Summary of Statements By Topic

Statements made at the 2007 Session of the Conference on Disarmament

Click on a Topic:
Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty
PAROS
Nuclear Disarmament
Negative Security Assurances
P6 Draft Decision
Verification

Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty

Argentina (on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), June 26
“A positive sign for non-nuclear states would be the prompt initiation of negotiations towards a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices…the scope of this instrument should give certain treatment to the issue of fissile material stockpiles and verification provisions should also be included.”

Australia, June 21
"Most significantly, we have ripened our understanding of FMCT to the point where it is ready for negotiation without preconditions.  Negotiation of an FMCT is the most practical step this Conference can take to address nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament." 

Brazil, June 28
“With regard to the scope of this (FMCT) 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.” 

Canada, May 22
"And finally on FMCT, Ambassador of China recalled a certian earlier decision in another forum relevant the the Cut-off Treaty.  I am aware of those.  I note that there are various provisions associated, the NPT 2000 Review Conference- if we had managed to realize its tasking, we would have concluded an FMCT in 2005.  Two years earlier.  We are clearly not there yet, and here again, the crucial priority is to initiate the negotiation so that we are able to work through the very real issues that are raised by such a prospect.  But here again, are we best employed by arguing to what would be the perfect ostricism to which begin such work or really are we better served by just beginning the work and seeing what the dynamic of negotiation would ultimately take us and what kind of product we might be able to produce.  Here again,  I don’t think there is anything in the formulation of L1 that would inhibit a comprehensive discussion and input into a negotation of this treaty and the greater concern should be, as the clock ticks away, are we yet again going to use up the available time for us in talks about talks rather than the actual work on these core issues that i know we would all like to see advance."

Canada, March 20
"It is my pleasure today to introduce a new Working Paper prepared by Canada on the connection between verification and scope in an FMCT…The paper starts from the premise that an effective verification mechanism is an important element of any non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament agreement…The paper also recognizes that the characteristics of an appropriate verification mechanism depend to a large degree on the scope of the agreement. It also bears in mind that the verification system should, at least initially, build upon existing verification tools used by the IAEA…" See statement for more details on Canada's FMCT working paper

China, June 21
“I’d like to take this opportunity to reaffirm our position to support breaking away from the deadlock in the CD and support the utilization for the negotiations of an FMCT by the CD.” 

China, May 22
"Thirdly, concerning the negotions of FMCT.  China has always been a supporter of this negotation.  In 1993, the general assembly drafted resolution 48/75L as similar resolutions were also adopted in the subsiquent sessions of general assembly.  China joined consensus to all of them.  Our position remains still  unchanged.  The final documents of the review Conferences in 1995 and 2000 and the relevant resolutions of the general assembly all carried explicit provisions on the negotiations of FMCT.  It is the view of my delegation that a negotiating mandate of the FMCT of the P6 proposal should be in accordance with those provisions.  Or should be  inconsistent with those provisions."

Colombia, March 6
One the issues to which Colombia attached priority importance was the commencement of talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. That appeared to be the issue the most ripe for action in the Conference. Such a treaty should be transparent, address the question of stocks, contain effective verification measures, and should be undertaken without preconditions or linkages to any other negotiations. UN Press Release

Cuba, January 30
"Cuba also joins those who support the beginning of negotiations in this Conference on an international treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons which responds to the objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament."

Ecuador, March 12
Ecuador also advocated transparent negotiations leading to a fissile material convention, which should include existing stockpiles and a verification mechanism. UN Press Release

EU, delivered by Germany, January 24
"It has again become clear last year there continue to be some differences regarding individual aspects of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), in particular verification and scope. However, rather than continuing protracted debates on these aspects the EU believes that the negotiations should start without delay and without preconditions, bearing in mind the 1995 Special Coordinator report and the mandate contained therein. The early conclusion of a non-discriminatory, universally applicable treaty should remain the goal. Pending the achievement of this goal the EU urges all States to declare and uphold a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. We welcome the action of those four States which have decreed such moratoria and urge others to follow suit."

EU, delivered by Germany, February 6
"The EU continues to attach a clear priority to the negotiation, at the Conference on Disarmament, of an FMCT as a means to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and thus international security…The EU would like to see an early commencement of negotiations on an FMCT. In advance of such negotiations, however, there is an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that will inevitably be of greatest interest…The EU continues to call for the immediate commencement of negotiations as well as an early conclusion of a non-discriminatory, universally applicable Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, without preconditions, and bearing in mind the special co-ordinator’s report on and the mandate contained therein. Pending the entry into force of an FMCT, the EU calls on all States to declare and uphold a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

France, January 24
The European Union statement had stressed the priority attached by the Conference to the immediate launch, without preconditions, to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. This concern was obviously a fundamental point in the position of France at the national level as was pointed out by the President of the Republic a year ago. France believed that the raison d’être of the Conference was to work to build an approach to disarmament which could help to alleviate the sad toll that humanity paid in the excessive number of conflicts and which could contribute to regional security. UN Press Release

India, May 15
“Madame President, in order to protect the negotiating position of my delegation, it would have been ideal to engage in FMCT negotiations in a committee and not have negotiations presided over by a coordinator.  You Madame President clarified in the course of our consultations outside of the plenary, that the function of the coordinators would be consistent to that of a subsidiary body and then subsequently you reiterated this in a statement that you made in the plenary.  Since the coordinator could not be designated as such, as a subsidiary body, it might help very much if the clarification provided by you could be incorporated even in some reform in the complimentary Presidential statement.” 

India, February 13
"While maintaining a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, India continues to be committed to the goal of nuclear weapon free world, through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. India’s responsible nuclear doctrine is based on no first use and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States. The doctrine also reaffirms India’s readiness to join multilateral negotiations for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. India has continued to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests. We are ready to participate in negotiations, in the Conference, on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices."

India, March 23
Here, India reiterated its commitment to a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable treaty on fissile material. Parameters should be defined before negotiations on such a treaty were commenced. India had a multilateral vocation, and was ready to contribute to a consensus, should the Conference decide to establish appropriate parameters and a framework for working. UN Press Release

Iran, June 21
“My delegation has always supported an international and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory FMCT. In our position, past and present stockpiles are to be covered under the scope of the treaty and we stress the negotiation process on a possible FMCT should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate. The P6 proposal needs to be improved to cover these concerns. We are uncertain about the usefulness of an FMCT with no verification system and excluding existing stockpiles of fissile materials that can be used for nuclear weapons.”

Iran, June 5
“The Islamic Republic of Iran wants the FMCT to be an internationally and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and non discriminatory Treaty. Past and present stockpiles are to be covered under the scope of the Treaty. We stress that the negotiation process on a possible FMCT should be in the framework of the Shannon mandate. We want the P6 proposal to include these issues.”

Iran, March 27
With regard to a fissile material treaty, Iran reiterated that any negotiations on that subject had to be within the framework of the Shannon Mandate. UN Press Release

Ireland, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, May 15
“The Coalition pointed out that for such a treaty (FMCT) to be meaningful it should include a verification mechanism and cover existing stocks. It further noted that the negotiation and conclusion of a fissile material treaty would limit the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals, and, therefore, could be understood as a significant step in a phased programme towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Italy, March 13
Italy felt that the best way to proceed towards that objective was to immediately commence negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). The non-nuclear weapon States had to be the first to take the initiative to elaborate a process which, certainly, would not resolve all nuclear problems, but which would establish a limit on stocks of fissile materials and thus prevent a new nuclear spiral. The nuclear weapon States had already expressed their readiness to begin such negotiations. Therefore, there were no more reasons, and no more excuses, to delay a start to negotiations. UN Press Release

Japan, January 24
"Japan attaches paramount importance to the early commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). We take note that in the recent informal consultation, Madame President, you indicated that at present there was no consensus for the commencement of negotiations on any one issue or combination of issues. However, it is also a significant fact that no country, including any nuclear-weapon state, has voiced opposition to the negotiation of an FMCT itself in the CD even though a range of opinions with regards to the whole CD schedule exist. Japan aims to enhance deliberations on the substance of an FMCT for the early conclusion of negotiations once they begin, through specific comments on the draft treaty and working papers already circulated."

Japan, March 13
"Through prohibiting the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, an FMCT will not only limit the production of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon States, but also prevent the appearance of new nuclear weapon States. From the twin perspectives of nuclear disarmament and non proliferation it will become an important milestone…The early conclusion of negotiations itself of an FMCT will be significant and prompt action is required by the Conference on Disarmament in this regard."

Republic of Korea, January 24
"As emphasized on many previous occasions, my delegation believes that a FMCT is the only issue ripe for negotiations in the CD."

