Reaching Critical Will

Conference on Disarmament Discusses Efforts to Resolve Impasse on its Programme of Work

26 January 2006

The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from a number of States on how to resolve the impasse in its work, hearing praise for steps taken by the President of the Conference and support for the Five Ambassadors plan.

The plenary, which was devoted to general statements related to the work of the Conference, also heard from Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Statements were heard from Algeria, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, France, Germany and China.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Conference, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki, said that at the presidential consultations held yesterday, he had outlined his plans for the next few plenary meetings of the Conference and had asked the Group Coordinators to convey them to their respective groups. As per these plans, he had expressed his intention to devote today’s meeting to general statements on any subject related to the Conference. Next week’s meeting would also continue to hear general statements.

The Conference also approved the requests by Azerbaijan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Moldova to participate as observers in the 2006 session of the Conference.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 January.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria was pleased with the rapid adoption of the agenda and hoped that this time the Conference would be able to reach the necessary consensus on its programme of work. The 2006 session came following a year which had been sterile in terms of disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, and non-proliferation. It was highly regrettable that multilateral institutions, including the Conference, were compelled to remain mobile while the security situation remained increasingly difficult and uncertain. Multilateralism based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, particularly preserving peace over simple security concerns, was more necessary than ever in this security context. Strengthening peace and security required firm actions for arms control and disarmament. The first threat that had to be met was obviously nuclear weapons. It was a threat to international peace and security.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was going through a difficult time due to the risk of proliferation, setbacks due to nuclear disarmament and the crucial issue of the exercise of the right to peacefully use nuclear energy. Algeria emphasized that the Treaty could only be effective when it functioned within the equilibrium between non-proliferation, disarmament and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful means. Concerning fissile material, a treaty to stop the production of fissile material was urgently needed and such a treaty would make it possible to establish the necessary rules. 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. However the Conference had been stuck for the past 10 years. The initiative of the Five Ambassadors was the most realistic basis to proceed on the programme of work. The Conference should also open its doors to civil society. The proposal by the President of the Conference for the Presidents of the 2006 session could ensure continuity and follow-up. His initiative to establish the Friends of the Chair could also create momentum.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said he had read with interest the message of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Conference which was circulated at the last meeting and noted that the Secretary-General was urging the Member States to encourage their Foreign Ministers to come and address the Conference. He had three questions in connection with this message. When was the last time the Secretary-General addressed the Conference. Also the text was circulated because the Secretary-General of the Conference had been absent, and no explanation had been given about his absence at this important meeting, the opening of the session. He also asked why there were many unfulfilled vacancies in the secretariat of the Conference, including the post of Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference. At this point, he was utterly unable to encourage ministers to come to the Conference.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) commended the President for his initiative to bring together the six Presidents of the Conference this year so that the session would be smoothly carried out. The view of the Conference by outsiders had reached the point of no tolerance. The Member States of the Conference knew the positions of each other on the core issues and the programme of work. They might try again to see if it was possible to reach agreement of a programme of work, but if that turned out to be impossible, they should not waste much time discussing it and must focus on deepening the work on the substance of issues. Setting a timetable for the whole year of the Conference’s session well in advance was a minimum requirement and it was essential. Japan appreciated the intention of the President to announce the timetable of this year and urged him to do so at the earliest possible date.

KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said he also wished to comment on the absence of the Secretary-General of the Conference on Tuesday, but from a different perspective. He did not think it was any indication of anything related to the Secretary-General, but perhaps it was characteristic of the Conference. The Conference was not part of the United Nations system. It was however financed by the United Nations and these finances had been wasted for a number of years. This was the fault of Governments, neither of the United Nations nor of the Secretary-General. He would welcome the Secretary-General to the Conference when it started delivering and justifying the financing.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said France believed that a coordinated approach by the Presidents of the Conference for 2006 ahead could make possible coordinated activities. In light of the unsatisfactory state of affairs of the Conference today, this coordination could offer some prospect of progress for the body. At the opening, the President had called on Member States to provide new tools for the work of the Conference. France and Switzerland had been thinking together and hoped to consult with all delegations on this matter. They hoped to conduct a meeting at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 February, and would keep their colleagues abreast of the developments.

