Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

22 May
Unofficial Transcript
Canada

Thank you Madame President. I feel that it was useful having the additional input this morning particularly from my distinguished colleague, the Ambassador of China. And I do think that it warrants some discussion in order to get a clear understanding of the import of the comments that were provided. In the spirit of trying to move us to a result that does reflect the collective good as the Nigerian Ambassador has reminded us, should be our overriding concern here. I had a few thoughts to share and maybe a dialogue can ensue. The point on procedural form being recognized that at Hawk committees have been used in the past and were a vehicle. At the same time, we think there is an inherant flexibility in our rules of procedure, and if it is deemed that a different procedural vehicle might get us started at this point. I think we all have an interest in being open to that. I would note that any arrangement is going to have to be renewed in January of next year, and maybe depending on what if anything that we can achieve, maybe some of these questions can be re-examined as to what is an appropriate vehicle at that particular stage. The real emphasis has to be on getting started. And here I will always be of the view that procedure should never really stand in the way of substance and it is the substantive engagement or the collective engagement on substance that we should see as a priority.

On the references to PAROS- and maybe I’m not completely disinterested observer, but I did take some objection to the indication that discussions on issues relating to PAROS would be ill-focused or unfocused and open to rhetoric. I would hope that the Chinese delegation did not find the six sessions earlier this year on this topic that I had the priviledge to preside over as either lacking in focus or just an engagement in rhetoric. Clearly there are different views here. I think there was quite a strong convergence of thinking around the couple of important axes. One of which is a proposed international legal instrument to prohibit the placement of weapons in outer space I know is very dear to the Chinese delegation and to others. So I would just note that I can assure my distinguished colleague that any further work on this issue that at least I would have a say in, I can assure would indeed have a focused and a practical orientation and again I think there is nothing in this formula that represents an inhibitant to that.

And finally on FMCT, Ambassador of China recalled a certian earlier decision in another forum relevant the the Cut-off Treaty. I am aware of those. I note that there are various provisions associated, the NPT 2000 Review Conference- if we had managed to realize its tasking, we would have concluded an FMCT in 2005. Two years earlier. We are clearly not there yet, and here again, the crucial priority is to initiate the negotiation so that we are able to work through the very real issues that are raised by such a prospect. But here again, are we best employed by arguing to what would be the perfect ostricism to which begins such work or really are we better served by just beginning the work and seeing what the dynamic of negotiation would ultimately take us and what kind of product we might be able to produce? Here again, I don’t think there is anything in the formulation of L1 that would inhibit a comprehensive discussion and input into a negotation of this treaty and the greater concern should be, as the clock ticks away, are we yet again going to use up the available time for us in talks about talks rather than the actual work on these core issues that i know we would all like to see advance. A few thoughts there to share with the group.

Thank you Madame President.