Conference on Disarmament Hears Series of Member States Outline Their Priorities

President of Conference Names Six Friends of Presidents

2 February 2006

The Conference on Disarmament today heard from a number of Member States who outlined their countries’ positions and priorities within the Conference, and heard proposals by France and Switzerland to add the issue of threats to civil critical infrastructure to the programme of work, and by Australia to start talks on Man Portable Air Defense Systems in the Conference.

India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Italy, Romania, Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, Chile and Algeria reiterated their countries’ positions and priorities within the Conference.

France and Switzerland referred to the open-ended consultations which they held on 1 February on the issue of threats to civil critical infrastructure and suggested that it could be addressed by a proposed open-ended group of governmental experts within the agenda of the Conference for 2006.

Australia said the proliferation of Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADs) was of particular concern, and there existed an international consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of these systems. This consensus provided an opportunity for the Conference to examine the threat posed by the proliferation of MANPADS and to develop measures to combat them.

Russia said new issues related to international peace and security, which could be included in the programme of work, should meet at least three criteria. They should enjoy consensus, correspond to the Conference’s mandate and profile, and not duplicate what other international organizations were doing. Algeria supported the conditions, asking also if Member States waited for the President’s proposed list of issues and timetable and then reacted to it, would their silence be interpreted as consent.

Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, President of the Conference, said that after holding presidential consultations, unfortunately, he had not detected change in the position of delegations with regard to the programme of work. However, concerning the initiative of the six Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference and the appointment of the Friends of Presidents, the six Presidents of the Conference for 2006 had appointed Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka; Idriss Jazairy of Algeria; Petko Draganov of Bulgaria; Juan Martabit of Chile; Carlo Trezza of Italy; and Yoshiki Mine of Japan as Friends of Presidents.

Ambassador Rapacki said the main task of the Friends of Presidents would be to assist the Presidents of the 2006 session in discharging their responsibilities. The Presidents should focus on activities directly aimed at searching for consensus on a programme of work, namely, on proper planning and preparation of structured debates and on other activities related to the programme of work. Therefore, the Friends of Presidents could concentrate on the agenda and the effectiveness of the methods of work.

The Conference approved requests by Denmark and Oman to participate in the work of the 2006 session of the Conference as observers.

It also heard a number of delegations extend their condolences to Poland for the collapse of the roof of an exhibition hall which killed scores of persons.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 February.

Statements

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), outgoing President of the Conference, said that in recent weeks, he had consulted bilaterally with all delegations of the Conference and he would like to present the results of the consultations. The main purpose of those consultations was to check whether there was any change in the position of Member States concerning a programme of work. Unfortunately, he had not detected change in the position of delegations with regard to the programme of work. A majority of delegations supported the A5 proposal, while some other delegations were not in a position to support it. Positions of Member States differed to the extent that did not allow finding consensus on the programme of work or on the establishment of any ad hoc committee or appointment of any special coordinator.

Concerning the initiative of the six Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference and the appointment of the Friends of Presidents, the six Presidents of the Conference for 2006 had appointed Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka; Idriss Jazairy of Algeria; Petko Draganov of Bulgaria; Juan Martabit of Chile; Carlo Trezza of Italy; and Yoshiki Mine of Japan as Friends of the President. The main task of the Friends of Presidents would be to assist the Presidents of the 2006 session in discharging their responsibilities. The Presidents should focus on activities directly aimed at searching for consensus on a programme of work, namely, on proper planning and preparation of structured debates and on other activities related to the programme of work.Therefore, the Friends of Presidents could concentrate on the agenda and the effectiveness of the methods of work.

