Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

Unofficial transcript
China, Mr. Li Yang
2 July 2009

Thank you, Madame President.

Madame President, the Chinese Delegation would like to take this opportunity ones again to congratulate your assumption of the Presidency. We believe that your tireless efforts with your work theories and political wisdom the work of the CD will proceed well towards new progress and reaching the substantial arrangements for the Programme of Work. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Australian Parliamentarian Delegation for its participation in all the CD Treaties

Madame Chair, my dear Colleagues,
I like to take this opportunity elaborate a bit on China's positions, to ensure better understanding of our position. Before I go to this elaboration I would like to make one point just now. I have taken note of the Statements made by various Delegations, especially those made by Pakistan and Iran, which were very constructive and very valuable and contained a lot of positive elements which merit our study.

I would actually like to mention two points. First, the CD cannot avoid the major concerns presented by different Delegations. These concerns should be dealt with seriously and with substantive and extensive discussions, so as to find a solution.

Secondly, I have also noted that Pakistan’s Delegation mentions certain concerns. I think, as a Member of the CD, Pakistan has a right to make clear the security concern of his Country. No other Delegations have the right to ignore or prevent this. We must try to solve their concerns; otherwise it is hard to imagine that the CD could achieve any substantial progress. We cannot do like this to promote the CD’s work on the other hand we don’t want to resolve the security concerns of Member States.

Now I would like to explain China's position. First of all, in the previous plenary Session I drew an analogy: that is that in the world of the CD we all share a goal of building a high risen building: that is to start negations soon on a FMCT and other substantive work. At this particular moment we are actually laying the foundation for this high rise. In other words, China shares similarities and differences in positions with other Delegations.

Our similarities - we all pursue the same objective to build this high rise. Different is China insists that we should lay a very solid foundation for this building. And this not only the position of china. In this Conference room other Delegations also share China’s view. Yet at the same time other Delegations believe that we should just must make a single foundation or not lay any foundation at all. Which position is more constructive, Madame, is self evident.

1979 – the great man himself, Ho Chi Minh, started China's reform process. I just guessed that in 1979, then he would wish very much that by the year 1980 or 1990 China could have 100 Billion to put in strategic reserves, yet it took us thirty years to achieve today’s economic development. In 1979 when I was still a teenage boy and when I heart over the radio that an American father had given his son a car, I was imagining that by the time I was a father I was able to drive a car. But it was only by the year 2006 that I had my own car, which is parked outside this building. By telling this story I want to make a point that is the single truth: That is doing whatever things we have to adopt a step by step approach. Certain Delegations are in a hurry and to be honest China also used to be in hurry. Back in 1958 China started the so-called Great Leap Forward. In the end China suffered badly from that.

It seems that some Delegations here want to have the great leap forward. But without laying a foundation they want to build the high rise. If other Delegations share this approach, China has no difficulty with that. Because they also want to build a high rise, but I think that its necessary to remind all of us; that if we do not spend time laying the foundation the high rise will not be able to materialize. Perhaps the best we can do is to set up a tent, so that all the delegations can have a picnic.

My second point is: who should be blamed? Some Delegations take the view that we should spend more time to prepare necessary rules, procedures and frameworks for the next stage of substantial work. But these Delegations are being criticized as if they are trying to block the work of the CD, so that the CD would lose a good momentum. I don't know how these Delegations know what kind of momentum they want to keep. As if we are to attend bicycle rally of 200 km and we only know the total distance, but we don't know the exact rules of procedures. Some say we should start the race right away. Under such situations if the race then really starts it may not be a good momentum.

On May 29th the Programme of Work was reached, yet until now we haven’t agreed on how to organize the procedures. Some Delegations blame this on us, but I all I do is raise the question. Which is: who should be blamed?

Indeed, over one month has elapsed since the adoption of the Programme of Work and up to now we are still not clear about how to rotate Chairs and Special Coordinators, what would be lengths of their Mandates and what are their terms of reference. And also, where will the rolling text come from, what will this be and how will meetings be arranged. Over the past month we haven’t had any discussion on the substantive nature in an open and in depth nature. Its not Ambassador Moritan was not interested in holding this discussion. Some were not interested and are not hoping for these kind of discussions. They are hoping that the existing two Draft Documents were used as guidance for our future substantive work. Therefore continually avoiding the above mentioned questions: You may all know the Chinese saying, which says 'when cover ones ears when stealing a bell' – which is that a person who want to steal a bell and the bell sounds when he tries to steal is, to avoid being heard he covers his own ears. I want to emphasize that: Its not that we will cover our ears and the bells are not sounding, this is not the case. But if we do not touch these sensitive issues they will not disappear, this is not the case.

Thirdly I want to reemphasize China’s position. Some delegations have some misunderstandings of China's position. That China is only concerned with the work of the 2009 Conference on Disarmament. As a matter of fact this is not the case, we're concerned not only with the work for the 2009. Actually concerning these existing two Documents, we have no major substantive difficulty with that. What we are concerned with are the long-term term issues. That is: How to lay a good and reliable foundation for the future substantive work. Around the issues which are being avoided: if we don’t discuss them now, we will not discuss them in the future. Some Countries have this kind of argument. With these two Documents as guidance for our possible work, we can avoid disputes and safe time to build up to our substantive work as soon as possible. That is all I wanted to say. I understand the good intention of this position, yet sometimes time cannot be saved, otherwise it can be very dangerous. These two Documents may be able to solve the issues of the Conference of 2009, but they cannot solve the long term issues.

My son will wear shoes of size 15 next year. He will wear size 16 or 17. I never managed so much but I cannot be so, to save money and I would not buy shoes and still ask him to wear the old shoes next year.

My Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today is the 2nd of July 2009. Perhaps amongst the audience only 10 share my view today. Yet I tend to believe that by the 3rd part of the Conference perhaps at least 30 people will go to my view. And by this time next year perhaps all of you will share my view.

Thank you for your patience.