Statement of Ambassador Gunther Seibert,
Special Coordinator on the Review of the Agenda

30/8/01

Mr. President,

Let me first congratulate you on the assumption of your high office and assure you of the full support of my delegation. I wish you success in smoothly concluding this year's session of the Conference and, hopefully, in paving the way for a more productive session next year. May I also thank all your predecessors who have presided over the Conference this year for their untiring efforts to move the Conference forward to substantive work.

I am grateful for the trust delegations have expressed by mandating me with the difficult task of Special Coordinator for the review of the agenda. Special Coordinators on procedural issues can be no substitute for substantive work. With the full support of the delegations, they may however assist the Conference in overcoming the present stalemate.

The decision of the Conference to appoint Special Coordinators was taken, however, at a late stage of this year's session. In view of the very limited time available to me as Special Coordinator during the session, I could not and I did not expect to succeed where earlier Special Coordinators had failed. I am therefore not in the position, today, to report to the Conference any tangible results of my consultations or to point out any emerging consensus on specific aspects of the issue. I do believe, however, that the decision of the Conference to resume its consultations on reform issues, after not having addressed these issues during the last 2 1/2 years, was an important step, and that the discussions we have had on the question of the agenda were useful. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all delegations who have replied to the letter that I circulated on 28th June, or who have actively contributed to the informal consultations on 23rd August. 1 would have needed considerably more time to conduct in-depth consultations to be able to give to the Conference, today, a comprehensive and precise report on the wide range of positions expressed by delegations on the issue of the agenda. My report is rather a very personal interpretation of the situation and I ask delegations for their indulgence if they should feel that their positions are not appropriately reflected.

Mr. President,

I have approached the question of the agenda from two angles: function and content. As to the function of the agenda, my consultations have confirmed my impression that the agenda of the Conference has undergone a considerable loss of practical relevance. The relationship between the agenda and the actual proceedings of the Conference has become quite tenuous. In earlier years, after the adoption of the Decalogue in 1979, the agenda has evolved in response to changing preoccupations of delegations. In the course of the 1992 session, transparency in armaments" was added as a new item to the agenda. Since then, the agenda has remained essentially static. At the beginning of the 1997 Conference session, after the conclusion of the CT13T negotiations, there were lengthy discussions on the agenda of the Conference. This discussion ended in a compromise, whereby the Conference maintained its previous agenda essentially unchanged, accompanied by a statement by the President that it was his understanding, that "if there is a consensus in the Conference to deal with any issues, they could be dealt with within this agenda". Since then, this has been the standard procedure of the Conference at the beginning of the yearly sessions. The presidential statement confers a considerable measure of flexibility to the agenda. This flexibility is further enhanced by an apparent general understanding that any disarmament issue can be subsumed under item 6 of the agenda entitled "Comprehensive program of disarmament", if the Conference so decides. No doubt, there is a certain advantage in this considerable, even redundant flexibility of the agenda. On the other hand, this flexibility would seem to diminish the basic function of an agenda, namely to guide and to structure the following proceedings of the Conference. The agenda, although adopted by consensus, does not reflect a true consensus of the Conference to deal with the items contained in the agenda. The real decision on which items the Conference will deal with and how it will deal with them, is postponed to a further decision on the so-called program of work. And that decision has eluded us for the last several years in spite of the admirable efforts of so many distinguished and able Presidents.

On this matter there seem to be two major schools of thought. The one school welcomes the great flexibility of the present agenda and prefers to concentrate all efforts on the program of work as top priority. The other school of thought, while also recognizing the priority of starting substantive work in the Conference, continues to attach importance to the agenda and supports efforts to improve its relevance for the Conference. I believe that the discussion we had on this aspect of the agenda was quite useful, but it did not produce clear results on which I could report to you today. In fact, the question of the function of the agenda must also be seen in the context of the working methods of the Conference as a whole. It should, therefore, possibly be more appropriately dealt with in the consultations on the Improved and Effective Functioning of the Conference. The very useful consultations conducted by the distinguished Ambassador of Sri Lanka on this issue have in my view indeed identified a number of issues which are relevant in this context. In particular, the discussions we had on the role of Special Coordinators as defined in paragraph 5 D of the Conference decision CD/ 103 6 seems relevant to me in this context. If we could reestablish an understanding that at least Special Coordinators could be appointed regularly on those agenda items where no consensus on subsidiary bodies exists, the relevance of the agenda would certainly be enhanced.