BERNHARD BARSACK (Germany) said that Germany considered that the agenda of the Conference which had been adopted at the opening was still appropriate for dealing with the current security issues. The core issues were still topical and were essential on the international agenda. They had been there for a long time which showed how important and relevant they were, and how complex they were. The revised proposal by the Five Ambassadors still enjoyed the widest support. The cut-off issue was ripe for immediate commencement and the quick adoption of the treaty. Germany was still open to any compromise solution as long as it had consensus. Germany also supported the President in his initiative to coordinate the work of the Presidents of the Conference for 2006.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) asked for clarifications from France on the proposed meeting. He noted that the Group of 21 normally met every Wednesday at 10 a.m.

DENG HONGMEI (China) said the programme of work of the Conference had been under discussion for many years. At the beginning of the session, and as the Conference started another journey for a consensus by making refreshed efforts, she wanted to touch upon the position of China on the programme of work. The programme of work should not reflect the will of a minority of States, but the common will of all Member States and the whole international society at large. Comparatively speaking, the Five Ambassador’s proposal was a balanced one and enjoyed the widest support. 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. Taking this into consideration, the Chinese side was not in a position to go along with the proposal on a programme of work proposed by Peru when it held the Presidency last session in which the mandate of the ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space was weakened.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), President of the Conference, said presidential consultations were scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 February.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said France, after consultations with Switzerland, was ready to reconsider the timetable for the meeting to allow for the broadest possible participation. As to the nature of the meeting, it would be an informal consultation and an information meeting to bring together as many views as possible to see in which direction it would be promising to move.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said in answer to the pertinent questions asked by the Netherlands, he could not exactly remember the year when the Secretary-General of the United Nations had addressed the Conference. The problem was not that the Secretary-General did not respect the Conference on Disarmament, in fact the Secretary-General believed that the Conference could have been a body for effective disarmament which could have saved the world billions of dollars which were needed for the environment, health, education and other Millennium Development Goals.

Speaking not as the Secretary-General of the Conference but as the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ordzhonikidze said the United Nations had been expecting this august body to produce results since the last century. Unfortunately, there had been no such results. It was hardly possible to ask the Secretary-General to come and address a body that was not producing anything except procedural debate.

Concerning the question about his absence, Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that on Tuesday, doctors had unfortunately insisted that he should have an urgent medical check-up. As to the issue of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference, the decisions were taken in New York by the Department of Disarmament which had not yet made a decision on a candidate to be selected. He understood that this decision should be taken quite soon.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said of course he wished the Secretary-General of the Conference best wishes for his health. He thanked Mr. Ordzhonikidze for being so open in his reply He had found it incongruent for the Secretary-General to urge Member States to have their Ministers address the Conference, while he himself was absent from the Conference.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said he was not sure that the discussion had been all that conclusive. France respected the House of Orange of the Netherlands, but it not rule out a Ministerial visit to the Conference, depending on developments which might occur. Everyone needed to work with this prospect in mind. He also extended to the Secretary-General of the Conference his best wishes for his health. The Secretary-General had said he had taken off his Conference hat and had put on his UN hat. He had spoken from the heart and no one could reproach him, but he was the Secretary-General of the Conference which was a sovereign body. As a sovereign body, it was a custom for the name of the new Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference to be put before the group. He was sure that this procedure would be respected.

SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked France for raising an issue which he had also been raising for a number of months. He hoped there would soon be a new Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference. As of today, the present secretariat and Mr. Zalensky were working very well. The problem was different. The Conference was not performing effectively and efficiently. That was why it was discussing issues of a procedural nature. The body must not forget that it was the Conference on Disarmament.

JERZY ZALESKI, Secretary of the Conference, spoke about the organizational aspects of the 2006 session of the Conference, including that the recently adopted budget of the United Nations would place a number of new constraints and restrictions on the capacity of Conference Services to work as they had in the past.