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

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Mr. Idriss Jazaïry

"No mister President the challenge today is to look at the Middle East as the way we would like to see it. As an area free from nuclear weapons. An area were you do not condone one non NPT power that holds nuclear weapons and you claim that another that is a member of NPT is the villain."

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.

22 May 2009 - President, Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry

“Now it is clear that at this stage it is still early days and we do not have a consensus. We do not expect on the first meeting after the presentation of a document like CD/1863, for anybody or any regional group to announce consensus. It would be useful for Member States who would like to give us some signals or suggestions to do so. Or they may do so of course on next Tuesday, or next Thursday, or on any time in the future. I do not anticipate that there is a time limit for the exercise – you know that we have been engaged in this exercise for twelve years, I hope that we don’t go through another twelve years before we come to a close.”

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.

25 June 2009 - Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, CD President

"From those consultations [during the month of June] has arisen a Draft calendar of activities to be found in document CD/1866, which will enable the Conference on Disarmament to immediately commence the substantive work up to the end of its sessions for 2009. Within the limited time remaining this schedule provides further possibility of addressing the tasks of each working group and the special coordinators in a serious and comprehensive way, in line with their respective mandates as spelled out in Document CD/1864.

I have proposed a list of possible candidates to chair the four Working Groups and the tasks of the Three Special Coordinators. These are to be found in Document CD/1867. You will find an appropriate geographical distribution for the leadership of our work."

25 June 2009 - Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, CD President

"Document CD/1864 does indicate the path to be followed as it were. And the first step on that path would be to establish the Subsidiary Bodies and the Special Coordinator, consisting of the appointment of their officials and their officers. Proposal 1867 points in that direction. Once we are in a position to adopt that Decision, we will be able to set out the structure of our work. And it is in that context that the schedule activities were wished and discussed among all the Members of the Conference.

Document CD/1866 provides us with an idea of the sequence of activities to be performed. Accordingly, I think that this provides us with a picture and a perspective of the matters set out earlier in document CD/1864."

9 September 2008 - Mr Raύl Peláez

"Through you, sir, I would like to congratulate the six Presidents of the Conference on Disarmament for the excellent work that they have done throughout the year with the view to adopt a program of work on the basis of document CD 1840.  Elements thereof have been supported by the ministry of Foreign Affairs in my country in the 3rd of March and this was also done repeatedly in statements done at Regional level." 

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"

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Caroline Millar

"We hope these external policy shifts will indeed help break the dead-lock and get the CD back to work.  From Australia’s national perspective, and as we have stated many times in this forum, a key priority – and one that is very widely shared - will be to commence negotiations on an FMCT".

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."

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Caroline Millar

"Australia remains strongly committed to nuclear disarmament.  That was why Australian Prime Minister Rudd along with then Japanese Prime Minister Aso decided to establish an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament last year.  The Commission will seek to break existing stalemates and restate the case for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in ways that are compelling for political decision makers".

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.

30 June 2009 - Ambassador Caroline Millar, CD President

"Now some Delegations have raised legitimate concerns about the Draft Decisions in CD/1866 and CD/1867 and I am continuing to consult with Delegations to address these concerns. I appreciate too that some Delegations have yet to receive instructions from Capitals. In this context I should like also to emphasize, as set out clearly in CD/1864 and the Programme of Work, that Decisions on the appointment of the Chairs and Special Coordinators and on the Calendar are for 2009 only. The 2010 Conference on Disarmament will need to take its own Decision on a Programme of Work, on Subsidiary Bodies, who will chair them and on the Calendar of Activities."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Caroline Millar

“Australia, in its national capacity, fully supports CD/1863 and looks forward to its early adoption.”

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Caroline Millar

"At the beginning of each year, Australia – along with the overwhelming majority of delegations – has strongly urged the Conference to agree on its program of work and start substantive negotiations. We supported the draft decision of the Presidents in 2008, CD/1840, which set out a good basis to move forward. We remain supportive of this proposal".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"From our perspective, a comprehensive ban on the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes is indispensable to stop the nuclear arms race…such a treaty can and must be verified. Effective verification should comprise any enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Furthermore, mechanisms need to be established also to detect undeclared or clandestine enrichment or reprocessing activities".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"…an eventual FMCT could include provisions enhancing transparency and confidence. Firstly, any fissile material for civil purposes should be placed under the auspices of the IAEA…Secondly, all nuclear weapons powers, regardless if they are State Parties to the NPT or not, should be obliged to apply the highest security standards to curb the proliferation risk and to enhance confidence through higher transparency on their military stockpiles".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"Many delegations have stated that time is ripe for negotiations of an FMCT. From our perspective, such a treaty is long overdue and should be negotiated in the CD in an open and transparent manner giving all delegations the opportunity to pronounce their respective priorities".

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.

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"As regards nuclear disarmament…The entry into force of the CTBT is long overdue".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"We believe that it is time to design a framework suited to the nuclear realities of the 21st century which restricts the most dangerous technologies, enrichment and reprocessing, exclusively to facilities under multilateral control...From the Austrian point of view, however, fuel reserve mechanisms can only be a first step in a long journey".

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.”

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

"With regard to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, my delegation is of the opinion that code of conducts significantly contribute to enhancing security of outer space activities or to curbing proliferation risks".

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"

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Christian Strohal

“The CD could benefit from a fruitful and regular exchange with disarmament NGOs. The longstanding Austrian efforts in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation have demonstrated time and again the importance of cooperation between governments, parliaments and civil society in international relations.”

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.

3 February 2009 - H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni

"Bangladesh supports a negotiating mandate for a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. Negotiations should extend to existing stockpiles, without which any such treaty would be incomplete."

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."

3 February 2009 - H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni

"While we abhor nuclear weapons, we value the potential of nuclear energy to boost our under-developed economies".

3 February 2009 - H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni

"As a State party to the NPT, Bangladesh has consciously given up its option to go nuclear…We continue to hold that only a total elimination of nuclear weapons can provide absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons".

3 February 2009 - H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni

"Militarization of outer space could spiral into an arms race".

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."

3 February 2009 - H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni

"In this context, we are also supportive of regional approaches to nuclear disarmament…We believe, this will contribute to regional confidence building measures and reduce threat to the security of non-nuclear weapon states".

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 January 2009 - Ambassador Andrei Savinykh - on behalf of Eastern European Group

"Therefore the Eastern European Group would be ready to support the consensus on CD/1840 or on any future document, based on it with modifications that might strengthen and improve it".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"An FMCT could be the gateway leading to nuclear disarmament".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"I might add a specific point of my own, however, that is that my delegation, possible negotiations on our fissile materials cut off treaty for explosive purposes should contain verification provisions".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"Nuclear disarmament remains the highest goal in international relations insofar nuclear weapons may thwart all the other aspirations including development".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"For a country like Brazil, that has no nuclear weapons and will not possess such arsenal, nothing more sensible than ask for the prompt preparation and adoption of a legally binding instrument assuring non-nuclear weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"Agreed measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space are undoubtedly in the interest of the very nations that are in a position of enterprising such dangerous, unfortunate adventure".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"The malaise of insecurity can be remedied by means of weapons in the way that vitamins are supposed to strengthen ones resistance to disease".

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

“Brazil offers its support to the adoption of a programme of work, along the proposals made by you, in document CD 1863. Mr. President in order to get consensus, a proposal has not to correspond fully to each one’s positions. You know that the ambitions of Brazil go beyond the limits that we have been accepting in a realistic and a pragmatic way. Your proposal keeps it self within these boundaries. My delegation, for example, let it be known that it considers, the issue of negative security assurance by means of a legally binding instrument as right for negotiations. My delegation favors the negotiations of a treaty to prohibit the placement of weapons in outer space. It is true that your proposal does not fulfill those expectations, however it does not preclude them. My delegation will certainly pursue those aims in the respective subsidiary bodies. It is of the outmost important that the Conference on Disarmament resume its active negotiating role.”

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

"These considerations show that for Brazil it is not only viable but also desirable to commence negotiations in more than one agenda item. However we refuse a position of all or nothing".

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."

28 May 2009 - Second Secretary Ivan Gospodinov

“The argument of Bulgaria to support CD 1863 is twofold. First, Bulgaria has always sought to play a constructive role in this body and has supported every major initiative designed to overcome the deadlock in the Conference. The merit of the draft decision itself is the other reason for our support. Our delegation finds it a well-balanced compromise that reflects efforts from previous years to narrow down the differences on a program of work. To our view, this document has the capacity to prompt consensus among member states and provide basis for the CD to resume its substantial work.”

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.

17 June 2008 - Ambassador Marius Grinius

"The bottom line again seems to be that an FMCT can be a much more ripe for serious discussions nuclear disarmament negotiations then any of the other 3 core issues and I certainly would ask members here to be realistic about expectations and not to be rather we must negotiate everything together at once".

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."

17 June 2008 - Ambassador Marius Grinius

"Nuclear Disarmament it seems more like of a wonderful long term objective rather than really a negotiation then is realistic at this point".

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"

17 June 2008 - Ambassador Marius Grinius

"Things like NSA which I thought had been flogged to death 20 years ago, are still no ripe for negotiations and something like that and I think would require having also found mountains of paper on the subject, a necessary perhaps summary of every member of the CD where they stand on something like NSA".

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."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Marius Grinius

“We have carefully considered the newly tabled draft decision CD/1863 and feel that this is a balanced compromise. I should emphasize that it is a compromise. Canada can support the draft decision as the basis for work in the Conference on Disarmament. We hope other delegations will approach this document with the same constructive spirit of compromise in order for the Conference on Disarmament to reach a consensus and resume its substantive negotiation on work.”

17 June 2008 - Ambassador Marius Grinius

"I don’t have any prepared statement but certainly Canada does join Sweden and Finland in its continued support of CD/1840 as a practical starting point not without a lot of difficulties as pointed out by the Distinguished Ambassador of Pakistan".

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.

15 May 2008 - Ambassador Carlos Portales

"Our country consequently has supported various initiatives that have sought to rescue the conference from this unjustified inaction. The Amorite proposal, the five ambassador’s proposal, the food paper, the presidential decision of 2007 lately, document CD 18/40".

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 June 2008 - Wang Qun

"We have also taken note that the respective Ambassador of Russia and the issue of PAROS has put forward specific proposals. China fully supports them".

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."

25 June 2009 - Ambassador Wang Qun

"CD/1867 talks about the implementation of CD/1864. I would like to know whether the CD/1866 also falls into this sphere. Putting it in different words, let me say, the contents of 1866, I would like to know whether it also falls into the framework of the implementation of 1864? Because one Draft talks about the implementation of 1864 and the other one does not. Well it is not clear what kind of implementation it will be involved in. However, this is only something technical I think. So I do not know Mr. President, do you have any special considerations on this arrangement? Is it true that both Drafts can be combined into one draft so that everybody knows that they talk about the implementation of 1864?"

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 May 2009 - Mr. Daniel Avila Camacho

“Colombia supports this proposed Programme of Work, CD 1863, although it does not fully reflect what we would desire on relevant items. In its current form it is a balanced proposal, which could be equally satisfactory, or unsatisfactory to everybody which we think is the key to any consensus. We should be aware that it is essential that this proposal be supported and put an end to the stagnation that has paralyzed this forum for the last 12 years.”

9 September 2008 - Mr. Avila comacho

"My delegation is of the view that the proposal presented by the six Presidents contained in document CD/1840 is a solid base that can serve in the continuation of our work next year.  Many efforts have been made by the Presidents to set it aside as a valid option.  We think that this proposal provides continuity to the work of the Conference and an opportunity to move forward in consensus".

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."

17 June - Mr Abel La Rose Domínguez

"For Cuba, Nuclear Disarmament is the highest priority in Disarmament as all member states in the UN agreed in final document in the First General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament in 1978".

17 June - Mr Abel La Rose Domínguez

"We therefore urge those nuclear powers and other states who are today stressing non proliferation to the detriment of nuclear disarmament that they should unambiguously face up to the obligation upon all state parties to the NPT under article 6 which includes the commitment to hold negotiations in good faith to come up with effective measures to put an end to nuclear arms race in the near future and to achieve nuclear disarmament".

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."

17 June - Mr Abel La Rose Domínguez

"My delegation will not oppose the document CD/1840 if consensus is reached on this proposal".

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.

29 May 2009 - Mr. An Myong Hun

“It is our constant policy to achieve total and complete nuclear disarmament and DPRK believes and hopes that those countries that possess most of the nuclear weapons must take the lead in the elimination of nuclear weapons. In fact, the nuclear threat and proliferation comes from those weapons, particularly on alert status.”

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."

29 May 2009 - Mr. An Myong Hun

“We have followed deeply the discussions of the Draft Discussion (CD/1863) and the development of atmosphere in the CD. DPRK has been always constructive in the approach to the CD and it is fully cooperating with the Group of 21. It is from this constructive spirit and from the constant position for the total elimination of nuclear weapons forced by those countries, which possess most of the weapons that the DPRK decided to support the Draft Decision CD/1863, in order to start substantial work without delay.”

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.

10 June 2008 - Emilio Izquierdo Miño

"Ecuador has committed itself to rehabilitating its land so that this can be useful, productive, and not pose a threat to the lives of our civilian population.  We make this point because we note with concern that many countries in our disarmament related matters such as weapons of mass destruction have failed to live up to their obligations, for instance, the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons".

10 June 2008 - Emilio Izquierdo Miño

"Our record in the field of Nuclear disarmament is amply known in negotiations. We continue to believe the need to strengthen and create nuclear weapons free zone as an appropriate mechanism to work towards nuclear disarmament".

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.

10 June 2008 - Emilio Izquierdo Miño

"Draft decision CD 18/40 presented for consideration by member states now, is we feel, a valuable procedural endeavour to address substantive items through the appointment of coordinators which would make possible the speeding up of a work that is being now long dormant.  The practice of the approach described in the draft decision is a realistic as a means of emerging from the coma in which we find ourselves. The document refers to the four fundamental issues which need to be discussed. We are aware that the proposal may have its weaknesses as is inevitable in any consensus process, however, we reach a stage in which flexibility will be decisive in developing and constructing a program of work which will enable us to overcome such an unacceptable lack of action which might be regarded as evidence of a deplorable lack of imagination".

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.

17 February 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"Egypt believes that the most pragmatic way forward, and the path of least resistance, would be to foster consensus around previously agreed upon outcomes, and in that regard reiterates the call for negotiations of an FMCT to adhere to progress already achieved more than a decade ago as contained in the Shannon Mandate CD/1299 of 1995...Egypt stands ready to fully and immediately support a Programme of Work that takes such matters effectively into consideration, and calls upon Member States to consider the merits of supporting a similar approach".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

The mandate for negotiation of an FMCT must adhere to progress already achieved more than a decade ago in CD/1299 (1995), which clearly indicates that such a Treaty must be non-discriminatory, multilateral, and internationally and effectively verifiable, and that it does not preclude any delegation from raising for consideration the issue of existing stockpiles.

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."

17 February 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"Indeed Nuclear Disarmament must remain the top priority of the Conference, in accordance with the special status allocated to it in the final document of the 1978 first special session of the General Assembly on disarmament (SSOD1)".

17 February 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"Egypt underscores that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are interrelated, and that effective efforts to address one, must necessarily include the other".

17 February 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"Egypt reaffirms its support for the creation of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones as important steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, and highlights the necessity of implementing the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference Resolution on the Middle East as a pivotal element in that regard".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"It is important to highlight here that Nuclear Disarmament must remain the top priority of the Conference, in accordance with the special status allocated to it in the final document of the first special session of the General Assembly for disarmament (SSOD1)".

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."

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Hisham Badr

"Egypt fully supports adopting a Programme of Work by consensus that would establish ad hoc committees as negotiating subsidiary bodies of the Conference for the four core issues, namely; Nuclear Disarmament, Negative Security Assurances (NSAs), Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT)".

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.

3 March 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

“Attaches a clear priority to the negotiation, without preconditions, in the CD of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT), as a means to strengthen nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. By banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, a FMCT will contribute significantly to the nuclear disarmament efforts under article VI of the NPT.”

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"…the European Union attaches a clear priority to the negotiations at the CD of an FMCT. An effective FMCT would constitute a significant step in the process of nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. The EU will address the issue of an FMCT in a separate statement at a later date".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Thomas Husak of the Czech Republic

"The European Union proposed…The opening without delay and without preconditions of negotiations for a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and the introduction of an immediate moratorium on the production of such materials".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Thomas Husak of the Czech Republic

"The European Union attaches a clear priority to the negotiation, without preconditions, in the Conference on Disarmament, of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT), a means to strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation".

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.”

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"The last time the European Union made a formal statement at this Conference specifically dedicated to the issue of nuclear disarmament was on 6 February 2007. The EU stands by this statement".

