OUTGOING PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OUTLINES STATUS OF CONSULTATIONS TO END STALEMATE ON PROGRAMME OF WORK

Press Release
DCF/372

OUTGOING PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OUTLINES STATUS OF CONSULTATIONS TO END STALEMATE ON PROGRAMME OF WORK

Representatives of Egypt, France, Ukraine and Nigeria Address Conference

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 17 June (UN Information Service) -- The outgoing President of the Conference on Disarmament today outlined the status of consultations he carried out to end the stalemate in the forum on nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space and to reach a consensus which would enable the Conference to agree on its programme of work and to start substantive deliberations.

Ambassador Mohamed-Salah Dembri (Algeria) said that concerning nuclear disarmament, he had proposed an Ad Hoc Working Group which was responsible for undertaking an exchange of views on nuclear disarmament and for exploring prospects which could produce an acceptable compromise. There was unanimous acceptance of the Ad Hoc Working Group mechanism, but its mandate still required further consultations.

With regard to the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, Mr. Dembri said he had submitted an informal proposal to create an Ad Hoc Working Group to examine and identify by means of a general and substantive study specific themes which could be the basis for an in-depth study on the issue with a view to preventing militarization of outer space. This option had so far won the support of a large majority without unfortunately reaching the essential consensus for it to become operational.

Mr. Dembri underscored the need for convergence of the positions of all delegations to make it possible for the Conference to start its substantive work. He said it was specifically the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space that remained pending. At the same time, the Conference had never been so close to a consensus since the beginning of this session.

Also this morning, Ambassador Munir Zahran of Egypt gave a farewell speech to the Conference. After hearing Mr. Dembri referring to him as the dean of the Conference and praising his work, Mr. Zahran said the conclusion he had reached after eight years was that the Conference on Disarmament should adapt to the significant developments that were taking place in the world of today. Features of the world today included democracy, transparency, equality and non-discrimination, and participation of civil society. They were at present not consistent with the work of the Conference.

The representative of France said his country believed in four fundamental ideas in its approach to disarmament. The first was the legitimate right to security for all States. The second was that disarmament required participation by all. The third was that disarmament must be subject to monitoring by all. And the fourth and last idea was that disarmament needed to be seen in all its dimensions. In order to implement these ideas within the Conference, there had to be agreement on a realistic and balanced agenda.

The representative of Ukraine said his country was committed to continue advancement in achieving the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and firmly advocated the principles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) regime, both on the international arena and inside the country. However, politicians, diplomats and journalists should not take the denuclearization of Ukraine for granted. This process was very complicated from both legal and technical perspectives and required a lot of resources and international assistance.

The representative of Nigeria said lack of progress within the Conference was not due to lack of efforts, but due to lack of the requisite political will. Nigeria wished to affirm that its priority remained nuclear disarmament. The members of the Conference should establish an Ad Hoc Committee on this issue without further delay. Nigeria could also agree on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on nuclear disarmament if that was to bring progress. Nigeria regretted the inability of the Conference to re-establish an Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and it would support any mechanism which would prevent this.

The next plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 24 June. It will be the last meeting in the second part of the 1999 session of the Conference. The third part will take place from 26 July to 19 September.

Statements

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria), who is the outgoing President of the Conference, welcomed United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, who was attending the meeting. He also praised the work of Ambassador Munir Zahran of Egypt, the dean of the Conference, who was leaving Geneva after eight years. Mr. Dembri listed the various posts that Mr. Zahran had held within the Conference, noting that he had demonstrated effectiveness, clarity and tenacity in dealing with them. The Conference was obliged to him for the work which he had taken on in such an outstanding manner.

MUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) expressed his deep gratitude and appreciation to the President of the Conference and its members. He believed he had done nothing more than his duty, not only vis a vis his country but also the international community. He was speaking today at the end of eight years as Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations and other international organizations at Geneva. This assignment had not been an easy one. The Conference was a mirror which reflected the state of international relations. Its geographical groups had ceased to reflect the state of international relations after the end of the cold war, and it seemed now that the Conference membership had been divided into two groups representing North and South.

Mr. Zahran listed among the achievements of the Conference the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the success of the Conference to establish in 1998 an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. However, it was necessary to expand the scope of this treaty as much as possible and to consider its effective verification mechanism. The Conference should also work to remove all the procedural obstacles which impeded the achievement of this objective since the value of this treaty depended on its early entering into force.

It was also necessary to mention several aspects on which the Conference had failed to achieve any progress, Mr. Zahran said. With regard to nuclear disarmament, the Conference remained totally handicapped and unable to take any effective negotiating steps so long as the objective of achieving nuclear disarmament had not been reached. As for the prevention of an arms race in outer space, Egypt could not find any justification for the failure of the Conference to address this issue. With regards to other weapons of mass destruction, Egypt had proposed that a study on the new types of these weapons be carried out to limit such negative developments through negotiating the banning of the development of such weapons.

