Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

2 February 2006

Switzerland, Ambassador Jürg Sreuli

(translated from French): I also noted that the curtains are open, but there is fog outside. I hope that is not symbolic.

Switzerland together with France forms part of the project for a mandate on critical civil infrastructure. Yesterday, our open-ended consultations on this draft showed once again that threats to critical civil infrastructure are real. The legitimate questions raised during the discussion showed that we are in the early stages of analysing the threat and the way in which we could address it. In our view, the time is ripe to begin work along the lines set out in our joint proposal. Coordination with existing efforts in other regional organizations, definitions, implementation of recommendations and any other solution required could be handled by the group of governmental experts we propose setting up. We invite all the delegations in the CD to contribute substantially to elaborating on our draft. My delegation therefore suggests that the issue of critical civil infrastructure should be considered under the agenda of our Conference. It should be included in your planning for the structured debate during 2006.

Italy, Ambassador Carlo Trezza

Mr. President, at the outset I would like to thank you and the other five Presidents of the CD this year for appointing me as a Friend of the Presidents. I wish to assure you that I shall perform these duties to the best of my capabilities and on the basis of the guidelines that you have outlined today.

In your inaugural statement of 24 January, you indicated that you would have held a debate based on the CD agenda to identify issues which might constitute possible elements for our future work. Although our views were presented to you in bilateral consultations, we understand that during this session delegations are expected to present individually or on a collective basis the priority issues for our work this year. Of course, I am taking the floor on a national basis and not as a Friend of the Presidents.

Our views are based on previous national positions as well as on European Union positions, and in particular, on the European Union strategies and common positions on non-proliferation and disarmament, which were submitted as official documents of the CD. Let me add that the so-called “food for thought” non-paper, presented by the then President of the CD one year ago, and which is a further elaboration of the A-5 proposal, remains an important term of reference for us.

The general issue of nuclear fissile material is today a topic which requires the greatest attention. In this regard, we are analysing with interest the statement made by the distinguished Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation on nuclear fissile material on 31 January.

We have already explained in the past the reasons why the negotiation at the CD of a multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT) constitutes the priority for my country. We support the establishment of an ad hoc committee to that end. We believe that the negotiation of such a treaty commands the widest support in the CD.

We recognize that other delegations have indicated, even today, other priorities, and in particular the prevention of an arms race in outer space, negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament issues. We are ready to deal with them in our programme of work and in our timetable.

Italy also believes that more consideration can be given within the Conference on Disarmament to appropriate new and additional issues relevant to this forum.

Finally, and at this particular juncture, Italy calls upon the 2006 presidencies of the CD to establish a timetable for this year based on the priorities expressed by delegations and to seek a compromise on a substantial programme of work.

Romania, Ambassador Doru Costea

Mr. President, as requested by the unwritten rules of procedure of the Conference, allow me at the outset to congratulate you not only on assuming the high and highly demanding office of President of the CD, but first and foremost for the dedication you attach in accomplishing this task. Let me also put on record my personal support, as well as my delegation’s support, for all your efforts.

If asked to define the atmosphere in the Conference on Disarmament in one single word, the first and most pregnant that comes to my mind would be “frustration”. We could sense it among the delegations for the last couple of years. We can feel it more strongly at the beginning of the session. We have heard it uttered this very day. It may be defined as a common feature of the statements we heard during the first plenary meetings. Frustration is also felt personally, perhaps stronger, by those approaching the podium and stepping up there.

Please allow me to quote a short fragment from a statement delivered by the Romanian President of the Conference on Disarmament at the beginning of his term at the 756th plenary meeting on 20 February 1997. If necessary, then I could explain my frustration.

“It is a great honour for me to assume the presidency of the Conference on behalf of Romania. At the same time, I take this as a particular responsibility. ... the Conference on Disarmament is called to embark upon a process of self-examination and adaptation to a changed political environment. Well before the conclusion of the negotiations on the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty last year we all started to consider the future of the Conference on Disarmament, its new priorities, how it could best serve the legitimate aspirations of mankind. Appropriate responses and concrete actions are expected from us without undue delay. Indeed, in setting its objectives and working methods, in its very spirit, the Conference must reflect current international trends. Its negotiating role must be preserved and reinforced. Concrete results must crown our work if the Conference is to remain faithful to its generous goals. I shall spare no effort to serve the interests of the Conference to the best of my ability, in a balanced, open and pragmatic way.”

Well, my single comment would be that nine years after this statement, there is nothing more to add to it. In my opening statement, in less than two months from now, the best I can do is only change some words, and try harder to make a difference. Fortunately, on your initiative, this year we have decided that the six Presidents of the 2006 CD session should coordinate and cooperate better in order at least to edge the Conference to its main aims and purposes.