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"…the European Union calls for the universal ratification of the CTBT…the EU also calls for the completion of its verification regime and the dismantling of all nuclear test facilities in a manner that is transparent and open to the international community".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Thomas Husak of the Czech Republic

"The European Union proposed...The universal ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the completion of its verification regime, and the dismantling as soon as possible of all nuclear testing facilities in a manner that is transparent and open to the international community".

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.”

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

" …an arms race in outer space must be prevented…The EU places great importance on the relevant existing agreements and sees these as the basis on which we should build…These agreements contribute to transparency and are important confidence-building measures between space-faring and non-space-faring nations".

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"Concerning the draft PPWT, in its statement of 28 February 2008 the EU already indicated that while it identifies itself with the overall goal to preserve outer space as an area free from armed conflict, further reflection and work is required on the elements for an effective international treaty. For example, it remains a difficult challenge to achieve consensus on the definitions needed for a legally binding instrument. As a matter of principle, an effective and robust verification system must be an integral part of any future Treaty concerned with space security. The EU considers it is not sufficient to only refer to a possible future additional protocol. Also any PPWT would need to clearly address the issue of anti-satellite weapons tests".

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"…the European Union has been preparing a draft proposal for an international Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, aimed at increasing the security of outer space activities. The main purpose of the project of the Code of Conduct is twofold: 1) To strenghten the existing United Nations treaties, principles and other arrangements, as the subscribing parties would commit to comply with them, to make progress towards adherence to them, to implement them, and to promote their universality. 2) To complement them by codifying new best practices in space operations including measures of notification and of consultation that would strenghten the confidence and transparency between space actors and contribute to developing good faith solutions that would permit the performance of space activities and access to space for all".

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.”

22 May 2009 - Mr. Tomas Husk of the Czech Republic

"The European Union thanks you, Mr. President, and the other P6 Members for the document CD/1863, entitled Draft Decision for the establishment of a Programme of Work for the 2009 session. We welcome the ongoing P6 consultations with all delegations. The EU hopes that all CD members will respond positively to your proposal. You can count on our support in taking your efforts forward. We urge all CD members to seize this moment and to get the CD back to substantive work.

12 February 2009 - Deputy Representative Ivan Pintir of the Czech Republic

"…the EU emphasizes that further substantive discussion concerning space issues will take place when the proposed programme of work of the CD (CD/1840) is agreed. The EU again urges all CD members to show flexibility and to make consensus possible on the basis of this proposal".

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Thomas Husak of the Czech Republic

"The European Union would go along with the proposal in the document CD/1840 which constitutes a balanced compromise that we believe takes into account the views of all parties and should be acceptable to them".

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.

9 September 2008 - Ambassador Hannu Himanen

"We believe that the time is ripe for the Conference to redeem itself by engaging, finally and in earnest, in the delayed FMCT negotiations, for which the CD is the most natural forum thanks to its composition and expertise".

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."

9 September 2008 - Ambassador Hannu Himanen

We are, fortunately, encouraged by the draft proposal for a Programme of Work presented by the P6 and contained in document CD/1840. It is a balanced and well crafted compromise that would allow this Conference to resume productive work and serious negotiations".

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."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Jean- François Dobelle

"At Cherbourg the President propose in particular to invite international experts to come and witness the dismantling of our facilities for the production of military fissile material at Pierrlatter and Marcoule".

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."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Jean- François Dobelle

"With regard to the program of work of the CD and resolution 18040, I would refer to this statement which was made on behalf of the European Union on 15th May by the Slovenia presidency, a declaration which we of course do support".

27 March 2007, Ambassador Jean-Francois Dobelle, excerpt from UN press release

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"

12 March 2009 - Ambassador Klaus-Peter Gottwald, Federal Government Commissioner for Disarmament and Arms Control

“We need a renewed effort to finally engage in substantial steps forward to start FMCT negotiations. It remains the next logical step, beside the entry into force of the CTBT, for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Together with our Partners in the EU, Germany attaches a clear priority to the negotiation, without preconditions, of an FMCT, as a means to strengthen both disarmament and non-proliferation. Germany has proposed in a working paper submitted to for the NPT PrepCom in 2008, inter alia the establishment within the CD of a Group of Scientific Experts to examine the technical aspects of an FMCT. Such an ad hoc group of experts could assist the discussion in the CD and deal with technical aspects related to, among other definitions, the scope and verification of an FMCT. In addition to cutting-off the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, we need to do more to increase the security, transparency and control over existing fissile material stocks worldwide.”

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."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Klaus-Peter Gottwald

"Germany has been working consistently on the adoption of the Programme of Work and has continuously demonstrated its flexibility. We have supported the so called A-5 proposals of September 2003, the L-1 document in 2007 and the March 2008 proposal for a Programme of Work contained in document CD/1840. We are ready to continue this proven flexibility in order to overcome the deadlock in the CD and hope for equal flexibility by all members of the CD with regards to the Programme of Work. In this spirit we fully support the P-6 proposal for a draft decision for the establishment of a Programme of Work for the 2009 session contained in document CD/1863."

12 March 2009 - Ambassador Klaus-Peter Gottwald, Federal Government Commissioner for Disarmament and Arms Control

“Although the threat of nuclear weapons may be less present in the minds and media today than it was during the Cold War, making progress in nuclear disarmament continues to be one of the major challenges in the international community. We cannot afford to be passive; we need renewed efforts towards complete nuclear disarmament “Global ZERO” as a rational, sustainable long-term solution to ensure our security. The danger of terrorists putting their hands on nuclear weapons and materials is growing and will remain one of the major threats if no steps are taken to reduce considerably the numbers of such weapons.

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"

20 May 2008 -

"In our view the carefully crafted Draft Decision by the 2008 Presidents of the CD contained in CD/1840 takes into account in an honest, fair, balanced and comprehensive manner the interests of all CD members - and in a realistic sense of compromise leaves them unhappy with it. Germany therefore wholeheartedly welcomes this Draft Decision by the 2008 Presidents of the CD. Its elements indeed reflect the necessary decisions the CD will have to agree on to get back to work".

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."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry of Algeria

“The Group reaffirms its readiness to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention.”

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman of Bangladesh

"The Group emphasizes the necessity of further measures with appropriate and effective provision for verification to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects…In this regard, the Group is deeply concerned over the negative implications of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic-missile defence systems and the pursuit of advanced military technologies capable of being deployed in outer space which have, inter alia, contributed to the further erosion of an international climate conducive to the promotion of disarmament and strengthening of international security".

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman of Bangladesh

"In addition, the United Nations General Assembly resolution 63/40 on "Prevention of an arms race in outer space" further made the following observations with regard to the Conference on Disarmament. 1) The CD should complete the examination and updating of the mandate contained in the decision of 13 February 1992 and establish an Ad Hoc Committee during the 2009 Session. 2) The CD has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects".

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman - on behalf of G-21

"In this regard, the Group welcomes the joint Russian-Chinese initiative of a draft treaty on the "Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects (PPWT)."

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman - on behalf of G-21

"The Group believes that there is a need to recognize the right of non-nuclear-weapon States not to be attacked by or threatened with the use of nuclear weapons. This position is a long-standing one".

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman - on behalf of G-21

"The Group believes that the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs), on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at amongst the States of the region concerned and taking into account provisions of the first UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD1), is a positive step and important measure towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation".

19 February 2009 - Mr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman - on behalf of G-21

"While the Group believes that the NWFZs are positive steps towards strengthening global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, it does not subscribe to the arguments stating that declarations that have been made by the nuclear-weapon States are sufficient, or that security assurances should only be granted in the context of nuclear-weapon-free zones. In addition, given their geographical limitations, security assurances guaranteed to states-members of nuclear weapon free zones cannot substitute for universal legally binding security assurances".

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Klara Tunyogi Akots

"I would like to assure you Mr. President, and the other P-6 Presidencies, of my delegation’s full support in your consequent effort to guide the voice of this Conference to be able to adopt the Programme of Work based on the document CD/1863."

29 May 2009 – Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

“India supports the establishment of a Working Group to negotiate anFMCT as part of the CD’s Programme of Work. India was one of the original co-sponsors of the UNGA resolution 48/75/L adopted in 1993 on FMCT. The mandate for the proposed treaty was explicitly reflected in the 1993 UNGA Resolution and reconfirmed by the Shannon Report contained in CD/1299. The scope of such a treaty would focus on the future production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. We are committed to participating constructively in the FMCT negotiations in the CD.”

28 May 2009 – Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

“India supports the establishment of a Working Group to negotiate anFMCT. As a country possessing nuclear weapons we are willing to conclude a universal, non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable treaty banning the further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.”

3 February 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

“India supports the establishment of an Ad hoc committee on FMCT as part of the CD’s Programme of Work. India was one of the original co-sponsors of UNGA Resolution 48/75L, adopted in 1993 which envisaged FMCT as a significant contribution to nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects. We believe the CD is the appropriate forum for negotiating the FMCT.”

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"

29 May 2009 – Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

“India attaches the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Speaking at the UNGA on 26 September 2008, our Prime Minister reiterated India’s proposal for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for banning the production, development, stock piling and use of nuclear weapons and to provide for their complete elimination within a specified time frame.“

28 May 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

“India attaches the highest priority to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons on a universal and non-discriminatory basis. While disappointed that the CD has not been able to launch negotiations on Nuclear Disarmament, we believe the CD should continue to explore all possible avenues to make progress so as to respond meaningfully to growing international opinion in favor of a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani

“It is important that efforts aimed at non-proliferation should be mirrored by simultaneous efforts aimed at disarmament. Otherwise such success will soon be doomed to failure since there will be always a risk of proliferation as long as these weapons continue to exist. Indeed, the existence of nuclear weapons in the name of ones security is undermining the security of others. As we have already given up our option to go nuclear, it is therefore reasonable and justifiable for us to expect those that possess these weapons to fulfill their obligations in making concrete measures to eliminate them in an internationally verifiable manner. As nuclear disarmament is the highest priority on our agenda this treaty must serve as an instrument that will ultimately lead to nuclear disarmament.”

20 January 2009 - Ambassador I Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja

"We welcome the commitments and unilateral nuclear reduction of nuclear arsenal undertaken by some nuclear weapon States. We urge them to take further necessary measures towards advancing their nuclear disarmament efforts. Concrete disarmament measures should be initiated by all Nuclear Weapon States. They must demonstrate their commitment in a manner which is both verifiable and irreversible".

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”

3 February 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

"We support international efforts to reinforce safety and security of space based assets and to prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. There are a number of proposals on the table, including a draft treaty tabled by Russia and China, which deserve further consideration".

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 February 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

"India supports negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on effective arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. On this important issue, the CD can make a meaningful contribution by undertaking negotiations of an appropriate agreement in an Ad hoc Committee on negative security assurances".

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

28 May 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

"India will not stand in the way of the adoption of the draft decision contained in CD 1863. We reserve the right to make remarks on substantive elements of the Programme of Work after its formal adoption by the Conference."

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani

"My delegation supports the initiative taken by the President in proposing a draft decision for the establishment of a programme of work, CD/1863. We are convinced that the draft is crafted based on a number of past proposals, statements as well as inputs from various parties through intensive consultations. My delegation therefore considers the proposal to be a good compromise package, which can be a starting point for our work in the very near future. We support the package, which in particular includes the start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995, and the mandate contained therein."

3 February 2009 - Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao

"…we recognize that these are complex issues and achieving the goal of global nuclear disarmament in a verifiable and irreversible manner will be a long and arduous process. But in order to commence consideration of these complex issues, India would like to reiterate its proposal made last year that the CD consider the appointment of a special coordinator to assist in carrying out consultations on specific measures or a set of measures that have the potential of commanding consensus which can form the basis of a mandate for a possible Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament".

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. "

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani

“It is important that efforts aimed at non-proliferation should be mirrored by simultaneous efforts aimed at disarmament. Otherwise such success will soon be doomed to failure since there will be always a risk of proliferation as long as these weapons continue to exist. Indeed, the existence of nuclear weapons in the name of ones security is undermining the security of others. As we have already given up our option to go nuclear, it is therefore reasonable and justifiable for us to expect those that possess these weapons to fulfill their obligations in making concrete measures to eliminate them in an internationally verifiable manner. As nuclear disarmament is the highest priority on our agenda this treaty must serve as an instrument that will ultimately lead to nuclear disarmament.”

20 January 2009 - Ambassador I Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja

"We welcome the commitments and unilateral nuclear reduction of nuclear arsenal undertaken by some nuclear weapon States. We urge them to take further necessary measures towards advancing their nuclear disarmament efforts. Concrete disarmament measures should be initiated by all Nuclear Weapon States. They must demonstrate their commitment in a manner which is both verifiable and irreversible".

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."

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani

"My delegation supports the initiative taken by the President in proposing a draft decision for the establishment of a programme of work, CD/1863. We are convinced that the draft is crafted based on a number of past proposals, statements as well as inputs from various parties through intensive consultations. My delegation therefore considers the proposal to be a good compromise package, which can be a starting point for our work in the very near future. We support the package, which in particular includes the start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995, and the mandate contained therein."

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."

11 June 2009 – Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

“Iran once again re-emphasizes that an FMCT - which is to ban fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes - should not be turned into an instrument in the area of non-proliferation. We will never accept such an approach. The FMCT should be a clear and meaningful step for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. The FMCT should be a comprehensive, non-discriminatory, internationally and effectively verifiable Treaty. Past production and existing stocks as well as the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices must be covered under the scope of the Treaty.”

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran an FMCT should contribute to the goals of nuclear disamrament and non proliferation in all its aspects. Iran advocates the FMCT which is comprehensive, non discriminatory and internationally and effectively verifiable. Pas production and existing stocks as well as the future procudtion of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices are to be covered under the scrope of the Treaty".

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"We firmly believe the negotiation process on FMCT should be in the framework of Shannon mandate".

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.

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the total elimination of nuclear weapons as the only ablsolute guerantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons".

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.”

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"All the efforts should be done in order to secure the use of outer space for the well-bgeing and prosperity of all nations around the world…The draft treaty on PPWT prsented to the CD by China and Russia last year is step in the right direction that deserves further consideration".

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.”

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"Pending the total elimination of these inhumane weapons, efforts for the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States should be pursued as a matter of priority".

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.

19 February 2009 - Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

"As I explained, for Iran nuclear disarmament has the highest priority. In a realistic approach we are prepared to accommodate all these priorities. Therefore any proposal for the program of work needs to maintina the balance between the four core issues. The document CD/1840 failed to enjoy the consensus within the CD since it did not maintain the balance between these issues".

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."

28 May 2009 - Deputy Representative Ban Fadhli

"We fully support the Draft Decision (CD/1863), because it constitutes at this stage a reasonable balance and a compromise that cover the concerns of Member States. We hope that this would be real departing point in the adoption of the CD Programme of Work, so that the conference would be saved from the stalemate, which it witnessed for not such a short period of time to embark on serious realistic negotiations on the content of the Decision which reflect the interest of the Member States of the CD."

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"

28 May 2009 - Mr. James O'Shea

"My country sees in document CD 1863 a realistic, practical proposal capable of finally breaking the stalemate and getting this Conference back to substantive work. While it is unlikely that any delegation will be completely satisfied with it from a strictly national point of view, we must all bear in mind our shared responsibility to ensure that this Conference begins again to do the work for which it was established. It is for this reason that my delegation is happy to inform you of our support for the proposal contained in document CD/1863."

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.”

22 May 2009 - Mr. Meir Itzchaki

"I would like just to put on record that on the 25th of March my delegation requested a meeting with the President of the Conference on Disarmament and up to now, almost two months later; we did not get any reply for our request. So, just to put on record, that our delegation was not consulted on 1863."

28 May 2009 – Ambassador Govianni Manfredi

“By stopping, through appropriate safeguards, all production of weapons-grade fissile materials and encouraging the conversion of their manufacturing plants to civil use, a FMCT would drain way the supply of the main components of nuclear warheads. A FMCT would make nuclear disarmament irreversible. However, a viable FMCT needs reliable safeguards to prevent illegal diversions of fissile materials, or use of civil installations for military purposes. No treaty on disarmament can endure without a credible and workable verification mechanism. This is the only tool we have to remove the lurking temptations of cheating.“

3 March 2009 - Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Vincenzo Scotti

“By stopping, through appropriate safeguards, all production of weapons-grade fissile materials and encouraging the conversion of their manufacturing plants to civil use, a FMCT would drain way the supply of the main components of nuclear warheads. A FMCT would make nuclear disarmament irreversible. However, a viable FMCT needs reliable safeguards to prevent illegal diversions of fissile materials, or use of civil installations for military purposes. No treaty on disarmament can endure without a credible and workable verification mechanism. This is the only tool we have to remove the lurking temptations of cheating.”

14 August 2008 - Ambassador Lucia Fiori

"It is not a secret that negotiating a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT) represents Italy's top priority to be addressed at the CD. During the coordination of the Ambassadors of Italy and Japan in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the issue of an FMCT has matured to a point in which further progress is only achievable through real negotiations. THese negotiations can only be "without preconditions"."

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."

