Unofficial Transcript
Brazil
28 June 2007

Thank you Mr. President.  First of all I would like to assure you of the full support of the delegation of Brazil.  I would once again like to praise the excellent done by our colleague Ambassador Bonnier in trying to find consensus on L.1 plus the Complimentary Statement and the Draft Decision on the two documents. 

Mr. Chairman, the reason that I have no speech prepared but have requested the floor is given by the reference that was made to a Brazilian statement at the UNGA.  We effectively give a lot of importance to the four core issues that have been discussed in the CD for years now but we have always indicated, at least for the four years that I have been in Geneva, that we are flexible on the way to handle these four issues.  As you know in the year 2000, our present Minister of Foreign Affairs in his second term presented as President of the CD the text that is conceived now as the unread proposal.  In that document, there has never been a reference to a same or equal treatment to the four core issues.  The same applies to the first version and the revised version of the 5 Ambassadors’ proposal.  That we have always indicated flexibility in the sense that we have never asked for the immediate negotiation of the four core issues at the same time.  Obviously this would cause, as indicated by the distinguished Ambassador of New Zealand, a serious strain to all delegations.  We may have different priorities, as Brazil and New Zealand are members of the New Agenda Coalition.  Nuclear disarmament is a key priority issue but we know that the conditions are riper for the start of negotiations for a treaty on fissile material.  With regard to the scope of this treaty, obviously Brazil is totally in favor of the Shannon Mandate and we too want to see it in the negotiation on verification of stockpiles.  But the question is that we have to show political flexibility and after 10 years of no work and no flexibility in this forum we have taken the political decision to support the L.1 document because we think this is the right way to proceed.  That does prevent us from having not only substantive discussions but to find a way to find consensus on other issues of our agenda on the other of the four core issues for us.  But in looking now we have to have a clear definition on negotiation on the four issues or that we have to start negotiations at once or in parallel with the four core issues is really a way perhaps not to engage in any negotiations whatsoever and that is a source of concern to my delegation. So I wanted to make this point of clarification because I think that it is important that we here at the CD after so many years that we firmly show political commitment.

Thank you very much.