22 August 2006

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a statement from the incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Anton Pinter of Slovakia. It also held a general debate in which speakers addressed issues connected to the report of the Conference and to the agenda for the next year’s Conference.

In an opening statement as he took up his Presidency, Ambassador Anton Pinter of Slovakia said it was a challenge not only to continue the vigorous and productive way of performing the Presidency’s responsibilities, as shown by the previous Presidents this year, but also to bring it to a successful and satisfactory outcome for all. This year the work of the Conference had distinguished itself from the previous ones, and it could be labelled by attributes such as: intensive; fruitful, smooth, productive, constructive, confidence-raising and many others in the same positive mood. The President would be working together with delegations towards a final report with such attributes as a factual reflection of the proceedings and accomplishments in the Conference throughout the year, and a mirror of the positive atmosphere.

Speaking in the general debate, speakers said this year had seen an impressive improvement of the work of the Conference: simple statistics would show that in 2006 there were more meetings, more interventions, more written contributions, and more experts present than in other years of the last decade. Finalising the report should not prevent Member States from engaging collectively in an assessment of this year’s experiment and what it suggested for the future, as next year demanded a qualitatively and quantitatively improved performance.

These were the elements which could be worked on next year to ensure that the Conference did not remain as it was now, but continued to progress towards negotiation activities, which was its primary function. There was a need for a qualitative jump into negotiations where possible, and it was important that during the current year the ground was prepared as much as possible to jump-start this kind of process.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of the Netherlands, Canada, France, Morocco, and Germany.

The next meeting of the Conference will be at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 23 August, when the Conference will continue its deliberations on the seventh item on its agenda, entitled Transparency in Armaments.

Statements

ANTON PINTER, Slovakia, in an opening statement as he assumed the Presidency of the Conference, said it was a challenge not only to continue the vigorous and productive way of performing the Presidency’s responsibilities, as shown by the previous Presidents this year, but also to bring it to a successful and satisfactory outcome for all. Being encouraged by the address of the United Nations Secretary-General in June this year, participants had the chance to overcome the long-lasting impasse in the Conference. It was closer to starting substantive work than during previous years, and as usual, it was most difficult to take the last steps, but this was not discouraging; on the contrary, it was the intention of the Conference to accomplish its common goal through discussing and preparing a meaningful report.

This year the work of the Conference had distinguished itself from the previous ones, and it could be labelled by attributes such as: intensive; fruitful, smooth, productive, constructive, confidence-raising and many others in the same positive mood. The merits of this year’s session were obvious primarily thanks to the contribution of all to the constructive and meaningful debates on all the agenda items. Consequently, the President would be working together with delegations towards a final report with such attributes as a factual reflection of the proceedings and accomplishments in the Conference throughout the year, and a mirror of the positive atmosphere. The report should also prepare the ground for the positive decisions allowing further development of the productive work in the Conference. This was possible only with Member States support, and in the spirit of multilateralism the Conference would rely on constructive cooperation, understanding and desire to renew the fame and reputation of the Conference on Disarmament.

JOHANNES C. LANDMAN, Netherlands, said this year had seen an impressive improvement of the work of the Conference. The P6 initiative had made a marked difference: simple statistics would show that in 2006 there were more meetings, more interventions, more written contributions, and more experts present than in other years of the last decade. Better still, discussions were of high value, proving that on disarmament issues, progress was much needed. To the Netherlands, it was clear that some topics were riper for negotiations than others. At the same time, there was only one avenue which would lead to a Programme of Work: that was by fully taking into consideration the reality of varying security perceptions in the world. A collective security approach implied that whatever one country saw as a priority, the solution should include a serious combination of interests.

The upcoming report would contain references to the encouraging changes in the working methods this year, and to the improved debates which resulted from that. But it was vital that in the report, all Conference Member States agreed on drawing the obvious consequences of this positive development. An improved coordination between Presidencies had shown to be crucial for organising meaningful debate, and this should therefore be continued. The programme of work for 2007 should be a manifestation of this year’s debates: an arrangement which reflected the spectrum of issues and gave each of them their relative weight. It was also crucial that this year’s Conference on Disarmament Report included some concrete signposts for follow-up. It should also be possible by now to make the proposed draft mandate text on an FMCT the foremost focal point in view of at last restoring the body’s position as a negotiating forum.

PAUL MEYER, Canada, said Canada had hoped that in the proposed schedule there would have been a meeting to evaluate the Six President’s initiative, of which the new President was the last member. Canada recognised that the priority of the current Presidency was to finalise the report to be submitted to the General Assembly, and was confident that this factual report could be agreed upon in good order and in good time. Finalising the report should not prevent Member States from engaging collectively in an assessment of this year’s experiment and what it suggested for the future. Next year demanded a qualitatively and quantitatively improved performance. Notwithstanding the improvements brought this year, a mere repetition of the 2006 agenda would fall far short of expectations. It would be healthy for the Conference to exchange views on the pluses and minuses of the P6 approach, and express the expectations of delegations for next year. This would be of great aid to the current President and to the incoming President in order to plot the upcoming year.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU, France, said with regards to the ideas expressed by the two previous speakers, there was a need to do better next year. The Conference on Disarmament had initiated a process of revitalisation, which had been demonstrated in various ways, the main being the Programme of the Six Presidencies, and the programme of activities for an initial Programme of Work, even if this last was not satisfactory and should be improved next year. The various thematic debates had been very productive, and the improvement of these debates could be another track. More active use of the Friends of the Presidents should be made next year. A certain number of proposals on new work had been proposed this year, including that on Cut-off, which was a vital element, and this showed new interest by States in the work of the Conference. These were the elements which could be worked on next year to ensure that the Conference did not remain as it was now, but continued to progress towards negotiation activities, which was its primary function.

MOHAMMED BENJABER, Morocco, said with regards to the compromise on the format of the IAEA expert presentation scheduled for Thursday 24th, it should be recalled that compromise had only been possible with the understanding that the informal and formal plenaries when the presentation was to take place should be devoted to general debate, and not part of a structured debate.

BERNHARD BRASACK, Germany, said the report this year would be even more important than in previous years. The last Presidency of each year and the first of the next had a particular importance as a bridging function. There had been many pluses this year, which should be reflected in the report, but what was also clear was that this year’s exercise could not be merely repeated next year: there was a need for a qualitative jump into negotiations where possible, and it was important that during the current year the ground was prepared as much as possible to jump-start this kind of process. Germany was very hopeful that this would be achieved, due to the visible progress that had been noted by other speakers.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008