14 August 2008 - Ambassador Lucia Fiori

"As part of the European Union, Italy is contributing to the finalization of an EU Code of Conduct on space activities, and we look forward to further discuss this issue in the time to come".

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 March 2009 - Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Vincenzo Scotti

“The other useful tools in order to give renewed relevance to the cause of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are the Negative Security Assurances. The topic was discussed and appeared in the final documents of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. Regrettably, NSAs do not appear in the final document of the 2005 NPT Review Conference. “

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"

28 May 2009 - Ambassador Giovanni Manfredi

"My country considers your draft program of work for the CD, formulated by you with the support of the other P6, a finely balanced compromise document, containing all the necessary elements to finally break the decade-long deadlock that has so far, regrettably, characterize this body. It provides, among other things, for the start of negotiations on a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Italy can endorse CD/1863 and the program of work therein."

14 August 2008 - Ambassador Lucia Fiori

"The debate so far has convinced us that the very viable solution to resume substantive work at the Conference is by adopting document CD/1840 of 13th March 2008. It may be true that CD/1840 is "perfectible", but it is equally true that it contains a realistic and balanced proposal and it still represents the best possible compromise for a programme of work".

14 August 2008 - Ambassador Lucia Fiori

"You and the other members of the P6 platform have our full support in your endeavours to revitalize this august body on the basis of document CD/1840".

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.

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"The CD must start negotiations, particularly on an FMCT, which is the next logical step toward nuclear disarmament. In the discussions of the CD in previous years, no delegation expressed opposition to negotiations per se on the prohibition of production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"Furthermore, we think holding a focused discussion among experts on the specific details of the four core issues, such as verification for a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), is worth considering as a possible format for the thematic debates".

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"In regards to an FMCT, Japan would like to re-empasize that no delegation has expressed opposition to negotiations on the prohibition of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, notwithstanding differences over the modality and the scope of such negotiations".

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’.”

30 June 2009 - Ambassador Suda

"Japan, as the only country to have suffered nuclear bombings, has consistently adhered to its three non-nuclear principles and has demonstrated its strong resolve towards achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. We submit every year to the United Nations General Assembly a resolution on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which receives overwhelming support among the UN Member States. We actively promote the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. What’s more, based upon our experiences, we encourage disarmament and non-proliferation education to civil society, particularly to the younger generation. Against this backdrop, in April this year the Foreign Minister of Japan, Mr. Hirofumi Nakasone, presented 11 benchmarks that cover three fundamental areas for advancing global nuclear disarmament and announced Japan’s plan to host an international conference on nuclear disarmament next year.

Japan is certain that the International Commission will strengthen the recent positive movements in nuclear disarmament, and we anticipate that the ICNND will submit a very useful report soon after wrapping up its deliberations at the final meeting in Hiroshima this October. We strongly hope that the outcomes of the Commission’s work will contribute to the success of the 2010 NPT Review Conference."

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"Japan is of the unwavering opinion that nuclear disarmament by all nuclear-weapon states is key to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. With this in mind, amongst other things, our resolution called upon all nuclear-weapon states to reduce their nuclear arsenals in a transparent manner".

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.

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"The key difference in our opinion between documents CD/1840 and CD/1863 is that FMCT negotiations under the former are to be conducted without any preconditions, while the latter aims to negotiate a verifiable FMCT. Effective verification may indeed present difficult technical issues. Nevertheless, Japan’s position has been consistent on this issue and we have submitted a working paper suggesting possible ways for verification in an FMCT (CD/1774). In our view, CD/1863 is a comprehensive and balanced since it allows for the substantive discussion of the three other core issues in subsidiary bodies with a focus on the possibility of their future negotiation."

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"Japan is convinced that CD/1840 is the best possible compromise and is still valid for this year's session. Although necessity may require us to make a few amendments to the document in order to address the concerns that some member states still harbor, we should seek consensus on a program of work based upon the core elements of CD/1840".

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Sumio Tarui

"It is to be acknowledged that CD/1840 is a well-balanced compromise, as was the package proposal L.1. In addition, CD/1840, building upon the package proposal, addresses the specific concerns that have been expressed by delegations. Japan can accept the adjustment made to the L.1 package and supports the adoption of CD/1840".

21 June 2007

“My delegation fully supports your proposal from 14th of June and we sincerely hope that countries having some concerns or doubts on the Presidential proposal come to agree to this proposal as soon as possible to that we can go back to our work as soon as possible.” 

23 March 2007, Ambassador Sumio Tarui, excerpt from UN press release

SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said Japan commended the valuable efforts of the Six Presidents to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work after years of impasse. The proposal was balanced and reflected concerns of Member States collectively and respectfully. Japan hoped that all the Members of the Conference would be flexible enough to support this proposal.

20 June 2006, Vice Foreign Minister Akiko Yamanaka

"For instance, the Five Ambassadors' proposal for a program of work has produced few results, and we must break from its spell. We must review the present situation with fresh eyes while distancing ourselves from the past approaches"

17 March 2005, Minister of Foreign Affairs Kassymzhmomart Tokayev

"Kazakhstan also believes that the conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) is essential for nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This treaty is expected to tighten international negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile materials. We are convinces that the start of negotiations on an FMCD will be a significant step towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation."

15 June 2006, Ambassador Kayrat Abusseitov

"Kazakhstan regards the issue of PAROS as an important and integral element of the work of the CD. This is not an option to choose, but a realistic way to address challenges associated with the increasing exploration of outer space."
" A clear definition of weapons in outer space is the most problematic issue. There is a general recognition that a defense component is an integral part of national space programs and military and legal experts will face a tremendous challange in drawing a distinction between offensive weapons and legitimate needs" "Transparency and Confidence Building Measures can not be used as a substitute for a treaty but can play instrumental role in promoting its objectives"

17 March 2005, Minister of Foreign Affairs Kassymzhmomart Tokayev

"Bearing in mind the continuing importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Kazakhstan strongly believes that the demand placed on Nuclear Weapon States to grant negative security assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapon States is well founded and reasonable, and supports the proposal to elaborate within the Conference an international agreement on the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapon by Nuclear Weapon States against Non-Nuclear Weapon States."

24 January 2007, Ambassador Maria Nzomo

“In this regard, my delegation is of the view that the Conference must focus on and take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament which are achievable in the short term while at the same time embarking on a path towards a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime. Kenya firmly believes that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are two sides of the same coin that must be pursued simultaneously.”

3 August 2006, Ambassador Amina Mohamed, excerpt from UN press release

"Kenya called for urgent measures to be taken to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States."

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

“Latvia believes that the commencement of FMCT negotiations is long overdue and calls on the CD Member States not to wait any longer.”

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

“Latvia’s economy and development is increasingly dependent on peaceful outer space technologies and applications. We believe that an arms race in outer space must be prevented…We appreciated the careful consideration of the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space in the past two years by the Conference. We should make all efforts to explore, in a substantial manner, further possibilities for preventing an arms race in outer space.”

11 June 2009 – Mr. Azril Abdul Aziz

“The call to start negotiations on a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices is expressed in CD/1863 is timely, and constitutes one of the key steps towards nuclear disarmament. Such a treaty is essential in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, both vertical and horizontal.”

5 February 2009 - Ambassador Datuk Othman Hashim

"Whilst nuclear disarmament remains our highest priority and pending negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, the FMCT, similar to the CTBT, remains one of the next essential steps, towards preventing the proliferation of nuclear material, eventually leading towards the attainment of genuine nuclear disarmament".

28 June 2005, Ambassador Wan Yusri Aznainizam Wan Abdul Rashid, excerpt from UN press release

Together with negotiations on nuclear disarmament, Malaysia was strongly of the view that the FMCT negotiations constituted one of the next essential steps in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the break out of nuclear war, he stated. Moreover, Malaysia was strongly of the view that negotiations on a FMCT should include existing stockpiles and verification. In this regard, it urged the Conference to establish as soon as possible an Ad Hoc Committee on FMCT together with the establishment of the other three Ad Hoc Committees as proposed in the A5 proposal, namely on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances.

5 February 2009 - Ambassador Datuk Othman Hashim

"…last year Malaysia formally joined the group of the lead sponsors of the Resolution "Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems"…De-alerting represents a renewed effort to highlight a practical disarmament aspect which is implementable that could help reduce the risk of nuclear war and enhance the security of all states".

2 March 2006, Ambassador Wan Yusri Aznainizam Wan Abdul Rashid

"In this connection, we hope the CD, pending the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament, could begin discussions on the legal, technical and political elements required for the establishment and maintenance of a nuclear weapons free world, with the aim to integrate such thinking into the development of a program of action based on the practical steps agreed in 2000 for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the NPT."

27 February 2003, Ambassador Rajmah Hussain

“believes that an arms race in outer space should be prevented through a legally binding instrument.”

3 August 2006, Ambassador Hsu King Bee

"Malaysia wishes to reiterate its call to members of the Conference to pursue as a matter of priority the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States."

30 June 2009 - Mr. Azril Abdul Aziz

"The Malaysian Delegation is encouraged that the Draft Decision CD/1866 successfully outlines in a practical manner the schedule of activities for the meetings of the four working groups and the special coordinators and has the balance needed. We view CD/1866 as the necessary prescription to allow the CD to begin substantive work, preparatory work such as on Mandates, Terms of Reference, future scheduling and others.

Given the limited time left, CD/1866 would allow us to commence practical work this year and further work for next year. Subsequently, my Delegation is pleased that CD/1867 reflects the equitable regional distribution in the appointment of Chairs and Special Coordinators. In this regard, we would like to express our appreciation to the Delegations’ staff which have come forward as the potential to Chair the four Working Groups, as well as carry out the task of the three Special Coordinators, as reflected in Draft Decision CD/1867. Malaysia is convinced that both Draft Decisions, CD/1866 and CD/1867, are the workable means to move for ward which we fully endorse."

11 June 2009 - Mr. Azril Abdul Aziz

"We underline that the other core issues, namely, Nuclear Disarmament, Negative Security Assurances, and the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) are of equal importance. On the principle of equitable geographic representation and rotation, my delegation is of the view that this could be worked out in tandem and carefully with the distribution of work among different group systems. With respect to the balance allocation of time, we are committed to a balance schedule that would ensure that the working groups of all the four core issues will be dealt in a fair manner as well as the work of coordinators on other specific issues."

5 February 2009 - Ambassador Datuk Othman Hashim

"Similar to L.1, my delegation is of the view that CD/1840 falls short of our expectations to address other core issues in a balance and comprehensive manner. CD/1840 highlights that the issue of FMCT as "ripe" for negotiations. Malaysia has nonetheless demonstrated its flexibility and readiness to work closely with members of the Conference by joining the momentum built behind CD/1840, in the hope that this could bring the CD back to its substantive work".

16 March 2007, Mr. Juan Manuel Gomez-Robledo, Secretary for the Human Right and multilateral affairs, excerpt from UN press release

Mexico was also prepared to begin negotiation on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, without preconditions, but underscored that such an instrument would have to provide a verification instrument and cover existing stockpiles.

19 May 2006, Ambassador Pablo Macedo, excerpt from UN press release

"Mexico was of the view that verification was an essential element of any international treaty for, without it, States parties could not be sure that other parties were complying. Mexico did not see why an FMT should be an exception. The other essential requirement was that such a treaty cover existing stocks. Mexico believed that a treaty that did not cover existing stocks would be merely a cut-off treaty, which would be simply an arms control instrument and not a disarmament one."

13 February 2007, Ambassador Pablo Macedo, excerpt from UN press release

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), speaking also on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, in their dual capacity as States parties to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and as the Latin American members of the Conference, said that the very existence of nuclear weapons represented a threat to the existence of mankind and the total elimination of such weapons represented the only absolute guarantee against that threat. Until that was done, however, the negotiation of an agreement on negative security assurances had to be pursued.

23 June 2005, Ambassador Pablo Macedo, excerpt from UN press release

Mexico's position in favour of elimination of nuclear weapons was well known. Mexico affirmed the vital need to start a multilateral dialogue on nuclear disarmament. The Five Ambassadors proposal provided a framework for this process and Mexico supported the idea of setting up an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament.

7 July 2005, Ambassador Pablo Macedo, excerpt from UN press release

Despite the assertion of the International Court of Justice deeming the use of nuclear weapons as a breach of international law, there was the existence of military and security doctrines that considered the use of nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis. Therefore, it was necessary to supplement the nuclear non-proliferation regime through a legally binding instrument to protect non-nuclear weapon States against those which possessed them.

2 July 2009 - Deputy Permanent Representative Mabel Gomez Oliver

"My Delegation sincerely hopes that the positive climate will solve the adoption of the Programme of Work and will quickly be reflected in the adoption of CD/1866 rev 1. and CD/1867."

26 June 2009 - Deputy Permanent Representative Mabel Gómez Oliver

"Mexico is quite prepared to adopt the documents CD/1866 and CD/1867 and we are quite prepared to continue to support you Sir and the other presidents for 2009 in taking decisive steps towards the fulfillment of our shared objective: a world free from nuclear weapons."

28 May 2009 - Second Secretary Claudia García Guiza

"We were very pleased to hear widespread support for CD/1863, containing a Programme of Work for this forum for 2009. My delegation would like to add its support to this document. We think it is a realistic proposal and are convinced that it could contribute to overcome the paralysis, which has bedeviled the deliberations of this Conference over the last few years. My delegation feels it is very important that the Programme of Work, contained in document CD/1863, takes into account a number of proposals made since 1999, and should include in the agenda views and proposals put forward by States or to be put forward by States. It should take on board elements raised in prior discussions. That it should consider establishing a working group to begin negotiations on legally binding documents to prohibit the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive nuclear devices on the basis of document TD/1299 of March 1995. Which contains the Shannon report and mandate, which my delegation believes is an important reference for discussions on this matter, without diminishing the importance of other proposals and with also a view to initiating negotiations on any other item of the agenda in the future."

23 March 2007, Ms. Claudia Garcia, excerpt from UN press release

CLAUDIA GARCÍA (Mexico) thanked the Six Presidents of 2007 for the proposal before the Conference today, which would enable them to get back to work. Mexico supported the proposal.

23 June 2005, Ambassador Pablo Macedo, excerpt from UN press release

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said Mexico had welcomed the proposal that the Conference take up in a structured way the four main issues contained in the Five Ambassadors proposal. He hoped that this would continue the dialogue which had started last year under the presidency of Mexico of the Conference and would help to break the situation of paralysis at the Conference for the past eight years which had become intolerable. Mexico hoped that agreement on a work programme could be reached. Negotiating within the Conference was the obligation of the Member States, while reaching agreement was their prerogative. Mexico supported the Five Ambassadors proposal which would be a good basis.

27 February 2003, Ambassador Khasbazaryn Bekhbat

“We support the joint initiative by delegations of the Russian Federation and China aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space and threat or use of force against space objects through agreeing and adopting a relevant legally-binding instrument”

6 February 2007, Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki, excerpt from UN press release

Morocco had signed and ratified all the multilateral disarmament treaties and was committed to general and complete disarmament, in particular to verifiable and transparent nuclear disarmament.

3 August 2006, Mr. Mohammed Benjaber, excerpt from UN press release

"Morocco supported the resolution which the General Assembly adopted annually, reaffirming the need to conclude such a treaty and tackling the contribution that the Conference could make. Such negative security assurances were necessary until nuclear disarmament became universal. Morocco hoped that the Conference could finally reach consensus on common wording that could be included into such a Convention."

29 May 2009

"We underline that the other core issues, namely, Nuclear Disarmament, Negative Security Assurances, and the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) are of equal importance. On the principle of equitable geographic representation and rotation, my delegation is of the view that this could be worked out in tandem and carefully with the distribution of work among different group systems. With respect to the balance allocation of time, we are committed to a balance schedule that would ensure that the working groups of all the four core issues will be dealt in a fair manner as well as the work of coordinators on other specific issues."

18 February 2004, Ambassador U Mya Than

"First, I should like to stress that draft I on the establishment of the four Ad Hoc Committees on nuclear disarmament, fissban, prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and security assurances (SA), respectively, is our priority."

13 February 2007, Ambassador U Nyunt Maung Shein

“Myanmar is an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament. We fully align ourselves with the Chapter entitled “Disarmament and International Security” contained in the Final Document of the XIV Summit of the NAM held in Havana last September, in particular to the NAM’s principled position on nuclear disarmament, which remains its highest priority on the international arms control agenda…While we recognize the importance of bilateral negotiations among the nuclear weapon states, we believe that the Conference should commence multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament at an early date."

28 February 2006, Ambassador Nyunt Maung Shein

"In this context, we call for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament at an early date and the commencement of multilateral negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of these weapons. It is therefore that my delegation fully supports the proposal of the Group of 21, as contained in documents CD/1570 and CD/1571, on the programme of work and a draft decision and mandate for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament."