Republic of Korea, March 14
"Turning to the cores issues of the CD, my Government strongly supports the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). I believe that the FMCT is ripe for negotiation…In this regard, we welcome the US proposal on the FMCT tabled last year and we hope that it will provide a good basis for starting negotiations."

Latvia, March 13
"Latvia believes that the commencement of FMCT negotiations is long overdue and calls on the CD Member States not to wait any longer."

Mexico, March 16
Mexico was also prepared to begin negotiation on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, without preconditions, but underscored that such an instrument would have to provide a verification instrument and cover existing stockpiles. UN Press Release

Netherlands, January 22
"The Netherlands has never disguised that it is ready to start negotiations on a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices, while being flexible on the further make-up of the Programme of Work."

Nigeria, March 14
"..We believe that negotiating an FMCT that excluded existing stocks is defective and unhelpful, as it merely legitimizes the status-quo, without addressing the fundamental fears of many. It is our view that a comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach to FMCT, which takes on board the issue of existing stocks and due verification, strengthens both the disarmament and non-proliferation regimes."

Nigeria, March 20
" …Nigeria fully accepts that the first logical and sensible step in addressing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is an early start of negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). A negotiation on FMCT that addresses the issues existing stocks and future productions is not only necessary for confidence building, but also erecting the building-blocks to drive our collective efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament."

New Zealand, June 28
“With regard to the issue of stocks and verification on a FMCT, we very much share Pakistan’s positions that an FMCT should include stocks and verification and that is the basis on which we will enter into negotiations on an FMCT because clearly it is open to any delegation to propose whatever it wishes to propose and to negotiate whatever it wishes to negotiate in terms of an FMCT negotiation here.   It seems to me that it is not an issue.” 

New Zealand, August 16
“To begin work on an FMCT is a matter of nuclear disarmament, that is the basis on which I don’t think it is possible to overstress that point that an FMCT is an instrument of nuclear disarmament and that is the basis on which certainly my own country approaches this issue, also I know that other States that have not chosen to possess nuclear weapons also wish to address to this issue.”

Pakistan, June 28
“If we all agree that the scope of the FMCT instrument should include stock piles and verification, why are we unable to include them in L.1?  A fissile material treaty that would promote nuclear disarmament is not one that does not include verification of stocks and not just existing stocks.”

Pakistan, August 16
" Our policy on the FMT has been deliberated and decided at the highest level in Pakistan. The National Command Authority (NCA), the apex body responsible for the formulation and development of our strategic policy and systems, met on August 2 and addressed inter alia, the issues being discussed in the Conference on Disarmament. I quote an extract from a press release issued on August 2."

"The NCA reviewed the current status of negotiations on disarmament issues in the Conference on disarmament in Geneva, including regarding the proposed FMCT. The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position in favour of a non-discriminatory multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states.”

Peru, March 6
Finally, Peru considered that there was a need to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty without delay, and reiterated its position that it was ready to do so with no preconditions whatsoever. UN Press Release

Poland, March 13
"For Poland negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) are key priority in the CD. Today there is no time to further consider if there is a need for such an instrument…Only by banning the production of fissile materials can we contribute to strengthening nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament endeavors. I hope that this august body soon reaches an agreement upon starting the negotiations of FMCT, without setting any preliminary parameters, conditions or constraints. At the same time we believe that upholding the moratoria on the production of fissile material should contribute to improving regional and international security." Press Release mentioned on CD and FMCT

Slovakia, January 22
"The issue of FMCT ranks among the core issues of the CD and as such it has a special position within the agenda as it was outlines in the schedule of the CD’s activities in 2006. Based on these aspects and having in mind two concrete proposals on FMCT submitted in May 2006 we consider appropriate that this year the CD upgrades the level of its engagement vis-à-vis this issue."

Spain, February 20
" …My country hopes that one of the results of this year’s work will be a start on the negotiation of an effective treaty to halt the production of fissile material (an FMCT)."

Switzerland, February 1
"It is the view of my delegation that an FMCT is the issue which is most ripe for negotiation within the Conference on Disarmament…This year, we can build on the achievements of last year’s discussions which are the fruits of in-depth expert debates and substantial working papers…The main challenge at this point is to find a way to launch negotiations…It is my delegation’s view that only a pragmatic approach to the critical aspects of an FMCT, including concerns about the verification procedures of such a treaty, will pave the way to a consensus…Switzerland encourages all delegations to enter into negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions."

Switzerland, March 6
In that context, Switzerland was of the view that particular emphasis had to be placed on the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. UN Press Release

Turkey, January 30
"Turkey also attaches special importance to the negotiation of a non-discriminatory and universal treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)…A more comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach should include the issue of existing stockpiles and effective verification."

Turkey, February 20
" …My delegation underscored the particular importance Turkey attaches to the negotiation of a non-discriminatory and universal treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)…We are also of the view that an FMCT will place a quantitative cap on fissile material that is designed for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…A comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach, of course, should include the issue of existing stocks and verification."

Ukraine, March 6
"We believe that negotiating a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices cannot be delayed any longer...We ask for an earnest commitment within the Conference to negotiate FMCT now. We welcome the submission by the USA a draft treaty and regard it as a good basis for negotiating this important issue. We also associate ourselves with those delegations who call for a Moratorium on the productions of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of a Cut-off Treaty and its entry into force."

United Kingdom, February 22
"Secondly, we can cap the amount of weapons usable fissile material. Most nuclear weapons states have introduced moratoria on the production of fissile material for weapons use, and none object in principle to the negotiation of a Treaty to formalize such a cap. And that, distinguished delegates, is where you come in."

United States, January 22
"The U.S. is cautiously optimistic that 2007 will be the year during which the CD abandons the failed package approach and focuses its efforts on the issue that commands consensus in this body. In that regard, we are eager to join others in commencing work negotiating a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other explosive devises. The United States believes that concluding an FMCT is a desirable and achievable goal for the CD, which is why we tabled a draft text of such a treaty in this body last year, and we urge others to use this as a basis for finally beginning substantive work toward a goal we all share."

United States, February 6
"One area ripe for our collective effort is the rapid conclusion of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. While most of the nuclear weapons states long ago declared a moratorium on production, it is clear that complete and irreversible nuclear reductions cannot be achieved absent this measure becoming global."

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

Australia, February 13
CAROLINE MILLAR said Australia firmly believed that all nations should have unhindered access to space for peaceful purposes… Australia would like to hear from China, in particular, on any prior analysis they had undertaken on what effect their launch would have on other countries' outer space assets. This was an opportunity for the Conference to clarify certain matters, including confidence-building measures for outer space. UN Press Release

Canada, February 13
"Canada is convinced that transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities can contribute to reducing threat perceptions and increasing security among states.
Some examples of this are:

1Regulations for Space Traffic Management could be developed through various international pre-notification processes. Detailed pre-launch notifications, notifications of orbital change and pre-atmospheric re-entry notifications could also constitute ways to enhance transparency and contribute to building confidence.

The adoption of Guidelines on reducing the production of space debris, or Space Debris Mitigation, also constitutes, in Canada’s view, a particularly useful mechanism for achieving these objectives.”

China, May 22
“Secondly, concerns the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The position of my delegation is known to all.  This issue is one of top priority in the CD for my delegation.  Chinese delegation has called for the drafting of a new international legal instrument to prevent the weaponization of outer space and to uphold outer space security.  As a sign of flexibility however, they can agree to the idea of starting with substantive discussions on this manner, but in order to avoid this discussion from becoming an unfocusing, rhetorical exercise, my delegation hopes that appropriate adjustment can be made to the mandate of PAROS.  So as to spell it out in clear terms, the possibility of negotiation a new international legal instrument in outer space.” 

China, January 24
The position of China was very clear. As everyone was aware, China had been advocating for the conclusion of an international instrument or treaty for outer space at the Conference, and along with the Russian Federation, had already submitted some treaty elements on the prevention of deployment of weapons in outer space and prevention of use or threat of use against space objects. China hoped that the Conference on Disarmament would be able to start substantive work on this issue as soon as possible. UN Press Release

China, February 13
China had all along maintained that the Conference should negotiate a comprehensive instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space. China had submitted many documents to promote work in that area, including on the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of weapons, and China hoped that the Conference would begin work on such an instrument now. China wished to point out that if members were indeed concerned about enhancing peace and security in outer space they should change their negative attitude about the work taking place in the Conference on the issue and not block its work on this item. UN Press Release

Cuba, January 30
" …We support the beginning of negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space.”

