CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS SERIES OF MEMBER STATES OUTLINE THEIR PRIORITIES

[rossana <rossana at comodinoposta.org>]

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS SERIES OF MEMBER STATES OUTLINE THEIR 
PRIORITIES
President of Conference Names Six Friends of Presidents
2 February 2006

The Conference on Disarmament today heard from a number of Member States 
who outlined their countries’ positions and priorities within the 
Conference, and heard proposals by France and Switzerland to add the 
issue of threats to civil critical infrastructure to the programme of 
work, and by Australia to start talks on Man Portable Air Defense 
Systems in the Conference.

India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Italy, Romania, 
Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, Chile and Algeria reiterated their countries’ 
positions and priorities within the Conference.

France and Switzerland referred to the open-ended consultations which 
they held on 1 February on the issue of threats to civil critical 
infrastructure and suggested that it could be addressed by a proposed 
open-ended group of governmental experts within the agenda of the 
Conference for 2006.

Australia said the proliferation of Man Portable Air Defence Systems 
(MANPADs) was of particular concern, and there existed an international 
consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of these systems. 
This consensus provided an opportunity for the Conference to examine the 
threat posed by the proliferation of MANPADS and to develop measures to 
combat them.

Russia said new issues related to international peace and security, 
which could be included in the programme of work, should meet at least 
three criteria. They should enjoy consensus, correspond to the 
Conference’s mandate and profile, and not duplicate what other 
international organizations were doing. Algeria supported the 
conditions, asking also if Member States waited for the President’s 
proposed list of issues and timetable and then reacted to it, would 
their silence be interpreted as consent.

Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland, President of the Conference, said 
that after holding presidential consultations, unfortunately, he had not 
detected change in the position of delegations with regard to the 
programme of work. However, concerning the initiative of the six 
Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference and the appointment of 
the Friends of Presidents, the six Presidents of the Conference for 2006 
had appointed Sarala Fernando of Sri Lanka; Idriss Jazairy of Algeria; 
Petko Draganov of Bulgaria; Juan Martabit of Chile; Carlo Trezza of 
Italy; and Yoshiki Mine of Japan as Friends of Presidents.

Ambassador Rapacki said the main task of the Friends of Presidents would 
be to assist the Presidents of the 2006 session in discharging their 
responsibilities. The Presidents should focus on activities directly 
aimed at searching for consensus on a programme of work, namely, on 
proper planning and preparation of structured debates and on other 
activities related to the programme of work. Therefore, the Friends of 
Presidents could concentrate on the agenda and the effectiveness of the 
methods of work.

The Conference approved requests by Denmark and Oman to participate in 
the work of the 2006 session of the Conference as observers.

It also heard a number of delegations extend their condolences to Poland 
for the collapse of the roof of an exhibition hall which killed scores 
of persons.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 
February.

Statements

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland), outgoing President of the Conference, said 
that in recent weeks, he had consulted bilaterally with all delegations 
of the Conference and he would like to present the results of the 
consultations. The main purpose of those consultations was to check 
whether there was any change in the position of Member States concerning 
a programme of work. Unfortunately, he had not detected change in the 
position of delegations with regard to the programme of work. A majority 
of delegations supported the A5 proposal, while some other delegations 
were not in a position to support it. Positions of Member States 
differed to the extent that did not allow finding consensus on the 
programme of work or on the establishment of any ad hoc committee or 
appointment of any special coordinator.

Concerning the initiative of the six Presidents of the 2006 session of 
the Conference and the appointment of the Friends of Presidents, the six 
Presidents of the Conference for 2006 had appointed Sarala Fernando of 
Sri Lanka; Idriss Jazairy of Algeria; Petko Draganov of Bulgaria; Juan 
Martabit of Chile; Carlo Trezza of Italy; and Yoshiki Mine of Japan as 
Friends of the President. The main task of the Friends of Presidents 
would be to assist the Presidents of the 2006 session in discharging 
their responsibilities. The Presidents should focus on activities 
directly aimed at searching for consensus on a programme of work, 
namely, on proper planning and preparation of structured debates and on 
other activities related to the programme of work. Therefore, the 
Friends of Presidents could concentrate on the agenda and the 
effectiveness of the methods of work.