22 June 2006, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr U Nyan Win

"Myanmar wishes to call upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute effectively towards attainment of the objectives of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space" "The existing legal instruments regarding outer space have played a positive role in promoting peaceful use of outer space and regulating outer space activities. However, the existing international legal system needs to be strengthened in order to prevent effectively the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space."

13 February 2007, Ambassador U Nyunt Maung Shein

“Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, we should aim, inter alia, at pursuing efforts on the following measures: A conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States…”

3 August 2006, Mr. U Nyunt Swe

"We also wish to reiterate the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons."

18 February 2004, Ambassador U Mya Than

"...I should like to propose a few amendments to A5's proposal with a view to facilitating the ongoing intensive consultations in order to reach consensus on a programme of work as soon as possible."

22 January 2007, Ambassador Johannes Landman, excerpt from UN press release

The Netherlands was ready to engage in discussions with an open mind and with respect for the positions of other members of the Conference. Negotiations should start without preconditions and under the understanding that nothing was precluded from the negotiations. Fixed linkages were unhelpful, just as insistence on no linkages at all were not helpful either.

16 May 2006, Ambassador Johannes Landman

"An FMCT constitutes the next logical step on the multilateral nuclear and non-proliferation disarmament agenda. An FMCT would ban the further production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives and is, therefore, a vital component of any coherent international nuclear non-proliferation strategy, An effective and verifiable FMCT that puts a cap on the production of fissile materials for weapon purposes as will as increases the number of production facilities under international safeguards, represents an essential step forward in our arms control and disarmament efforts."

28 February, Ambassador Johannes Landman

"The Netherlands has actively supported the establishment of a subsidiary body in the Conference on Disarmament to deal with nuclear disarmament in further detail and as a gradual process. It is our hope that these focused discussions initiated under your Chairmanship, Mr. President, will pave the way to arrive, before the end of the year, at a common understanding of the threats we are facing and, above all, what realistically speaking can be done immediately at the negotiating table.

8 June 2006, Ambassador Johannes Landman

"While we have said repeatedly that in our view an FMCT is the next logical step to be dealt within the CD, that does not mean we do not want progress on the issue of PAROS, or any other issue of relevance for that matter. In our view the CD could and should start negotiating on an FMCT, while simultaneously discussions on PAROS could be started. When the time is ripe, these discussions could be followed by negotiations on the issue"

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Johannes Landman

"Instead, we, all of us, really should put up a special  effort  in creative pragmatism and willingness to compromise, looking with a fresh and in an  unbiased way at what has been achieved so far as a compromise package, what is really, really indispensable to give it more balance, credibility and reassurance, be it verification or what else".

27 March 2007, Ambassador Johannes Landman, excerpt from UN press release

“Therefore, it is now that we should agree on the P6 proposal. Or, if in some capitals a final round of inter-agency deliberations needs to be organized, at the latest Thursday next week, at a special session. Ms Chair, after that date, there is nothing else to say.”

23 January 2006, Ambassador Johannes Landman

In each of the more recent proposals for a Programme of Work, whether formal or informal, the same four core issues emerge. Everybody knows them: a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), Nuclear Disarmament, and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs). We all know these are the issues Delegations would want to discuss during this year. So why beat around the bush? Why repeat the ritual dance of "discussing what to discuss" Why don't the P6 propose right away a timetable for the four core issues I just mentioned so as to allow discussions to start early on, and of course doing so with inbuilt flexibility, including the possibility for Delegations that wish to do so, to introduce Other Issues.

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"We believe that an FMCT would contribute to nuclear disarmament. We believe that the  more comprehensive an FMCT is, the more will contribute to nuclear disarmament, We would like to see therefore, verification, we would like to see existing stocks contained in such a treaty on FMCT. But what we don’t expect is for everyone to agree in advance on the contains of an FMCT. When we begin negotiations, we will certainly argue vigorously and present very strong arguments in favor of inclusion of verification and existing stocks.  But it will not be realistic in our view, before we commence negotiations for everyone in this room to sit down and set out what an FMCT should contain. That is the outcome of the negotiation. It is not something that you determine in the advance of the negotiation".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"So we need to start somewhere and the judgement I think of virtually of all the delegation, is that the one that is closest is the FMCT. We actually see it as a nuclear disarmament measure so it fits in with the other issues that are dealt with here. Obviously, a nuclear disarmament issue is a nuclear disarmament issues. NSA is clearly related to nuclear disarmament so FMCT is a logical place to start".

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"We believe that an FMCT would contribute to nuclear disarmament. We believe that the  more comprehensive an FMCT is, the more will contribute to nuclear disarmament, We would like to see therefore, verification, we would like to see existing stocks contained in such a treaty on FMCT. But what we don’t expect is for everyone to agree in advance on the contains of an FMCT. When we begin negotiations, we will certainly argue vigorously and present very strong arguments in favor of inclusion of verification and existing stocks.  But it will not be realistic in our view, before we commence negotiations for everyone in this room to sit down and set out what an FMCT should contain. That is the outcome of the negotiation. It is not something that you determine in the advance of the negotiation".

16 August 2007
Ambassador MacKay

“To begin work on an FMCT is a matter of nuclear disarmament, that is the basis on which I don’t think it is possible to overstress that point that an FMCT is an instrument of nuclear disarmament and that is the basis on which certainly my own country approaches this issue, also I know that other States that have not chosen to possess nuclear weapons also wish to address to this issue.”

28 June 2007, Ambassador MacKay

“With regard to the issue of stocks and verification on a FMCT, we very much share Pakistan’s positions that an FMCT should include stocks and verification and that is the basis on which we will enter into negotiations on an FMCT because clearly it is open to any delegation to propose whatever it wishes to propose and to negotiate whatever it wishes to negotiate in terms of an FMCT negotiation here.   It seems to me that it is not an issue.” 

17 May 2006, excerpt from UN press release

"The longer the commencement of negotiations was delayed, the greater the stocks of fissile materials in existence. The issues of stocks and verification were sensitive, and treating them in the framework of an FMCT would be contentious, but all sides of the debate should be taken into account in the negotiations. However, delaying for this reason compromised the security of all. The launching of negotiations without preconditions as to their outcome was what was required. An FMCT dealing with stockpiles and with verification procedure was the ripest issue for negotiation within the Conference's remit."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"Certainly as we and other colleagues have said in the NPT PrepComs, as we move into the lead up to the 2010 Review Conference, there is a pressing need to develop a common approach in the lead up to the Review Conference and I think it is very clear and it would be very clear to all of us, what is needed also is high level cross regional leadership. We very much welcome the announcement by Australia and Japan which will undoubtedly take us further in providing not only fresh thinking but also that cross regional leadership and we want to thank our Australian colleagues for the indications given that wide consultations will be carried out as the process continues".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"The view point that  I represent, my country represents, a country that is not in possession of nuclear weapons, that has foresworn of ever acquiring nuclear weapons. That is totally committed to the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, both horizontally and vertically and I think our record stands very strongly in that sense and we have spoken on many occasions on that I this body and also in others". 

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"We also believe that there should be international and acceptable verification. We also believe that there should be no discrimination; we also believe that existing stocks should be included in the treaty but we are willing to have our positions and our arguments put to the test on this, as happens in all negotiations. And we believe that everyone in this chamber should be willing to put their positions put in the test, to be negotiated, to see how they stack up rather than establish preconditions, predetermined outcomes on issues which are clearly not the subject as overall agreement on this stage".

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"Certainly as we and other colleagues have said in the NPT PrepComs, as we move into the lead up to the 2010 Review Conference, there is a pressing need to develop a common approach in the lead up to the Review Conference and I think it is very clear and it would be very clear to all of us, what is needed also is high level cross regional leadership. We very much welcome the announcement by Australia and Japan which will undoubtedly take us further in providing not only fresh thinking but also that cross regional leadership and we want to thank our Australian colleagues for the indications given that wide consultations will be carried out as the process continues".

13 February 2007, Ms. Charlotte Darlow

“A useful outcome to our discussions during this informal segment would be to evaluate prospects for a more comprehensive legal framework regulating the demilitarization of space. Canada circulated a very useful working paper during last year’s debate which aimed to identify gaps in the existing legal systems. This might provide a good starting point from which to explore whether there is agreement on the existing gaps before proceeding to debate on how best to fill them."

2003 CD, Ambassador Tim Caughley on behlaf od the New Agenda Coalition

"The Conference on Disarmament, as the single multialteral negotiating forum, has the primary role for the negotiation of a multilateral agreement... on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects."

28 June 2007, Ambassador MacKay

“With regard to NSAs there is frankly I think a complication in negotiating—potential complications and negotiating NSAs in this forum—by their very nature, NSAs are commitments between those countries that have nuclear weapons and those that do not have nuclear weapons.  There is an issue with regard to the potential conferring of the status of Nuclear Weapons States on all of the States that possess nuclear weapons through entering negative security assurances of the NPT.  There is a potential complication in doing it in the CD that will require a lot of working through and I think that we should be quite frank in acknowledging it. 

7 July 2005, Ambassador Tim Caughley, excerpt from UN press release

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said New Zealand has long believed that those States that had formally renounced nuclear weapons should be accorded legally binding commitments by the nuclear weapon States that they will not be subjected to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. New Zealand worked hard to ensure that such a commitment was included in the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. It was the belief of New Zealand that legally binding NSA would be both beneficial in the current security environment in restoring trust and also instrumental in stifling any nefarious impulse to proliferate. In this regard, New Zealand envisaged that the negotiation of a legally binding instrument on NSA in the context of the NPT would build upon the negative security assurances provided in Nuclear Weapon Free Zones and the declarations made by the nuclear weapon States in United Nations Security Council resolution 984. At the same time, agreement on a single instrument would necessarily entail making it clear that NSA would not be unconditional, bringing to bear a further layer of accountability for non-nuclear weapon States in regard to their non-proliferation obligations.

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"As you say, it does not suit everyone’s interest and in our view too, it’s the best basis for advancing our work in the CD. And although our distinguished colleague from China noted, that it is quite late in the day to agree on a work program, it is actually never too late to agree on a work program and we would very much echo the comments that have been made here with regards to CD 1840".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"The third point, is CD/1840 a compromise?  It is a compromise.  Is it a lopsided compromise, I don’t think it is a lopsided compromise. I think that the present successive presidents of the council have done an extraordinary good job in presenting an outcome that should be acceptable to all".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"The fact is, that CD 1840 enables all issues to be discussed but it does not set out in advance what elements have to be obtained in the actual outcomes".

19 August 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"The sixth point, that all core issues are ripe for negotiations.  Speaking again from New Zealand perspective, we would be happy to see negotiations on any of the items that are on the agenda of the CD. We would be happy to negotiate on NSA, on PAROS, on Nuclear Disarmament and on FMCT. What we don’t believe is that you can deal with all of them equally and equitably at the same time".

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Don Mackay

"As you say, it does not suit everyone’s interest and in our view too, it’s the best basis for advancing our work in the CD. And although our distinguished colleague from China noted, that it is quite late in the day to agree on a work program, it is actually never too late to agree on a work program and we would very much echo the comments that have been made here with regards to CD 1840".

7 February 2006, Ambassador Tim Caughley

"When an FMCT's negotiation is no longer conditional, work, we assume, will begin on that topic. What are we to do in the meantime? Concentrate on other issues, or concentrate on securing a work programme that embraces some of them? If we pursue this second course of action, which is my Government's preference, we could be faced with a continuing frustration and unproductive sessions. Or we could have debate on the backdrop to the core issues: to the international security environment and the hopes we all hold that this Conference can contribute to improving our collective security."

19 March 2009 – Mr. Awanen

“Two years ago, this day, when the Foreign Minister of my country addressed this Forum, she laid out Nigeria’s support for a Treaty banning the production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or other Explosive Devices (FMCT), as practical measure to achieve the twin goals of disarmament and non-proliferation. Today, the Nigeria delegation looks forward to an early start negotiations on an FMCT.”

20 March 2007, Ambassador Martin I. Uhomoibhi

“…Nigeria fully accepts that the first logical and sensible step in addressing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is an early start of negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). A negotiation on FMCT that addresses the issues existing stocks and future productions is not only necessary for confidence building, but also erecting the building-blocks to drive our collective efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.”

18 May 2006, Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu

"my delegation belives that the questions of definitions, production histories, stockpiles, safe storage, present and future production should be covered by our work on fissile materials. In addition, any Convention to be developed on fissile materials should be universally applicable and effectively verifiable with compliance mechanisms.

14 February 2008 - Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi

"First there is the encouraging sign that the nuclear weapon States are prepared to take their responsibility for promoting international peace and security much more seriously".

20 March 2007, Ambassador Martin I. Uhomoibhi

“The only effective and credible guarantee against the use or threat of the use of nuclear weapons is, therefore, their total elimination. The reality is that non-proliferation will remain a mirage unless there is a total commitment towards nuclear disarmament.”

2 March 2006, Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu

"The Nigerian delegation strongly supported past proposals in the CD aimed at achieving nuclear disarmament, particularly those contained in CD/1570 and CD?1571; for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons."

20 March 2007, Ambassador Martin I. Uhomoibhi

“My delegation believes that the international community has a duty to begin now to create effective measures to assure the security of non-nuclear weapon states. Non-nuclear weapon states, particularly States Parties to the NPT, deserve encouragement in the form of legally binding negative security assurances. Having renounced nuclear option voluntarily and, also, faithfully implementing their obligations under the NPT, these states have a right to ask and to receive internationally negotiated and legally-binding Negative Security Assurances. This is not a call for charity, nor is a plea for mercy. It is an unequivocal expression of a legitimate demand for what is logical and fair and appropriate."

3 August 2006, Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu

"Nigeria believes that providing an unconditional, uniform, comprehensive and effective internationally legally binding negative and positive security assurance to non-nuclear weapon State Parties to the NPT is absolutely necessary for their security."

26 May 2009 - Mr. Angbara Awanen

"It would be hard for Nigeria to celebrate CD 1863 as the silver bullet to the many challenging tasks before this forum. A major source of our disappointment is the low priority CD attaches to negative security assurances. Despite these shortcomings, Nigeria is happy to support the proposals in CD 1863 in the hope that it would allow the CD to move in its work."

19 March 2009 - Mr. Awanen

"Nigeria supports the P6 initiative in CD/1840, as before it with CD/2007/L.I. In CD/2007/CRP.5 and CD/2007/CRP.6, respectively, reflects our careful assessment that theses efforts provide realistic bases for the CD to overcome its long-standing difficulties."

22 May 2007

“For my delegation, the P6 proposal is a good starting point for building life into the CD process.  This is what we must do if we want to continue the public trust and support of our various governments.”

23 March 2007, Mr. Angbara Awanen, excerpt from UN press release

ANGBARA AWANEN (Nigeria) said that Nigeria joined previous speakers in expressing appreciation for the Six President (P6) efforts to move the Conference on Disarmament forward. Nigeria welcomed the draft proposal before the Council. Nigeria would study the proposal carefully with a view to making the Conference work for all of them.

7 February 2006, Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu

"From the interventions of delegations in the past one year, the A5 enjoy overwhelming majority support but not consensus. Nigeria suggests that the Friends of the P6 may focus their efforts in the search for a work programme based on the A5. They could try to identify the difficulties those delegations unable to join consensus have with the A5 and try to re-formulate the proposal to accommodate the concerns without creating new problems. It has been said over and over again that the A5 is not cast in stone. It is an evolutionary proposal. Finally, I want to assure you that Nigeria has supported past proposals on the table including the A5 and will remain flexible to help you in your efforts to get us out of the present impasse."

17 February 2009 - Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide

"I am particularly encouraged by signals from the Obama administration concerning: The commencement of multilateral negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) including verification".

17 February 2009 - Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide

"All members have already committed themselves to the negotiations of an FMCT. The recent discussions on an FMCT in the CD have shown that it is time to break the deadlock that has persisted for more than a decade, and to build on the common understanding developed prior to 2005. Questions concerning definitions and scope, including existing stocks, should be dealt with in course of the negotiations, and not be subject to preconditions for agreement on a negotiating mandate".

2 September 2008 - Deputy Representative Hilde Skorpen

"We consider an FMCT to be a topic most ripe for negotiations. We did so back in 1995 when CD succeeded in adopting a mandate to negotiate a Fissile Material Treaty and we believe that it is the topic most ripe for negotiation today.  Ideally, we want a negotiating mandate that includes both verification and stocks but for now we will settle for what is possible, a decision to start negotiations, the rest will take from there".

16 May 2006, Minister Kjetil Paulsen

"An FMCT will, evidently, focus on future production of fissile material for nuclear weapon purposes. But existing stocks of weapon grade material should also be addressed in the course of future negotiations. Such stocks are in quantity more than sufficient to convince us that the nuclear threat is real."

17 February 2009 - Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide

"Energy access and energy security will continue to be a critical part of the broader development agenda. As demand for nuclear energy is certain to increase, it is vital that the third pillar of the NPT - peaceful uses of nuclear energy - is strenghtened. Renewed attention must be paid to developing a proliferation-proof system. Multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle must be strenghtened".