When we started this exercise, all six of us professed realistic but optimistic expectations about the chances and the ways of launching substantive work in the CD. Therefore, none of us expected you today to announce that the miracle has happened and we have agreed on a programme of work. What I personally would have expected is that after the already well-known assertion that “there is no consensus on a programme of work”, you would have been able to present concrete proposals that delegations might have come up with. It would have been a sign that each and every delegation in this Council chamber has understood that only together, the 65 of us - not only the P6 - can remove, or at least move a little bit, the huge stone blocking our activity. Yet we hope that it can still happen. But to do this, we all may wish to keep in mind at least three basic principles. First, Presidents try to provide opportunities for members to come forth with updated and debate-provoking contributions. Second, any delegation may raise any topic any time, as long as it is strictly linked to the mandate of the Conference. Third, national priorities are not - and let me repeat: not - mutually exclusive.

Several delegations have asked to make room for creativity in our work. My understanding is that such a call is not restricted to the Presidents of the CD, but to its entire membership. For the last few years the Presidents of the Conference have done their best. I think it is high time for all the members, including the Presidents, to continue doing so.

I would like to end this statement today by voicing a question that somehow haunts me about the significance of the magic word which is “consensus” in the CD, and perhaps we may give it a thought. Does consensus in the CD mean “no vote” or “vote no”?

Japan, Ambassador Yoshiko Mine

Mr. President, I would like once again to express my appreciation to you and this year’s successive Presidents for the initiative to have structured debate throughout the year. I would like to assure you of the full support and cooperation of my delegation.

A few minutes ago you made some introductory remarks about the Friends of the Presidents. Let me express my gratitude and sense of honour at being appointed one of the Friends of the Presidents.

On this occasion of identifying the matters of importance in our new session, I would like to express our views on the priorities of the CD. Japan has placed its greatest importance on the FMCT as a measure for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The FMCT will be an essential building block for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. Furthermore, it will contribute to the prevention of nuclear proliferation by globally banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, as well as enhancing transparency and accountability through its verification or safeguards system. The immediate commencement of negotiations on the FMCT and its early conclusion was already agreed to in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences. Furthermore, the FMCT is the only issue among the four core issues that has gained support from all CD members. Therefore, it is ripe for negotiation. Today I will not go into detail on the substance of the FMCT, but I will just express our views on the priorities of the CD.

We intend to issue a working paper for the upcoming session on FMCT, and we are looking forward to a useful exchange of views with members to deepen the substance on the FMCT. To repeat what we have already discussed is not good enough. We need to go further. Last week I stressed the importance of setting a clear-cut timetable specifying how and when each issue is treated, so that we can prepare well in advance and make a meaningful exchange of views possible. We strongly urge that the timetable includes continuous sessions with sufficient time devoted to the FMCT. Continuous sessions devoted to one issue are necessary for deepening the substance without interruption. Moreover, this will make it easier for members to bring their experts from capitals.

A timetable where issues change every week is undesirable. In our eyes, the FMCT is a priority, but of course we are certainly open to discuss any issue just as long as it fits in well with the functioning of the CD and promotes the development of an agreeable future programme of work.

Turkey, Ambassador Kurttekin

Mr. President, allow me to begin by saying how greatly we appreciate the CD’s efforts you have launched, together with other members of the P6, to get the CD back to substantial work. As we said during the first plenary session of the year, we are encouraged by the speed with which the agenda for this year was adopted. We hope that this is a good omen for the year ahead.

It is high time for the CD, the sole negotiating body for disarmament affairs, to dust itself off and once again become relevant. It is true that 2005 was a disappointment in terms of disarmament. Yet this should not be any reason to put us off. On the contrary, it should give us all the more reason to get our act together and prove to the world that all hope is not lost. We do not have the luxury of remaining idle in the Conference on Disarmament any longer. At a time when there are talks and even a report on A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, we cannot ignore the fact that the Conference on Disarmament is exactly the platform to work towards achieving such a goal. Particularly when we are faced with the various new challenges, as you, Mr. President and many delegations have already referred to, we cannot fail in combining effort to search for greater security for us all.

The Secretary-General of the Conference, in his address to this body on 31 January, brought to our attention the horrifying disproportion between expenditure on arms and the resources deployed for aid. Are we not all accountable for this, not only to those in despair due to poverty, hunger, diseases or natural calamities in today’s world, as well as to the next generations? Therefore, the stakes are high and multidimensional. Progress on disarmament and non-proliferation is vital, and the Conference on Disarmament continues to be indispensable to developing the necessary rules and instruments to strengthen compliance and verification.