Ecuador, March 12
Furthermore, Ecuador was opposed to an arms race in outer space. UN Press Release

Egypt, February 13
"We believe that negotiation for the conclusion of an international, comprehensive, and legally binding agreement that tackles the issue of preventing an arms race in outer space remains an essential objective. Such an agreement would unquestionably, fill the existing gap which the current legal regime lacks…Furthermore, numerous General Assembly Resolutions have invited the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad-hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space with a view to conducting negotiations for the conclusion of a multilateral agreement on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. We believe that such a step would be a positive way forward.”

EU, delivered by Germany, January 24
"I would also like to recall the statement that was made by the Austrian Presidency of the EU in June last year on PAROS. With it the EU reiterated its clear commitment to preventing an arms race in outer space. Preventing an arms race in outer space is an essential condition for the strengthening of strategic stability and for the promotion of international cooperation in the free exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes by all States.”

EU, delivered by Germany, February 13
"The EU stands ready to explore in a substantial manner the possibilities of preventing an arms race in outer space. The recent test of an anti satellite weapon should serve as a wake up call in this regard and remind us of the urgency of the matter and our responsibility to act…Any confidence-building measures could among others be based on the principle of non-interference with non-aggressive activities in space and drawing up a ‘code of conduct’ and ‘rules of behavior’ or ‘rules of the road’ in space.”

Iran, March 13
" …There is an attempt to seek military and strategic superiority in outer space which may lead to the weaponization of outer space in the near future endangering global peace and security. Therefore negotiating a legally binding instrument on prevention of an arms race in outer space is also an urgent task for the CD.”

Italy, March 13
Italy recognized that there were other priorities in the Conference, such as the prevention of an arms race in outer space. While awaiting the proposal of more concrete projects in that regard, Italy supported the idea of discussing a code of conduct for outer space. UN Press Release

Japan, February 13
"Whether it be ‘weaponization’ or ‘space objects’, the core concepts of PAROS are vague and obscure. Due to this vague nature, the ad hoc committee, which between 1985 and 1994 was tasked with addressing PAROS, produced no substantial results as agreement could not be reached among the countries on the definition of ‘space weapons’ or ASATs. As the definitions still remain vague, it would be therefore considerably difficult to negotiate a treaty, since it is unclear what obligations would be imposed on the states parties. On the other hand, we are confident that under the able guidance of the Coordinator for Agenda Item III, there will be very fruitful discussion this year to overcome these difficulties.”

Japan, March 13
"Turning our attention now to PAROS; since the advent of the space age outer space has increasingly come to play a major role in our daily lives…Consequently, it is vital that transparent explanations are provided on activities that can adversely impact the safe operation of space objects including satellites.”

Republic of Korea, February 13
"Through implementing various confidence building measures, respecting existing commitments, cooperating with other international forums and adopting a strategy of starting with the easily agreeable and immediate issues and then eventually taking on the more complex and difficult ones, we will be able to make our work on PAROS move forward.”

Republic of Korea, March 14
"The Republic of Korea, as one of the countries which is actively pursuing a peaceful space program, views space security, including the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and the intentional targeting of space objects, as an important issue of great relevance for the CD. We are hopeful that intensive consultations under this agenda item, at both the formal and informal meetings, will contribute to a deeper understanding and a further elaboration of the various aspects of the issue.”

Latvia, March 13
"Latvia’s economy and development is increasingly dependent on peaceful outer space technologies and applications. We believe that an arms race in outer space must be prevented…We appreciated the careful consideration of the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space in the past two years by the Conference. We should make all efforts to explore, in a substantial manner, further possibilities for preventing an arms race in outer space.”

New Zealand, February 13
"A useful outcome to our discussions during this informal segment would be to evaluate prospects for a more comprehensive legal framework regulating the demilitarization of space. Canada circulated a very useful working paper during last year’s debate which aimed to identify gaps in the existing legal systems. This might provide a good starting point from which to explore whether there is agreement on the existing gaps before proceeding to debate on how best to fill them. Russia and China have also done some important work in this regard, and we thank them for the updated version of their compilation paper, circulated this morning. Arguments that there is no current arms race in space, and therefore no need to address this issue, ignore the preventative benefits that adopting a precautionary approach might provide.”

Pakistan, June 28
“On PAROS as well, enough work has been done in the CD.  We thank the delegations of China and the Russian Federation and many others for their efforts.  We should be able to begin negotiations on the legally binding basis of material provided by China and the Russian Federation for example.”  

Pakistan, February 13
"We share the majority’s conclusion that the Conference must respond to and fill the gap in existing international legal instruments, which are inadequate to prevent weaponization of outer space. In this context, we thank China and Russia for the third, revised and amended version of the “Compilation of Comments and Suggestions to the CD PAROS Working Paper (CD/1679)”...Work done in the CD and the seminars held in and outside the CD especially by UNIDIR are ample evidence of the importance and gravity of the issue. They also provide sufficient material to commence negotiations on PAROS, once we finalize the programme of work of the Conference. In this regard, the A-5 proposal remains a valid basis for CD’s balanced and comprehensive programme of work. UNGA resolution 61/58 has once again called on the CD to establish an Ad Hoc Committee and negotiate multilateral agreement on PAROS. The outline of a treaty presented by the Russian delegation today is an illustration on what this treaty may look like. We believe that it is our obligation to respond to UNGA’s call and start work on PAROS in all earnest."

Poland, March 13
"We also have been observing growing need for addressing the issue of preventing of (sic) arms race in outer space. As the humankind is more and more dependent upon the activities in outer space, it is time for the international community to far reach in its visions…And we must spare no efforts to make those peaceful activities safe.”

Russia, February 6
The Conference should close existing gaps in international outer space law. They had been told that there were no weapons in space. They had also once been assured that the expansion of NATO to the East would not be accompanied by the transfer of military infrastructure there; the reality had been something different. Regarding the intention of some States to deploy anti-ballistic missiles near Russia's frontiers, President Putin had declared Russia's response would be asymmetrical, but very effective. Of course, Russia would like to prevent any such occurrence, but the responsibility did not lay with them. UN Press Release

Russia, February 13
"President V. Putin also informed the conference on the preparation of a draft Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, which will be sent to our partners in the near future…Security in outer space must be guaranteed. This is a call of our time. The CD must prove that this can be achieved through multilateral agreement, taking into account the legitimate interests of all States and through covering the well known lacunae in the international outer space law. In our view, today is the time to proceed from words to action. Otherwise, as the recent developments suggest, we shall have to prohibit an arms race in outer space instead of preventing it. In our forthcoming endeavors on PAROS we propose to concentrate on a single issue, that is on the idea of working out a new Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT).” See statement for more details on Russia's position on PAROS.

Switzerland, February 1
"Space security can only be understood in a holistic sense. Space is indivisible. Other approaches to strengthening the security of space and to addressing concerns about the vulnerability of space systems can and must be developed. The Conference on Disarmament has already outlined some important responses to this question. Switzerland insists that these must be developed at greater depth this year within the framework of a structured and substantive dialogue.”

Switzerland, March 6
In particular, the drafting of a code of conduct for space activities was a worthwhile avenue to explore. Such a document could include measures to better regulate space traffic, prevent dangerous manoeuvres or prohibit those whose peaceful objectives were questionable. The elaboration of provisions to prevent the creation of space debris was another such confidence-building measure. Switzerland was also of the opinion that the Conference should seek greater interaction with Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in this area. UN Press Release

Syria, February 13
HUSSEIN ALI observed that Syria was one of co-sponsors of the Chinese and Russian working paper (CD/1679) on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including the use of force or threat of use of force against space objects. In Syria's view, establishing an ad hoc Committee in the Conference on Disarmament was the minimum they should seek to achieve in that regard. UN Press Release

Turkey, February 20
"In this regard, we support the views and proposals on strengthening the existing international legal framework directed at preventing an arms race in outer space…Turkey, bearing in mind recent developments, sees merit in discussing PAROS also here at the CD.”

United States, February 13
" …There already exists a number of treaties and conventions that establish a regime for the peaceful use of outer space…We believe universalization of these conventions is a much more practical and effective step towards guaranteeing the peaceful use of outer space…Just as the United States reserves the right to protect its infrastructures and resources on land, so too do we reserve the right to protect our space assets…Consistent with this principle, the United States view the purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on our rights, just as we would view interference with U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international waters as an infringement on our rights…It is regrettable that some countries’ attempts to link important issues like the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and PAROS have contributed to tying up movement in the CD for years…Despite the ASAT test, we continue to believe that there is no arms race in space, and therefore no problem for arms control to solve…We should focus our efforts on ensuring free access to space for peaceful purposes and deterring and dissuading the misuse of space, seeking universal adherence to the existing treaties and conventions to which not all members have signed up to…We believe this approach will have more of a deterrent and dissuasion effect than an additional set of international constraints – constraints that would be unverifiable, protect no one, and constrain only those who comply and not those who cheat.”