17 February 2009 - Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide

"We must continue our work to improve the verification mechanisms of all aspects of nuclear activities, from dismatling of warheads, fissile material or nuclear plants. We value our co-operation with UK and Vertic in this field".

17 February 2009 - Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide

"We must deal with the regional conflicts that have effectively brought the multilateral disarmament machinery to a grinding halt. Lasting security can not be achieved through the acquisition of nuclear weapons".

24 June 2004, Minister Kjetil Paulsen

"…those who advocate the prominence of nuclear disarmament or militarization of outer space have not rejected the importance of FMCT. We do not seem to talk to each other from different sides of the globe. This should be good news."

24 June 2004, Minister Kjetil Paulsen

"It is our hope and belief that the nuclear weapons states will take the concerns of the non-nuclear weapon states seriously into account when NSAs are dealt with in the future, whether it is in the context of the CD or the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

26 May 2009 - Deputy Representative Hilde Skorpen

"We consider CD 1863 a balanced compromise, and urge all to show the necessary flexibility so that we now finally may break the deadlock in the CD and start substantive work."

2 September 2008 - Deputy Representative Hilde Skorpen

"Ideally we would like to see a report that was even more substantial and even more forward leaning but we can live with it as is. And most important to us is that the report can steer us on to productive paths to the coming year and that it reflects the broad support on CD/1840 and that all member states are ready to build on CD/1840 for 2009".

16 May 2006, Minister Kjetil Paulsen

"The order of action is for us not the most fundamental issue. That is why we have supported each and every proposal for a program of work for the CD introduced in recent years. But we can not afford to keep good hostage of the perfect."

4 June 2009 – Ambassador Zamir Akram

“Unless the equilibrium is re-established, the fashioning of an appropriate FMT appears to be a difficult challenge. A treaty which would merely legalize national moratoria of NWS and freeze the asymmetries will undermine the international community’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world as well as Pakistan’s national security.”

29 May 2009 – Ambassador Ambassador Zamir Khan

“Pakistan has maintained a principled and consistent position that the CD is the most appropriate and the most legitimate forum for negotiations on an FMT on the basis of the Shannon Report of 1995 as a part of the comprehensive and balanced programme of work of the Conference.A verifiable fissile material treaty covering stocks is a sine qua non for the effective cessation of a nuclear arms race. Such a treaty, once negotiated, would also strengthen global as well as regional peace and stability. The issues of verification and stocks have become vital for Pakistan in any negotiations on a FMT because of the nuclear cooperation arrangements in our neighborhood, without adequate international safeguards. These have the potential for increasing fissile material stocks that can be diverted towards weapons production as was done in the past."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"A fissile material treaty (FMT) with a robust verification regime and covering existing stockpiles is a key to cessation of a nuclear arms race. A non-verifiable and mere cut-off treaty will not be a disarmament measure. It will just freeze the status quo and not further the goal of disarmament".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Pakistan has remained consistent in its support for a verifiable treaty and remains prepared to resume negotiations on the basis of the Shannon Mandate at the earliest"

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"The recently concluded nuclear cooperation arrangements in our neighbourhood without adequate international safeguards, has the potential for increasing fissile material stocks that can be diverted towards weapons production as was done in the past. For this reason, the issues of verification and stocks have become vital for Pakistanj in any negotiations on a FMT".

16 August 2007,
Ambassador Masood Khan

“Our policy on the FMT has been deliberated and decided at the highest level in Pakistan. The National Command Authority (NCA), the apex body responsible for the formulation and development of our strategic policy and systems, met on August 2 and addressed inter alia, the issues being discussed in the Conference on Disarmament. I quote an extract from a press release issued on August 2.”
“The NCA reviewed the current status of negotiations on disarmament issues in the Conference on disarmament in Geneva, including regarding the proposed FMCT. The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position in favour of a non-discriminatory multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states.”


28 June 2007, Ms. Tehmina Janjua

“If we all agree that the scope of the FMCT instrument should include stock piles and verification, why are we unable to include them in L.1?  A fissile material treaty that would promote nuclear disarmament is not one that does not include verification of stocks and not just existing stocks.”

16 May 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan

"A majority of CD membership and NPT member states maintain that the proposed FMT should also deal with the issue of past production of fissile material and, through their progressive and balanced reduction, promote the goal of nuclear disarmament. The treaty must therefore address the question of production - past, present and future - in its entirety at both regional and global levels."

"We believe that a verifiable treaty on fissile materials is an essential condition for the effective cessation of a nuclear arms race. A credible verification regime will be necessary to guarantee successful implementation."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"While negotiations of a nuclear weapons convention will be a long drawn process, nuclear weapon states have a major responsibility to assure non-nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons would not be used against them. Since such statement have been made in the Security Council by the nuclear weapon states, there is not reason why these commitments cannot be transformed into legally binding instruments so that non-nuclear weapon states feel secure. Pakistan, as a responsible nuclear weapon state, has consistently extended the assurance that its nuclear weapons will never be used against a non-nuclear weapon state and we stand ready to transform our commitment into a legally binding instrument".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Pakistan strongly favours international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and technology under appropriate IAEA safeguards…International cooperation in this area should be on a level playing field, and without discrimination or double standards. Such cooperation ought to be pursued in keeping with a criteria based approach, along with adequate international safeguards".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Pakistan was not the first to introduce nucelar weapons in our region. We were compelled to do so in order to achieve a credible deterrence to guarantee our security. Pakistan's nuclear programme is purely defensive and based on minimum credible deterrence. It is security driven, not status driven".

21 June 2007, Ms. Tehmina Janjua

“We would want not substantive discussions but negotiations on nuclear disarmament.”

14 March 2007, Pakistan on behalf of the G-21, delivered by Ambassador Tehmina Janjua

“The G21 considers that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the possibility of their proliferation will remain. We reaffirm that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are substantively interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Therefore, there is a genuine need to achieve complete and irreversible nuclear disarmament, and to prevent and halt nuclear proliferation in all its aspects. The G21 emphasizes that Nuclear Disarmament remains of the highest priority for the CD. The Group recalls that specific proposals in this connection, including those of the G-21, have been made in the past.”

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Pakistan believes that outer space must remain a peaceful and common heritage of humankind. It is in our joint interest to explore and use outer space for peaceful purposes. It should not be weaponised nor colonized. An arms race in outer space will also have serious ramifications for all military and defence doctrines".

28 June 2007, Ms. Tehmina Janjua

“On PAROS as well, enough work has been done in the CD.  We thank the delegations of China and the Russian Federation and many others for their efforts.  We should be able to begin negotiations on the legally binding basis of material provided by China and the Russian Federation for example.”  

13 February 2007, Ms. Tehmina Janjua, excerpt from UN press release

[Pakistan] recalled that General Assembly resolution 61/58 once again called on the Conference to establish an ad hoc committee to draft a multilateral treaty to prevent of an arms race in outer space.

13 June 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan

"Military doctrines that seek full spectrum dominance projected through and from space are counterproductive and jeopardize the security of all humanity. Defense capability is legitimate but aspirations for impregnable defenses tend to undermine deterrence, and lead to new instruments of war and to arms race."

"We have consistently argued, even during this session, that the time is ripe, indeed over-ripe, for focused discussions and negotiations on PAROS"

4 June 2009 -Ambassador Zamir Akram

“We believe that an international legally binding instrument providing negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapons states would prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against them and thus reduce the salience of these weapons in the security doctrines of nuclear weapons states. This will serve as the first building block in the future global nuclear disarmament architecture.”

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

“The nuclear weapons states have a major responsibility to assure non-nuclear weapons states that nuclear weapons would not be used against them. Since such statements have been made in the Security Council by the nuclear weapons states, there is no reason why these commitments cannot be transformed into a legally binding instrument.”

28 June 2007, Ms. Tehmina Janjua

“We also have an interest on beginning negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on effective nuclear arrangements to assure Non-Nuclear Weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.” 

2 March 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan

"We will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states."

3 August 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan

"A legally binding instrument on the NSAs would be the least complicated from the technical point of view as it would require no financial or Secretariat obligations for monitoring. No issue is riper for negotiations than the NSAs. "

25 June 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Mr. President, we understand that consultations are underway on these documents and that you have formally presented now containing CD 1866 and CD 1867. We will continue to constructively engage in this process to reach a consensus as early as possible."

29 May 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Khan

"CD/1863 is not a perfect document. Pakistan has jointed the consensus on it reflects a compromise that enables us to break the impasse in the Conference.
The next logical step is to lay out the foundation of our work and prepare well for our deliberations. The programme of work envisages establishment of four Working Groups on the four core issues – nuclear disarmament, fissile material treaty (FMT), prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and negative security assurances (NSAs) – under agenda items 1, 3 and 4, and appointment of three Special Coordinators under agenda items 5, 6 and 7. The allocation of time for the four Working Groups should be balanced so that the progress on each issue is ensured. The appointment of Chairs of the Working Groups should respect the principle of equal geographical representation. Transparency and inclusiveness should be the guiding principles of this process."

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Khan

"Mr. President my delegation welcomes your efforts and the efforts of your p6 colleagues to evolve document CD 1863. This is a finely balance document and my delegation can support the initiation of work in the CD on its basis."

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"We have heard some statements arguing that CD/1840, which is a proposal presented by the 2008 Presidents, is "a balanced compromise" and that it "takes into account the views of all parties". This is incorrect. It did not enjoy consensus last year. Neither did it reflect views of all CD members. Pakistan's position on this proposal has been clearly outlined in CD/1843 and CD/1851. Therefore, CD/1840, is a non-starter. The best course of action is to seek consensus on the A-5 proposal. The President may consult those countries that could not joint the consensus on that proposal".

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"There is consensus in the Conference that the four core issues – nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances (NSAs), prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and the fissile materials treaty (FMT) – constitute a delicate balance. Neither is more important nor riper than other for negotiations. Any proposal on the CD’s Programme of Work must maintain this delicate balance while keeping in view that the C is not a debating society but a negotiating forum. The end objective of any deliberations in the CD should be the negotiating of a legally binding treaty."

12 February 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"Every item on the agenda of the CD has its significance and relevance…Any proposal on the CD's programme of work must maintain this delicate balance while keeping in view that the CD is not a debating society but a negotiating forum".

22 January 2009 - Ambassador Zamir Akram

"We have heard some statements arguing that CD/1840, which is a proposal presented by the 2008 Presidents, is "a balanced compromise" and that it "takes into account the views of all parties". This is incorrect. It did not enjoy consensus last year. Neither did it reflect views of all CD members. Pakistan's position on this proposal has been clearly outlined in CD/1843 and CD/1851. Therefore, CD/1840, is a non-starter. The best course of action is to seek consensus on the A-5 proposal. The President may consult those countries that could not joint the consensus on that proposal".

21 June 2007

“My delegation has also repeatedly identified our difficulties in the Presidential Draft Decision contained in L.1.  There are not procedural concerns but these are concerns of substance.  These concerns have not fully been addressed.” 

30 March 2007, Mr. Aftab A. Khokher, excerpt from UN press release

AFTAB A. KHOKHER (Pakistan) said that with the inclusion of the wording on Article 8, it had made it more clear that the Presidents would hold consultations. With that inclusion, Pakistan would join the consensus.

9 February 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan

"We welcome your determination that a majority of delegations support the A-5 proposal, while some other delegations are not in a position to do so. At the moment, the work of the CD is the programme of work. The agenda is agreed. The methods of work are in place and operative. We therefore suggest that the combined weight of the P-6, the F-6, three regional coordinators, China and the other members be used to persuade the few countries that have reservations on A-5 to come on board. Pakistan supports the A-5 proposal as it presents a package solution to address the four core issues in a comprehensive and balanced manner."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

6 March 2007, Mr. Diego Belevan, excerpt from UN press release

Finally, Peru considered that there was a need to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty without delay, and reiterated its position that it was ready to do so with no preconditions whatsoever.

23 June 2005, Ambassador Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez, excerpt from UN press release

It was also urgent to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

26 June 2007, see Argentina

6 March 2007, Mr. Diego Belevan, excerpt from UN press release

DIEGO BELEVÁN (Peru) said that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were processes that were substantially related and mutually reinforcing…he world had also been faced with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of international terrorists. The logical response to the uncertainty generated by such proliferation would be the formulation and consolidation of a multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament. Paradoxically, however, the world was witnessing a weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

15 March 2005, Minister of Foreign Affairs Manuel Rodriques-Cuadros, excerpt from UN press release

Peru considered that outer space must be completely devoid of military activities and fully supported a universal and legally binding treaty to ensure that as well as the start of relevant negotiations within the Conference to that end.

7 July 2005, Ambassador Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez, excerpt from UN press release

Given the recent evolution of military doctrines made by nuclear weapon States made it more necessary for non-nuclear weapon States to receive legal assurances that those States not use these weapons against them. Through these doctrines it was possible that other these nuclear powers might conclude that nuclear weapons were necessary for their protection, which undermined the NPT. In a statement made last March, the Foreign Minister of Peru said it was an indispensable necessity to carry out the 13 essential steps adopted at the sixth NPT Review Conference in 2000 to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. Peru considered that the essential agenda of the Conference on Disarmament was that of NSA.

22 May 2009 - Mr. Elmer Schialer

"Peru, Mr. President, thinks that although CD/1863 does not cover the full ambitions that we had for this document, we think that it is a good and balanced basis to start the substantive work of this august body, after more than ten years."

26 June 2007, see Argentina

23 March 2007, Mr. Diego Belevan, excerpt from UN press release

DIEGO BELEVÁN (Peru) said, in line with Peru's earlier statements, Peru fully endorsed the work of the Six Presidents of 2007 and the consultations undertaken, which had been faithfully reflected in draft decision in CD/2007/L.1. Peru supported the proposal. The proposal was reasonable and Peru hoped that a decision to adopt it could be taken as soon as possible so that they could get down to work. What was required now was political will.

22 May 2006, Mr Diego Belevan, excerpt from UN press release

Peru felt that the package of four core issues had seemed to cause an impasse in the Conference; given the situation, all members should reconsider the approach under consideration.

13 March 2007, Ms. Fotyga, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“For Poland negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) are key priority in the CD...I hope that this august body soon reaches an agreement upon starting the negotiations of FMCT, without setting any preliminary parameters, conditions or constraints. At the same time we believe that upholding the moratoria on the production of fissile material should contribute to improving regional and international security.”

17 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Adam Daniel Rotfield

"This Conference faces important tasks. Long-awaited negotiations of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) should strengthen nuclear non-proliferation regime and advance disarmament goal of international community."

13 March 2007, Ms. Fotyga, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“Poland remains strongly committed to the ultimate goal of multilateral and effective disarmament…The NPT Treaty is a vital tool in the multilateral nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament endeavors…The effectiveness of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes depends strongly upon the institutions safeguarding their implementation.”

17 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Adam Daniel Rotfield

"Discussions about nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states should also help strengthen the role of this Conference in multilateral arms control and disarmament."

13 March 2007, Ms. Fotyga, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“We also have been observing growing need for addressing the issue of preventing of (sic) arms race in outer space. As the humankind is more and more dependent upon the activities in outer space, it is time for the international community to far reach in its visions…And we must spare no efforts to make those peaceful activities safe.”

17 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Adam Daniel Rotfield

"It is our view that the CD should not refrain from addressing the issue of arms race in outer space. We should thus fulfill our obligation to reserve outer space for peaceful use."

26 May 2008 - Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki

"Therefore, Poland welcomes and unequivocally supports the Draft Decision by the 2008 Presidents of the CD contained in CD/1840 and presented on March 13, 2008 as it stands".

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki

"Poland welcomes the draft decision on the Programme of Work of the CD contained in the document CD/1863. We firmly believe that this document is a result of careful considerations and constitutes balanced compromise."

27 March 2007, Mr. Andrzej Misztal, excerpt from UN press release

ANDRZEJ MISZTAL (Poland) said Poland associated itself with the statement of the European Union made by Germany. Poland gave its full support to the Presidential proposal on a programme of work, and, indeed, to the whole platform for the Six Presidents (P6) of 2007. Poland welcomed the fact that the ideas in the proposal reflected deliberations made so far in the Conference, and that it was a compromise. Poland gave the proposal its wholehearted support, and called on other delegations to do so as well.

27 January 2009 - Ambassador Im Han-Taek

“The ROK supports the CD/1840, finding it balanced and realistic, and recognizing that the time is ripe for negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT.)”

26 August 2008 - Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

"First, the Republic of Korea believes that the FMCT is the issue that is the most ripe for negotiation in the CD. An FMCT can be a building block for nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation given the delayed entry into force of the CTBT. Moreover, FMCT negotiations would reinforce mutual trust and reaffirm our commitment to multilateral disarmament".

24 January 2007, Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

“Turning to the core issues of the CD, my Government strongly supports the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). I believe that the FMCT is ripe for negotiation…In this regard, we welcome the US proposal on the FMCT tabled last year and we hope that it will provide a good basis for starting negotiations.”

