|
Conference on Disarmament
Summary of Statements by Topic 2008
Fissile Material
Cut-off Treaty
UN Secretary General United Nations January 23
You continue to have my full support for the start of negotiations on a fissile material treaty. These talks would advance nuclear disarmament and non proliferation objectives – and they are needed now. In making this call, I am not at all discounting the importance of preventing an arms race in outer space, or negative security assurances, or nuclear disarmament per se. Just the opposite; these are all perennial and very important issues before the Conference. You must decide how to organize your treatment of these issues without holding any of them hostage to the others.
Slovenia (on behalf of European Union) 25 January
It is well known that the European Union attaches a clear priority to the negotiation , without preconditions, within the Conference on Disarmament, of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives devices (FMCT), as a means to strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation. It constitutes a priority ripe for negotiation.
Germany, January 29
It is well known that my delegation attaches a particular priority to the issue of an FMCT, where we would like to see negotiations start as soon as possible. Last year’s discussions have clearly shown us that this issue is indeed ripe for negotiation
Sri Lanka, February 5
We will not make progress on the FMCT issue if we continue to demonize one or two states in a volatile arch of crisis. We are forgetting conveniently that there is at least one state with a longstanding nuclear weapon stockpile; a state which has invaded almost all its neighbors. We can not make progress on the FMCT so long as there is loud speculation as to unilateral strikes on certain states, including strikes with low heel tactical nuclear weapons. None of this is going to work, Mr. President.
Switzerland, February 5
It remains the view of this delegation that negotiations on an FMCT should be initiated without preconditions.
Germany, February 5
We regret that a ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes is still not exactly palpable. Here at present, in the CD, it is obvious that among the nuclear issues, an FMCT is the ripest for negotiation an opportunity and priority that awaits to be seized as the next logical step after the CTBT.
Pending the entry into force of an FMCT, Germany calls on 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 four states which have decreed such a moratoria.
A decision to start FMCT negotiations this year must be our clear goal this year.
India, February 28
India supports the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on FMCT as part of the CD’s Programme of Work. In 1993, India joined as one of the original co-sponsors of UNGA resolution 48/75L which envisaged FMCT as a significant contribution to nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects. That remains India’s position.
Netherlands, March 4
All five NPT Nuclear weapon states should agree amongst themselves to cease production of fissile material for weapons and open their facilities for such production to the IAEA safeguard inspections building on the practice of Eurtom inspections in France and the UK. I welcome the UK contribution in this field.
Iran, March 4
Negotiating a non discriminatory, legally binding and internationally verifiable treaty on banning fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices is also one of the four core issues of the Conference which should be appropriately dealt with. We firmly believe that the famous Shannon Mandate should govern any future negotiations on that subject.
Norway, March 4
In addition to starting negotiations on an FMCT, the international community should consider the creation of a voluntary Fissile Material Control Initiative to enhance the security and transparency of all nuclear material – including material that may not be subject to an FMCT.
Brazil, 20 May
Brazil favors an FMCT which includes a multilateral verification mechanism and stockpile controls. By the same token, we favor negotiations in all items of the agenda.
Italy, 14 August
the issue of an FMCT has matured to a point in which further progress is only achievable through real negotiations. These negotiations can only be without preconditions. This formula indicates the openness of the mandate which would put all delegations in a position to have their own concerns addressed in the course of negotiations. This includes especially the issues of stocks and verification.
Republic of Korea, 26 August
The Republic of Korea believes that the FMCT is the issue that is the most ripe for negotiation in the CD. AN FMCT can be a building block for nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation given the delayed entry into force of the CTBT. Moreover, FMCT negotiations would reinforce mutual trust and reaffirm our commitment on multilateral disarmament.
Norway, 2 September
The longer the CD avoids negotiation on an FMCT, the more chances discussions will be held outside the CD. To us, the venue or fora, however, is of less importance.
Prevention
of an arms race in outer space (PAROS)
India, February 28
We welcome the tabling of the draft Treaty by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation on Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, along with China, as a further contribution of filling the existing gaps in the international legal regmime. We agree with Russia that the CD is the appropriate forum to take forward discussions on this issue.
Netherlands, March 4
Netherlands, is also prepared to engaged in substantive discussions on how to prevent an arms race in outer space.