Today, the Conference would hold a debate based on the agenda items which he hoped would help it identify issues or possible elements of work of the Conference. The Presidents of the Conference for 2006 would spare no efforts to work out the details of the timetable of the Presidents’ activities. Reaching consensus on the programme of work remained the most important goal for Poland and the other Presidents of the Conference for 2006.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said India was satisfied that the Conference had adopted its traditional agenda by consensus at its very first meeting. Having adopted the agenda, now the primary task before the Conference was to reach agreement on a programme of work. The goal of nuclear disarmament had been on the international agenda ever since the first nuclear weapons were built. India was committed to a nuclear-weapon free world, to be realized in a systemic and progressive manner, through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. As an interim measure, until the achievement of the objective of universal nuclear disarmament, India continued to support the demand of non-nuclear weapon States for multilateral and legally binding security assurances. India had always expressed its readiness to participate in the negotiations in the Conference on a multilateral, non-discriminatory and internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The peaceful application of space technology had very much contributed to India’s socio-economic development and India shared the concerns about the dangers of deployment of weapons in outer space. The agenda of the Conference was comprehensive and enjoyed the support of all Member States. Likewise, for any programme of work of the Conference to enjoy the support of all Member States, it would have to take into account their concerns and priorities.

India believed that the Conference needed to remain engaged in deliberations since these were an essential prerequisite for the success of any negotiating process. India supported the presidential initiative in the hope that discussions in the plenary meetings may lead to the commencement of substantive work in the Conference.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said it was a great concern for many, including Indonesia, that the Conference on Disarmament had been dormant for almost a decade, although they recognized that the post-Cold War era was supposed to have created a conducive atmosphere for international peace and security. At the beginning of the 2006 session, the Conference had witnessed somewhat more encouraging developments. The decision taken by the President and by the five incoming Presidents to establish the P6 mechanism was surely a breakthrough. At least, it ensured that the attention and deliberations of the Members of the Conference would be more focused during the 2006 session.

Indonesia observed that the only cause of the current deadlock in the Conference was the lack of political will of its members. If the Conference was serious about making progress in substantive work, a political will was a must and there should be flexibility and openness. Everyone was also aware that the presence of weapons of mass destruction posed a serious threat and a great danger, not only to countries that owned or produced them, but to all countries and all human beings. To address this problem, a multilateral approach should be the best way to proceed. Arms control and disarmament was certainly a very broad and complex issue. Pragmatism was of ultimate importance if they wished to see the Conference make real progress. Indonesia remained committed to the final objective of a world free of weapons of mass destruction and to a treaty of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. The Conference needed to be revitalized and for that purpose, a political will was needed in order to restart discussions. Indonesia wished to underscore the role of multilateralism in this endeavour and they needed to be pragmatic in their approach.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation’s well-known priority was the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space by means of a legally binding ban on the placement of weapons there and use of force against outer space objects. The objective of Russia was the elaboration and conclusion at the Conference of a new legally binding agreement on non-weaponization of outer space and on prevention of the threat or use of force against outer space objects. It had also agreed in an important difficult step towards compromise, in the context of the A5 proposal, on the establishment of an ad hoc committee on the issue to “deal with” rather than to have a negotiating mandate, and it expected reciprocal steps from its partners.

The Russian Federation was committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament in compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would not object to the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament with the mandate provided for by the A5 proposal. However, the work of the 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 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime was currently gaining additional urgency and it should also be discussed in the ad hoc committee. Also, Russia would not object to the A5 proposal on the establishment of the Conference’s ad hoc committee on the issue of assurances for the non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Russia would also be ready to agree with appointment of special coordinators on the three remaining issues of substance: new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments.