16 May 2006, Ambassador In-kook Park

"As stated on many previous occasions, the Republic of Korea continues to place high priority on launching negotiations on the FMCT in the CD at the earliest possible date. My delegation believes that it is the only issue ripe for negotiations in the CD."

26 August 2008 - Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

"Second, on nuclear disarmament, the structured debates have revealed that transparency, irreversibility, and verifiability should be the guiding principles of nuclear disarmament. Whilde pursuing a pragmatic, realistic and step-by-step approach, we need to discuss a range of issues such as nuclear doctrine and policy, operational status, reduction and verification".

14 March 2007, Mr. Cho Jung-pyo, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade

“On nuclear disarmament, the structured debates have revealed that transparency, irreversibility, and verifiability should be the guiding principles of nuclear disarmament. While pursuing a pragmatic, realistic and step-by-step approach, we need to discuss a range of issues such as nuclear doctrine and policy, operational status, reduction and verification.”

23 June 2005, Ambassador In-kook Park, excerpt from UN press release

It was noteworthy that the Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament proposed by the two main initiatives would be only for discussion.

26 August 2008 - Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

"In this regard, we welcome a draft PPWT, which was submitted by the Russian Federation and China this year, as a meaningful input to the substantive discussions in the CD on the agenda item of PAROS. We also believe transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBM) are highly important elements in building multilateral cooperation for the peaceful uses of outer space, and those two apporaches of PPWT and TCBM can complement each other in obtaining the goal of peaceful uses of outer space".

13 February 2007, Ambassador Dong-Hee Chang

“Through implementing various confidence building measures, respecting existing commitments, cooperating with other international forums and adopting a strategy of starting with the easily agreeable and immediate issues and then eventually taking on the more complex and difficult ones, we will be able to make our work on PAROS move forward.”

20 June 2006, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ban Ki-moon

"On the prevention of arms race in outer space, like many other countries, the Republic of Korea has greatly benefited from space-based technologies. We are keen to safeguard the uninterrupted and free use of the outer space for peaceful purposes. We welcome the in-depth CD debates on PAROS. In the light of the complicated nature of the related issues, we believe a gradual and pragmatic approach is sensible at this state"

26 August 2008 - Ambassador Chang Dong-He

"The ROK supports the concept of negative security assurances as a useful means of reducing the sense of insecurity of non-nuclear weapon states. I believe that nuclear weapon states should provide credible security assurances especially to non-nuclear weapon states that faithfully meet their NPT and safeguards obligations".

14 March 2007, Mr. Cho Jung-pyo, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade

“My Government supports the concept of negative security assurances as a practical means of reducing the sense of insecurity and non-nuclear weapon states. I believe that nuclear weapon states should provide credible security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states that faithfully meet their NPT and safeguards obligations.”

3 August 2006, Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

"Given all the various viewpoints on NSAs, we believe it is necessary for the CD to look into this issue in a comprehensive manner, taking into account both the necessity of providing security assurances and the evolving political realities. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to provide the CD with a 'discussion mandate' on this issue as outlined in the Food for thought Paper proposed by the Dutch presidency."

2 July 2009 - Ambassador Im Han-Taek

"Indeed, it is true that CD/1866rev1 and CD/1867 contain some points of ambiguity, however in a real world where the CD is going to take off ground we find it will be much inevitable maintain constructive ambiguity for some time to come. As for Document CD/1867, on the list of Chairs and Special Coordinators, my delegation has no reservations at all. However we wish to share our understanding with other CD Members, that nothing in the Rules of Procedure of the CD will preclude any Member of the CD from serving as Chairs or Special Coordinators of Subsidiary Bodies on whatever grounds. This counts for all CD Members in that respect, as long as they are chosen by the rule of consensus of the CD."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Im Han-Taek

"My delegation is pleased to express its support for the CD/1863. We believe the CD/1863 embodies a balanced and realistic approach to the seven agenda items of the Conference, in particular the four core issues, for which my delegation has been among the strong advocates."

27 January 2009 - Ambassador Im Han-Taek

"My delegation has repeatedly expressed its support for the CD/1840, which we believe represents a realistic and balanced approach, recognizing that the time is ripe for the launch of negotiations in the CD on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)".

27 January 2009 - Ambassador Im Han-Taek

"The 2007 L.1 Proposal and CD/1840 of 2008 are among the valuable outcomes".

26 August 2008 - Ambassador Chang Dong-Hee

"The CD/1840 contains well crafted elements, from which we can move forward to fulfill the mandate of the CD as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiation forum".

27 March 2007, Ambassador Chang Dong-hee, excerpt from UN press release

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said that the proposal before them gave a sense of renewed promise that the Conference on Disarmament would get back to work on substantive subjects. The Republic of Korea fully supported the proposal. The draft decision contained in CD/2006/L.1 was well balanced and reflected the discussions in the Conference, and the Republic of Korea invited all Members to support it.

23 June 2005, Ambassador In-kook Park, excerpt from UN press release

The delegation of the Republic of Korea was ready to engage in early discussions on any constructive formula to get the Conference back to work, and it considered the initiative by Ambassador Sanders of the Netherlands to be a very realistic foundation for resuming substantive work at this stage.

26 June 2009 - Ambassador Maria Ciobanu

"On behalf of the Eastern European Group we would like to express our support for the two documents [CD/1866 and CD/1867] you have presented. Our Group is ready to support these papers and to remain engaged in a constructive continuation of the work here to support any developments which would help us push things forward in this endeavour."

27 March 2007, Ambassador Doru-Romulus Costea

"Responding to a concrete, reasonable and, most of all, doable, proposal by permanently asking questions and waiting for instructions seems hardly consistent to the classical pledge that reads 'president, rest assured of the entire flexibility and the full cooperation of my delegation.'…When Rules of Procedure come to the fore, let me emphasize that questioning the conformity of the P6 Draft Presidential Decision with the respective Rules of the Conference is an ominous sign of the lack of confidence in the President’s intentions, for, after all, they are the first to take into account such provisions."

7 March 2009 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov

“We are prepared to start negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes (FMCT), which would become an important milestone in the processes of nuclear disarmament and strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

16 May 2006, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

"Russian approaches to basic elements of the eventual treaty are well known. Let me recall some of them. The scope of the treaty should provide for 1) ban on future production of weapon-grade uranium and plutonium of nuclear weapons; 2) prohibition of assistance in or encouragement of production of these materials by other states: 3) prohibition of transfer of fissile materials from civil to military cycle for the purposes of nuclear weapons." "The scope of the treaty will not cover existing stocks of fissile materials, since otherwise it would entail establishing a cumbersome verification mechanism, and, accordingly, unacceptably high costs of its maintenance"

7 March 2009 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov

“Progress towards “global zero” can only be achieved through strengthened strategic stability and strict adherence to the principle of equal security for all. In its turn this suggests the need to carry out a set of measures required for a sustainable and consistent disarmament process. Among these measures are: further advancement of nuclear disarmament by all NWS; prevention of the weaponization of outer space; prevention of the operational deployment of strategic offensive weapons equipped with conventional warheads, i.e. the building of so-called, “compensatory” potential; ensuring that states do not possess a “nuclear upload potential”; prevention of states using NPT membership to implement military nuclear programs; and ensuring the verifiable cessation of conventional capabilities’ development coupled with efforts to resolve other international issues, including settlement of regional conflicts.”

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

“Russia is committed to multilateralism for resolving issues of nonproliferation, of arms control, of disarmament and confidence building. We believe that we all must make more active use of the potential of the CD for promoting and strengthening a global regime for the nonproliferation of WMDs and disarmament. The cornerstone of this architecture for us is the NPT, making the NPT more effective, making it universal. New challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime must be dealt with on the basis of the NPT.”

6 February 2007, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin, excerpt from UN press release

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation), on the topic of nuclear disarmament, affirmed that Russia was true to its obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to its bilateral commitments made with the United States. With the end of the Cold War, the threat of a nuclear war had substantially diminished, and the bilateral nuclear arms race was effectively over. Russia, and everyone, understood that non-proliferation had a big relation to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

2 February 2006, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

"We do not object to the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament with the mandate provided by the A5 proposal. In our view, the work of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament would be incomplete and one-sided should it focus exclusively on reductions of nuclear arsenals of nuclear weapon states. The issue of nuclear non-proliferation and strengthening the NPT regime is currently gaining additional urgency and acuity."

7 March 2009 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov

“Preventing weaponization of outer space is of particular importance among disarmament issues. When Russia and China introduced a draft international Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT) at this Conference last February, they felt that it was easier to prevent weaponization of outer space than to get rid of new stockpiles of weapons afterwards. Prevention of an arms race in outer space will also contribute to making the strategic situation predictable and preserving integrity of orbital assets. “

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

“Ensuring security in space is a priority for Russia in the CD. A year ago, on the 12th of February 2008, Russia, as cosponsor with China, officially submitted for consideration by the conference, here, a draft treaty on preventing the placement of weapons in space by preventing the use of force or the threat of the use of force against space objects.”

13 February 2007, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

“President V. Putin also informed the conference on the preparation of a draft Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, which will be sent to our partners in the near future… In our forthcoming endeavors on PAROS we propose to concentrate on a single issue, that is on the idea of working out a new Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT).”

8 June 2006, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

"PAROS is the most important item of the CD agenda. The problem is far from being superficial. This is a topical and urgent issue. This is a purely disarmament issue. It's "price" is very high, It directly pertains to the vital intrests of all states. This problem can be solved: we deal with prevention of something which does not exist yet, with preserving the current status quo. It's a win-win case for all. We believe that we shall succeed in agreeing on starting work on this issue in the CD"

13 June 2006, Ambassador Valery Loschinin

"Elaborating the treaty without verification measures, which could be added at a later stage, might be a preferable option. Transparency & Confidence Building Measures could, for a certain period of time, compensate for the lack of verification measures in the new treaty"

2 February 2006, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

"The Russian Federation would not object to the A5 proposal on the establishment of the CD Ad Hoc Committee on the issue of assurances for the non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

3 August 2006, Mr Anton Vasiliev

"Russia would be ready to move towards elaboration of a global negative assurances agreement, provided, obviously, that it would take into consideration our military doctrine and the national security concept."

29 May 2009 - Ambassador Valery Loschinin

"President, thanks to your enthusiasm, your diplomatic skills and your intuition, in close cooperation with your colleagues in the P-6 in the Conference 2009, we have managed to generate a proposal on a work programme which is under the number CD/1863. We very much hope that this figure will be a propitious one and will bring about the long awaited breakthrough in the renewal of the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament."

23 March 2007, Mr. Anton Vasiliev, excerpt from UN press release

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation) thanked the Six Presidents (P6) for their proposal on the organization of the work for the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 contained in document CD/2007/L.1. The Russian Federation was not fully satisfied with the proposal, but would not object to adoption of that proposal by consensus.

2 February 2006, Ambassador Valery Loshchinin

"We would be prepared not to object to the A5 proposal and really hope that consensus could be reached on its basis. This is the proposal that enjoys the widest support. We agreed, in the context of the A5 proposal, on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS with "to deal with" mandate rather than negotiating mandate. We are expecting reciprocal steps from our partners."

3 August 2006, Ambassador Ousmane Camare, excerpt from UN press release

"Senegal supported re-establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances to start negotiations on this important issue within the framework of the agreed programme of work."

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Babacar Carols Mbaye

"From the point of view of my delegation, CD/1863 is a balanced and realistic proposal. In fact, it does seem to contain the necessary elements to start in depth work on the essential elements in our agenda, With regard to fissile materials, we welcome the fact that the mandate for negotiations that is proposed is a multilateral and internationally verifiable agreement on the basis of CD/1299. On the basis of nuclear disarmament, which for us is of the greatest national priority, we welcome the fact that the work that CD/1863 would in fact allow an exchange of views on practical measures with regard to progressive and practical measures to reduce nuclear weapons with a view to completely eliminating them- including approaches to a multi-lateral agreement. We believe it is very positive that the working group that you’re proposing to establish would allow us to ensure Negative Security Assurances without limitation. These issues are extremely important for us. On the Negative Security Assurances, we welcome the fact that the issue of possible negotiation of a legally binding instrument is contemplated in the framework of the working group that you are proposing to establish."

22 January 2007, Ambassador Anton Pinter

“The issue of FMCT ranks among the core issues of the CD and as such it has a special position within the agenda as it was outlines in the schedule of the CD’s activities in 2006. Based on these aspects and having in mind two concrete proposals on FMCT submitted in May 2006 we consider appropriate that this year the CD upgrades the level of its engagement vis-à-vis this issue.”

17 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Eduard Kukan

"To be more specific, Mr. Chairman, I do see a number of major challenges that this important forum is facing these days. The first major challenge is related to the upcoming NPT Review Conference. The CD was not able to start, let alone complete within the planned 5 year’s time, negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, in spite of the unambiguous political commitment taken to this end at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. This is an obvious failure and a hard blow to the credibility of this body. The deficit caused by this failure has to be addressed with utmost seriousness in the coming months."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Ivan Pinter

"I do not intend to echo many reasons why CD 1863 deserves to achieve consensus among the CD members as we have already heard them from a number of speakers so far. Let me in this respect express the support of Slovakia for its content, both in substantive and procedural terms, only by recalling the wise words of the former UN Secretary-General who in June 2006 said, “the hour is late and the choice is clear.”

27 March 2007, Ambassador Anton Pinter

“This proposal has been constructed along the lines expressed by all delegations during the intensive consultations conducted by the P6. This should serve as a guarantee that it meets the expectations of all Member States to such a level that they would lend their support to it at this juncture.”

29 January 2004, Ambassador Kalman Petocz

"...Slovakia has queued up with those delegations that favour the adoption of a complete programme of work on the basis of the A5 proposal...viewed as an open framework, with no rigid linkages, but taking into account the legitimate expectations and interests of all members, taking into account the legitimate expectations of the whole international community, because peace and security are the matter of all, not only of the 66 members of the CD."

17 May 2006, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali

"South Africa believes that a Fissile Material Treaty must be negotiated without any further delay. In a nutshell, such a treaty should be the product of multilateral negotiations, be non-discriminatory and verifiable, and fulfill both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. Although cognizant of the difficulties associated with the past production of fissile material, we believe that stocks should be included in the Treaty."

23 June 2005, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali, excerpt from UN press release

Other steps included ... establishing an appropriate subsidiary body in the Conference to deal with nuclear disarmament.

8 June 2006, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali, excerpt from UN press release

"It is more than probable that if one State should start pursuing the weaponization of outer space, others would follow. If the world waited for space to become weaponized before it took action, it would not be long before it would have to address the non-proliferation of weapons in outer space. This would not only be too late, but would also reflect the fact that the Conference had missed a golden opportunity to be pro-active. It was for this reason that South Africa remained supportive of the view that the Conference should establish a subsidiary body to address the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including the possibility of negotiating an international instrument on the matter."

7 July 2005, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali, excerpt from UN press release

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said South Africa remained deeply concerned by the continued retention of nuclear weapons and security doctrines that envisaged the use of nuclear weapons and believed that non-nuclear weapon States had the right to be provided with internationally legally binding security assurances under the NPT. It was the belief of South Africa that security assurances rightfully belonged to those States that had foresworn the nuclear weapons option, as opposed to those who still preferred to keep their options open. In South Africa's view, the negotiation of legally binding security assurances should take place under the NPT umbrella within the context of the Strengthened Review Process of the Treaty. South Africa also continued to hold the view that security assurances should be provided in the context of an internationally legally binding instrument, which could either be in the format of a separate agreement reached in the context of the NPT, or as a protocol of that treaty.

21 August 2003, Mr. Peter Goosen

South Africa "remains uncomfortable with the mandate of the proposed Ad Hoc Commitee on so-called negative security assurances."

22 May 2009 - Mr. Johann Kellerman

"In the view of my delegation the introduction of CD/1863 is purely a logical follow-up to the Presidential non-paper that you circulated to CD members on 26 March of this year. My delegation views it as a product of compromise that also reflects past efforts to narrow down the differences on a programme of work. In this regard, it would probably be fair to say that some delegations, including my own, might ideally wish to have seen the proposal strengthened in certain areas. But this being said, Mr. President, my delegation nevertheless believes that the draft decision contained in CD/1863 represents a delicate compromise that deserves the support of all members of this body."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali

"However, whilst not perfect, my delegation believes that CD/1840 represents that which is possible and practical under the present circumstances".

1 February 2005, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali

"As we are all aware, past efforts to narrow down the differences on a Programme of Work have led us to the proposal of the five Ambassadors – as amended – on which we have deliberated on many occasions. In this regard, it would be fair to say that many delegations, including this one, would ideally wish to see that proposal is strengthened in certain areas. As you are probably aware South Africa, for instance, has on a number of occasions stated in this forum that it is uncomfortable with the mandate of the proposed Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances. "This having been said, Mr President, my delegation nevertheless believes that the A-5 proposal represents a delicate compromise that deserves the support of all Members of this body. In our view, it remains the most realistic proposal for the adoption of a Programme of Work and South Africa therefore remains willing to join a consensus on its adoption. In this regard, my delegation would once again appeal to all Members to show a spirit of flexibility, as well as the necessary commitment to ensure that this body, as the single multilateral negotiating forum in the field of disarmament, lives up to the expectations of the International Community."