Iran, March 4
The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the common initiative of Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China in prevention of weaponization of outer space and hopes that the Conference on Disarmament commences as soon as possible its substantive work in this regard. We do hope that the efforts to prevent arms race in outer space would facilitate further the exploration and peaceful uses of outerspace as a common heritage of mankind, for the benefit and interests of all countries, in particular developing states.
20 May Canada
Besides negotiations on the FMCT, Canada would certainly like to see progress in terms of discussions on outer space.
Italy, 14 August
As part of the European Union, Italy is contributing to the finalization of an EU Code of Conduct on space activities, and we look forward to further discuss this issue in the time to come.
Republic of Korea, 26 August
The Republic of Korea, as one of the countries which is actively pursuing a peaceful space program, views space security, including the prevention of arms race in outer space (PAROS) as an important issue of great relevance for the CD. IN this regard, we welcome the draft PPWT, which was submitted by the Russian Federation and China this year, as a meaningful input to the substantive discussions in the CD on the agenda item of PAROS.
Nuclear Disarmament
Germany, February 5
Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation have been core concerns of German foreign policy for many years. Germany today reiterates its unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goal of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons. We believe that as a first step, the role of nuclear weapons must be de-emphasized in security doctrines. We continue to stress the need for an overall reduction in nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels consistent with deterrence requirements in the pursuit of gradual, systematic nuclear disarmament under Article 6 of the NPT.
Switzerland, February 5
Discussions on concrete steps to achieve general nuclear disarmament must be one of our key objectives, and Switzerland believes that it should be possible to formulate pragmatic and generally acceptable solutions in the CD.
Sweden, February 19 (on behalf of behalf of Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland)
Our five countries look forward to continuing and deepening our constructive dialogue on this issue with all concerned States, not least with those that possess nuclear weapons, in order to build the widest possible support for our pragmatic approach. In future debates on this issue, we would prefer not to repeat a debate on terminology. What we ask for is a change of deployment practices. With a view to today’s security policy threats, we would see a significant increase in security and confidence if none of the States possessing nuclear weapons would have the capacities or policies to launch its missiles within a few minutes.
Netherlands, March 4
Progress on nuclear disarmament requires political will on the part of states that possess nuclear weapons, especially the two states that possess 95% of the world’s nuclear stocks: the United States and the Russian Federation. I call upon these parties to embrace their responsibility and show renewed commitment to the process. They have taken bold steps in the past to this end and they should do so again.
Republic of Korea, 26 August
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.
Negative Security
Assurances
India, February 28
India supports the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on NSAs to negotiate with a view to reaching an agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons. We believe that the negotiation of such an instrument will compliment other measures to reduce the saliency of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and improve the international climate for promoting nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. As part of its credible minimum nuclear deterrent, India has espoused a policy of no-first use and non-use against non-nuclear weapon states and is prepared to convert these undertakings into multilateral legal arrangements
Kazakhstan, March 4
We are interested in further discussion on negative security assurances, as it is closely related to the nuclear disarmament process. We firmly believe that non-nuclear members of the NPT have a legitimate right for negative security assurances.
P6 Draft Decision
UN General Secretary, January 23
I continue to believe that the adoption of this balanced and carefully crafted Presidential Decision would not deprive any Member State of the ability to assert its national position in the subsequent phases of the Conference’s work. In setting priorities, you are under no constraints as to how to conduct your substantive work, other than to proceed on the basis of consensus.
Netherlands, January 25
Mr President, the gained momentum last year should not be lost. A balanced and carefully crafted compromise for a working program is on the table, on this we must proceed. There is no other way.
Slovenia (on behalf of European Union) January 25
The European Union is deeply convinced that the document L1. which was later complimented by documents CRP5 and CRP6, constitutes a carefully crafted compromise. The European Union appeals to all the delegations of the Conference on Disarmament to go along with the consensus and adopt the documents which have been on the table since last year’s session. This cannot be delayed much further.
Germany, January 29
The Presidential Proposal, L1. later supplemented in a serious, patient and strenuous process to add clarity and to provide answers to questions raised by a few delegations by CRP5 and CRP6, indeed reflects the necessary decisions the CD will have to agree on to get back to work. In our view, this carefully crafted Presidential Proposal takes into account in an honest, fair, balanced and comprehensive manner the interests of all CD members – and in a realistic sense of compromise leaves them equally unhappy with it. There is no realistic and viable alternative to this approach.