Concerning other issues related to international peace and security, they should meet at least three criteria to be included in the programme of work: enjoy consensus, correspond to the Conference’s mandate and profile, and not duplicate what other international organizations were doing. Russia remained open-minded to any ideas and proposals without prejudice to agreement on the programme of work.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said several delegations had already commended the President for getting the agenda of the Conference adopted so quickly this year. He had taken an initiative to seek the joint cooperation of all Presidents of the Conference of the 2006 session as well as to institute a mechanism of Friends of Presidents with due geographical balance. The President’s inclusive approach and willingness to engage across regional groups would assist in gathering momentum for the work ahead to ensure continuity and a determined attempt to shape the proceedings of the Conference this year while at the same time building confidence towards an eventual resumption of work. The President had also announced his intention to organize a structured debate on issues and to establish a timetable. Sri Lanka fully supported the Five Ambassadors proposal and it would also consider any other proposal that would likely meet consensus. Sri Lanka was also of the view that wider and more frequent use of informal and open-ended consultations could take place on specific issues.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said the President had asked the delegations to give the Chair ideas which could be discussed, and France believed that the Conference must be in a position to address all important issues within its sphere. France and Switzerland had been thinking about the issue of civil critical infrastructure, and yesterday, had again held open-ended consultations on the issue with the view to reaching a consensus. France and Switzerland were presenting a draft mandate to the President and the Conference so that the issue of civil critical infrastructure could be taken up by the President of the Conference in his efforts. In the spirit of flexibility and consensus, they agreed that this issue could be considered under item 5 of the agenda, notwithstanding France’s reservations on the agenda.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said Switzerland and France had developed this mandate on the issue of civil critical infrastructure. Yesterday, in the deliberations, it had been made clear that the threats to civil critical infrastructure were very real. The world was just starting to analyze the threat and to see how to deal with it. This was a good time to begin work on this issue, and they would coordinate existing efforts on this issue in other regional organizations. This issue could be addressed by the proposed open-ended group of governmental experts and all delegations were invited to contribute on this issue. Switzerland and France hoped that the issue of civil critical infrastructure could be considered in the Conference under the agenda for 2006.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) thanked the President for appointing him as one of the Friends of the Presidents. This session, delegations had been asked to present individually or collectively priority issues for their countries. He was now taking the floor on a national basis. Italy’s views were based on previous national positions and on European Union positions and strategies on non-proliferation and disarmament. 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. The issue of fissile material was a topic which needed the highest attention. Italy had already explained why negotiations at the Conference of a multilateral treaty banning fissile material for nuclear weapons constituted the priority for Italy. Italy supported establishing an ad hoc committee to that end which would commend widest support in the Conference. Other delegations had noted their priorities, including prevention of an armed race in outer space, nuclear disarmament and negative security issues, and Italy was ready to deal with these other issues within the programme of work of the Conference. Consideration could also be given to the consolidation of appropriate new issues to be discussed within the Conference.

DORU COSTEA (Romania) said if he was asked to define the atmosphere within the Conference in a single word, the first word to come to mind was frustration. It had been sensed among the delegations for the past couple of years, and it was now being felt stronger at the beginning of this session. It had also been a common feature in the statements in the first plenary meetings of the Conference this session. In 1997, Romania had held the presidency of the Conference and its Representative had said, among other things, that it was his responsibility to urge the Conference to embark on an examination to change the political environment, to consider new priorities and to look at how the Conference could best serve mankind. Romania had also said that the negotiating role of the Conference must be preserved and reinforced. In his opening statement as President of the Conference in less than two months time, and nine years after this statement, his single comment was that there was nothing more to add to it. He could only add a few words and make a harder effort.

The Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference should better coordinate so that they at least edged the Conference towards embarking on its work. When they had met, they had all professed a realistic and optimistic approach on the issue of starting substantive work in the Conference. However it was not just up to the Presidents of the 2006 session, it was only if the 65 Member States of the Conference worked together that they would be able to remove or at least move a little bit the huge stone blocking its activity. He hoped that this could happen. He also wished to keep in mind three principles which had to be maintained: Presidents should try to provide opportunities for Member States to come forward with contributions; any delegation may raise any topic at any time as long as it was linked to the mandate of the Conference; and national priorities were not mutually exclusive. He also wished to voice a question which haunted him about the significance of those magic words “consensus in the Conference” – did consensus mean no vote, or vote no?

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) thanked the President for appointing him as one of the Friends of Presidents. On this occasion in which Conference Members were identifying matters of importance with them, he wished to express the views of Japan. Japan placed greatest importance on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as a building block for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. It would also contribute to nuclear non-proliferation. Immediate commencement of negotiations on an FMCT and early agreement on it was agreed upon in the 1995 and 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conferences. It was ripe for negotiation. Japan intended to issue a working paper on FMCT and looked forward to a useful exchange of views on it. Last week, Japan had stressed the importance of a clear-cut timetable for its work. Japan was also open to discuss other issues as long as they fit developments in the Conference.

