CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONCLUDES SECOND PART OF 2003 SESSION

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 26 June (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning concluded the second part of its 2003 session, hearing substantive addresses by Representatives of Belgium, Algeria, Romania, Sweden, Colombia, Canada, and Finland.  Several Ambassadors to the Conference offered farewell remarks, as they will have assumed new diplomatic posts before the Conference resumes meeting on 28 July, and they and other speakers referred to the continuing stalemate in the Conference and offered opinions on how the body might ultimately agree on a programme of work.

The Representatives of Belgium and Algeria stressed the need for consensus adoption of the “Five Ambassadors’” proposal for a programme of work.

The incoming President of the Conference, Mario E. Maiolini of Italy, said in closing remarks that the forum was the only comprehensive negotiating body on disarmament at the disposal of the international community; and every possible effort should be made to keep the Conference alive and to be aware of the fact that shortcomings or long pauses in its pursuit of success should never discourage diplomacy.  

Mr. Maiolini said that in trying to break its impasse, the Conference should consider the fundamental elements that characterized the current international situation.  Members should then ask whether there were chances for progress in the disarmament process.

The Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the Five Ambassadors, said that since 31 July 2002, when it was formally presented, the proposal of the Five Ambassadors had been supported within the Conference by 34 countries.  Twelve Member States had not pronounced their opinions but on the other hand had not opposed the initiative, he added.

The Representative of Algeria said a major question mark should be put on what was going on in the Conference, and that efforts should be made to go back to the true issue before the group, which was security, particularly against the threat of nuclear weapons.  Non-nuclear countries had grounds for concern over the number of nuclear warheads still being kept by nuclear weapon States, the Representative added.

Farewell statements were made by the Representatives of Romania, Sweden, Colombia, and Canada.  South Africa and Japan offered brief remarks on departures from the Conference.  Finland spoke referring to the statement made by Belgium.

The Conference's next plenary will be on 31 July 2003, at 10 a.m.

Statements

JEAN LINT (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the “Five Ambassadors”, said that following a series of consultations, he had submitted the proposal of the Five Ambassadors contained in document CD/1693 concerning the Conference's programme of work.  Since the 31 July 2002, the proposal of the Five Ambassadors had been supported within the Conference by 34 countries.  However, 12 Member States had not pronounced their opinions.  On the other hand, they had not opposed the initiative.  Several delegations had expressed their positions concerning the proposal.  A clear disagreement had been made concerning the mandate on possible efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space (PAROS).  If compromises could be reached by the countries that had expressed different views on this topic, the Five Ambassadors would accept amendments to the text.

Mr. Lint said Belgium was in favour of the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the work of the Conference.  Concerning the procedure for such participation, the Conference could be inspired by the rules of the United Nations, particularly those used for the Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms held in New York in 2001. 

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said a major question mark should be put on what was going on in the Conference.  Efforts should be made to go back to the true issue, which was security, particularly against the threat of nuclear weapons.  Today, however, the world was changing.  And for the last 10 years, the Conference had failed to advance on the matter of disarmament in nuclear weapons in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  One should question the level of compliance with commitments set out by that Treaty.  Thirteen concrete steps had been set out concerning nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Dembri said non-nuclear countries had grounds for concern over the number of nuclear warheads were still kept by the nuclear-weapon States. It was urgent that a new negotiating round be carried out.  The Conference should be productive in assuring the non-nuclear countries that such weapons would not be used against them, and it should act to prevent such use.  The Conference should also work to clarify the role of private enterprises in producing such arms.

Mr. Dembri said the initiative of the Five Ambassadors remained valid.  The Conference was not far from consensus in accepting it, although there had been some reluctance by some States.  He urged the Presidency to intensify efforts aimed at adoption of the proposal.  Concerning the participation of non-governmental organizations, there was no question as to the usefulness of their participation.

