Ambassador Brasack of Germany

“The European Union now urges those remaining three member states of the CD to go along with consensus on the basis of the documents on the table (i.e. L1, CRP.5 and the Draft Decision by the Conference).”

27 March 2007, Germany on behalf of the EU, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack, excerpt from UN press release

There was a new spirit prevailing in the Conference, which fostered their hope that the deadlock could be overcome, and significant work could begin again in the Conference. The European Union would not object to the proposal presented by the P6 in document CD/2007/L.1 as it now stood.

18 August 2005, Ambassador Markku Reimaa

"Today we have to note that the inability of the CD to continue working on the FMCT the following years has been one of the most concrete disappointments. Despite the fact that the NPT 2000 review conference encouraged us to initiate also the discussions on nuclear disarmament in general."

24 January 2007, Ambassador Jean-Francois Dobelle, excerpt from UN press release

The European Union statement had stressed the priority attached by the Conference to the immediate launch, without preconditions, to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This concern was obviously a fundamental point in the position of France at the national level as was pointed out by the President of the Republic a year ago.

16 May 2006, excerpt from UN press release

"The general position of France was to totally ban the production of fissile material for use as nuclear weapons. The point of the treaty was to quantitatively freeze the maximum level of nuclear material around the world."

13 June 2006, Mr Griffon, excerpt from UN press release

"For France, the prevention of the weaponization of outer space was an essential issue for international security. It was in nobody's interest to open that Pandora's Box. No State had the capability to maintain complete dominance in that area and the result would be to create an arms race that would be disastrous for all. The linkage that existed in the Conference in its consideration of the question of the prevention of an arms race in outer space was in many ways an artificial one. France believed that the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, and others besides, should be reviewed independently of other issues under consideration in the Conference."

7 February 2006, Ambassador François Rivasseau

"Must I also recall that France reaffirmed and specified in 1995 the security guarantees to non-nuclear weapon States that are parties to the NPT? The French delegation, as well as that of other nuclear powers, provides in particular negative security guaranteed to these States. As we had then said, this does naturally in no way affect our right, natural, of legitimate defense, as recalled in article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Furthermore, France has provided legally binding security guarantees to more than a hundred countries, by ratifying the protocols of Treaties creating nuclear-weapon-free zones: Tlatlelolco for South America in 1992, Pelindaba for Africa and Raratonga for the Pacific in 1996. Negotiations are under way for Central Asia and South-East Asia. All these guarantees remain of course fully valid."

JEAN-FRANÇOIS DOBELLE (France) said the Conference on Disarmament was at an important turning point. In the spirit of compromise, France was prepared to not block a consensus adoption of the draft decision before them. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was an indispensable addition to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to the process of nuclear disarmament. In that context, France warned that any amendment aimed at strengthening or enhancing the proposal regarding negative security assurances would foil the attempt to reach consensus. France was not completely satisfied with the proposal: there was an excessive emphasis on nuclear disarmament, at the expense of the issues of general and comprehensive disarmament and non-proliferation.

29 June 2006, excerpt from UN press release

"There is a schedule of activities, and although this is disappointing, it could be taken to mean a programme of work"

16 May, 2006, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack

"The main aim of the negotiations should be to effectively prevent any increase in stocks of nuclear materials for military purposes. Hence, the scope of the treaty should encompass the prohibition of any future production of nuclear material directly used for the manufacture of nuclear explosive devices, the prohibition of the re-use for military purposes of fissile material derives from disarmament measures and rededicated for civil purposes, the ban on any transfer of civil fissile material with the aim of manufacturing nuclear explosives as well as other military purposes."

7 February 2006, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack

"We continue to support the establishment of subsidiary bodies for all four "core issues". Their mandates could be, and probably would be, differing. The mandates should strike a balance between the differing priorities of the different groups and the necessity for overall consensus. They should be both pragmatic and substantial, in order to be accepted by all."