Venezuela, March 12
The risk of militarization of outer space was also of concern to Venezuela. Rather than being an arena for war, outer space should be an arena for peaceful activities, for the benefit of all countries. UN Press Release

China, May 22
"Secondly, concerns the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The poisiton of my delegation is known to all.  This issue is one of top priority in the CD for my delegation.  Chinese delegation has called for the drafiting of a new international legal instrument to prevent the weaponization of outer spance and to uphold outer space security.  As a sign of flexibility however, they can agree to the idea of starting with substitive discussions on this manner,  but in order to avoid this discussion from becoming an unfocusing, rethorical exercise, my delegation hopes that appropriate adjustment can be made to the mandate of PAROS.  So as to spell it out in clear termsm the possibility of negotiation a new internationl legal instrument in ourter space."

Canada, May 22
"On the references to PAROS- and maybe I’m not completely disinterested observer, but I did take some objection to the indication that discussions on issues relating to PAROS would be ill-focused or unfocused and open to rhetoric.  I would hope that the Chinese delegation did not find the six sessions either this year on this topic that I had the priviledge to preside over as either lacking in focus or just an engagement in rhetoric.  Clearly there are different views here.  I think there was quite a strong convergence of thinking around the couple of important axes.  One of which is a proposed international legal instrument to prohibit the placement of weapons in outer space I know is very dear to the Chinese delegation and to others.  So i would just note that I can assure my distinguished colleague that any further work on this issue that at least I would have a say in, I can assure would indeed have a focused and a practical orientation and again I think there is nothing in this formula that represents an  inhibitant to that."

Nuclear Disarmament

Argentina (on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), June 26
“Nuclear disarmament is a priority for the countries subscribing this declaration. We reiterate our conviction that the existence of nuclear arsenals as part of the military doctrines of countries in possession of this kind of weapons discourages the efforts that could be made in other bodies related to international security.”

Colombia, March 6
Although Colombia did not possess any nuclear weapons or indeed any weapons of mass destruction of any kind, or even a significant nuclear programme, it had worked actively to advance the cause of disarmament and non-proliferation. UN Press Release

Cuba, January 30
[Cuba and the NAM] had also emphasized the need to commence negotiations as soon as possible on a phased programme with established time limits for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention. UN Press Release

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, January 24
"We have reiterated on many occasions that we would neither use nuclear weapons first, nor allow any nuclear transfer and that it would continue to work towards its ultimate objective of denuclearization of the Korean peninsular."

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, February 6
HAN SUNG IL, responding to Japan's statement regarding nuclear tests, said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was fully committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, as they had many times reiterated in the past. It was, however, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's sovereign right to conduct nuclear tests. It was not a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It had not been the choice of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to do that. It had been forced to withdraw from the NPT when it had tested the weapon, because of the growing threat of a nuclear power against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea wished to assure Japan that its nuclear weapons did not threaten other countries, including Japan. Such weapons were only a deterrent against attack by nuclear weapon States in the future. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was for its part committed to do its best to work towards the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world. UN Press Release

Ecuador, March 12
María Fernanda Espinosa, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Ecuador, said that the emergence of new threats had made it imperative for countries to prevent nuclear proliferation of all types, and to move forward as a matter of priority, and on a sustained basis, to realize a comprehensive nuclear disarmament programme. Ecuador supported international instruments for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and was opposed to an arms race in outer space. UN Press Release

Egypt, January 24
"Nuclear disarmament will remain our top priority in the Conference on Disarmament and we believe that it should remain at the forefront of the Conference’s work in its new session…We fail to understand and refuse to accept the contradictory argument that supports the doctrines of nuclear deterrence while advocating the non proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Egypt, February 6
"Nuclear disarmament remains Egypt’s top priority in the Conference on Disarmament. As a major pillar of our foreign policy, we have consistently dedicated a substantial portion of our energy and commitment to nuclear disarmament, emanating from a long standing, solid belief that nuclear weapons, with all the destructive power they possess, can only terrorize and intimidate nations, never build regional confidence nor international peace…Nuclear Weapons States continue to advocate their doctrine of nuclear deterrence thereby negating any real intention to strive towards complete nuclear disarmament. The emphasis on arms control and the bilateral efforts, which at the time were hailed as achievements, can not be regarded as alternative to the implementation of the commitment contained in Article VI…We would like to reiterate the centrality of the 13 practical steps [outlined in 2000 Review Conference of NPT to implement Article VI] which in our view, represent an internationally endorsed roadmap to fulfill the obligation of nuclear disarmament."

EU, delivered by Germany, February 6
"We stress the need for an overall reduction of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons in accordance with article VI of the NPT, in particular by those with the largest arsenals, while acknowledging the considerable nuclear arms reductions which have taken place since the end of the cold war, in particular by two EU-Member States…The EU recognizes the importance, from the point of view of nuclear disarmament, of the programmes for the physical protection of the destruction and elimination of nuclear weapons and of fissile material as defined under the G8 Global Partnership…We also continue to work towards universal adherence to the NPT."

India, February 13
"While maintaining a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, India continues to be committed to the goal of nuclear weapon free world, through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. India’s responsible nuclear doctrine is based on no first use and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States. The doctrine also reaffirms India’s readiness to join multilateral negotiations for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. India has continued to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests. We are ready to participate in negotiations, in the Conference, on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices."

Iran, January 24
"Iran, like any other Non Nuclear Weapon State, has no obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the exercise of its inalienable right [to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes], nor can it be obligated to suspend it. However, Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment activities voluntarily, as it preferred a political agreement which could serve positively in the broader political spectrum and particularly in our trouble and volatile region…Iran commits itself to its NPT obligations. We believe the Security Council is not the right place to discuss Iran’s nuclear issue. The right place is at the IAEA."

Iran, March 13
"The lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament and the failure of certain Nuclear Weapon States to fulfill their international obligations continue to be a source of threat for the international community…Moreover, transferring nuclear technology and materials to the non-members of the NPT whose nuclear facilities are operating outside the IAEA full scope safeguards monitoring contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This would certainly weaken and undermine the credibility and integrity of the non-proliferation regime…Likewise, they [the NAM at the 14th Summit in Havana] ‘emphasized the necessity to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention.’ We stand by the common NAM position."

Israel, February 13
In Israel's view, there were two fundamental threats to peace and security that deserved to be placed as the highest priorities of the Conference: the threat of terrorism in all its dimensions, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery…uring the general debate a few delegations had raised their desire to discuss the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Israel supported the eventual establishment of such a zone, as had been demonstrated by their joining the consensus resolution in the First Committee under the same title. Yet, Israel was also realistic enough to know that the Middle East could not be advanced out of context. A nuclear-weapon-free zone could only emerge as the outgrowth of a fundamental transformation of the regional political-strategic climate through a gradual process of building trust and reconciliation, followed by more modest arms control measures. Regrettably, such a transformation had thus far eluded the Middle East as it was undermined by the actions and policies of other States in the region. UN Press Release

Japan, February 6
"The nuclear-weapon states should also further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapon systems in ways that promote international stability and security. Diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies is essential to minimizing the risk that these weapons will ever be used, and facilitates the process of their total elimination…We strongly urge those countries not party to the [NPT] Treaty to accede to it as non-nuclear weapon states without delay or preconditions."

Japan, March 13
"While Japan commends the nuclear disarmament efforts of the United States and the Russian Federation based on the steady implementation of the Moscow Treaty, we encourage both countries to make further reduction beyond those provided for in that Treaty. Likewise, we call on the other nuclear weapon States to also make further efforts towards nuclear disarmament."

Kenya, January 24
"In this regard, my delegation is of the view that the Conference must focus on and take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament which are achievable in the short term while at the same time embarking on a path towards a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime. Kenya firmly believes that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are two sides of the same coin that must be pursued simultaneously."

Republic of Korea, March 14
"On nuclear disarmament, the structured debates have revealed that transparency, irreversibility, and verifiability should be the guiding principles of nuclear disarmament. While pursuing a pragmatic, realistic and step-by-step approach, we need to discuss a range of issues such as nuclear doctrine and policy, operational status, reduction and verification."