Today, the Conference would hold a debate based on the agenda items 
which he hoped would help it identify issues or possible elements of 
work of the Conference. The Presidents of the Conference for 2006 would 
spare no efforts to work out the details of the timetable of the 
Presidents’ activities. Reaching consensus on the programme of work 
remained the most important goal for Poland and the other Presidents of 
the Conference for 2006.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said India was satisfied that the Conference had 
adopted its traditional agenda by consensus at its very first meeting. 
Having adopted the agenda, now the primary task before the Conference 
was to reach agreement on a programme of work. The goal of nuclear 
disarmament had been on the international agenda ever since the first 
nuclear weapons were built. India was committed to a nuclear-weapon free 
world, to be realized in a systemic and progressive manner, through 
global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. As an 
interim measure, until the achievement of the objective of universal 
nuclear disarmament, India continued to support the demand of 
non-nuclear weapon States for multilateral and legally binding security 
assurances. India had always expressed its readiness to participate in 
the negotiations in the Conference on a multilateral, non-discriminatory 
and internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off 
Treaty. The peaceful application of space technology had very much 
contributed to India’s socio-economic development and India shared the 
concerns about the dangers of deployment of weapons in outer space. The 
agenda of the Conference was comprehensive and enjoyed the support of 
all Member States. Likewise, for any programme of work of the Conference 
to enjoy the support of all Member States, it would have to take into 
account their concerns and priorities.

India believed that the Conference needed to remain engaged in 
deliberations since these were an essential prerequisite for the success 
of any negotiating process. India supported the presidential initiative 
in the hope that discussions in the plenary meetings may lead to the 
commencement of substantive work in the Conference.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said it was a great concern for many, 
including Indonesia, that the Conference on Disarmament had been dormant 
for almost a decade, although they recognized that the post-Cold War era 
was supposed to have created a conducive atmosphere for international 
peace and security. At the beginning of the 2006 session, the Conference 
had witnessed somewhat more encouraging developments. The decision taken 
by the President and by the five incoming Presidents to establish the P6 
mechanism was surely a breakthrough. At least, it ensured that the 
attention and deliberations of the Members of the Conference would be 
more focused during the 2006 session.

Indonesia observed that the only cause of the current deadlock in the 
Conference was the lack of political will of its members. If the 
Conference was serious about making progress in substantive work, a 
political will was a must and there should be flexibility and openness. 
Everyone was also aware that the presence of weapons of mass destruction 
posed a serious threat and a great danger, not only to countries that 
owned or produced them, but to all countries and all human beings. To 
address this problem, a multilateral approach should be the best way to 
proceed. Arms control and disarmament was certainly a very broad and 
complex issue. Pragmatism was of ultimate importance if they wished to 
see the Conference make real progress. Indonesia remained committed to 
the final objective of a world free of weapons of mass destruction and 
to a treaty of general and complete disarmament under strict and 
effective international control. The Conference needed to be revitalized 
and for that purpose, a political will was needed in order to restart 
discussions. Indonesia wished to underscore the role of multilateralism 
in this endeavour and they needed to be pragmatic in their approach.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation’s 
well-known priority was the issue of the prevention of an arms race in 
outer space by means of a legally binding ban on the placement of 
weapons there and use of force against outer space objects. The 
objective of Russia was the elaboration and conclusion at the Conference 
of a new legally binding agreement on non-weaponization of outer space 
and on prevention of the threat or use of force against outer space 
objects. It had also agreed in an important difficult step towards 
compromise, in the context of the A5 proposal, on the establishment of 
an ad hoc committee on the issue to “deal with” rather than to have a 
negotiating mandate, and it expected reciprocal steps from its partners.

The Russian Federation was committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament 
in compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
It would not object to the establishment of an ad hoc committee on 
nuclear disarmament with the mandate provided for by the A5 proposal. 
However, the work of the ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament would 
be incomplete and one-sided should it focus exclusively on reductions of 
nuclear arsenals of nuclear weapon States. The issue of nuclear 
non-proliferation and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
regime was currently gaining additional urgency and it should also be 
discussed in the ad hoc committee. Also, Russia would not object to the 
A5 proposal on the establishment of the Conference’s ad hoc committee on 
the issue of assurances for the non-nuclear-weapon States against the 
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Russia would also be ready to 
agree with appointment of special coordinators on the three remaining 
issues of substance: new types of weapons of mass destruction and new 
systems of such weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and 
transparency in armaments.

Concerning other issues related to international peace and security, 
they should meet at least three criteria to be included in the programme 
of work: enjoy consensus, correspond to the Conference’s mandate and 
profile, and not duplicate what other international organizations were 
doing. Russia remained open-minded to any ideas and proposals without 
prejudice to agreement on the programme of work.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said several delegations had already 
commended the President for getting the agenda of the Conference adopted 
so quickly this year. He had taken an initiative to seek the joint 
cooperation of all Presidents of the Conference of the 2006 session as 
well as to institute a mechanism of Friends of Presidents with due 
geographical balance. The President’s inclusive approach and willingness 
to engage across regional groups would assist in gathering momentum for 
the work ahead to ensure continuity and a determined attempt to shape 
the proceedings of the Conference this year while at the same time 
building confidence towards an eventual resumption of work. The 
President had also announced his intention to organize a structured 
debate on issues and to establish a timetable. Sri Lanka fully supported 
the Five Ambassadors proposal and it would also consider any other 
proposal that would likely meet consensus. Sri Lanka was also of the 
view that wider and more frequent use of informal and open-ended 
consultations could take place on specific issues.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said the President had asked the delegations 
to give the Chair ideas which could be discussed, and France believed 
that the Conference must be in a position to address all important 
issues within its sphere. France and Switzerland had been thinking about 
the issue of civil critical infrastructure, and yesterday, had again 
held open-ended consultations on the issue with the view to reaching a 
consensus. France and Switzerland were presenting a draft mandate to the 
President and the Conference so that the issue of civil critical 
infrastructure could be taken up by the President of the Conference in 
his efforts. In the spirit of flexibility and consensus, they agreed 
that this issue could be considered under item 5 of the agenda, 
notwithstanding France’s reservations on the agenda.

