31 January 2006

China, Ambassador Zukang Sha (translated from Chinese):
Mr. President, with regard to the calamity in your country last Saturday, the Chinese delegation extends its sympathy and heartfelt wishes for the swiftest possible recovery of the many victims.

I am very happy to have the opportunity to attend the Conference on Disarmament once again because, as I look around the colleagues present in this room, I find I am one of a very few old disarmament hands that are still here. I am willing to exchange views with any colleague on security and arms control issues that bear upon international peace and stability. I wish to congratulate you again, Sir, on your assumption of the CD presidency. As we have just celebrated the Chinese Lunar New Year, I would like to extend festive greetings to all. This year is the Chinese year of the dog, a year of good augury. It is our hope that the year of the dog will bring success to the CD.

Today’s meeting is of special significance: it is the 1,000th plenary meeting of the CD. The Conference has come a long way, evolving, witnessing profound changes in the international situation and making a significant contribution to world peace and security.

However one looks at it, the importance of the CD is beyond question. In terms of authority, it is at present the world’s only negotiating body for multilateral disarmament and an essential part of multilateral disarmament regimes. In terms of mandate, it deals with security and arms control issues that affect world peace and stability - a weighty responsibility. In terms of representativeness, its membership embraces all the major political military Powers in the world today.

Over the years, guided by the common desire of the international community, the CD and its predecessors have negotiated many important arms control treaties in changing situations. In the 1960s and 1970s the CD negotiated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Outer Space Treaty, the Seabed Treaty and the Biological Weapons Treaty. After the end of the cold war it concluded the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, both of which are of major historical significance. Today the NPT, CWC, CTBT and other such treaties are the essence of the international arms control treaty system. They have made powerful contributions of lasting significance to the realization of the human ideals of comprehensive and complete disarmament and world peace and stability.

The glory of the CD’s past cannot cover up its present difficulty. The CD has been unable to do substantive work for many years. Some attribute the situation to its “outdated” working method and believe that it cannot adapt to new circumstances. Others blame a lack of political will in some member States to break the deadlock, and question the CD’s future. As a matter of fact, the CD’s working method is long-established. During the cold war, when international relations were tense, we were able to achieve a series of good results with the same system. The root cause of the present deadlock is a difference of opinion over the current security situation, over the concept of maintaining security and over the priorities of security interests, and this leads to differences over the programme of work.

An old Chinese saying goes “A leaf before the eye shuts out Mount Tai”, which means having one’s view of the important shut out by the trivial.

The CD does not operate in a vacuum. In searching for the best way to break the deadlock we need to broaden our vision by reassessing the world we live in, our basic understanding of security and the fundamental links between security and arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. The world is undergoing rapid globalization, threats to security are becoming multifaceted and the line between conventional and non-conventional security is becoming blurred. Countries are moving closer to one another because of security concerns and common interests are multiplying. No country, no matter how strong or how advanced its arsenal, can achieve security by relying on itself alone.

Security is always relative, not absolute. Only when the common security of all countries is achieved can the security of individual countries be guaranteed. Multilateral arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation are means, not an end in themselves. The ultimate goal is to improve the security of all countries. History has shown that unrestrained expansion in arms is detrimental to the lasting peace and common security of the world. In our present circumstances, only if countries respect each others’ sovereignty and right to development, and boost their dialogue and cooperation in a spirit of equality, openness and solidarity, will we be able to build a world of lasting peace, security, stability, harmony and prosperity.

China is in favour of cultivating a new security concept with mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation as core values. He strongly supports multilateralism and more democratic international relations. In the multilateral disarmament process China stands for security through cooperation.

With regard to the CD’s future work, we wish to make the following proposals. First, in carrying out its work, the CD must respect and take into full consideration the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, the most representative multilateral mechanism. The relevant General Assembly resolutions reflect the shared aspirations of the international community and provide important guidance for our work. Without such respect our work will be futile. Second, the CD must continue to uphold multilateralism, adopt a working method that is compatible with different ideas, and stick to consensus. The concerns of all parties on specific topics must be taken fully into consideration and settled in negotiations. Attempts to force proposals through in total disregard of others’ interests, or to force a vote while ignoring the possibility of a split in the CD, are unacceptable.

As I have said above, disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation promote safety and peace for all countries - both major Powers and the weak and small. The first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament stipulated that disarmament must follow the principle of undiminished security for all. In order to ensure that all States would be able to participate in negotiations in a constructive, worry-free manner, the CD decided to work by consensus.

If majority decision is not appropriate for the CD, decision by a minority is much, much worse. As a working practice, “what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable”, or “do what I tell you to do”, is neither acceptable nor productive. It is undemocratic: a typical example of taking care of one’s own security interests while ignoring the security of others.

Third, we should cherish the mechanism of the CD. We have a saying in Chinese which, roughly translated, means “when we are united, no difficulty is insurmountable”. The more difficulties there are, the greater the need for us to close ranks. Constant threats to abandon the CD and start anew seriously undermine the CD’s authority. Such threats are unacceptable. In actual fact, what cannot be achieved in the CD will be just as hard to achieve in other forums or future negotiating frameworks.

The Chinese side has always been supportive of the work of the CD, and its hope is that the deadlock in the CD will be broken soon and that substantive work can start in a comprehensive and balanced manner at an early date. China will, as always, support and constructively participate in relevant efforts and join hands with all parties in promoting progress in the CD.

Colombia, Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros (translated from Spanish):
Mr. President, allow me to convey to you, in your capacity as Ambassador of Poland, my Government’s condolences and the feelings of solidarity of the Colombian people for the tragedy which has plunged your country into grief.