8 June 2006, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack

"Some may sa that there is currently no arms race in outer space and that the current military uses of outer space for surveillance, navigation and communication are legitimate. We would point out, however, that it is an easier task to prevent an undesired militarization in outer space than to attempt to control and decelerate such a development after it has begun."

3 August 2006, Mr Albrecht Von Wittke

"Germany supports Para 1 of the A5 proposal for a comprehensive programme of work for the CD, which proposes the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These arrangements could take the form of an internationally binding instrument"

27 March 2007, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack

“We therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Presidential Draft Decision tabled by this year’s P6 in Document CD/2007/L.1 on 23 March 2007. Its elements indeed reflect the necessary decisions the CD will have to agree on to get back to work. I am happy to express Germany’s full and unequivocal support for this P6 Proposal as it stands.”

7 February 2006, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack

"We have always felt that the A5 proposal meets these requirements in full. Together with the overwhelming majority of the CD we share the assessment that the A5-proposal in fact constitutes the one proposal after 1998 that has brought the CD nearest to consensus. Sadly, we had to realize that being near to consensus by no means is equivalent to having reached consensus."

15 May 2007, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

“Madame President, in order to protect the negotiating position of my delegation, it would have been ideal to engage in FMCT negotiations in a committee and not have negotiations presided over by a coordinator.  You Madame President clarified in the course of our consultations outside of the plenary, that the function of the coordinators would be consistent to that of a subsidiary body and then subsequently you reiterated this in a statement that you made in the plenary.  Since the coordinator could not be designated as such, as a subsidiary body, it might help very much if the clarification provided by you could be incorporated even in some reform in the complimentary Presidential statement.” 

23 March 2007, Ambassador Jayant Prasad, excerpt from UN press release

Here, India reiterated its commitment to a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable treaty on fissile material. Parameters should be defined before negotiations on such a treaty were commenced. India had a multilateral vocation, and was ready to contribute to a consensus, should the Conference decide to establish appropriate parameters and a framework for working.

17 May 2006, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"India continues to believe that any treaty banning the production of fissile material must be non-discriminatory: it must stipulate the same obligations and responsibilities for all States. While the nature, extent and mechanisms for verification shall no doubt be determined during the negotiations, we believe that an FMCT should incorporate a verification mechanism in order to provide the assurance that all States party to it are complying with their obligations under the Treaty." "An FMCT must be a treaty for banning the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices"

13 February 2007, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"While maintaining a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, India continues to be committed to the goal of nuclear weapon free world, through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. India’s responsible nuclear doctrine is based on no first use and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States. The doctrine also reaffirms India’s readiness to join multilateral negotiations for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. India has continued to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests.”

2 March 2006, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"India attaches the highest priority to establishment of an Ad-Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. The Group of 21 proposed this almost a decade ago. It sought to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament, for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time. India, together with 27 other members of the Group, also put forward a proposal, in August 1996, for a programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons, as contained in document CD 1419."

23 January 2003, Foreign Minister Mr. Kanwal Sibal

“this is a Conference on Disarmament and not a Conference on Non-Proliferation”

8 June 2006, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"India supports the establishment of an Ad-Hoc Committee of the Conference to deal with the issue of PAROS as outlined in the A-5 proposal. We believe that it provides a good basis for commencing our work on PAROS, which India stands ready to join"

3 August 2006, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"India has, therefore, consistently supported the proposal for establishing an Ad-hoc Committee under this agenda item to negotiate, with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, these arrangements could take the form of an internationally legally binding undertaking that is credible and universal"s

19 June 2007, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

“The creative way of linking the two documents suggested by you (CD President Ambassador Bonnier) however, falls somewhat short of integrating them. My delegation’s preference would be for a unitary decision consisting of three textual components, which are on the table: fist, the draft decision as contained in L.1; second, the draft complementary statement as contained in L.1; and third, the understanding of the Conference on the implementation of the decision. They can be arranged logically and sequentially in a simple, neat, coherent and integrated text, articulating a unitary and unified understanding. It has the additional merit of avoiding multiplicity of documentation and unnecessary speculation regarding the comparative import of the three elements.”