JURG STREULI (Switzerland) said Switzerland and France had developed 
this mandate on the issue of civil critical infrastructure. Yesterday, 
in the deliberations, it had been made clear that the threats to civil 
critical infrastructure were very real. The world was just starting to 
analyze the threat and to see how to deal with it. This was a good time 
to begin work on this issue, and they would coordinate existing efforts 
on this issue in other regional organizations. This issue
could be addressed by the proposed open-ended group of governmental 
experts and all delegations were invited to contribute on this issue. 
Switzerland and France hoped that the issue of civil critical 
infrastructure could be considered in the Conference under the agenda 
for 2006.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) thanked the President for appointing him as one of 
the Friends of the Presidents. This session, delegations had been asked 
to present individually or collectively priority issues for their 
countries. He was now taking the floor on a national basis. Italy’s 
views were based on previous national positions and on European Union 
positions and strategies on non-proliferation and disarmament. The 
so-called food-for-thought non-paper which had been presented last year 
was a further elaboration of the Five Ambassadors proposal, and it 
remained an important term of reference for Italy. The issue of fissile 
material was a topic which needed the highest attention. Italy had 
already explained why negotiations at the Conference of a multilateral 
treaty banning fissile material for nuclear weapons constituted the 
priority for Italy. Italy supported establishing an ad hoc committee to 
that end which would commend widest support in the Conference. Other 
delegations had noted their priorities, including prevention of an armed 
race in outer space, nuclear disarmament and negative security issues, 
and Italy was ready to deal with these other issues within the programme 
of work of the Conference. Consideration could also be given to the 
consolidation of appropriate new issues to be discussed within the 
Conference.

DORU COSTEA (Romania) said if he was asked to define the atmosphere 
within the Conference in a single word, the first word to come to mind 
was frustration. It had been sensed among the delegations for the past 
couple of years, and it was now being felt stronger at the beginning of 
this session. It had also been a common feature in the statements in the 
first plenary meetings of the Conference this session. In 1997, Romania 
had held the presidency of the Conference and its Representative had 
said, among other things, that it was his responsibility to urge the 
Conference to embark on an examination to change the political 
environment, to consider new priorities and to look at how the 
Conference could best serve mankind. Romania had also said that the 
negotiating role of the Conference must be preserved and reinforced. In 
his opening statement as President of the Conference in less than two 
months time, and nine years after this statement, his single comment was 
that there was nothing more to add to it. He could only add a few words 
and make a harder effort.

The Presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference should better 
coordinate so that they at least edged the Conference towards embarking 
on its work. When they had met, they had all professed a realistic and 
optimistic approach on the issue of starting substantive work in the 
Conference. However it was not just up to the Presidents of the 2006 
session, it was only if the 65 Member States of the Conference worked 
together that they would be able to remove or at least move a little bit 
the huge stone blocking its activity. He hoped that this could happen. 
He also wished to keep in mind three principles which had to be 
maintained: Presidents should try to provide opportunities for Member 
States to come forward with contributions; any delegation may raise any 
topic at any time as long as it was linked to the mandate of the 
Conference; and national priorities were not mutually exclusive. He also 
wished to voice a question which haunted him about the significance of 
those magic words “consensus in the Conference” – did consensus mean no 
vote, or vote no?

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) thanked the President for appointing him as one of 
the Friends of Presidents. On this occasion in which Conference Members 
were identifying matters of importance with them, he wished to express 
the views of Japan. Japan placed greatest importance on a Fissile 
Material Cut-Off Treaty as a building block for the total elimination of 
nuclear arsenals. It would also contribute to nuclear non-proliferation. 
Immediate commencement of negotiations on an FMCT and early agreement on 
it was agreed upon in the 1995 and 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
Review Conferences. It was ripe for negotiation. Japan intended to issue 
a working paper on FMCT and looked forward to a useful exchange of views 
on it. Last week, Japan had stressed the importance of a clear-cut 
timetable for its work. Japan was also open to discuss other issues as 
long as they fit developments in the Conference.