Mexico, February 13
PABLO MACEDO, speaking also on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, in their dual capacity as States parties to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and as the Latin American members of the Conference, said that the very existence of nuclear weapons represented a threat to the existence of mankind and the total elimination of such weapons represented the only absolute guarantee against that threat. Until that was done, however, the negotiation of an agreement on negative security assurances had to be pursued. The right which nuclear weapon States presumed to the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons was in clear contradiction with the integrity and sustainability of the non-proliferation regime. UN Press Release

Morocco, February 6
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI said that Morocco had signed and ratified all the multilateral disarmament treaties and was committed to general and complete disarmament, in particular to verifiable and transparent nuclear disarmament. UN Press Release

Myanmar, February 13
"Myanmar is an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament. We fully align ourselves with the Chapter entitled "Disarmament and International Security" contained in the Final Document of the XIV Summit of the NAM held in Havana last September, in particular to the NAM’s principled position on nuclear disarmament, which remains its highest priority on the international arms control agenda…While we recognize the importance of bilateral negotiations among the nuclear weapon states, we believe that the Conference should commence multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament at an early date. In this context, my delegation fully supports the proposal of the G21, as contained in documents CD/1570 and CD 1571. We concur with delegations calling for the CD to revisit this proposal."

Nigeria, March 14
"Disarmament and non-proliferation are issues of paramount importance to Nigeria. They are central to conflict prevention. As a developing country, Nigeria recognizes the causal relationship between disarmament and arms control and the attainment of sustainable development, including the Millennium Development Goals…Nigeria believes that the total elimination of nuclear weapons offers one of the most effective and credible guarantees against the use or threat of use of these weapons…we applaud all unilateral or bilateral endeavors geared towards this end and call on the nuclear weapon states to do much more to lower the threshold of a possible use of these weapons."

Nigeria, March 20
"The only effective and credible guarantee against the use or threat of the use of nuclear weapons is, therefore, their total elimination. The reality is that non-proliferation will remain a mirage unless there is a total commitment towards nuclear disarmament."

Pakistan, June 21
“We would want not substantive discussions but negotiations on nuclear disarmament.”

Pakistan, February 6
"The question of nuclear disarmament has been discussed at length in the CD, in the context of the NPT and has also been the subject of an Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice.  Last year’s comprehensive debate in the CD on nuclear disarmament brought forth some new proposals. The preamble of the NPT and its Article 6 reflect the commitment of the international community to take effective measures for nuclear disarmament and to pursue negotiations in good faith in this regard.  The objective identified in the NPT is general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Nuclear disarmament should therefore remain the priority issue for the CD…The G-21 has put forward its views as contained in CD/1570 and CD 1571 proposing the mechanism for addressing nuclear disarmament in order to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention.  The CD needs to seriously revisit this proposal." 

Pakistan/G21, March 14
"The G21 considers that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the possibility of their proliferation will remain. We reaffirm that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are substantively interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Therefore, there is a genuine need to achieve complete and irreversible nuclear disarmament, and to prevent and halt nuclear proliferation in all its aspects. The G21 emphasizes that Nuclear Disarmament remains of the highest priority for the CD. The Group recalls that specific proposals in this connection, including those of the G-21, have been made in the past."

Peru, February 6
DIEGO BELEVAN said Peru agreed with others on the need to actively pursue nuclear disarmament and was of the view that the incremental approach was the most appropriate solution to restart the substantive work of the Conference on Disarmament…Peru, who was the initiator and negotiator of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean, and was a staunch supporter of the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones as a means to reduce the possibility that such arms would be used. Peru also reiterated its interest in seeing the prompt entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which it hoped would contribute to the progressive reduction and eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. UN Press Release

Peru, March 6
DIEGO BELEVÁN said that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were processes that were substantially related and mutually reinforcing...The world had also been faced with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of international terrorists. The logical response to the uncertainty generated by such proliferation would be the formulation and consolidation of a multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament. Paradoxically, however, the world was witnessing a weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. UN Press Release

Poland, March 13
"Poland remains strongly committed to the ultimate goal of multilateral and effective disarmament…The NPT Treaty is a vital tool in the multilateral nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament endeavors…The effectiveness of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes depends strongly upon the institutions safeguarding their implementation."

Russia, February 6
VALERY LOSHCHININ on the topic of nuclear disarmament, affirmed that Russia was true to its obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to its bilateral commitments made with the United States. With the end of the Cold War, the threat of a nuclear war had substantially diminished, and the bilateral nuclear arms race was effectively over. Russia, and everyone, understood that non-proliferation had a big relation to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. Ensuring compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation regime, such as developing a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, could well work to attain the goal of nuclear disarmament. Russia had no preconditions for the negotiation of such a treaty within the Conference. UN Press Release

Spain, March 16
An effective disarmament policy would allow for States and civil society to finance programmes to combat poverty. Mexico recalled that studies undertaken by the UN Development Fund and the World Bank had showed that extreme poverty and its sequels, such as disease and illiteracy, could be solved with relatively modest investments. UN Press Release

Syria, January 24
On that basis, Syria looked forward to the question of nuclear disarmament receiving the attention of the Conference and delegations looked forward to discussing the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, a region which had suffered greatly as a result of the foreign occupation of its land. With concern to agenda item 2 on prevention of a nuclear war, during the past year, one of the items which had been addressed was the prohibition of the production of fissile material. Syria called on the Conference to start discussing a treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. UN Press Release

Syria, February 6
"In its 61st session, the GA adopted resolution 61/97 about a Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons. In this resolution, the GA requested the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. It is time now that the CD establishes a subsidiary body, preferably under item 2 of its agenda, to negotiate such a convention."

Turkey, February 20
The informal deliberations on agenda item one - cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament - demonstrated the importance attached by all delegations to the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament. The Coordinator for the agenda item had presented a compilation entitled "Clustering of the concrete proposals for substantive issues that required more focused attention during the second part of the annual session, with a view to commencing negotiations”. In Turkey’s view, a realistic assessment would point the Conference in the direction of an incremental approach starting from the least common denominator. A good starting block would seem to be confidence building through increased information sharing and transparency. UN Press Release

Turkey, March 23
" …We would like to underscore the importance of confidence building through information sharing and transparency in order to reach the goal of nuclear disarmament, as well as the special importance we attach to the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT)."

Ukraine, March 6
In that context, it was worth mentioning that Ukraine's decision to forswear its nuclear capability had been crucial for the progress in the nuclear disarmament process and for the further fate of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and global security as a whole. UN Press Release

United Kingdom, June 28
“And the key policies as expressed in that speech are the following: A recognition that the bargain between the haves and have-nots requires Nuclear Weapon States to do more on nuclear disarmament to get more on the non-proliferation front.  A recognition also of the pressure on the NPT regime.  Secondly, a call for the ratification of CTBT by those who have yet to do so.  A call for the commencement on negotiations on an FMCT.  And a call for the cut in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals upon the expiration of treaties.  Thirdly, a UK commitment to engage in multilateral negotiations on the elimination of nuclear weapons once U.S. and Russia have reduced their arsenals considerably.  And to engage in the meantime in transparency confidence building measures with any other Nuclear Weapon States.  And finally, Mrs. Beckett made an announcement that the UK will, as a nuclear disarmament laboratory, participate in a new project by the International Institute of Strategic Studies on the practical steps required for the elimination of nuclear weapons…”

United Kingdom, February 22
"The rationale on how we reached this judgement (sic)  can be read in the White Paper, but it boils down to this: we do not believe that the circumstances currently exist for the UK safely to choose now unilaterally to renounce our nuclear weapons…So on current evidence and trends, the UK simply cannot be confident that a nuclear threat to our vital interests will not emerge in the timeframe we have to consider…those conditions for complete disarmament cannot be created unilaterally. I think few, if any, of those present here today would argue that complete disarmament by a country with less than 1% of the nuclear weapons in the world would make it any more likely that proliferators would abandon their ambitions." Read statement for details on the White Paper.

United States, February 6
"The agenda item we are dealing with is titled ‘Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament.’ The title of my remarks today, however, is ‘Creating the Environment Necessary for Nuclear Disarmament.’ I have chosen this title for a reason. The nuclear arms race ended 15 years ago. It ground to a halt with the end of the Cold War and since then we have seen a reduction in nuclear warheads by the chief Cold War protagonists…The question before us, therefore, is not stopping a race that for must of us no longer exists. Rather, it is how we prevent the emergence of new regional nuclear arms races, and create the environment necessary to complete the process of nuclear disarmament."

"Nuclear weapons continue to have relevance in today’s world, but that relevance is clearly not incompatible with the NPT…Continuation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella is necessary under current circumstances in order to help lay the foundation for further progress in disarmament. Ultimately, however, the objective of all states should be to create an environment in which it is no longer necessary for anyone to rely on nuclear weapons for security."