MIKE SMITH (Australia) said in the past nine years, the Conference had failed to achieve much of substance. For Australia, which had been one of the vast majority of delegations that had shown flexibility in supporting the various proposals for a programme of work put forward during this period, this state of affairs was a particular frustration and disappointment. Australia also greatly regretted that the Conference had not begun negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty which was long overdue and which would make a vital contribution to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

In the nine years that the conference had failed to agree on a programme of work, other threats to international security had gathered strength. Of particular concern was the proliferation of Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS). MANPADS were a legitimate weapon for States to possess in meeting their defence needs, but their transfer to and use by non-state actors threatened international peace and security. The international community had taken steps to address this threat. As the Conference struggled to find consensus on a programme of work, an international consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of MANPADs already existed. This consensus provided an opportunity for the Conference to examine the threat posed by the proliferation of MANPADS and to develop measures to combat them.

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said Turkey was encouraged by the speed with which the Conference had adopted its agenda, and hoped that this was a good omen. It was high time for the Conference on Disarmament, the world's sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, to dust itself off and once again become relevant. Last year had been disappointing in terms of disarmament, but this should not put the Conference off, rather it should encourage it to put its act together. Member States could not ignore that the Conference was the proper platform to work for achieving security around the world. The stakes were high and multidimensional. Progress on disarmament and non-proliferation was vital, and the Conference was necessary to provide the international community with instruments and to strengthen compliance and implementation.

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. There were also new issues, and it could be fruitful to discuss them. Turkey shared the understanding that these additional issues should not substitute the core issues on the agenda and must be in line with the mandate of the Conference. In that context, Turkey was happy to consider the new issues. It welcomed the proposal of Australia to discuss the issue of Man Portable Air Defence Systems within the Conference. Turkey also looked forward to working with the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference and the Friends of Presidents and it would support all efforts to put the Conference back on track.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan supported all efforts to find a way out of the current stalemate in the Conference. The choice of Friends of Presidents could not have been better, and they all had the necessary expertise. All Member States considered themselves Friends of Presidents. On the programme of work, which had to be comprehensive and balanced, Pakistan wanted to state again that the Five Ambassadors proposal continued to hold the largest amount of support within the Conference, and it could help jumpstart the Conference.

JUAN EDUARDO EGUIGUREN (Chile) said Chile reaffirmed its appreciation and support for the decision taken for the Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference to work together, which would integrate work and consultations and was better than six isolated exercises of consultations. Chile hoped this would yield good results. Chile also thanked the Presidents for choosing Ambassador Juan Martabit of Chile as one of the Friends of Presidents. 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. Australia had also mentioned the issue of Man Portable Air Defence Systems and Chile considered this to be an important issue because of their proliferation and to counter the dangers of them falling in the hand of non-State actors, even if it had been dealt with in other fora.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria had not planned to ask for the floor, but as a result of the very rich discussion and the proposals which had been heard today, he wished to address a number of points. Algeria supported any efforts to get the Conference out of its rut. Algeria encouraged the President in his efforts to organize consultations on issues which might be of interest in terms of the programme of work and the agenda which was adopted. Taking into account the important proposals made by a number of delegations, Algeria noted that every delegation had the right to raise issues which they felt were important. It also noted the earlier statements by the President in which he referred to flexibility which would enable the Conference to discuss issues of peace and security. It was quite clear that any issues relating to international peace and security were open for discussion under the agenda, if there was a consensus on that topic. Algeria encouraged what had been said by the Russian Federation with regards to conditions attached to new topics which would be raised at the Conference, and how to proceed with that. He asked if Member States should wait for the President’s proposed list of issues and timetable and then react to it, and would their silence be interpreted as consent. Algeria needed further explanation on this point.

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