We should also keep in mind that the work of the Conference on Disarmament is one of the litmus tests for multilateralism, which the family of nations is much more in need of today.

On the agenda that we adopted at the first plenary, the four core issues of the Conference, to which Turkey also attaches importance, are maintained. To bring the CD back to work on those issues, various efforts have been made in previous years to reach an agreement on the programme of work. The five Ambassadors’ proposal, which, if we were to take a roll-call, would command the widest cross-group support in this body, was followed by further attempts, both formal and informal. We believe that these efforts ought to continue so that the deadlock in the CD may be broken.

As highlighted by you and a number of delegations in their statements, there are also new issues, the discussion of which may indeed prove fruitful. We share the understanding that the new issues are not to be substitutes for the four core issues on the agenda, which maintains their priority. Naturally, the new issues must be in line with the disarmament and arms control mandate of the CD. My delegation will study any such proposal from that perspective.

In the context, as a main co-sponsor of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man-portable air defence systems, I welcome the proposal by Australia to include MANPADS for consideration during the 2006 session of this Conference from the same perspective.

Mr. President, in concluding, let me welcome your commitment to provide the Conference, on behalf of the P6, with a timetable for our work this year, to which we are looking forward. We also welcome the Friends of the Presidents, who will assist the P6 in informal consultations. My delegation will continue to support efforts to put the Conference on Disarmament back on track.

Chile, Mr. Juan Eduardo Eguiguren

(translated from Spanish): First of all I would like to add my delegation’s condolences to you and the Government of Poland in connection with the tragic accident that took place some days ago.

Mr. President, I would like to reaffirm our appreciation and support for the decision taken by the six Presidents for the year 2006 to work together. This will avoid a situation where we have six isolated exercises of bilateral consultations and the search for formulas which will allow progress, and instead we will have integrated work which will begin now and encompass the whole of 2006. Therefore we hope that we will be able to obtain good results in this regard.

The six Presidents wished to follow this major step with another, namely the establishment of this group of Friends of the Presidents for the year 2006, and invited six ambassadors to help them in their efforts. On behalf of Ambassador Martabit, I would like to thank you and the other Presidents for having invited him to participate in this group of Friends, and I would like to say that the delegation of Chile is at your disposal. You and the other Presidents may count on our willingness to cooperate with any efforts which may be made henceforth to move the Conference forward. This has been the spirit nurtured by our country as a member of the Conference on Disarmament. We participate in the five Ambassadors’ proposal in this spirit, with the aim of trying to help the Conference on Disarmament to function as it should. We see that there is great support for the five Ambassadors’ proposal - we have heard so today and on other occasions, and we think that this proposal can be improved upon if that would make it possible to increase the level of support for it.

I would also like to refer to a subject which was mentioned by the Ambassador of Australia in his recent statement, relating to portable air defence systems. We believe that it is so important, in respect of the problem created by the proliferation of these types of weapons for international peace and security, in the event that they fall into the hands of non-State actors. Hence its importance, and this topic has been dealt with in our forums, but I would like to highlight what has been said by the Ambassador of Australia and also the Ambassador of Turkey with respect to the treatment of this in the First Committee of the General Assembly, where the resolution on the subject enjoyed consensus on the part of all members.

Algeria, Secrétaire diplomatique Hamza Khelif

(translated from Arabic): First of all, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to the Polish people and the families of the victims of the tragic accident which happened recently in their country.

The delegation of Algeria did not really want to take the floor, but the very rich discussion and the proposals that we have heard have today make it incumbent on us to address a number of points.

My delegation will support any effort to get the Conference out of this stalemate. We encourage your efforts, Sir, to hold consultations on issues that might be included in a programme of work in the light of the agenda that has been adopted. We look forward to a timetable of the kind which you proposed on 9 February.

We have heard some important proposals from a number of delegations concerning issues to be included in the agenda that has already been adopted. Now, of course, every delegation has the right to raise any point which it feels is important in accordance with the Conference’s rules of procedure. In your earlier statement, Mr. President, you said that the agenda had some flexibility built in to it, which would allow the Conference to discuss any issues affecting international peace and security. The Presidential statement made following the adoption of the agenda, at our first plenary meeting, made it clear that any issue relating to international peace and security could be discussed under the agenda, if there was a consensus on such a discussion. My delegation would therefore like to endorse the statement by the Ambassador of the Russian Federation on the conditions attached to the discussion of any topic. So, I wonder how we are to proceed. Are we going to wait for you to present a timetable for orderly discussion of the important issues which we heard raised today, or will our silence be taken as consent? I would like you to clarify this matter.