Venezuela, March 12
Furthermore the Conference on Disarmament had to establish an ad hoc Committee with the mandate of negotiating an instrument for nuclear disarmament. Venezuela regretted the negative stance of certain countries which continued to block progress in this area. UN Press Release

Viet Nam, March 13
It was the consistent policy of Viet Nam to support and promote comprehensive and complete disarmament with top priority given to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Viet Nam supported the non-proliferation and reduction of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction with the ultimate aim of their total elimination. Pursuant to that policy, Viet Nam had acceded to all the important international disarmament treaties and strictly complied with them. UN Press Release

India, May 15
"Madame President, as expressed in different occasions, the position of my delegation on FMCT is based on a very comprehensive and indiscriminative treaty that past and present stockpiles are to be covered in the scope of the treaty.  Such a treaty should be a step towards nuclear disarmament and cannot be considered only in the area of non-profession.  We stress that such a process should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate." 

Negative Security Assurances

Cuba, March 6
In that context, and unless some progress was made on the abovementioned, the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States could not be delayed any longer. UN Press Release

Ecuador, March 12
In terms of negative assurances, Ecuador was in favour of an international legally binding treaty that would prevent those who had nuclear weapons from threatening to use them against non-possessor countries. UN Press Release

Egypt, February 13
"Although Egypt takes note of and welcomes unilateral declarations made by some nuclear weapon states that provide security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non nuclear weapon stats, we believe that these declarations fall short of our security requirements and do not adequately or conclusively deal with the issue. For security assurances to be effective, they must be unconditional, comprehensive, legally binding, and negotiated multilaterally…we believe that there is a pressing need to start negotiations on a multilateral and legally binding instrument to provide non nuclear weapon states with such comprehensive assurances as soon as possible. Madame President, Egypt strongly believes that efforts to conclude a universal and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapons States should be pursued."

EU, delivered by Germany, February 13
"In the context of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the EU continues to attach great importance to the development of internationally recognized Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the regions concerned as elaborated in the guidelines adopted by the UNDC in its 1999 substantive session….Implementing Nuclear Weapons Free Zones is a way of enhancing negative security assurances on a regional basis."

Iran, June 5
“Therefore the Islamic Republic of Iran requests the CD to establish Ad Hoc Committees to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States.”

Iran, March 13
"Adoption of a universal, unconditional and legally-binding instrument on security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons has been a long-standing goal of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States. It is a pressing issue on which the discussion needs to be reinvigorated at the CD."

Republic of Korea, March 14
"My Government supports the concept of negative security assurances as a practical means of reducing the sense of insecurity and non-nuclear weapon states. I believe that nuclear weapon states should provide credible security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states that faithfully meet their NPT and safeguards obligations."

Myanmar, February 13
"Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, we should aim, inter alia, at pursuing efforts on the following measures: A conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States…"

New Zealand, June 28
“With regard to NSAs there is frankly I think a complication in negotiating—potential complications and negotiating NSAs in this forum—by their very nature, NSAs are commitments between those countries that have nuclear weapons and those that do not have nuclear weapons.  There is an issue with regard to the potential conferring of the status of Nuclear Weapons States on all of the States that possess nuclear weapons through entering negative security assurances of the NPT.  There is a potential complication in doing it in the CD that will require a lot of working through and I think that we should be quite frank in acknowledging it.  If countries that have nuclear weapons wish to give an assurance to countries that do not have nuclear weapons that they will not use nuclear weapons against them then it is open to those countries to give those assurances unilaterally.” 

Nigeria, March 14
"Countries that have given up the nuclear option and accepted to implement effectively the non-proliferation regime deserve a reward in the form of Negative Security Assurances (NSA)."

Nigeria, March 20
"My delegation believes that the international community has a duty to begin now to create effective measures to assure the security of non-nuclear weapon states. Non-nuclear weapon states, particularly States Parties to the NPT, deserve encouragement in the form of legally binding negative security assurances. Having renounced nuclear option voluntarily and, also, faithfully implementing their obligations under the NPT, these states have a right to ask and to receive internationally negotiated and legally-binding Negative Security Assurances. This is not a call for charity, nor is a plea for mercy. It is an unequivocal expression of a legitimate demand for what is logical and fair and appropriate. The unilateral declarations made by the four nuclear weapon states and Security Council resolutions 255 of 19 June 1968 and 984 of 4 November 1995 on security assurances have not fulfilled the expectations and requirements of the non-nuclear weapon states."

Nigeria/G21, March 27
Recognizing that danger, the G-21 had consistently called for the conclusion of a legally binding international instrument providing security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The G-21 was convinced that these arrangements, once enshrined in a legally binding instrument, would not only build trust within their ranks, but would also strengthen their security and the peace and security of the international community. The G-21 welcomed the informal consultations that had been held within the framework of the Conference on negative security assurances, as reflected in the Six Presidents initiatives, and noted with satisfaction that there was no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. UN Press Release

Pakistan, June 28
“We also have an interest on beginning negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on effective nuclear arrangements to assure Non-Nuclear Weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.” 

Syria, February 13
Until nuclear weapons were totally eliminated, however, the commencement of negotiations on negative security assurances was a right for all non-nuclear weapon States and an obligation on nuclear weapon States, and the establishment of an ad hoc committee on negative security assurances in the Conference was needed. UN Press Release

Turkey, February 20
" …My Delegation reminded distinguished colleagues that Turkey supports views and proposals of establishing political mechanisms, followed by legally binding international instruments, which will assure the non-use of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon States against non-nuclear weapon States."

P6 Draft Decision/L.1 Proposal

Algeria, May 31
“The delegation of Algeria had the honor on behalf of the Arab Group at the last plenary when we called for multilateral, transparent consultations on L1.  And on that point, the Algerian delegation feels that it might be a good idea for the Conference to respond to that call we made by organizing official meetings on L1, formal meetings on L1, to allow all delegations to voice their opinions and to embark on an interactive dialogue in order to find a solution that we can all accept.  Madame President, one plenary meeting per week does not seem to us sufficient.” 

Algeria, May 15
“The delegation of Algeria previously declared its position on document L1.  We appreciate the positive aspects of this proposal.  Indeed this proposal includes the four core issues of the CD which are nuclear disarmament, NSAs, FMCT, and PAROS.  At the same time, the delegation of Algeria has already made several substantive and formal comments during informal consultations here or in bilateral consultations.  The delegation of Algeria looks forward to seeing the P6 in making every effort in order to overcome the differences that remain and to reach a consensus on L1.  We have listened very carefully to the numerous observations made on a procedural side and a substantive proposal made on behalf of several delegations.  In principle, we share some of these observations, that is why, Madame President, we- the Delegation of Algeria, urge you and urges the other members of the P6 to find the appropriate method and the appropriate formula including the elements proposed by the distinguished Ambassador of Egypt to have multilateral consultation here in the CD on your proposal as well as taking on the proposals or Amendments omitted by other delegations so as to reach consensus on a program of work that would be comprehensive and balanced and would benefit all members here in the CD.”

Algeria, March 23
HAMZA KHELIF took note of the proposal and would transmit it to Algeria's capital, where it would be treated with all the consideration it deserved. The proposal reflected the four core issues before the Conference, and so was in line with the Five Ambassadors proposal, which was a point in its favour.

With regard to procedural matters, Algeria noted that the procedures provided for in the proposal were open-ended; the mandate holders were not limited to this session, as required by the rules of procedure of the Conference. It should be indicated that the Coordinator or ad hoc committee involved was only designated for the session under way. With regard to substance, the wording on the paragraph on nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances was a bit weak and should be strengthened. On negative security assurances, it might be better to come closer to the language that had already been accepted by everyone. On nuclear disarmament, Algeria had some proposals that it would like to discuss with the President. Algeria, too, wished to get back to substantive work. UN Press Release

Algeria, March 27
HAMZA KHELIF said that during the informal and formal meetings last Friday, Algeria had pointed out that the mandates concerning nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances in draft decision L.1 could be improved upon, in line with the conclusions of the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Algeria had also inquired into the annual periodicity of the programme of work. The President, in her statement today, had said that the programme would be valid for 2007. On that score, according to the Rules of Procedure, the agenda and the programme of work were adopted on an annual basis. Algeria reiterated its difficulty with the open-ended mandates for the Coordinators as formulated in the draft decision, and asked that there be specific language added to the draft decision that the Coordinators were "appointed for the duration of the current session".