30 March 2007, Ambassador Jayant Prasad, excerpt from UN press release

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said that if there was consensus on the text proposed by the Presidency, as orally amended by Algeria and Egypt, India would go along with it. India was, however, concerned that they might be losing sight of the fact that the special session presupposed the Conference's reaching consensus on the proposed Presidential draft decision.

2 March 2006, Ambassador Jayant Prasad

"India's preferred position has, thus, always been for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as contained in documents CD 1570 and CD 1571. Nevertheless, India decided to support the Amorim proposal and the proposal of the Five Ambassadors, hoping that they could become a basis for consensus on a programme of work for the CD. We recognize that given the current impasse, it may be unrealistic to expect consensus on a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament, but anything less than what is contained in the proposal of Five Ambassadors would be unacceptable to us. "

8 June 2006, statement by I Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja on behalf of the Group of 21

"The Group further reaffirms its recognition that the legal regime applicable to outer space does not in and of itself guarantee the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and that the regime plays a significant role in the prevention of an arms race in that environment. For that purpose, the Group stresses the need to consolidate and reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness. The Group also emphasizes the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work in the Conference of Disarmament on the prevention of an arms race in outer space."

2 February 2006, Ambassador Makarim Wibisono

"Ideally, we would prefer to see the CD address all the items on the agenda simultaneously: but we are also ready to start discussing some of them as suggested in the A-5 proposal, for example. The proposal which has been widely acclaimed as the most viable in years is on the table. My delegation is ready, if it is the wish of the Conference, to start discussing it and get the ball rolling."

5 June 2007

“The Islamic Republic of Iran wants the FMCT to be an internationally and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and non discriminatory Treaty. Past and present stockpiles are to be covered under the scope of the Treaty. We stress that the negotiation process on a possible FMCT should be in the framework of the Shannon mandate. We want the P6 proposal to include these issues.”

27 March 2007, excerpt from UN press release

With regard to a fissile material treaty, Iran reiterated that any negotiations on that subject had to be within the framework of the Shannon Mandate.

24 January 2007, Ambassador Ali Reza Moaiyeri

“Iran, like any other Non Nuclear Weapon State, has no obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the exercise of its inalienable right [to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes], nor can it be obligated to suspend it. However, Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment activities voluntarily, as it preferred a political agreement which could serve positively in the broader political spectrum and particularly in our trouble and volatile region…Iran commits itself to its NPT obligations. We believe the Security Council is not the right place to discuss Iran’s nuclear issue. The right place is at the IAEA.”

13 March 2007, Mr. Mottaki, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“…There is an attempt to seek military and strategic superiority in outer space which may lead to the weaponization of outer space in the near future endangering global peace and security. Therefore negotiating a legally binding instrument on prevention of an arms race in outer space is also an urgent task for the CD.”

5 June 2007

“Therefore the Islamic Republic of Iran requests the CD to establish Ad Hoc Committees to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States.”

13 March 2007, Mr. Mottaki, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“Adoption of a universal, unconditional and legally-binding instrument on security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons has been a long-standing goal of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States. It is a pressing issue on which the discussion needs to be reinvigorated at the CD.”

7 July 2005, Ambassador Hamid Eslamizad, excerpt from UN press release

HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran) stated that contrary to the expectations of the international community reflected in the consensus final document of the NPT Review Conference of 2000, the role of nuclear weapons was not diminished in the security policies of some nuclear weapons States and military alliances. It was recalled that the Group of Non-Aligned States parties to the NPT in the course of the 2005 Review Conference stressed that it was the legitimate right of States that had given up the nuclear weapon option to receive security assurances and called for the negotiation of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances. This was a position to which Iran fully subscribed. Moreover, the position of Iran was that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee that there would be no use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; that non-nuclear weapon States should be effectively assured by nuclear weapon States that there will be no use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and that pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, efforts to conclude a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapons States should be pursued as a matter of priority.