Mr. Zahran said that the conclusion he had reached after this long experience was that the Conference on Disarmament should adapt to the significant developments that were taking place in the world of today and should get rid of the image of an old club with stagnant airs and outmoded ideas. The features of today's world included democracy, transparency, equality and non-discrimination, and participation of civil society. They were at present not consistent with the work of the Conference. In conclusion, Mr. Zahran said he hoped the new millennium would witness positive developments in international relations in general, and in the work of the Conference on Disarmament in particular, so that it could fulfil its mandate as the sole multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament.

HUBERT DE LA FORTELLE (France) said the present stalemate within the Conference on Disarmament was doubly disturbing. In the short term, this stalemate left the Conference frozen and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty found itself held hostage. In the medium and long-terms, if this situation was prolonged, it would have a lasting effect on the image of the Conference which would stand discredited and would call into question the multilateral approach to disarmament. The Conference had to avoid facile propaganda ploys and should seek means to make realistic and balanced progress. This had been reflected in the proposal made by France, United Kingdom and the United States.

Mr. de la Fortelle said there were fundamental ideas which France believed in while considering its approach to disarmament. The first was the legitimate right to security for all States. Each State should define its legitimate need to determine its security. The second was that disarmament required participation by all. The third was that disarmament must be subject to monitoring by all. There could be no real disarmament without effective verification mechanisms applied under international control. And the fourth and last idea was that disarmament needed to be seen in all its dimensions. In order to implement these ideas within the Conference, there had to be agreement on a realistic and balanced agenda. And concerning nuclear disarmament, the greatest clarity on this score was very important. As for what the Conference could do in the field of nuclear disarmament, he said it could negotiate agreements which it had been entrusted to, like a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Everyone had to agree that multilateral nuclear disarmament was a reality. However, what the Conference could not do was think that the process of reducing nuclear arsenals would be effectively advanced through its work. Progress had been made on nuclear disarmament through unilateral and bilateral measures and this should be credited.

Mr. de la Fortelle said France had three priorities within the Conference on Disarmament. The first was to get under way as soon as possible negotiations on an FMCT. This should be based on the mandate proposed in 1995 by Ambassador Shannon which stressed the non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable aspects. The second priority concerned the prevention of an arms race in outer space. And the third priority was to see the Conference make contributions to the campaign against anti-personnel landmines. France was fully committed to the implementation of the Ottawa Convention. He said other topics also came to mind. The proposal by France, the United States and the United Kingdom had said that the interests most concerning to other States should be addressed as well as other proposals. France was ready to agree on an Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances. It also wanted to see advances concerning the expansion of the membership of the Conference and improvement of its methods of work. In conclusion, Mr. de la Fortelle said there was a need to conclude negotiations on a protocol to verify the Biological Weapons Convention. Special attention should also be paid to light arms and weapons which affected security in many parts of the world.

MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine) noted how sensitive and vulnerable the Conference was to events which affected the international, regional and national security interests of its members. One of these events was the crisis in Kosovo. The President of Ukraine and the executive branch of power in the country had been guided by the principles of impartiality and respect of the highest of human rights -- the right to live in peace and security and negation of violence and ethnic cleansing. Ukraine was the first country to initiate immediately after the start of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military action in Yugoslavia the new attempts to find the diplomatic solution of the Kosovo crisis. Ukraine's efforts were one of the contributions to the long diplomatic process which had finally resulted in the Security Council resolution endorsing a peace plan for Kosovo.

Mr. Maimeskul said Ukraine was committed to continue advancement in achieving the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and firmly advocated the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, both on the international arena and inside the country. However, politicians, diplomats and journalists should not take the denuclearization of Ukraine for granted. This process was very complicated from both legal and technical perspectives and required a lot of resources and international assistance. Therefore, it seemed disgraceful and unjust that in the context of mentioning the countries which abandoned their military nuclear programmes or forswore nuclear weapons, one could not sometimes even find the name of Ukraine.

The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty had been a long-standing issue of the nuclear arms control agenda. Mr. Maimeskul said that the future treaty should evolve from a number of principles, including that the FMCT prohibit production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for nuclear warheads and other explosive devices; that it include an effective verification regime of compliance; that all uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing facilities were subject to the initial declarations irrespective of their present status; and that the future verification regime did not impose additional obligations on non-nuclear weapon States, which had full-scope agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Mr. Maimeskul said that while recognizing that the FMCT negotiations were a major priority for the Conference's work within agenda item 1 on cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, other aspects of this item deserved its highest attention. The Conference had to play its undeniable role in promoting nuclear disarmament. The Conference needed to establish a subsidiary mechanism so its mandate was limited and an exploratory one. The most suitable mechanism would be an Ad Hoc Working Group, headed by one chairman in the course of at least one session of the Conference. Concerning negative security assurances, the lack of the international multilateral legally binding agreement continued to be one of the serious drawbacks of the existing nuclear non-proliferation regime. This and other issues could be focused on provided an Ad Hoc Committee on negative security assurances was re-established. As for prevention of an arms race in outer space, Ukraine was ready to support every proposal concerning establishment of a subsidiary body or mechanism to deal with this issue which could command the consensus of the Conference.