On the substance of the draft decision, Algeria noted that it was still awaiting a response from its capital, and hoped to have that by next Thursday. UN Press Release

Algeria, March 30
HAMZA KHELIF regretted that the Conference appeared to be spinning its wheels on this issue. Algeria welcomed the decision to hold a special session so as not to jeopardize the Six Presidents initiative and in order to find a way to consensus; however, Algeria wanted to be sure that any special session was in accordance with Article 8 of the Conference's Rules of Procedure. Algeria just wanted to ensure that they used the special session to take a decision on a programme of work and not to block it again. UN Press Release

Algeria, September 4
« En effet, le package proposé par le Groupe des Présidents comprenant un projet decision CD/2007CRP6, le projet de décision CD/2007/L et le pojet de déclaration présidentielle complémentaire CD/2007/CRP5 présente un progrés significatif qui pourrait conduire a surmonter les difficultés actuelles et aboutir a un compromis sur le programme de travail. Mais force est de constater que le contenu de ce package n’s pas encore atteint le stade requis de maturation sur le programme de travail. »

Argentina (on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), June 26
“In this regard, we would like to jointly express our full support for the proposal of the six Presidents of the Conference, presented as Document CD/2007/L.1, and its Complementary Presidential Statement.”

Argentina, March 23
MARCELO VALLE FONROUGE said that Argentina would support a consensus decision on draft decision L.1. Argentina had no objections whatsoever to the text, which would allow the Conference to begin substantive negotiations on the basis of the proposal. UN Press Release

Australia, June 21
“The L.1 proposal and the subsequent Presidential statement and accompanied explanatory document are the result of extensive and painstaking consultation.  They represent a fair and just compromise by all.  They may not be what each of us has wished for—that is clear—but it should be what we can all accept to ensure that this conference contributes to furthering our collective interests in strengthening international security.” 

Australia, March 23
CAROLINE MILLAR also thanked the Six Presidents for their proposed draft decision L.1. The proposal might be a compromise but it offered a great deal – both in terms of substance, with the call for a commencement of negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and in offering the Conference on Disarmament a way out of the stalemate it had been in for such a long time. Australia supported the draft decision. UN Press Release

Austria, March 27
WOLFGANG PETRITSCH welcomed the Six Presidents (P6) proposal tabled last Friday. Austria felt it was a very balanced and fair proposal and had a real chance of working. Therefore, Austria supported it wholeheartedly. UN Press Release

Brazil, June 28
“We have taken the political decision to support the L.1 document because we think this is the right way to proceed.”

Brazil, March 23
CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS said that Brazil had always given its full support to the structured and informal debate of the Six Presidents (P6) process. From Brazil's perspective the full engagement of all delegations during the informal discussions indicated the will to get back to real negotiations. Brazil supported draft decision L.1 and encouraged all Members to reflect on the important moment they were living now and the need for them to start their work in the Conference on Disarmament. UN Press Release

Bulgaria, March 27
Bulgaria associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. While it might not be perfect, the proposal before them represented their best chance to get back to work, and they were not likely to get another such opportunity soon. The time was now. UN Press Release

Chile, March 23
JUAN MARTABIT offered Chile's full support for the work of the President. They could not continue to afford the luxury of wasting significant resources. The Conference had to get going. Chile supported in a firm and categorical manner the balanced, intelligent proposal contained in document CD/2007/L.1. That proposal was made on the basis of numerous consultations in both formal and informal meetings. They should not waste the opportunity that had been built up with so much effort before them now. UN Press Release

China, June 21
“At the same time we still have some worries and concerns concerning the status and content of the Complementary Statement—rather we have some queries and concerns. We believe it would be more reasonable and clear for the Complementary Statement to be an integral part of L.1. We also believe wording of paragraph 3 of the Draft Complementary Statement leaves room for further improvement.”

China, May 22
“Firstly, concerning the work mechanism.  According to the P6 proposal, the substantive work of the four key issues would be under the responsibility of the coordinators.  The mechanism of coordinator is too informal and differs from the provisions in the rules of procedure concerning the subsidiary bodies of the CD.  We are afraid that it will not ensure effective and substantive work on the relevant items.  As a matter of fact, in the past, all substantive work of the CD was carried out in the committees and there was no President of coordinator chairing negotiations or coordinating work.  We don’t see any convincing reason not to follow the past practice.  Therefore, we would like to have committees set up separately to carry out substantive work on those four core issues.”

China, May 22
"Fourthly, as for the very nature of the P6, as we said, in order to have things done properly we must setup some ground rules.  The rules of procedure of the CD must be folllwed so as to insure that the work will proceed in an orderly fashion.  According to the rules of procedure of the CD, there should be a program of work every annual session of the CD or the session should establish a program of work at every annual session includinga meeting calendar for this year.  Or rather a time table for this year.  It is the view of my delegation that if the P6 proposal has been further ammended and be made acceptable to all parties, it will then constitute a program of work.  We have taken note of the explanation given by you, Madame President, on this matter. We hope that the very nature and the validity period of the P6 proposal will be spelled clearly in the approporiate way."

China, March 23
CHENG JINGYE thanked the Six Presidents for their work to get the Conference back to work. China would relay the proposal to its capital, where it was sure it would receive full and careful attention. At the same time, China wished to associate itself with the comments made by Algeria. This was not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and all Members had the right to propose amendments and make comments, as they saw fit. UN Press Release

China, March 27
China also wished to highlight that the draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 diverged substantively from the Five Ambassadors proposal, and China wished to know if that was also the view of the Six Presidents. China noted that the mandates of the three Coordinators to be established on the subjects other than a fissile material treaty – on negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) – did not differ substantially from the current Coordinators. UN Press Release

China, March 30
CHENG JINGYE reiterated China's position as stated in the informal meeting, that China would not oppose the proposal to hold a special session. However, that could not be interpreted as meaning that the special session would definitely have to take a final, official decision on the presidential draft proposal. UN Press Release

China, August 16
"Mr. President, over the past year, all the parties of CD, including 6 Presidents and Coordinators, have made useful exploration and tiring efforts with a view to revitalize the work of the CD, P6 proposal, and related Presidential Declaration, have laid a good foundation for the future work of the CD, and they may become a platform for breaking the deadlock of CD. Of course we also feel that the above documents are not a solution that has received unanimous support—hence there is a need for further efforts.
At the same time, I wish to recall the ideas raised by China on 19th June on document L1 and its Supplementary Declaration—that is the Supplementary Declaration, once an integral part of L1—will make it more rational and lucid. The wording of the Declaration in paragraph 3 has room for improvement.”

Colombia, March 23
DANIEL AVILA CAMACHO appreciated draft decision L.1 as a possible solution to the stalemate in the Conference, which had had such an influence on them. Colombia maintained its flexibility on the negotiation of a fissile material treaty, as well as on the other issues in the draft decision. Colombia was referring the document to its capital for consideration, but could say now that they were finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. UN Press Release

Cuba, March 23
RESFEL PINO ÁLVAREZ said that the proposal before them would allow the Conference to return to its mandate of negotiation of substantive matters. The delegation of Cuba would send the proposal back to its capital for consideration. Knowing the position of the Government, there were other issues that Cuba would have liked to have been incorporated in the draft decision, but Cuba would give the proposal every consideration. UN Press Release

Ecuador, March 30
CARLO SANTOS said that Ecuador supported the proposal to appoint the four Coordinators that had been proposed last week. UN Press Release

Egypt, June 14
“We see that this current version, the amended version of document L1, is a good basis in addition to document L1 for the Conference to resume its substantive work and to allow us to reach a consensus that my delegation should like to join when it is completed.  The work had taken into consideration a number of the concerns that we have expressed and I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you our thanks for your understanding of our concerns.  At the same time we continue to hope that the text of paragraphs two and three would contain some amended versions in a slight manner that would contain larger clarity and precision and that is taking into consideration that we consider that we are discussing points of paramount importance to all of us.”

Egypt, May 22
“We consider the issue document in L1.  We consider it a positive development that could constitute a good foundation for allowing the Conference in discharging its responsibilities and its work.  Previously, the occasion was allowed me to express a number of points of interest and concerns to my delegation.  The ones related to the current initiative we have before us.  At the same time, we understand the number of comments that we have heard by a number of delegations.  We are of the opinion that all efforts have got to be made in order for these comments to be taken into consideration within the limits that would respond to the interest of all participating delegations in this respect.  And underlining the positive orientation on the part of our delegation towards this initative and the understanding that the greatest amount of flexibility has got to be shown in order for this initiative to be moved forward.” 

Egypt, March 23
Egypt took note of the proposal and would give it every consideration, both here and in its capital. It was to be hoped that enough time would be given to members to consult. The proposal was one that needed further deliberation within the Conference; it was not one that was to be considered on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. It was an ongoing endeavour, and Egypt would contribute to the deliberations on it. UN Press Release

Egypt, March 27
In spite of the desire expressed not to entertain any amendments to the present text – which was contrary to the normal procedure in the Conference – Egypt was nevertheless prepared to approach the proposal with a flexible spirit. UN Press Release

Egypt, March 30
SAMEH SHOUKRY suggested that the text proposed by the President on the holding of a special session should include the words "in accordance with Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure". UN Press Release

EU, delivered by Germany, June 28
“The European Union now urges those remaining three member states of the CD to go along with consensus on the basis of the documents on the table (i.e. L1, CRP.5 and the Draft Decision by the Conference).”

