I convey my congratulations on your assumption of office and assure you of my delegation's support throughout your Presidency.

Some time ago a departing colleague suggested a rule of thumb which allowed a farewell statement proportionate to the length of stay of the Ambassador - a page for every year. I feel it is my duty to inform you at the outset that I have served in Geneva for six years !

For the first four years of my assignment, I was present in this room as an observer. For the past two years, Ireland has had the privilege of membership.

I was very honoured that we became a member of the CD during my time as Ambassador. With Ireland's history in the disarmament area, I felt deeply that we belonged in this forum and had something useful to contribute.

A minor irony of history is that forty years ago, Ireland was approached to accept a nomination to one of the five western seats in the then newly formed Disarmament Committee, which had a total membership of 18. It seems we turned down the offer because of staff shortages in our diplomatic service! An application for admission to this successor body, the Conference on Disarmament, was submitted in 1982 and we were finally admitted in 1999 after a seventeen year wait.
On the day of our admission, I said that our sustained effort to secure membership was an act of faith in the future of the CD. Despite being sorely tested, that faith remains. I believe that this body can and will recover its sense of purpose.

Role of the CD

In looking at how and why we have lost that sense of purpose, the starting point is our mandate. Perhaps the most hallowed phrase in this room is that the CD is the sole multilateral negotiating forum in the disarmament area. That phrase conveys a fine sense of our vocation and we use it repeatedly to urge ourselves to action.

But each of the elements bears further examination. "Sole" - true of course that we
are the only standing forum but we are all aware of increasingly unfavourable
comparisons with successful examples of ad hoc negotiation. "Negotiating forum"

critical indeed to retain that focus so that the CD does not become a talking shop. But
in the real world, the distinctions are not always watertight: purposeful discussion can
lead to pre-negotiation which can lead to negotiation. In focussng our vision, it is
important that we take care not to narrow it unduly.

However, it is on the term "multilateral" that I would particularly like to pause.
Over the past few years, to explain and excuse the long paralysis, we have reached for the explanation that the CD can only act when the overall security climate is conducive - in effect that, though a multilateral forum, we are hostage to key bilateral relationships.

Realism of course dictates that what happens in the CD reflects developments on the outside. At the same time, it does not seem unduly ambitious to hope for some movement in the opposite direction - that progress or lack of it in the CD might affect, even in a modest way, the perspectives of key players.

Regrettably, we have seen little of this in the past few Years. Outside our circle here,
there is scant evidence that the prolonged inactivity of this body is causing any real
concern. The opportunity cost of a stalled CD does not seem to weigh heavily in key
capitals.

And yet even those who appear to feel they have the least need of this body cannot be without concern. Firstly, if I might adapt the phrase, diplomacy abhors a vacuum. If our proceedings are not making things better, they risk making them worse. In the absence of serious work here, national statements all too easily become vehicles by which differences are sharpened and deepened rather than attempting to find common ground on which differences might first co-exist and eventually be resolved. Secondly, the assumption that the CD can be put into cold storage for long periods, and then taken out again for business as usual when there is a particular purpose to be served, could prove flawed. One cannot exclude that the atrophy which comes from prolonged disuse may do permanent damage.

Responsible Multilateralism

We look to the CD for the exercise of responsible multilateralism.

What is the essence of responsible multilateralism? It is a balance: on the one hand, a recognition of the space which key actors require for bilateral policy formulation; on the other hand, a responsiveness by those key players to broadly representative views of the international community.

It would be difficult to assert that we have got that balance right. Currently new strategic directions are being explored and new strategic bargains are being canvassed, while the CD risks becoming an irrelevant sideshow.

One has the impression sometimes, at least in the security area, that multilateralism is regarded as the self indulgence of small nations. In fact, it is critical in terms both of methodology and outcomes. It is the means of giving a voice to populations whose lives and futures are at stake in strategic decisionmaking. It creates a sense of
ownership of the instruments negotiated. And it is also, in our view, the best way to achieve one of the main goals of disarmament: the essential irreversibility of the process.

The ending of Cold War rigidities might have been expected to usher in a period of vibrant and fluld multilateralism. So far this has not happened and we need to ask ourselves why
Perhaps we misjudged the transition period required. The ending of the Cold War is sometimes spoken of as if it occurred on a single date and by general acclaim. The reality of course is much more complex and there was bound to be a timelag before the multilateral disarmament machinery caught up. But sufficient time has now elapsed for us to have found our voice and our role.