20 February 2007, CD President, Ambassador Juan Antonio March

“…My country hopes that one of the results of this year’s work will be a start on the negotiation of an effective treaty to halt the production of fissile material (an FMCT).”

16 May 2006, excerpt from UN press release

"Taking into account the impossibility of advancing in the negotiation by clusters of related matters, Spain felt that the Conference had to drop the idea of linkage. There was no greater confidence building measure than taking concerted, decisive action to put a limit to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes."

16 March 2007, Mr. D. Miguel Angel Moratinos Cuyaube, Minister of Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

An effective disarmament policy would allow for States and civil society to finance programmes to combat poverty. Mexico recalled that studies undertaken by the UN Development Fund and the World Bank had showed that extreme poverty and its sequels, such as disease and illiteracy, could be solved with relatively modest investments.

30 March 2007, Mr. Gerardo Bugallo, excerpt from UN press release

GERARDO BUGALLO (Spain) said that Spain also had, as perhaps they all did, its own ideal version of the proposal or proposals. What was important was the support they all gave to the Six Presidents and their work.

5 February 2004, Ambassador Don Carlos Miranda

"Sra. Presidenta, como todos saben en este foro, España apoya la propuesta de los 5 Embajadores. La apoyó desde el inicio y la sigue apoyando ahora. Esta propuesta, en opinión española, tiene el mérito de ser evolutiva y de que sus distintos elementos no están obligatoriamente vinculados entre ellos." "Por otra parte, quisiera añadir que, sin perjuicio de la bondad intrínseca del conjunto de la propuesta, también es cierto que si hoy la aprobásemos en su totalidad no estarían nuestras delegaciones en condiciones de negociar y tratar simultáneamente todos los temas que figuran en esta propuesta."

18 March 2004, Minister of Foreign Affairs Tyrone Fernando

"Sri Lanka supports the establishment of an ad hoc committee in the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a non-discriminatory and effectively verifiable multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, taking into consideration both disarmament and nuclear non proliferation objectives."

8 June 2006, Ambassador Sarala Fernando

"As far back as 1985 Sri Lanka had proposed a moratorium on the testing and development of space weapons preceding multilateral negotiations on a treaty to prohibit weapons in space. We see merit therefore in recent calls for a series of independent declarations from major space faring nations that they would not be the first to deploy weapons in space, which would provide considerable protection to existing space assets and help build confidence in the security of space."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka

"With these I just wanted to share those thoughts with you while reiterating that we do believe that 1840 is definitely a basis for very serious negotiations and should not be rejected out of hand by anybody".

30 March 2007 , CD President, Ambassador Sarala Fernando, excerpt from UN press release

SARALA FERNANDO, the President, amended her text, as orally proposed by delegations, to read that the Conference would undertake "as soon as possible to hold a special session, in accordance with Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, during the month of April 2007".

2 February 2006, Ambassador Sarala Fernando

"My delegation is on record as stating that Sri Lanka fully supports the five Ambassadors proposal. We could also support any other proposal that would likely meet consensus."

2 March 2006, First Secretary Annika Thunborg

"Of course, negotiations in the CD should commence immediately on an FMCT that would take into account both non-proliferation and disarmament aspects. We would like to continue the dialogue with all states possessing nuclear weapons on what concrete measures you plan to take nationally, regionally, or internationally to make the world safer through nuclear disarmament measures. We look forward to your answers in this or the next CD-session."

31 January 2006, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin-Bonnier

"We also know the issues of nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances are on the table. The NPT-states have agreed by consensus that the CD should create a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament measures. Discussions on nuclear disarmament and legally binding negative security assurances remain priorities at a time when many are deeply concerned about indications that some nuclear weapons states may consider developing new kinds of nuclear weapons and new doctrines for their use."

8 June 2006, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin-Bonnier

"The issues of Space Security and the prevention of the weaponization of Outer Space are too important to be paralyzed by the inability of the CD to agree on a Program of Work" "Sweden, as was also expressed by the EU, supports the establishment of a subsidiary body at the CD to deal with this matter"

26 June 2009 - Mr. Magnus Hellgren

"The Western Group is very much ready to accept the two documents that you have proposed to us, that will take us to the next stage of implementing our Work Programme. In the view of the Western Group CD/1866 and CD/1867 is an acceptable basis to now implement our Work Programme."

31 May 2007, CD President Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier

“The L.1 is a simple practical proposal for our work. It takes as its basis where we actually stand at this point in time, the fruit of our collective work so far. And it proposes a way to organize and focus our work for the remaining part of this session. Nothing more and nothing less. There are no preconditions…It is an inclusive and enabling proposal. No political or substantive position taken here, or elsewhere, is compromised. All delegations will be able to pursue their respective priorities in the course of the work.”

9 September 2008 - Ambassador Jürg Streuli

"The right track, in the view of my delegation, is to initiate negotiations without preconditions on an FMCT. For a very long time now, Switzerland has stated that we see such a treaty as an essential third pillar to complement the existing nuclear regime".

1 February 2007, Ambassador Jurg Streuli

“It is my delegation’s view that only a pragmatic approach to the critical aspects of an FMCT, including concerns about the verification procedures of such a treaty, will pave the way to a consensus…Switzerland encourages all delegations to enter into negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions.”

16 May 2006, Ambassador Jürg Streuli

"Switzerland supported the imposition of a moratorium on such substances. In order not to impede the dynamics that could be forthcoming, Switzerland was ready to begin negotiations with no preconditions."

6 March 2007, Ambassador Jurg Streuli, excerpt from UN press release

In particular, the drafting of a code of conduct for space activities was a worthwhile avenue to explore. Such a document could include measures to better
regulate space traffic, prevent dangerous manoeuvres or prohibit those whose peaceful objectives were questionable. The elaboration of provisions to prevent the creation of space debris was another such confidence-building measure. Switzerland was also of the opinion that the Conference should seek greater interaction with Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in this area.

3 August 2006, Ambassador Jurg Streuli, excerpt from UN press release

"Switzerland believed that non-nuclear-weapon States which were States parties to the NPT had a legitimate right to commitments from nuclear-weapon States. It was also clear that only States fully in compliance with the NPT could get these negative security assurances. The most appropriate forum for negotiating such a convention would be the Conference on Disarmament which was the only multilateral forum which had among its members the nuclear-weapon States and those States assumed to have nuclear weapons."

9 September 2008 - Ambassador Jürg Streuli

"Document CD/1840 is the way forward and remains the best possible compromise to start our work. It builds on the approach of last year and elegantly combines the earlier documents which brought us so close to a breakthrough. Next year, we do not start from scratch but can build on the logic of CD/1840".

7 September 2004, Ambassador Christian Faessler

"Mon pays estime que la proposition des cinq ambassadeurs est le résultat d’un effort raisonnable de créativité et de volonté de dépasser le cadre des postures nationals. Cette proposition troue sa filiation dans les propositions qui l’ont précédée et met l’accent sur les points de convergence de chacune d’entre elles. Je lance un appel à tous les Etats qui ne l’ont pas encore fait d’accepter cetter proposition ou, si nécessaire, d’y apporter leurs éventuelles suggestions d’amendements."

17 May 2006, Mr Alabbas Hayder, excerpt from UN press release

"Syria supported the setting up of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to negotiate a potential FMCT, as soon as the Conference agreed on a programme of work that dealt with all the four core issues. Any FMCT should include existing stockpiles of fissile material and should also include a verification mechanism

6 February 2007, Mr. Khalil Bitar

“In its 61st session, the GA adopted resolution 61/97 about a Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons. In this resolution, the GA requested the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. It is time now that the CD establishes a subsidiary body, preferably under item 2 of its agenda, to negotiate such a convention.”

23 June 2005, Ambassador Bashar Ja'afar, excerpt from UN press release

Syria continued to believe that the Five Ambassadors proposal remained the best proposal and establishing a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament was the least that the Conference could do.

13 February 2007, Mr. Hussein Ali, excerpt from UN press release

Syria was one of co-sponsors of the Chinese and Russian working paper (CD/1679) on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including the use of force or threat of use of force against space objects. In Syria's view, establishing an ad hoc Committee in the Conference on Disarmament was the minimum they should seek to achieve in that regard.

8 June 2006, Mr Hussein Ali, excerpt from UN press release

"Syria reiterated its support for the creation of a subsidiary body within the Conference so that it could proceed to discuss this issue as part of the Five Ambassadors' proposal which remained the best basis to help the Conference adopt a balanced programme of work."

13 February 2007, Mr. Hussein Ali, excerpt from UN press release

Until nuclear weapons were totally eliminated, however, the commencement of negotiations on negative security assurances was a right for all non-nuclear weapon States and an obligation on nuclear weapon States, and the establishment of an ad hoc committee on negative security assurances in the Conference was needed.

7 July 2005, Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, excerpt from UN press release

It was a moral and legal obligation of nuclear States to provide security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States unconditionally as had been pronounced by the NPT and its review processes.

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui

"Some of the major positive aspects of your document, CD 1863 are that they are built ton important points-
1. Negotiations on FMCT would be a disarmament measure, and not a non-proliferation measure only.
2. The creation of working groups as a new mechanism to launch negotiations and abates are a good idea. It also goes along with the rules of procedures of the CD.
3. Future negotiations on FMCT will be based on the Shannon initiative the A5 initiative and the 2 were based on the principle of verification and reduction of stocks.
4. The FMCT negotiations do not exclude the principle of elimination of stocks. They also envisage the drafting of an international legally binding instrument.

Like a number of other states members on the CD we had hoped that the document would lay greater emphasis on the issue of negative security assurances and PAROS. However, we all know that reaching a comprehensive document that satisfies the priorities and ambitions of 192 states is not possible. Therefore Mr. President, the
delegation of my country supports CD/1863."

3 June 2008 - Ambassador Faysal Hamoui

"My delegation believes that the preamble of the said document is a good one and contains the following positive points: 1) It keeps the door open for other proposals, 2) It does not preclude the outcome of discussions on any item, 3) It affirms that the work will be carried out under the Rules of Procedures of the Conference, 4) It also affirms that the work will be without prejudice to future work and negotiations on its agendas' items, 5) It affirms implicity, in its operative paragraph, the importance of the four core issues and the linkage between them."

3 June 2008 - Ambassador Faysal Hamoui

"On the other hand, there are still some points which should be improved in order to reach a satisfactory, balanced and acceptable agreement. These are the following: 1) The imbalance in the mandates. The document insists on having negotiations on FMCT and discussions on items 1, 3 and 4, 2) While talking about FMCT, the document does not mention important issues, such as stocks and verification, 3) Talking about discussions of items 1, 3 and 4, the document doesn't stipulate anything about the aim or the outcome of the said discussion".

30 March 2007 , Mr Hussein Ali, excerpt from UN press release

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said everyone knew Syria's position on disarmament: the question the Conference had to address as a foremost priority was nuclear disarmament. Syria also wished to point out that there was quite a difference between Syria's position and the text of the draft decision CD/2007/L.1. Despite that difference, Syria would content itself with making known its reservations.

22 May 2009 - Ambassador Mr. Samir Labidi

"Given the favor all impetus we have recorded over the last years, as recorded by the Secretary General, my country is fully supporting the CD 1863 and we would like to express the hope that consensus will be a shored to have adopted."

12 March 2009 - Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

“Following an agreement on the Programme of Work, the CD could start negotiations on an FMCT. Turkey is of the opinion that a comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach to FMCT negotiations should be adopted. We encourage the Member States to show flexibility with regard to the modalities of a mandate on FMCT, so that we can reach consensus in a reasonable time frame. We believe the commencement of negotiations on FMCT and entry into force of the CTBT could play a catalyst role for a successful outcome at the NPT Review Conference.”

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

"We are of the view that the Conference could start negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material and materialise parallel advances on negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space".

20 February 2007, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumeu

“…My delegation underscored the particular importance Turkey attaches to the negotiation of a non-discriminatory and universal treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)…We are also of the view that an FMCT will place a quantitative cap on fissile material that is designed for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…A comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach, of course, should include the issue of existing stocks and verification.”

16 May 2006, Ambassador Turkekul Kurttekin, excerpt from UN press release

"Turkey firmly believed that the concept of verification was an important part of any treaty, as verification monitored compliance or lack thereof. Scope also needed to be dealt with. Turkey viewed that neither verification nor scope was a precondition for the negotiations, however."

20 January 2009 – Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

“Turkey supports global disarmament and all the efforts towards sustaining international security through arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. We are party to all international non-proliferation instruments and export control regimes, thus support the universalization and effective implementation of these instruments.”

27 March 2007, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumeu

“…We would like to underscore the importance of confidence building through information sharing and transparency in order to reach the goal of nuclear disarmament, as well as the special importance we attach to the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).”

12 March 2009 - Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

“The proposal presented by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China deserves careful consideration by the CD. We are looking forward to receive the compilation of observations on the draft PPWT.“

20 February 2007, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumeu, excerpt from UN press release

Turkey attached a growing importance to the peaceful use of outer space. For Turkey, protecting the right of unrestricted access to and use of outer space for peaceful purposes was more important than the venue or the modalities of the discussion, and it saw merit in discussing the prevention of an arms race in outer space at the Conference.

12 March 2009 -Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

“We regard the issue of negative security assurances (NSA) as firmly anchored in the NPT regime. The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference noted the unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), as well as the declarations of the nuclear weapons states concerning both negative and positive security assurances. The 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document also made specific references to the issue. The Conference agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear weapons states to the non-nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT, strengthen the non-proliferation regime.”

20 February 2007, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumeu

“…My Delegation reminded distinguished colleagues that Turkey supports views and proposals of establishing political mechanisms, followed by legally binding international instruments, which will assure the non-use of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon States against non-nuclear weapon States.”

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

"Turkey has had the opportunity to contribute to these efforts by presenting document “CD 1840” on behalf of the P-6 last year. Indeed, the process that we have been engaging ourselves includes, inter alia, A-5, L1, “CD 1840” and now “CD 1863”. Now this process ought to accelerate. Flexibility by all delegations is required not only for reaching consensus on CD 1863, but for the course of action that should follow it, as well. This would mean bringing the CD back to its fundamental role in promoting global peace and security."

20 January 2009 - Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü

"During the Presidency of Turkey a compromise package contained in document CD/1840 was submitted last March on behalf of the 2008 Presidents. This document constitutes a sincere endeavour to initiate an incremental process which could enable us to reach consensus on a programme of work. Turkey continues to hold the view that members of the CD may wish to build on this document".

28 June 2007

“This proposal, which we continue to believe, represents an accurate understanding of the CD and the draft decision of the Conference.  We hope that these documents will allay the concerns of the delegations that have not been able to join the consensus so far. As stated previously by my delegation, kick-starting the efforts on L.1 will constitute only the beginning of the multilateral negotiating process.  This process will allow all delegations to express their concerns and alleviations.

23 March 2007, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumeu, excerpt from UN press release

“The presidential draft decision, officially tables at the beginning of this meeting will be conveyed to our capital for evaluation…It appears to be the best possible compromise and presents a real opportunity to break the deadlock which has characterized this august body for nearly a decade. We hope that it will succeed this time.”

2 January 2006, Ambassador Turkekul Kurttekin, excerpt from UN press release

Turkey believed that if there was a roll-call vote on the programme of work today, the Five Ambassadors proposal would have the widest support. Efforts had to continue until the deadlock was broken.

17 March 2009 - Ambassador Mykola Maimeskul

“We believe that the adoption of an FMCT will significantly enforce the current NPT regime. Banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices will sharply limit the chances of WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists. Commencement of negotiations without any preconditions on the FMCT should be the first priority for the CD. “

6 March 2007, Ambassador Yevhen Bercheda

“We believe that negotiating a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices cannot be delayed any longer...We welcome the submission by the USA a draft treaty and regard it as a good basis for negotiating this important issue. We also associate ourselves with those delegations who call for a Moratorium on the productions of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of a Cut-off Treaty and its entry into force.”

15 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasyuk

"The immediate commencement of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) as well as dealing with both nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space within appropriate subsidiary bodies- these three parts together constitute the basis today for an agreement to begin our work."

17 March 2009 - Ambassador Mykola Maimeskul

“Ukraine welcomes a number of recent important disarmament initiatives, such as “Five-Point Proposal” by UN SG Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, EU proposals on nuclear disarmament as well as valuable input from nuclear weapons states and civil society groups. We are particularly pleased to see the call of the UNSG to resume bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia, aimed at deep and verifiable reductions of their respective arsenals. The progress on nuclear disarmament is as essential to win the struggle against non-proliferation as ever. There can be no progress in combating nuclear proliferation without tangible steps in nuclear disarmament and vice versa.”