EU, delivered by Germany, March 27
 "The European Union will not object to the proposal presented by P6 in CD/2007/L.1 on 23 March 2007 as it stands." UN Press Release

France, March 27
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DOBELLE said the Conference on Disarmament was at an important turning point. In the spirit of compromise, France was prepared to not block a consensus adoption of the draft decision before them.A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was an indispensable addition to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to the process of nuclear disarmament. In that context, France warned that any amendment aimed at strengthening or enhancing the proposal regarding negative security assurances would foil the attempt to reach consensus. France was not completely satisfied with the proposal: there was an excessive emphasis on nuclear disarmament, at the expense of the issues of general and comprehensive disarmament and non-proliferation. UN Press Release

Germany, March 23
BERNHARD BRASACK said that the initiative of the Six Presidents (P6) established in 2006 had been taken up to another level, fostering the hope that the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament could be finally broken, and substantive work begun. The proposal before them was honest, balanced, comprehensive, fair and mature. But it was also a compromise. Germany did not see any viable alternative. Therefore it agreed with the United Kingdom that they were on the brink of a historic decision, and also that the window of opportunity was narrow. They needed to move quickly to adopt this decision. UN Press Release

Germany, March 27
"We therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Presidential Draft Decision tabled by this year’s P6 in Document CD/2007/L.1 on 23 March 2007. Its elements indeed reflect the necessary decisions the CD will have to agree on to get back to work. I am happy to express Germany’s full and unequivocal support for this P6 Proposal as it stands."

India, June 19
“The creative way of linking the two documents suggested by you (CD President Ambassador Bonnier) however, falls somewhat short of integrating them. My delegation’s preference would be for a unitary decision consisting of three textual components, which are on the table: fist, the draft decision as contained in L.1; second, the draft complementary statement as contained in L.1; and third, the understanding of the Conference on the implementation of the decision. They can be arranged logically and sequentially in a simple, neat, coherent and integrated text, articulating a unitary and unified understanding. It has the additional merit of avoiding multiplicity of documentation and unnecessary speculation regarding the comparative import of the three elements.”

India, March 30
JAYANT PRASAD said that if there was consensus on the text proposed by the Presidency, as orally amended by Algeria and Egypt, India would go along with it. India was, however, concerned that they might be losing sight of the fact that the special session presupposed the Conference's reaching consensus on the proposed Presidential draft decision. In that regard, India encouraged the Presidency to continue to undertake consultations and discussions to that end. Any special session had to have the adoption of that text as its final object. UN Press Release

India, March 23
JAYANT PRASAD welcomed the unveiling of the proposed draft decision of the Six Presidents (P6), which it would refer to its capital for consideration. In its general approach, the proposal took on all the core issues before the Conference, and in that spirit was similar to proposals which India supported. UN Press Release

Iran, June 21
“At the same time, we should keep in mind the fact that document L.1 itself needs serious improvement. Substantive problems dealing with document L.1 by its nature need to be taken care of and consulted in an inclusive process, which would not be addressed or resolved by a Presidential Statement, however rich it may be.
The document L1 has fallen short of addressing our priorities, such as nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, thoroughly and comprehensively. We had expected a clear commitment in the P6 proposal to start negotiations on this issue in the CD.” 

Iran, June 5
“There are numerous procedural as well as substantive problems regarding the Document: CD/2007/L.1. Those concerns should be dealt with in an open and transparent negotiating process in the CD. In that regard we appreciate your efforts to conduct open- ended informal consultations. We expect to focus on the text of L.1 to resolve its problems. Procedural issues including the mechanism to conduct the tasks of the CD need to be in accordance with the Rules of Procedures.

The four core issues identified earlier by the CD have equal value and they have to be subject to an equal treatment. In view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nuclear Disarmament and NSA are the highest priority to be negotiated in the CD.”

Iran, March 27
Iran stressed the need for a thorough analysis of that proposal. Iran had always insisted on a balanced and coordinated approach to the programme of work of the Conference, and that equal priority be assigned to the four core issues it had identified to ensure that balance. For Iran, nuclear disarmament and internationally legally binding agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons were the top priorities. It was indeed necessary to maintain the balance between the four core issues in any work of the Conference, as the Five Ambassadors proposal had done. UN Press Release

Iran, March 30
SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR also underlined the necessity of referring to the Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure. There was an emerging consensus on two points: one was that there was a need for consultation; and the second was that there was no consensus on the presidential text – and that had to be considered. UN Press Release

Ireland, March 23
PAUL KAVANAUGH reiterated Ireland's former statements commending the Six Presidents (P6). Ireland recognized that the proposal before the Conference represented the best chance for a collective compromise solution. The P6 had promoted equity, compromise and collective work. Procedural excuses should no longer be a mask for substantive differences. Ireland supported the proposal of the P6 of 2007 and looked forward to a qualitatively different second session. UN Press Release

Italy, March 23
CARLO TREZZA said Italy anticipated acceptance of the Presidential draft decision as it stood, as it represented the best possible chance to bring the Conference on Disarmament back to its original mandate. UN Press Release

Italy, March 27
It was demand-driven and a fair and honest compromise based on the elaboration of previous proposals familiar to all delegations on which they had been working for years. Italy respected the necessity of consulting with capitals on this important matter, but the time had come for a decision. UN Press Release

Japan, June 21
“My delegation fully supports your proposal from 14th of June and we sincerely hope that countries having some concerns or doubts on the Presidential proposal come to agree to this proposal as soon as possible to that we can go back to our work as soon as possible.” 

Japan, March 23
SUMIO TARUI said Japan commended the valuable efforts of the Six Presidents to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work after years of impasse. The proposal was balanced and reflected concerns of Member States collectively and respectfully. Japan hoped that all the Members of the Conference would be flexible enough to support this proposal. UN Press Release

Republic of Korea, March 27
"We highly appreciate the stenuous efforts made by the P-6 and fully support the proposal. My delegation views the draft Decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 to be well balanced and duly reflective of the results of the bilateral consultations."

Mexico, March 23
CLAUDIA GARCÍA thanked the Six Presidents of 2007 for the proposal before the Conference today, which would enable them to get back to work. Mexico supported the proposal. UN Press Release

Netherlands, March 23
The balanced and extremely delicate package before them now was the end of that road. No respectable international body could stand 10 years of discussion without any tangible results. The time for decision was now or never. The Netherlands commended the extraordinary efforts undertaken to draft the proposal, and approved the results, taking into account the exceptionally conscientious way it had been brought about and the balanced composition of the 19 countries that stood behind it.

The Netherlands appreciated the procedural concerns voiced by India. However, it should be remembered that in negotiations nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. UN Press Release

Netherlands, March 29
"Therefore, it is now that we should agree on the P6 proposal. Or, if in some capitals a final round of inter-agency deliberations needs to be organized, at the latest Thursday next week, at a special session. Ms Chair, after that date, there is nothing else to say."

Nigeria, May 22
“For my delegation, the P6 proposal is a good starting point for building life into the CD process.  This is what we must do if we want to continue the public trust and support of our various governments.”

Nigeria, March 23
ANGBARA AWANEN said that Nigeria joined previous speakers in expressing appreciation for the Six President (P6) efforts to move the Conference on Disarmament forward. Nigeria welcomed the draft proposal before the Council. Nigeria would study the proposal carefully with a view to making the Conference work for all of them. UN Press Release

Pakistan, June 28
“My delegation has also repeatedly identified our difficulties in the Presidential Draft Decision contained in L.1.  There are not procedural concerns but these are concerns of substance.  These concerns have not fully been addressed.” 

Pakistan, June 21
“As part of these efforts you have presented a draft decision of the Conference for adoption of the Presidential draft decision and the complimentary Presidential statement. In your view in your statement on 14th June, you had said that it could square the circle and clarify the relationship between the two documents. We consider that it could further complicate the process of consultations.”

Pakistan, March 23
TEHMINA JANJUA said Pakistan sought the opportunity to adopt a programme of work that allowed for consensus. Each of the four core issues had a specific history and background. Previous decisions had maintained the need to strike a balance between all four issues, and Pakistan hoped that that balance would be maintained. The Presidential draft decision contained in CD/2007/L.1 reflected ingenuity and demanded a great deal of flexibility from all concerned. Pakistan would refer the proposal to its capital for further instructions. However, it was important to state that national security interests of Member States should be fully taken into ac