Proposals have also been made to revitalize the plenary debate. After all, rule 19 of our rules of procedure states that "the work of the Conference shall be conducted in plenary meetings". In a situation where the Conference has not been able to establish subsidiary bodies for the last three years, it might indeed make sense to make better use of our plenary meetings through more substantive and focused plenary debates, structured on the lines of the agenda, in formal or in informal meetings.

Mr. President,

as regards the content of the agenda, discussions have been very much on the same lines as reported by earlier Special Coordinators. As far as the existing items of the agenda are concerned, I detect general agreement on the retention , at least in substance if not in wording, of item I (Nuclear disarmament), item 3 (Outer space), item 4 (Nuclear security assurances) and on item 7 (Transparency in armaments). Furthermore, there seems to be at present no agreement on rewording any of these items as proposed by some delegations. A considerable number of delegations have expressed doubts on the continuing relevance of item 2 (Prevention of nuclear war), item 5 (Weapons of mass destruction) and item 6 (Comprehensive program of disarmament). However, there does not seem to be one single item on the agenda to which not at least one delegation continues to attach importance, both in substance and in the present wording. I must, therefore, conclude that at this stage changes in the existing items of the agenda would be quite difficult to achieve and Would require much more intensive consultations than were possible in the limited time available.

The same would seem to apply even more to proposals for changing the general structure of the agenda in the sense of a shorter and more generic agenda. The proposal has been made to reduce the agenda to three main items: Weapons of mass destruction, Conventional weapons-and Any other arms control and disarmament initiatives. One could argue that such a generic agenda would more clearly and truthfully reflect the flexibility of the present agenda. It is my impression, however, that most delegations prefer a more gradual and evolutionary approach to the agenda. One major reason for such a more cautious approach is the fact that a great number of delegations feel that the present agenda appropriately reflects the top priority they attach to the issue of nuclear disarmament in this Conference.

Mr. President,

As regards proposals to add new items to the agenda, I feel quite encouraged by the fact that all delegations that participated in the discussions have expressed their willingness to consider the addition of new items to the agenda reflecting current international developments and preoccupations. I feel all the more encouraged as this seems to me, personally, to be the crucial point of our discussions on the agenda. I believe that it is essential for the future of this Conference that the Conference be able to react appropriately to a changing international environment and to emerging new security concerns.

A large number of delegations have proposed the inclusion of a new item called "Conventional disarmament". This is a proposal that has already gained wide support in the past, as noted by previous Special Coordinators. It should also be noted that this would perfectly correspond to item IV of the Decalogue entitled "Conventional weapons". It was pointed out that the issue of antipersonnelmines, in particular a possible transfer ban, might more appropriately be dealt with under such a new item. In this context, several delegations have proposed to examine possible contributions of the Conference in the field of small arms and light weapons.

Several delegations have expressed strong interest in dealing with the question of missiles in view of the growing international attention given to the subject and the different initiatives recently taken in this field. Many delegations have proposed to include FMCT explicitly, either as a new item or as a sub-item, in the agenda. It was pointed out, however, that this might raise the question of the relationship between nuclear disarmament and FMCT. "Regional disarmament" has also been proposed as a new item; it met, however, clear opposition by one delegation. Another proposal, of a more general nature, is to include automatically items recommended by the United Nations General Assembly in consensus resolutions. It should be noted that rule 27 of our Rules of Procedure already states, that in adopting its agenda, "the Conference shall take into account the recommendations made to it by the General Assembly".

Although a number of questions or concerns were raised on these proposals to add new items to the agenda, they did not meet with outright refusal, with the exception of "regional disarmament". This leads me to the conclusion that further intensified consultations on such proposals to broaden the scope of our agenda would be quite promising.

Mr. President,

I am not in a position to make substantive proposals to the Conference at this stage. In the limited time available, I was not able to clearly identify an emerging consensus on any of the specific aspects of the agenda. I believe, however, that the question of the agenda merits more intensified discussions in this Conference. Therefore, I recommend to the Conference to continue the consultations on the review of the agenda and to appoint a Special Coordinator on this issue at the outset of the 2002 session.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat my thanks to delegations for their contributions to the discussions. I am very grateful for the active interest and encouragement by the SecretaryGeneral of the Conference, Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky, for the work of the Special Coordinators. I wish to express my warm thanks to him and to Mr. Enrique Roman-Morey, Deputy Secretary-General of the CD, to Mr. Jerzy Zaleski as well as to the secretariat staff and the interpreters for the invaluable support I have received.

Thank you Mr. President.