Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

United Kingdom and France Address Conference on Disarmament

23 February 2006

The United Kingdom and France today called on the Conference on Disarmament to immediately start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

The United Kingdom said it fully supported the Conference on Disarmament and was committed to achieving substantive progress in the Conference in the near future, and would continue to work to that objective. The Conference was too important a mechanism for it to be allowed to lie fallow. The priority for the United Kingdom remained the immediate commencement of negotiations without pre-conditions on an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty). Agreement on this would be core to any understandings designed to break out from the continuing impasse in the Conference.

France said that in a statement on 19 January, the President of the Republic had said that France continued to support international efforts and favoured a general and complete disarmament, in particular the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This was a clear priority for the French delegation. Due treatment must also be given to the “out of the box” ideas, without which the Conference would not be able to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Ambassador Park In-kook of the Republic of Korea, the incoming President of the Conference, said the Six Presidents’ unprecedented attempt to forge a common platform started from a simple belief that the Conference needed dialogue conducive to future negotiations and that such a dialogue should be structured, focused and interactive while maintaining a sense of balance. Outlining his timetable, Mr. Park said he hoped that during the meetings which would focus on nuclear disarmament, that delegations would make their interventions on assessment on implementation of nuclear disarmament on 28 February and on future nuclear disarmament measures on 2 March. As for the general debate meetings, he suggested that the interventions of delegations be centered on agenda items 1 and 2 to make them more structured.

The Netherlands and Canada also addressed the meeting concerning the number of meetings given to the debate on nuclear disarmament and the structure of the general debate.

At the beginning of the Conference, the President said everyone was saddened by the mudslide on a village in the Philippines. On behalf of the Conference and on his own behalf, he extended condolences to the families of those killed and injured and to the Government of the Philippines.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 28 February. Michael Frendo, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta, will address the Conference before it starts its focused discussion on nuclear disarmament. The time that the plenary will start will be announced later.

Statements

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), Incoming President of the Conference, said in accordance to the timetable presented to Member States last week, the Conference today would start its general debate on agenda items 1 and 2. First, he would like to make opening remarks as the Republic of Korea assumed the Presidency of the Conference. The Six Presidents’ unprecedented attempt to forge a common platform started from a simple belief that the Conference needed dialogue conducive to future negotiations and that such a dialogue should be structured, focused and interactive while maintaining a sense of balance. He hoped that the ideas and positions presented by delegations on these issues would one day serve as official resources for future negotiations on these issues. There might be some skepticism or cynicism among delegations regarding the possible outcome of these efforts. It went without saying that without the necessary political will in capitals, a serious breakthrough would surely not be possible. But that did not mean that the Conference should sit and make such an outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy. The credibility of the Conference had to be restored. Outlining his timetable, Mr. Park said he hoped that during the meetings which would focus on nuclear disarmament, that delegations would make their interventions on assessment on implementation of nuclear disarmament on 28 February and on future nuclear disarmament measures on 2 March. As for the general debate meetings, he suggested that the interventions of delegations be centered on agenda items 1 and 2 to make them more structured, without prejudice to the right of Member States to raise any issue which they may consider to merit attention. He said that at the end of the year, it might be possible to conclude how fruitful these exercises had been. It was worth noting that the Conference was still perceived as the sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament and was playing an indispensable role in preserving the validity of multilateralism. It might be helpful for the Conference to seriously look into ways of improving the effectiveness of its working methods, especially in the consensus and grouping system. As the year 2006 was not endowed with significant milestone events in the disarmament arena as 2005 was, the Conference should play a leading role in kick-starting a serious dialogue on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

JOHN FREEMAN (United Kingdom) said there were different and complementary ways to pursue wider disarmament objectives, whether unilaterally, bilaterally, through like-minded groups or regional groupings, as well as multilaterally. The United Kingdom was committed to achieving progress on arms control and disarmament in all these different and serviceable ways. Arms control and disarmament were not avoidable options. They were necessary aspects of attempts to enhance international security. The United Kingdom fully supported the Conference on Disarmament and was committed to achieving substantive progress in the Conference in the near future, and would continue to work to that objective. The Conference was too important a mechanism for it to be allowed to lie fallow. The priority for the United Kingdom remained the immediate commencement of negotiations without pre-conditions on an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty). Surely the Conference could agree, without prejudice to anyone’s position, to begin negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions. Agreement on this would be core to any understandings designed to break out from the continuing impasse in the Conference. The package approach to starting substantive work in the Conference had not delivered a consensus agreement on a way forward. Member States needed to recognize this and act on this recognition. Some issues were not ripe for negotiation. On what the P6 had termed additional issues, the United Kingdom saw value in discussing appropriate issues provided that they could command consensus and were relevant to the agenda of the Conference.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said important work had been carried out by the last President with whom Member States had tried to establish the rules of the game for the 2006 session, albeit indicative rules. The idea now was to apply these rules, hopefully leading the Conference to a fruitful exchange of views on identifiable subjects which would lead to progress. The first question before the Conference was how to search for agreement on the programme of work. France was aware of the formal and informal proposals before the Conference. They each had their strengths and weaknesses, their supporters and opponents. There was no agreement on how to treat any of the given subjects in the context of the agenda in keeping with article 30 of the rules of procedure. France believed that all proposals must continue to be studied with an open mind. The rule of the game this year consisted of building confidence among the Member States and making them progress towards negotiations, which was the calling of the Conference. There was important preparatory work to be done. The President of France, in a statement on 19 January, had said that France continued to support international efforts and favoured a general and complete disarmament, in particular the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. This was a clear priority for the French delegation. Due treatment must also be given to the “out of the box” ideas, without which the Conference would not be able to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. It was in this spirit that France and Switzerland had suggested that the Conference discuss the issue of threats to civil critical infrastructure. France also supported Australia’s suggestion that the issue of man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) be discussed. Along with the European Union, France also supported resolutions relating to the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

DANIEL PRINS (Netherlands) said he wanted to make some short remarks. First, the Netherlands recognized and appreciated that the Conference would start focusing on nuclear disarmament issues next week, over two meetings, but wondered if two half-day meetings would be enough. Also, concerning the general debate sessions for the week after, the Netherlands appreciated what the President of the Conference had called for concerning that interventions should be centered on agenda items 1 and 2, but again he wondered if this would be sufficient to get a fully structured and well thought through discussion. The Netherlands also wanted to discuss the role of the Friends of Presidents who could be a valuable instrument to coordinate and focus on how to make better use of the general debate meetings, while recognizing the right of any State to bring up any subject during the debate. Member States also must take more responsibility to make those general debate meetings more fruitful.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said he wanted to pick up on the points raised by his Dutch colleague. Canada also shared the concerns about the schedule.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), President of the Conference, said concerning the question on how to manage the general debate effectively and in a more focused manner, he would try to reflect on the suggests and comments, and repeated his invitation for Member States to contact him on any proposals they might have on how to run the general debate meetings.