21 June 2007

“At the same time, we should keep in mind the fact that document L.1 itself needs serious improvement. Substantive problems dealing with document L.1 by its nature need to be taken care of and consulted in an inclusive process, which would not be addressed or resolved by a Presidential Statement, however rich it may be.
The document L1 has fallen short of addressing our priorities, such as nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, thoroughly and comprehensively. We had expected a clear commitment in the P6 proposal to start negotiations on this issue in the CD.” 

30 March 2007, Ambassador Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, excerpt from UN press release

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) also underlined the necessity of referring to the Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure. There was an emerging consensus on two points: one was that there was a need for consultation; and the second was that there was no consensus on the presidential text – and that had to be considered.

29 January 2004, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi

"Thus the five ambassadors' initiative, a valuable cross-regional venture, is considered as a remarkable step in the right direction that should be built upon."

15 May 2007, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition

“The Coalition pointed out that for such a treaty (FMCT) to be meaningful it should include a verification mechanism and cover existing stocks. It further noted that the negotiation and conclusion of a fissile material treaty would limit the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals, and, therefore, could be understood as a significant step in a phased programme towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

7 February 2006, Ambassador Mary Whelan

"We believe that the CD should commence negotiations on a Treaty dealing with fissile material. Ireland is realistic. We appreciate that the CD cannot simultaneously begin serious negotiations on a range of topics. In this context, in 2006 we attach particular priority to commencing negotiations on a fissile material treaty while establishing subsidiary bodies to consider the other areas to which we attach priority."

7 February 2006, Ambassador Mary Whelan

"We support the establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament."

13 June 2006, Ambassador Mary Whelan

"My delegation has consistently said that we would like to see this Conference embark without delay on a process that could lead to an agreement to prohibit the weaponisation of outer space. However, pending progress on such a initiative, we believe that there are a number of measures that could be taken to increase transparency in space activities and otherwise to build confidence in the peaceful intentions of all space-faring states"

23 March 2007, Ambassador Paul Kavanaugh, excerpt from UN press release

PAUL KAVANAUGH (Ireland) reiterated Ireland's former statements commending the Six Presidents (P6). Ireland recognized that the proposal before the Conference represented the best chance for a collective compromise solution. The P6 had promoted equity, compromise and collective work. Procedural excuses should no longer be a mask for substantive differences. Ireland supported the proposal of the P6 of 2007 and looked forward to a qualitatively different second session.

7 February 2006, Ambassador Mary Whelan

"We would be ready to consider how to move forward on other items on our agenda to which our negotiating partners attach importance. Like others we continue to believe that the A5 proposal has the potential to address the range of concerns in this room."

2003 CD

only willing to “reduce the arms race in our region to the minimal levels required for national self-defense.”

13 March 2007,
Mr. Craxy, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

Italy felt that the best way to proceed towards that objective was to immediately commence negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)...The nuclear weapon States had already expressed their readiness to begin such negotiations. Therefore, there were no more reasons, and no more excuses, to delay a start to negotiations.

16 May 2006, Ambassador Carlo Trezza

"Agreeing on the core business of a treaty should be our first endeavor: definitions will be another fundamental part of the process. On that basis it will be possible, as it is indicated in on of the papers, to identify additional features of a Treaty such as verifiability and scope."

23 June 2005, Ambassador Carlo Trezza

"We share the aspiration of those who advocate more efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, and we will continue, together with our European partners, to encourage progress in this field. In order to find an understanding on a realistic way forward in the CD we could therefore agree on the establishment of subsidiary bodies one of which would deal with nuclear disarmament. Within this body information and views would be exchanged on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to attain the objective of nuclear disarmament and in doing so approaches towards potential future work of a multilateral character would be examined."

13 March 2007, Mr. Craxy, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

Italy recognized that there were other priorities in the Conference, such as the prevention of an arms race in outer space. While awaiting the proposal of more concrete projects in that regard, Italy supported the idea of discussing a code of conduct for outer space.