With regard to anti-personnel landmines, Mr. Maimeskul said it was regrettable that despite the efforts and consultations on a Special Coordinator on this issue, the Conference as a whole did not show willingness to elaborate at least intermediary steps to achieve in perspective the universal ban of anti-personnel landmines. Ukraine was ready to support the re-appointment of a Special Coordinator on transparency in armaments to ensure somehow the balance within the Conference on nuclear and conventional arms control. Ukraine also supported the expansion of membership of the Conference to include Ireland, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Tunisia.

P.I. AYEWOH (Nigeria) thanked all his colleagues who had welcomed him to Geneva. It was a matter of concern to Nigeria that halfway through its 1999 session, the Conference had been unable to adopt its programme of work because of a lack of consensus on nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space. This lack of progress was not due to lack of efforts, but due to lack of the requisite political will. Nigeria wished to affirm that its priority remained nuclear disarmament. The members of the Conference should establish an Ad Hoc Committee on this priority without further delay. Nigeria could also agree on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on nuclear disarmament if that was to bring progress. The steps taken by the United States and the Russian Federation to reduce their nuclear weapons had been recognized by Nigeria, but this process needed to be accelerated. Nigeria regretted the inability of the Conference to re-establish an Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and it would support any mechanism which would prevent this. The challenges before the Conference were enormous and courage, transparency and flexibility were needed to tackle them.

Mr. DEMBRI (Algeria), the President of the Conference, said that when he had taken over the Presidency four weeks ago, he had stated that the Conference was not designed to have its work blocked, nor was it designed for failure. The Conference was affected and influenced by events which took place outside of Geneva, but at the same time, it could also send out positive signals to the international community which had entrusted it to negotiate international disarmament instruments. Unfortunately, the Conference was not carrying out its mandate.

Mr. Dembri said the Presidency had been engaged in consultations to hear the views of the different parties. These first consultations had made it possible to reach four conclusions. First, there was an acute and unanimous awareness of the need of the Conference to quickly start its substantive work. Second, there was the frustrating conclusion that what had been possible before was no longer sufficient as a basis of compromise because of developments concerning international security and relations. Third, if the Conference was to have a better chance of success, it needed a consensus on its programme of work which was complete and balanced and which took into account the interests of all its members. And fourth, the Conference might well miss an additional opportunity to avoid this blockage if its members were to break up without reaching agreement on its programme of work.

Mr. Dembri said that on the basis of these conclusions, the Presidency had decided to work on compromises on the two pending issues of the agenda, nuclear disarmament and prevention of an arms race in outer space. With regard to nuclear disarmament, the Presidency had sought to develop a balanced compromise based on the fact that neither the troika mechanism nor the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee could win the support of everyone. He had proposed an Ad Hoc Working Group which was responsible for undertaking an exchange of views on nuclear disarmament and for exploring prospects which could produce an acceptable compromise. He was encouraged by the reactions of most of the delegations and by the flexibility shown. There was unanimous acceptance of the Ad Hoc Working Group mechanism, but its mandate still required further consultations.

With regard to the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space, Mr. Dembri said he had submitted an informal proposal to create an Ad Hoc Working Group to examine and identify by means of a general and substantive study specific themes which could be the basis for an in-depth study on the issue with a view to preventing militarization of outer space. This proposal also took account of the resolution which was massively adopted at the last session of the General Assembly. The idea was to take up, through an adequate mechanism, discussions which had already taken place in the forum which should start an examination of concerns of certain parties without prejudgment. This option had so far won the support of a large majority without unfortunately reaching the essential consensus for it to become operational.

Mr. Dembri underscored the need for convergence of the positions of all delegations to make it possible for the Conference to start its substantive work. Progress on one point could lead to interaction on other positions. This had already started and had been partially attained, but it still had to be completed so that all factors of divergence were removed. It was specifically the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space that remained pending. At the same time, the Conference had never been so close to a consensus since the beginning of this session.

In conclusion, Mr. Dembri said that during the difficult consultations he had held, he had stressed that all must recognize that the Conference should be able to examine and study every item on its agenda within a subsidiary body if such was the general wish. This would provide the best guarantee that any delegation could make its view heard. A consensus on that should lead to convergence of opinions, and could not be compared to a right of veto. Finding a consensus was a means for reaching agreement, not a means of creating disagreement. If a consensus was transformed into a right of veto, this meant that there was no desire for dialogue and negotiations. The Presidency had spared no efforts to ensure the best possible conditions available for the success of the task. As his mandate as President ended, Mr. Dembri said it was up to each delegation to evaluate what had been done. He hoped that the Ambassador of Argentine who would take over as President would push this effort further.

* *** *