MIKE SMITH (Australia) said in the past nine years, the Conference had 
failed to achieve much of substance. For Australia, which had been one 
of the vast majority of delegations that had shown flexibility in 
supporting the various proposals for a programme of work put forward 
during this period, this state of affairs was a particular frustration 
and disappointment. Australia also greatly regretted that the Conference 
had not begun negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty which was 
long overdue and which would make a vital contribution to nuclear 
disarmament and non-proliferation.

In the nine years that the conference had failed to agree on a programme 
of work, other threats to international security had gathered strength. 
Of particular concern was the proliferation of Man Portable Air Defence 
Systems (MANPADS). MANPADS were a legitimate weapon for States to 
possess in meeting their defence needs, but their transfer to and use by 
non-state actors threatened international peace and security. The 
international community had taken steps to address this threat. As the 
Conference struggled to find consensus on a programme of work, an 
international consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of 
MANPADs already existed. This consensus provided an opportunity for the 
Conference to examine the threat posed by the proliferation of MANPADS 
and to develop measures to combat them.

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said Turkey was encouraged by the speed with 
which the Conference had adopted its agenda, and hoped that this was a 
good omen. It was high time for the Conference on Disarmament, the 
world's sole multilateral forum for disarmament negotiations, to dust 
itself off and once again become relevant. Last year had been 
disappointing in terms of disarmament, but this should not put the 
Conference off, rather it should encourage it to put its act together. 
Member States could not ignore that the Conference was the proper 
platform to work for achieving security around the world. The stakes 
were high and multidimensional. Progress on disarmament and 
non-proliferation was vital, and the Conference was necessary to provide 
the international community with instruments and to strengthen 
compliance and implementation.

Turkey believed that if there was a roll-call vote on the programme of 
work today, the Five Ambassadors proposal would have the widest support. 
Efforts had to continue until the deadlock was broken. There were also 
new issues, and it could be fruitful to discuss them. Turkey shared the 
understanding that these additional issues should not substitute the 
core issues on the agenda and must be in line with the mandate of the 
Conference. In that context, Turkey was happy to consider the new 
issues. It welcomed the proposal of Australia to discuss the issue of 
Man Portable Air Defence Systems within the Conference. Turkey also 
looked forward to working with the Presidents of the 2006 session of the 
Conference and the Friends of Presidents and it would support all 
efforts to put the Conference back on track.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan supported all efforts to find a 
way out of the current stalemate in the Conference. The choice of 
Friends of Presidents could not have been better, and they all had the 
necessary expertise. All Member States considered themselves Friends of 
Presidents. On the programme of work, which had to be comprehensive and 
balanced, Pakistan wanted to state again that the Five Ambassadors 
proposal continued to hold the largest amount of support within the 
Conference, and it could help jumpstart the Conference.

JUAN EDUARDO EGUIGUREN (Chile) said Chile reaffirmed its appreciation 
and support for the decision taken for the Presidents of the 2006 
session of the Conference to work together, which would integrate work 
and consultations and was better than six isolated exercises of 
consultations. Chile hoped this would yield good results. Chile also 
thanked the Presidents for choosing Ambassador Juan Martabit of Chile as 
one of the Friends of Presidents. Chile was at the disposal of the 
Conference in terms of its willingness to cooperate with any efforts to 
move forward. The Five Ambassadors proposal had great support within the 
Conference and could even get more support with some improvement. 
Australia had also mentioned the issue of Man Portable Air Defence 
Systems and Chile considered this to be an important issue because of 
their proliferation and to counter the dangers of them falling in the 
hand of non-State actors, even if it had been dealt with in other fora.

HAMZA KHELIF (Algeria) said Algeria had not planned to ask for the 
floor, but as a result of the very rich discussion and the proposals 
which had been heard today, he wished to address a number of points. 
Algeria supported any efforts to get the Conference out of its rut. 
Algeria encouraged the President in his efforts to organize 
consultations on issues which might be of interest in terms of the 
programme of work and the agenda which was adopted. Taking into account 
the important proposals made by a number of delegations, Algeria noted 
that every delegation had the right to raise issues which they felt were 
important. It also noted the earlier statements by the President in 
which he referred to flexibility which would enable the Conference to 
discuss issues of peace and security. It was quite clear that any issues 
relating to international peace and security were open for discussion 
under the agenda, if there was a consensus on that topic. Algeria 
encouraged what had been said by the Russian Federation with regards to 
conditions attached to new topics which would be raised at the 
Conference, and how to proceed with that. He asked if Member States 
should wait for the President’s proposed list of issues and timetable 
and then react to it, and would their silence be interpreted as consent. 
Algeria needed further explanation on this point.