Australia, January 29
The balanced and carefully crafted Presidential Decision encompassed in L1. and accompanying documents is a fair and just basis for our work. It is born of a painstaking and comprehensive consultation, evaluation and revision by the 2007 Presidents. And it remains the most realist opportunity through which we can make the progress the international community has sought for more than a decade.
Switzerland, February 5
My delegation believes that these three documents should form the basis of our endeavor to adopt a work programme. They represent our best chance of finding a way out of the impasse that has paralyzed us for far too long. These three documents are the result of long and broad-based consultations, and seek to address the interest and concerns of all CD members. Adopting them would allow us to work on all four core issues in a balanced way, whilst leaving open the option of including further issues, should any arise.
Morocco, 15 May
Based on this consideration and despite these limits of the text, my delegation does consider that the Draft Decision could, political will helping it and the spirit of flexibility, it could constitute a basis for discussions, inclusive and global consultation taking into consideration the positions of all member states.
European Union, 15 May
The European Union would go along with the proposal presented by the six Presidents in the document CD 1840 on 13 March 2008 as it stands.
Eastern European Group, 15 May
Therefore we consider the draft decision for a program of work put forward by the six presidents of 2008 contained in document CD/1840 was the logical outcome of the work done in the in the first part of this years session and considerable efforts taken in the recent years. The Eastern European Group deems CD/1840 defines an area where the positions of all delegations could come together, providing an acceptable basis for compromise.
Brazil, 20 May
The draft decision present by the Presidents in document CD/1840 on March 13th in accordance with article 29 of our rules of procedure contains the elements which, in my view, could be a stepping stone or our work during the current session. Of course the adoption of that draft decision would not preclude other decisions concerning the Conference’s activities. Likewise, it should not be read as a prejudgment of the outcome of discussions and negotiations. Moreover, it should not be considered as closing the possibility of new avenues being opened in the future. In fact, the scenario drawn in the draft decision represents less than many member states including my own, would wish in terms of negotiation of legally binding instruments. It would nevertheless allow the Conference a way out of the present mobility.
Germany, May 20
In our view the carefully crafted drafted decision by the 2008 presidents of the CD contained in CD/1840 takes into account in an honest, fair, balanced and comprehensive manner the interests of all CD members and in a realistic sense of compromise leaves them equally unhappy with it. Germany there wholeheartedly welcomes this draft decision by the 2008 presidents of the CD. Its elements indeed reflect the necessary decision the CD will have to agree on to get back to work.
Poland, 26 May
Poland welcomes and unequivocally supports the draft decision by the 2008 Presidents of the CD contained in CD/1840 and presented on March 13 2008 as it stands.
Syria, 3 June
First I would like to congratulate the six presidents of the 2008 for their excellent work in the preparation of the document and encourage them to continue their consistent efforts to bring all CD members on board, to find a satisfactory outlet to the stalemate in our conference.
Italy, 14 August
The debate so far has convinced us that the very viable solution to resume substantive work at the Conference is by adopting document CD 1840 of 13th March 2008. It may be true that CD1840 is “perfectible” but it is equally true that it contains a realistic and balanced proposal and it still represents the best possible compromise for a program of work. CD 1840 is the result of several years of ‘negotiations on negotiations’ which we have been undertaking so patiently. You and other members of the P6 Platform have our full support in your endeavors to revitalize this august body on the basis of document CD 1840. It has taken the CD five years of intense deliberations to elaborate document CD 1840. It is hardly believable that the Conference will be granted another five year period.
Venezuela, 9 September
Venezuela’s position with respect to the proposed program of work to be found in CD/1840 is prompted by the conviction that it can provide a basis for getting out of the stalemate. We are aware that difficulties in attaining consensus in such plural diverse bodies. That is why it is important to have a program of work which we can view as a minimal basis in emerging from this period of non action.
Pakistan, 9 September
Pakistan’s position on CD 18/40 has been reflected in CD 1851 which has been submitted as an official document of the Conference.
Columbia, 9 September
My delegation is of the view that the proposal presented by the six Presidents contained in document CD/1840 is a solid base that can serve in the continuation of our work next year. Many efforts have been made by the Presidents to set it aside as a valid option. We think that this proposal provides continuity to the work of the Conference and an opportunity to move forward in consensus.
Argentina, 9 September
Elements thereof have been supported by the ministry of Foreign Affairs in my country in the 3rd of March and this was also done repeatedly in statements done at Regional level
Verification
Republic of Korea, 26 August
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.
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
| 
