News and Media United Nations http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/0538188DE3A1022 DC1257546003BEAEC?

OpenDocument

REPRESENTATIVES OF SIX COUNTRIES ADDRESS DEADLOCK IN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT, URGE IT TO MOVE FORWARD 22 January 2009 The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements from the representatives of six countries who discussed the deadlock in the Conference, calling upon the Conference to move forwards on negotiations and arrive at a programme of work, in a context of transparency and reform. Austria said in the past years, several proposals had been presented to intensify deliberations on the main issues with a view to finding an agreement on a programme of work. For various reasons, however, these efforts had not resulted in the resumption of substantive negotiations on any of the topics on the agenda. Japan noted that the Conference should not forget that its priority was to seek a consensus on the programme of work and move the Conference to fulfil its primary function of negotiating disarmament treaties. Nuclear disarmament by all nuclearweapon States was key to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. China said many countries had made important proposals concerning arms control and disarmament, and the international community was also expecting the countries concerned to examine their own arms control and disarmament policies in order to bring fresh energy to the multilateral arms control and disarmament process. To encourage this process, the international community should continue to follow multilateralism, and support and strengthen the multilateral arms control and disarmament process with the United Nations at its centre, and embrace a future that encouraged prosperity for all. Pakistan said disarmament was directly related to respect for self-determination and national independence, the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the strengthening of international peace and security. Ignoring this relationship was the primary cause of the stalemate in the Conference. There had been some statements made arguing that CD/1840, which was a proposal presented by the 2008 Presidents, was a "balanced compromise" and that it "took into account the views of all parties". This was incorrect - it did not enjoy consensus last year, nor did it reflect the views of all Conference members. New Zealand noted that one of the problems that the Conference faced in terms of relevance

was that its working methods were somewhat arcane and antique. The Conference should engage with civil society, as it lost a huge amount by not doing so, shutting out representatives of the community at large. Norway said the Conference should open up its work to the outside world, by engaging, for example, with civil society, and by examining its rules of work to see if they actually facilitated negotiations. Most of the delegations referred to draft decision CD/1840, which was submitted by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference on 13 March, and which contains a draft programme of work. According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions three of four core issues identified by the Conference: nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States. On the fourth item, a Coordinator would be appointed to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus "providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations". Also this morning, the Conference agreed to a request from non-Member States that had submitted a request for participation as observers in the 2009 session of the Conference, namely Albania, Jordan, Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay. The next public meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 January.

Statements SUMIO TARUI (Japan) said with regards to the Conference's modus operandi, thanks to the concerted efforts of the previous P6, the Conference now had before it document CD/1840. Japan was convinced that this document was the best possible compromise, and that it was still valid for this year's session. Although necessity could require a few amendments in order to address the concerns that some Member States still harboured, the Conference should seek consensus on a programme of work based on the core elements of the document. Japan could support focused thematic debates on the four core issues in informal meetings, and the allocation of relevant space for Member States to have the possibility to address other issues relevant to the Conference. Holding a focused discussion among experts on the specific details of the four core issues was worth considering as a possible format for thematic debates. Nevertheless, the Conference should not forget that its priority was to seek a consensus on the programme of work and move the Conference to fulfil its primary function of negotiating disarmament treaties.

Japan was of the unwavering opinion that nuclear disarmament by all nuclear-weapon States was key to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. It was encouraging that Japan's resolution, which called upon all nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals in a transparent manner, had been adopted once again last year with the overwhelming support of the United Nations Member States. In this positive atmosphere, it was clear what the Conference could contribute as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiation forum. The Conference should start negotiations, particularly on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which was the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament. With such strong and intensifying momentum towards disarmament outside the Conference, it had a unique opportunity at hand: it was time for all to show real political will. The moment was upon the Conference to move forward; the international community could not afford further deadlock. CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said more than a dozen years had passed since the Conference had negotiated the last tangible result in the form of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But in those twelve years, the world had not become a safer place. To the contrary, the security challenges it was facing today were more complex and more difficult to grasp than a decade ago. One of the reasons was the lack of progress in the field of multilateral disarmament. In the past years, several proposals had been presented to intensify deliberations on the main issues with a view to finding an agreement on a programme of work. For various reasons, however, these efforts had not resulted in the resumption of substantive negotiations on any of the topics on the agenda. This year's session of the Conference should be guided by two principles: focus and flexibility. First, the Conference should concentrate the debate on those issues that were most susceptible to an intensification of deliberations leading eventually to the start of substantive negotiations. Second, flexibility was a necessity where the core decision-making principle was consensus. In mustering the spirit of cooperation and compromise, the Conference could respond to the expectations to promote disarmament once again, and confront those that would question the relevance of the body. It would be unfortunate if the incapacity or unwillingness of the Conference to find agreement on a programme of work would result in States having to explore ways and means to continue the work outside the forum. The Conference could benefit from a fruitful exchange with non-governmental organizations which were active in the field of disarmament. Consensus on a programme of work was within reach; during last years, the Conference had extensively discussed the core issues of disarmament. These deliberations should be advanced into concrete and tangible results. WANG QUN (China) said China highly commended the efforts made by the Presidents to advance the work of the Conference, and would support that work, being confident that the Conference would continue to conduct its work in a harmonious atmosphere and would be able to make progress as soon as possible. In the face of the current global financial crisis and other difficulties, the international security situation also faced problems. The world was faced with