I wish to begin by expressing the satisfaction of my delegation at seeing you directing our work. We are sure that under your guidance, and with your commitment to the subject which you have demonstrated, we will be able to take effective steps to enable the Conference to return to its substantive work. You may count on the full support of my delegation to that end.

The year 2005 ended with scant results in the field of disarmament, such as those achieved at the NPT Review Conference. The year 2006 has begun with little ground for optimism. Against a background of news reporting policies that bring fresh disquiet in the field of disarmament, we are therefore encouraged to begin this year by learning of the initiatives you have put before the Conference on coordinated and ongoing action by the six Presidents for the 2006 session, the setting up of a group of “Friends of the Presidents”, and the establishment of a timetable for holding thematic debates. My delegation finds these proposals very constructive, and hopes that they will meet with the shaping of the necessary political will to ensure that these proposals can contribute to putting an end to the worrying paralysis that has dogged the Conference for too long. Political will, of course, depends on our capitals, but as the artisans of disarmament, we have an obligation to encourage it.

In our interpretation, this first stage is intended to identify common positions on agenda items considered individually, as well as possible additional issues of particular concern to members of the Conference which could extend the scope of the agenda, with a view to achieving consensus on all or some of them individually. I will not attempt to repeat the profound analyses already undertaken in this chamber on whether each of the issues is ripe for action, nor wonder why one group of members feels that only if there is agreement to negotiate on certain issues would it be prepared to negotiate on issues of interest to their interlocutors. However, I should point out that elements such as the possibility that a non-nuclear-weapon State might fall victim to an attack or a threatened attack by a State which possesses this type of weapon of mass destruction rekindle concern as to the importance of negative security assurances, and highlight once again the fact that balance is a very delicate element which cannot be omitted from any possible programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament.

My Government does not prejudge the outcome of any negotiation, as we have often repeated, nor are our positions set in stone. That is why we would look forward with interest to some additional issues which have been referred to at Headquarters being addressed in this chamber, owing to their particular relevance to and impact on Colombian society. As an example, I would venture to mention just two: small arms and light weapons, which in my country are veritable weapons of destruction, together with the issue of anti-personnel mines, which are spread in our countryside by the illegal outlaw groups; and possible terrorist attacks on critical civilian infrastructure. However, such a prospect gives rise to new concerns. On the one hand, there are or could be specific forums for dealing with those issues and adopting more flexible and effective instruments to deal with them; on the other, in the circumstances currently prevailing in the Conference on Disarmament, adding such serious issues could do more to disperse our efforts and our interest than to facilitate a convergence of wills and consensus. In contrast, I think that we could have useful contributions and exchanges of views and experience in this regard under one or other of the headings or issues which already appear on the agenda of the Conference.

Allow me to sum up my country’s position in the Conference. If all members of the Conference consider that addressing additional issues and dealing with each of the issues on our agenda separately and with no interlinking, or waiting for new proposals on a programme of work based only on issues which are ripe, is the most efficient way to end our deadlock, then Colombia would be the first in line to encourage negotiations. On the other hand, if the members of the Conference believe that we should work without prejudging the outcome on the issues on the agenda which we have re-endorsed, and that what we need to do is to overcome mutual distrust and the lack of political will, then allow me, Mr. President, to repeat what we said in past statements last year, and invite you to reread the five Ambassadors’ proposal, supplementing it wherever you feel it necessary and appropriate, formally and explicitly sharing your disagreements or fears. Once we have done that, then perhaps we could reach a political agreement at a high level, so that taking into account the physical limitations involved for delegations of member States if all the core issues were negotiated at one and the same time, we should set up an orderly sequence and a mechanism for a negotiating round to address the issues in parallel.

We further believe, as has been said here today, that participation by civil society is something to be encouraged in a responsible way and with all due maturity. Of course, we would have to find ways and means to permit such participation, as proposed by the Government of Ireland during its term in the Chair in 2004. Perhaps the contribution of civil society could prompt the world’s governments and principal leaders to include in their agenda a real commitment to avoid nuclear catastrophe through the progressive negotiation of the appropriate instruments which would lead us to our goal - the end of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

Secretary-General of the CD, Sergei Ordzhonikidze
Since I represent all of you, I would like to join all of you in your expressions of condolences at what happened in Poland in Katowice, in condolences to the Government and people of your country.

The 1,000th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is an appropriate occasion to asses past achievements, to reflect on the causes of the impasse which has existed since around 1999, and to give thought to ways and means of restoring the leading role of the Conference in multilateral arms control and disarmament negotiations.

During the first decade of its existence, the Conference on Disarmament set up its priorities, recorded in the so-called “Decalogue”, on the basis of which the yearly agenda was to be drawn, and detailed its working methods that were then periodically reviewed and modified. Towards the end of this period, preparatory efforts started to bear fruit - the Conference entered the phase of the negotiation of treaties.

With the conclusion of negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1992 and on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996, these items were removed from the agenda. Following the adoption of the treaties, the Conference entered a period of a slowing-down of activities, which over the years has led to the impasse. Paradoxically, the origins of the impasse can be attributed to the end of the cold war, which significantly changed the international security equilibrium and led to a re-evaluation of disarmament priorities by States. These priorities - until then rather stable - started to evolve with the changing perception of security by member States.

New actors have emerged on the international scene, and with the possibility of the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, international relations have become even more complex, more dangerous and less predictable than previously, paradoxically enough. Notions of strategic stability, the avoidance of war and nuclear deterrence have been redefined, and multilateralism has been giving way to the predominance of particular national interests.