Part of the problem may also lie in the fact that our structures have not adapted to the new environment. The end of the rigidities of the Cold War begs the question why such rigidities should continue in bodies which were established to deal with the consequences of the Cold War. I shall revert to that in a CD context in a moment.

More generally, I want to assert our strong belief that the more fluid, less polar, circumstances in which security matters have come to be considered create opportunities for new coalitions of action, which are capable of attracting widespread, committed and effective support.

We see the New Agenda Coalition as one example of such an approach. In 1998, Ireland came together with six other countries to form this Coalition. With its diverse membership, the New Agenda Coalition owes its cohesion to the shared conviction of its members that in current circumstances there can be a seamless process of negotiation and agreement to the elimination of the ultimate weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons.
The New Agenda objective is an ambitious one: to try to give substance and reality to
what was often expressed as a goal under the old rigidities but which had little
prospect of agreement on a multilateral basis. The road down which we are traveling is not and was never going to be an easy one. But we believe that our participation as
a group in the NPT Review Conference last year did help to strengthen the outcome,
and in particular helped to secure the 13 step guide which is a critical part of that
outcome- We are working with our partners on continuing to define the future role
for the Coalition.

The New Agenda Coalition is just one example. There can be many others. The
basic point we want to make is that the legitimacy of multilateralism needs to be

constantly re-asserted, nowhere more than in the disarmament area, and never more so
than now, at a time of radical re-assessment of the international security architecture.
The best outcome will be if the initiation of this work gives a sense of renewal to the Conference and it becomes a prelude to rather than a substitute for substantive work. The worst outcome will be a sense that the CD is now justifying its
existence and that we can be a little more comfortable in leaving the substantive challenges on hold.
The worst outcome will be a sense that the CD is now justifying its existence and that we can be a little more comfortable in leaving the substantive challenges on hold.

Having said that, there is manifestly useful work to be done in relation to the structure and functioning of the CD. There is need for radical updating to reflect new circumstances. Given the slightly theatrical feel to much of our proceedings, I will borrow a theatrical metaphor - the audience has changed, the script has changed and yet we retain the props, the stage directions and the admission policy of another era.

This body was formed in the era of iron-tight alliances. We believe that under its current structures it encourages thinking along these lines. This creates first frustration and then lethargy. We encourage the Co-ordinators to think imaginatively as to how the mould Might be broken.

I would make just a few specific comments on the series of interlinked issues to be considered by the three Special Co-ordinators. On enlargement, our position is unsurprising in the light of our own experience. I repeat what I said on the date of our admission: Outside or inside the CD, Ireland's conviction on the desirability of expansion remains unchanged.

Significant further expansion would have major implications for effective functioning of the Conference, not least in further calling into question the relevance of our current grouping systems.

As well as perpetuating the rigidities of another era, the current. system allows one or two members of a group to hide behind a co-ordinator who must simply record lack of agreement. The informal caucusing which has characterised, for example, the later stages of the negotiation towards the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention has underlined the need for and benefit of fluidity in such a process. The mismatch of the group structure to the real world would become even more evident in the event of the launch of a work programme which contained all the currently proposed elements.

As a counterbalance to such a loosening of structure, the appointment of a President for a longer term than is currently permitted could provide continuity, and enhance the prospects of achieving defined goals within a term of office.

On the agenda, I will be brief. The agenda needs to relate to current realities, have the possibility of a longer duration than one year, and be capable of regular review and amendment. However, modernisation of the agenda, desirable as it can be and difficult as it may be to agree, would be an empty exercise in the absence of a will to give it expression through work. And of course, one outcome of the current exercise which we must avoid at all costs would be to allow the agenda to become an annual bone of contention and one more reason why the Conference is unable to get down to work.

Another issue which requires attention is the need for a formalised mechanism for
input from the non-governmental disarmament community. There would be a
compelling argument even if this were a body which was pursuing a full and active
work programme. In our current circumstances it is both compelling and potentially
liberating. Whether in relation to small arms, anti-personnel landmines or other
weapons which impact heavily upon civilian populations, civil society has established
the right not just to be heard but to actively participate in our deliberations, a right
which is effectively denied at present.
Mr. President,

I have dwelt a good deal on substance, given the indulgence that is offered to a
departing Ambassador. But I also want to use the opportunity to express my warm
and genuine appreciation to colleagues here. I have hugely enjoyed your comradeship and hospitality, I have learned a great deal from your experience and insights and eloquence, and I value greatly the friendships I have formed. Successive Presidents have been extraordinary in their energy and commitment and all members of the Secretariat - under the wise and benevolent leadership of Mr. Petrovsky - have shown themselves true professionals in the best sense of the term.

I thank you all.