ever more daunting tasks. The Third Preparatory Meeting of the 2010 NPT Conference would soon be held. The Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, was at a crucial stage to end the stalemate and increase its vigour. At the same time, many countries had made important proposals concerning arms control and disarmament, and the international community was also expecting the countries concerned to examine their own arms control and disarmament policies in order to bring fresh energy to the multilateral arms control and disarmament process. To encourage this process, the international community should continue to follow multilateralism, and support and strengthen the multilateral arms control and disarmament process with the United Nations at its centre, and embrace a future that encouraged prosperity for all. The Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, had called for close cooperation in the Conference on Disarmament so that it could make progress, and all should heed this, on a basis of transparency, harmony, compromise and mutual respect in an atmosphere of political will, in order to arrive at a programme of work that was agreeable to all parties. China would continue to support the Conference in this regard, and make constructive efforts to build consensus among all delegations. DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said New Zealand hoped that the Conference would actually get down to the work that it had actually failed to conduct over the last eleven or twelve years. There was a strong commitment to getting work underway in the Conference, and this was clear in the statements that had been made since the opening of the session. There was a need to make the Conference on Disarmament more relevant, as it was not as relevant as it should be, notwithstanding the quality of the discussions that had been held over the past year or so. One of the striking elements over the last year had been the increasing reference to the working methods of the Conference. The consensus rule placed the Conference in a certain position. One of the problems that the Conference faced in terms of relevance was that its working methods were somewhat arcane and antique, and the way in which the Conference related with civil society was a real example of this. In the Human Rights Council, for example, civil society engaged actively with the body, reflecting the views of the community at large, the broader international community, bringing new perspectives and expertise of a type that sometimes Governments were not able to bring to the table. The Conference should engage with civil society, as it lost a huge amount by not doing so, shutting out representatives of the community at large. The Conference should not forget that it owed results to the community as a whole, and not just to itself. HILDE SKORPEN (Norway) said in order to deserve the title of the "sole multilateral disarmament forum", the Conference had to actually hold negotiations. It should open up its work to the outside world, by engaging, for example, with civil society, and by examining its rules of work to see if they actually facilitated negotiations. Change began at home, and there was an issue with the way the Conference operated. People engaged more actively with each other during the sessions in other fora than they did in the Conference. The Conference should become less stiff.

Norway looked forward to engaging in a debate on the working methods of the Conference. ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said disarmament was directly related to respect for selfdetermination and national independence, the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the strengthening of international peace and security. Ignoring this relationship was the primary cause of the stalemate in the Conference. The Conference was not a debating forum; its core role was to negotiate multilateral disarmament agreements in order to achieve complete and general disarmament. This was the raison d'tre of the Conference. It therefore needed to work collectively to end the Conference's impasse through consensus on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work so that the Conference could fulfil its mandate. There had been some statements made arguing that CD/1840, which was a proposal presented by the 2008 Presidents, was a "balanced compromise" and that it "took into account the views of all parties". This was incorrect - it did not enjoy consensus last year, nor did it reflect the views of all Conference members. Pakistan's position was that the best course of action was to seek consensus on the A-5 proposal. Pakistan also supported discussions on the engagement of civil society with the Conference; the latter could benefit from their expertise and experience in the field of arms control and non-proliferation.

For use of the information media; not an official record DC09003E