13 June 2006, Ambassador Carlo Trezza

"We still encounter difficulties in reaching a consensus on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. For many delegations, including mine, an FMCT is the priority in the CD. But we heard no dissenting voice so far on the principle that the CD, as it conducts FMCT negotiations, could continue to work on other issues including PAROS."

3 August 2006, Ambassador Carlo Trezza

"Several delegations are of the opinion that the Conference on Disarmament is not the appropriate venue for dealing with the NSAs and consider the NPT as a more appropriate forum. We tend to share this point of view since we believe that only NPT non nuclear weapons states in compliance with the Treaty can benefit fr4om these assurances. Although the NPT contains no references to security assurances, Decision 2 of the 1995 NPT Review Conference suggest "further steps" in this field. Such steps could take the form of an internationally binding instrument"

27 March 2007, Ambassador Carlo Trezza, excerpt from UN press release

Italy already indicated last Friday that it can accept this decision which is demand driven and a fair and honest compromise based on an elaboration of previous proposals which are familiar to all delegations and on which we have been working for years.

2 February 2006, Ambassador Carlo Trezza, excerpt from UN press release

The so-called food-for-thought non-paper which had been presented last year was a further elaboration of the Five Ambassadors proposal, and it remained an important term of reference for Italy.

24 January 2007, Ambassador Sumio Tarui

“Japan attaches paramount importance to the early commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)... it is also a significant fact that no country, including any nuclear-weapon state, has voiced opposition to the negotiation of an FMCT itself in the CD even though a range of opinions with regards to the whole CD schedule exist. Japan aims to enhance deliberations on the substance of an FMCT for the early conclusion of negotiations once they begin, through specific comments on the draft treaty and working papers already circulated.”

28 February 2006, Ambassador Yoshiki Mine

"Second, the CD must start negotiation on FMCT as soon as possible. Since I will be touching upon the FMCT at a later date, I will not go into detail on this issue. But I would like to stress that the FMCT is the most realistic multilateral legal disarmament measure envisaged at this moment."

13 August 2003, Japan's working paper on FMCT

Japan rejects including “peaceful use” fissile materials in FMCT, and believes that the scope should only include future production. Japan suggested that “comprehensive” verification for a FMCT “should be examined carefully in terms of ‘cost-effectiveness’.”

13 March 2007, Mr. Hamada, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs

“While Japan commends the nuclear disarmament efforts of the United States and the Russian Federation based on the steady implementation of the Moscow Treaty, we encourage both countries to make further reduction beyond those provided for in that Treaty. Likewise, we call on the other nuclear weapon States to also make further efforts towards nuclear disarmament.”

23 June 2005, Ambassador Yoshiki Mine, excerpt from UN press release

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said Japan's efforts for nuclear disarmament were expressed in its resolution submitted to the First Committee of the General Assembly on "a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons". Some progress had been made in the field of nuclear disarmament. There was, however, a need for more transparency and steady progress in the process of nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament should continue to play a pivotal role to achieve concrete disarmament measures, and Japan supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. Japan was considering redrafting its First Committee resolution this year with fresh eyes.

13 February 2007, Ambassador Sumio Tarui

“Whether it be ‘weaponization’ or ‘space objects’, the core concepts of PAROS are vague and obscure. Due to this vague nature, the ad hoc committee, which between 1985 and 1994 was tasked with addressing PAROS, produced no substantial results as agreement could not be reached among the countries on the definition of ‘space weapons’ or ASATs. As the definitions still remain vague, it would be therefore considerably difficult to negotiate a treaty, since it is unclear what obligations would be imposed on the states parties."

15 June 2006, Ambassador Yoshiki Mine

Japan, like other countries, is concerned with the safety of outer space. Due to the rapid advancement in the use of satellites, there is the possiblity thet the efforts of the international communiy could lag behind the growing number of problems surronding the use of space. As it has been pointed out by many speakers who have already taken the floor in the thematic discussions on PAROS, tackling this issue with foresight is not only important but essential and we must maintain a healthy enviroment for satellite operations.

21 June 2007

“My delegation fully supports your proposal from 14th of June and we sincer