6 March 2007, Ambassador Yevhen Bercheda, excerpt from UN press release

In that context, it was worth mentioning that Ukraine's decision to forswear its nuclear capability had been crucial for the progress in the nuclear disarmament process and for the further fate of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and global security as a whole.

31 January 2006, excerpt from RCW CD Report

The Ukraine encouraged the CD to maintain the crucial balance between non-proliferation and disarmament, negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and the establishment of a Nuclear Disarmament subsidiary body in the context of the CD.

15 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasyuk

"... as well as dealing with ... the prevention of an arms race in outer space within appropriate subsidiary bodies- these three parts together constitute the basis today for an agreement to begin our work."

17 March 2009 - Ambassador Mykola Maimeskul

“Ukraine believes that legally binding security assurances by the nuclear weapons states to the non-nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT will significantly strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime by eliminating plausible incentives for pursuing nuclear capabilities. We strongly encourage the NWS to reconfirm their commitments laid out in the relevant UNSC Resolutions.“

31 January 2006, excerpt from RCW CD Report

However, the Ukraine proposed a much fairer fix that is not a toxic terrorist target: strengthening the non-proliferation regime through legally binding negative security assurances, thus “eliminating plausible incentives for pursuing nuclear weapon programmes.”

29 May 2009 - Ambassador Mykola Maimeskul

"Ukraine has already expressed its strong welcome and support for the submitted on behalf of the P6, Draft Decision for the establishment of a Program of Work (CD/1863). Last year my country had the privilege to invest its efforts in these activities by being one of the co-authors and promoters of the CD/1840, which, enriched with the most viable proposals, evolved into CD/1863. Ukraine shares the priorities of CD/1863 and considers it to be not only a logical step in the right direction, but a fresh and powerful impulse to the momentum created in order to reach the consensus on the Programme of Work. To our view, legally binding and verifiable international treaty on fissile materials will significantly strengthen NPT and CTBT treaties and should be the first priority for the Conference on Disarmament. Ukraine believes that the modifications done in the CD/1863 reflect this idea and pave the way for the commencement of FMCT negotiations."

17 March 2009 - Ambassador Mykola Maimeskul

"A year ago, the 2008 CD Presidents, including Ukraine, have tabled the Proposal for the Programme of Work to the CD (CD/1840), which is so far the most effective attempt to bridge the positions of the CD membership. The outcome of informal discussions this year confirmed that the content of the CD/1840 has not lost its relevance."

21 June 2007

“The Ukrainian delegation has already carefully reflected on its position concerning the draft decision presented on behalf of the six Presidents contained in document CD/2007/L.1.  It may not be perfect but it represents the best ability to return to work in the CD.” 

15 March 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasyuk, excerpt from UN press release

The year 2004, he said, proved to be another year of stalemate for the Conference on Disarmament, which was unable to effectively launch its work. The beginning of 2005 had not been promising either and Ukraine deeply regretted this situation and was ready to spare no effort with a view to breaking the current impasse. Ukraine hoped that the non-paper "Food for Thought" on a Conference Programme of Work would give a renewed impetus to the Conference and that it would finally reach an agreement on its programme of work and address all the substantive issues contained therein.

25 June 2009 - Ambassador John Duncan

"The FMCT is together with the CTBT one of the key building blocks towards that vision and therefore we have looked very seriously indeed at it."

19 March 2009 – Ambassador John Duncan

“The first steps of which are to commence urgent negotiations without preconditions on a Fissile Material Cut off Treaty and for all States to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. States have national interest that capping the production of weapon usable fissile material and outlawing the testing of nuclear weapons are two powerful and achievable goals that we believe are consistent with the long term needs and interests of each State.”

5 February 2009 - Ambassador John Duncan

"The Policy Information Paper…sets out…the priority of beginning negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT)".

17 June 2008 - Ambassador John Duncan

"And when we took the Presidency upon ourselves, we called on remaining states to show flexibility and allow negotiations to begin on a FMCT together with substantive discussions, not simply just an exchange of view, but substantive discussions on the other issues. Regrettably, this has not yet happened and I sense the disappointment in the room".

22 February 2007, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Kim Howells

“Secondly, we can cap the amount of weapons usable fissile material. Most nuclear weapons states have introduced moratoria on the production of fissile material for weapons use, and none object in principle to the negotiation of a Treaty to formalize such a cap. And that, distinguished delegates, is where you come in.”

23 March 2006, Minister Kim Howells

"The UK continues to seek and to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. To this end, we continue to believe that a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) is the appropriate next step in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. To our knowledge no delegation has disagreed on the value of starting negotiations on an FMCT. Of course, such negotiations will not be easy. But surely we can agree without prejudice to anyone's position, to begin negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions?"

5 February 2009 - Ambassador John Duncan

"…the UK is committed to making progress and moving forwards towards a world free of nuclear weapons. We do not underestimate difficulties ahead…A situation where all thos possessing nuclear weapons have the responsibility to respond to the concerns expressed by those that do not, and equally where those whose civil programmes have raised questions over their purpose and intent have the responsibility to respond to the concerns expressed by the International Community".

28 June 2007, Ms. Fiona Paterson

"The UK will, as a nuclear disarmament laboratory, participate in a new project by the International Institute of Strategic Studies on the practical steps required for the elimination of nuclear weapons…”

22 February 2007, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Kim Howells

“The rationale on how we reached this judgement (sic)  can be read in the White Paper, but it boils down to this: we do not believe that the circumstances currently exist for the UK safely to choose now unilaterally to renounce our nuclear weapons…So on current evidence and trends, the UK simply cannot be confident that a nuclear threat to our vital interests will not emerge in the timeframe we have to consider…those conditions for complete disarmament cannot be created unilaterally. I think few, if any, of those present here today would argue that complete disarmament by a country with less than 1% of the nuclear weapons in the world would make it any more likely that proliferators would abandon their ambitions.”

8 June 2006, Deputy Permanent Representative Fiona Paterson

"The focus on our policy on space is on civil and scientific uses, and we firmly believe that all states have the right to explore outer space and make the most of opportunities for scientific, economic, environmental and communications advances." "We do recognize that, as national security activities in space have grown, so have concerns by some states about the risk of an arms race in outer space. We understand that some states would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. However, se do not believe that there is an international consensus on the need for further treaties or further legal codification"

7 July 2005, Deputy Permanent Representative Fiona Paterson, excerpt from UN press release

The United Kingdom gave negative and positive security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States in its letter to the United Nations Secretary-General in 1995, which was noted in Security Council resolution 984. The United Kingdom remained commited to those security assurances. In addition, the United Kingdom had given legally binding NSAs in treaty form through the protocols it had signed to the nuclear weapon free zone treaties.

17 June 2008 - Ambassador John Duncan

"When the UK assumed this Presidency four weeks ago, we noted the almost complete agreement around draft declaration CD/1840, a proposal which contains much of the substance of a similar decision put forward by 2007 CD Presidencies. So let us bear in mind that that is the view of 12 Presidencies, countries drawn from across the regional and political grouping of this institution".

15 May 2007

“A decision [on] L1 is not solely important because of the Policy issues it covers, but it has wider significance as a ‘political’ statement that the collective membership the CD want[s] to retain this organization and value it as an important part of the international Arms Control and Disarmament architecture…L1 is a solution whose principle political aim is to capture our success over the past 2 years and allow the CD to prosper again. This is not a blame game but there will be inevitable consequences. Let us and those in capitals be under no illusion that that is the Political decision we now face.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador John Duncan, excerpt from UN press release

The United Kingdom therefore supported the Six Presidents (P6) proposal, which would get the Conference back to substantive work after a decade…As a "militarily significant state" the United Kingdom had the obligation to undertake negotiations on matters that were not of interest to them, but of interest to other States. The United Kingdom therefore supported the draft decision. The Conference was on the brink of a historic decision. However, the window of opportunity was a small one, and the time to act was now.

23 March 2006, Minister Kim Howells

"We should be honest with ourselves: the package approach to starting substantive work in the CD has not delivered a consensus agreement on a way forward."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Garold Larson

“The Obama administration has made it clear that they expect that this CD will resume its important contributions to international disarmament, and most immediately, the negotiation of a FMCT. The polestar is President Obama’s speech in Prague on April 5th, when he announced, “the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons. As members already know, this characterization of a verifiable FMCT marks a significant gesture on the part of the US in its determination to move the process forward. We are under no illusions that negotiations of an FMCT will be quick or easy. It will take the focused effort of all states in the CD to work through the difficult issues that lie ahead.”

Hillary Clintons's statement made when confirmed as Secretary of State on FMCT amongst others (retrieved 26 February 2009):

"/Therefore, while defending against the threat of terrorism, we will also seize the parallel opportunity to get America back in the business of engaging other nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We will work with Russia to secure their agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START treaty before it expires in December 2009, and we will work toward agreements for further reductions in nuclear weapons. We will also work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian missiles off hair-trigger alert, act with urgency to prevent proliferation in North Korea and Iran, secure loose nuclear weapons and materials, and shut down the market for selling them — as Senator Lugar has done for so many years. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the regime. So, we will work with this committee and the Senate toward ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reviving negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty/".

22 January 2007, Ambassador Christina Rocca

“The U.S. is cautiously optimistic that 2007 will be the year during which the CD abandons the failed package approach and focuses its efforts on the issue that commands consensus in this body. In that regard, we are eager to join others in commencing work negotiating a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other explosive devises...we tabled a draft text of such a treaty in this body last year, and we urge others to use this as a basis for finally beginning substantive work toward a goal we all share.”

18 May 2006, Mr. Stephen G. Rademaker

"Our draft clearly defines fissile material and related production methods in a manner consistent with established practices and past thinking on that subject. For example, the production of fissile material for non-explosive purposes, such as naval propulsion, would not be prohibited by an FMCT. Existing stocks of fissile material also would be unaffected. Our draft also spells out the mechanisms needed for a treaty. Entry into force, dispute resolution, implementation, signature, accession -- it’s all here. Consistent with our conclusions regarding the verifiability of an FMCT, which Ambassador Sanders announced to the Conference in July 2004, our text includes no provisions designed to provide verification. This does not mean that compliance with the treaty would be unverified, but rather that the primary responsibility for verification would rest with the parties using their own national means and methods – or, said another way, through the exercise of the sovereign responsibilities of the states parties to monitor compliance. Mr. President, this draft treaty is a way forward for this body and for the maintenance of international peace and security."

6 February 2007, Ambassador Christina Rocca

“Nuclear weapons continue to have relevance in today’s world, but that relevance is clearly not incompatible with the NPT…Continuation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella is necessary under current circumstances in order to help lay the foundation for further progress in disarmament. Ultimately, however, the objective of all states should be to create an environment in which it is no longer necessary for anyone to rely on nuclear weapons for security.”

19 February 2009 – Ambassador Garold Larson

“We have all noted with concern the collision last week between the privately operated Iridium communications satellite and the inactive Russian Cosmos satellite. As a leading space-faring nation, the U.S. government takes these issues very seriously. Last week’s collision underscore the increasingly congested space environment. This collision emphasizes the vital importance of international cooperation between governments and industry, which is critical in the future to improve space safety. We look forward to further productive discussions in the CD in connection with outer space.”

13 February 2007, Ambassador Christina Rocca

“…There already exists a number of treaties and conventions that establish a regime for the peaceful use of outer space…We believe universalization of these conventions is a much more practical and effective step towards guaranteeing the peaceful use of outer space...Despite the ASAT test, we continue to believe that there is no arms race in space, and therefore no problem for arms control to solve…We should focus our efforts on ensuring free access to space for peaceful purposes and deterring and dissuading the misuse of space, seeking universal adherence to the existing treaties and conventions to which not all members have signed up to…We believe this approach will have more of a deterrent and dissuasion effect than an additional set of international constraints – constraints that would be unverifiable, protect no one, and constrain only those who comply and not those who cheat.”

13 June 2006, Mr John Mohanco

"Our delegation is more convinced than ever that issues relating to the supposed weaponization of space definitely do NOT command consensus in this body"

"the United States does not have any weapons in space, nor do we have any plans to build such weapons. On the other hand, the high value of space systems long has led the United States to study the potential of space-related weapons to protect our satellites from potential future attacks. As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our Government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our assets."

"The cold war is over, and there is no arms race in outer space. Thus, there is no - repeat, no- problem in outer space for arms control to solve.

2 July 2009 - Ambassador Garold Larson

"We join the many delegations who call for rapid agreement on the draft texts CD/1866 Rev. 1 and 1867 in order to meet our common goals and obligations."

26 May 2009 - Ambassador Garold Larson

"We now have in front of us, in CD 1863, a means by which those negotiations can begin, as well as serious discussions on a range of other disarmament matters that reflect the ongoing concerns of CD members. From our point of view, while we supported the approach outlined in CD 1840 – and, if pressed, would prefer the clarity of its wording – I recognize that this current text reflects the considerable effort exerted by the P6 to produce an evolved and finely balanced document which now has a solid prospect of achieving full consensus. It is evident; however, that we are not quite there as yet as under the fundamental guarantee that protects the security interests of every member in this chamber, full and complete consensus is required. But we are close, and I am gratified to state that the United States is prepared to join that consensus as soon as it is reached, under the existing text."

24 June 2008 - Ambassador Christina Rocca

"We will remain open to supporting broad dialogue, we will continue consultations, and we will work to build upon and broaden the already almost unanimous support underlying CD/1840".

12 June 2007

“As we have stated before, we understand that L1 is the best possible compromise and as such leaves many delegations, including ours, wishing for more. But we recognize it as the best chance to move this body forward.”

23 March 2007, Ambassador Christina Rocca, excerpt from UN press release

“The U.S. well realizes that the Presidential document has been carefully crafted with each word and idea weighed and balanced. It is no secret that the United States would have preferred a clear cut decision to start negotiations on FMCT based on the mandate we tabled (CD/1776) without reference to any other issue. We have spoken against linkages for years and we are not convinced that all linkages have yet been broken as a result of this plan ~ it bears a very close resemblance to the A-5 proposal, something we oppose. Despite those concerns, the United States has decided it will not stand in the way of consensus on the P-6 proposal – as you have presented it to us today…We understand that proposing amendments to the P-6 proposal, for ostensibly procedural reasons, would have the effect of preventing substantive work in the CD.”

19 August 2008 - Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandezof Venezuela

"An important step towards disarmament and non proliferation would be represented by the negotiations, the signature and the going into force of the treaty on the prohibition of fissile materials for explosive purposes.  While no delegation has refused to negotiate such an instrument, there are nevertheless, remain details on which consensus must still be achieved".

26 June 2007, see Argentina

26 June 2007, see Argentina

12 March 2007, Mr. Jorge Valero, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

Furthermore the Conference on Disarmament had to establish an ad hoc Committee with the mandate of negotiating an instrument for nuclear disarmament. Venezuela regretted the negative stance of certain countries which continued to block progress in this area.

12 March 2007, Mr. Jorge Valero, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

The risk of militarization of outer space was also of concern to Venezuela. Rather than being an arena for war, outer space should be an arena for peaceful activities, for the benefit of all countries.

19 August 2008 - Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandezof Venezuela

"Nuclear disarmament is regarded by many delegations as the very reason of the Conference.  Indeed, the first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, contained an appeal for the elimination of nuclear weapons and until such time, that nuclear disarmament is achieved, it is necessary that negative security assurances be provided against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear weapons states. It is necessary to arrive at a consensus on the best means of ensuring that such guarantees are granted".

18 June 2009 - Third Secretary Maria Elena Dos Santos, on behalf of all Latin American CD Members and Observers

"Our delegations were very glad at the recent adoption of the Programme of Work, contained in Document CD/1863, which will enable the Conference on Disarmament to assume its rightful role as the sole multilateral negotiating forum for nuclear disarmament. "

19 August 2008 - Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandezof Venezuela

"Venezuela’s position with respect to the proposed program of work to be found in CD/1840 is prompted by the conviction that it can provide a basis for getting out of the stalemate. We are aware that difficulties in attaining consensus in such plural diverse bodies. That is why it is important to have a program of work which we can view as a minimal basis in emerging from this period of non action".

26 June 2007, see Argentina

3 March 2005, Ambassador Bernabe Carrero Cuberos, excerpt from UN press release

In conclusion, he hoped that the Conference, with a little bit more good will, would be able to agree on a balanced programme of work. The Five Ambassadors proposal was a solid basis to begin substantive work and he urged delegations which had not yet spoken in favour of it to do so, and those who had doubts about it to speak about them so that solutions could be found.

13 March 2007, Mr. Fan Ving Min, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, excerpt from UN press release

It was the consistent policy of Viet Nam to support and promote comprehensive and complete disarmament with top priority given to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Viet Nam supported the non-proliferation and reduction of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction with the ultimate aim of their total elimination. Pursuant to that policy, Viet Nam had acceded to all the important international disarmament treaties and strictly complied with them.