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
China

Thank you Madame President.

As this is the first time I am taking the floor at the plenary meeting at this point in the CD. First of all, please allow me to express my thanks to your predecessors and the Ambassador of Spain. Of course I should also like to thank you. During the course of the past few months, the party has had concerns including the six Presidents made efforts to move the work. My delegation would like to express its support and appreciation to all of you.

Madame President. During the course of the last part of the CD session, you tabled a Presidential draft decision on behalf of P6 concerning the next phase of the CD’s work. As can be seen in CD/277/L1. China attaches great importance to the P6 proposal and has studied it carefully. Today I would like to take this opportunity to present my delegation’s views and ideas. The P6 proposal envisions substantive work to be carried out on a simultaneous basis on 4 core issues of the CD, namely : nuclear disarmament, FMCT, PAROS, and NSA. This bears some resemblance to the long standing position of my delegation. Therefore we believe that this proposal can serve as a basis of our future discussion. At the same time, my delegation still has some concerns on the P6 proposal. My delegation raised many questions concerning this proposal and you Madame President made some clarifications, for which we are most grateful. But it has not fully clarified or met our concern. It is our view that in order to make the P6 proposal more acceptable, reasonable, operational and acceptable to all parties. There is still room for improvement in the P6 propsal.

Firstly, concerning the work mechanism. According to the P6 proposal, the substantive work of the four key issues would be under the responsibility of the coordinators. The mechanism of coordinator is too informal and differs from the provisions in the rules of procedure concerning the subsidiary bodies of the CD. We are afraid that it will not ensure effective and subsitive work on the relevant items. As a matter of fact, in the past, all substantive work of the CD was carried out in the committees and there was no President of coordinator chairing negotiations or coordinating work. We don’t see any convincing reason not to follow the past practice. Therefore, we would like to have committees set up separately to carry out substantive work on those four core issues.

Secondly, concerns the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The position of my delegation is known to all. This issue is one of top priority in the CD for my delegation. Chinese delegation has called for the drafting of a new international legal instrument to prevent the weaponization of outer spance and to uphold outer space security. As a sign of flexibility however, they can agree to the idea of starting with substantive discussions on this manner, but in order to avoid this discussion from becoming an unfocusing, rethorical exercise, my delegation hopes that appropriate adjustment can be made to the mandate of PAROS. So as to spell it out in clear terms, the possibility of negotiation a new internationl legal instrument in outer space.

Thirdly, concerning the negotions of FMCT. China has always been a supporter of this negotiation. In 1993, the general assembly drafted resolution 48/75L as similar resolutions were also adopted in the subsiquent sessions of general assembly. China joined consensus to all of them. Our position remains still unchanged. The final documents of the review Conferences in 1995 and 2000 and the relevant resolutions of the general assembly all carried explicit provisions on the negotiations of FMCT. It is the view of my delegation that a negotiating mandate of the FMCT of the P6 proposal should be in accordance with those provisions. Or should be inconsistent with those provisions.

Fourthly, as for the very nature of the P6, as we said, in order to have things done properly we must setup some ground rules. The rules of procedure of the CD must be folllwed so as to ensure that the work will proceed in an orderly fashion. According to the rules of procedure of the CD, there should be a program of work every annual session of the CD or the session should establish a program of work at every annual session including a meeting calendar for this year. Or rather a time table for this year. It is the view of my delegation that if the P6 proposal has been further ammended and be made acceptable to all parties, it will then constitute a program of work. We have taken note of the explanation given by you, Madame President, on this matter. We hope that the very nature and the validity period of the P6 proposal will be spelled clearly in the approporiate way.

Madame President, like all other parties, the Chinese delegation would also wish to see an early end to the long running stalemate in the CD On the basis of broad consulation and by taking apart the legitimate concerns of all of the parties. An early agreement on the P6 proposal would be in the interest of all members. At the last session, some members made some useful suggestions improving this P6 proposal and we should carefully study those proposals. It is also our wish that the points we raised today will be appropriately reflected in a P6 proposal. For our part, we will do our bit in a joined effort to revitalize the CD in the not too distant future.

Thank you Madame