ANDA CRISTINA FILIP (Romania), in a farewell address, said the past decade had seen Romania focusing very much on its own transformation and on re-linking with Europe and with the United Nations system; after many years of isolation and mismanagement under an authoritarian regime, Romania had done its best to make itself better known at the level of international Geneva, and had taken great pride and pleasure in organizing a variety of public diplomacy events.  It hoped that the new Romanian Hall at the Palais des Nations and the statute of the eminent Romanian statesman Nicolae Titulescu had not gone unnoticed.  Romania firmly believed that the Conference on Disarmament had great potential for significant and substantive work, although today, as it concluded the second part of its 2003 session, it still was without agreement on a programme of work.

A number of proposals had been tabled, and it was clear, as had been said before, that political will, balance, compromise and consensus were the key elements for moving forward in the Conference's work.  It was worth considering that the Conference had been deeply affected by the tremendous changes that had occurred over the past 14 years, among them the fall of Communism and the events of 11 September 2001, and the current stalemate might be explained by a need for the Conference to update its proceedings to meet new challenges facing the world, including terrorism and new weapons of mass destruction.  It was necessary, perhaps, to define a new international security and stability architecture.  It was Romania's strong conviction that the Conference had a unique role and place among multilateral bodies to deal with arms control, non-proliferation, and related issues, and could once again become a major source for solutions to the fears and concerns of the international community.

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden) said that he was leaving the Conference with mixed feelings.  His four-year term had been a waste because of lack of progress within the Conference.  No substantive work had been accomplished during his term.  The Conference had been inactive for many years.  It could not adopt a programme of work in order to proceed in carrying out its functions. There was a glimmer of hope that one day the Conference would come out of its stalemate and start once again to perform its important work.

CAMILIO REYES (Colombia), in a farewell address, underlined his country's efforts among those made by others over the past several years to break the Conference's deadlock, most recently the proposal of the Five Ambassadors, of which he was one member.  The Colombian delegation would spare no effort to end the current deplorable situation of the Conference, and it was convinced that no member of the international community could legitimately wish for such a situation to continue.  The Five Ambassadors’ proposal represented the positions of different groups of countries, was comprehensive, was flexible, and was balanced.  It had terms that were transparent and did not presuppose anything other than the necessity of restoring to the Conference its capacity to carry out its work and to respond to the concerns of the international community.

Colombia gave much weight as well to the importance of the problem of light arms, which touched the great majority of the world's countries and which was a scourge which every day claimed more than 1,000 victims, destroyed the social fabric, generated poverty, hindered development, and exacerbated conflicts.  Work to limit the availability of small arms could not be put off, and it was a matter worthy of congratulation that a first meeting had been held in New York to exchange information on the question.  Similarly, Colombia had strongly supported the work carried out under the Ottawa Convention on the elimination anti-personnel land mines.

At a time when non-State actors had become the principal authors of violence and when terrorism had finally been identified as one of the major menaces to the security of citizens and to international security, it was indispensable that the Conference surmount the obstacles that were keeping it from carrying out its work.  For Colombia, it was evident that, in the actual circumstances prevailing, non-proliferation retained of particular pertinence and it was urgent to act on the subject.  Colombia appealed to the Conference to try forcefully and incessantly to put itself in a position where it could carry out its work -- the development of indispensable instruments in support of non-proliferation and disarmament, matters which were crucial for peace and co-existence.

CHRISTOPHER WESTDAL (Canada), in a farewell statement, said that in his four years here, he regretted that there had been no concrete result of value in arms control and disarmament, although the Conference's members had been far from idle.  The stalemate in the Conference had been casting an increasingly dark shadow.  The Conference was a tool of proven value, but one hard fact of the times was that major powers had left the Conference's order book empty.  Some parties here didn't want to take the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament; some clearly wanted more fissile material than they now had; some didn't want to ban weapons in space; some didn't even want to “study” the idea of nuclear disarmament; some didn't want to negotiate negative security assurances.

There had been much change in the last four years, including continuing fallout from the end of the Cold War; the end of the ABM Treaty; a stillborn compliance protocol for the ban on biological and toxin weapons -- despite seven years of work; and the events of 11 September 2001.  There had been wars in Afghanistan and Iraq caused by fear of weapons and other means of mass destruction in hands thought quite prepared to use them.  Given these changes in security realities, it was hardly surprising that there had not been agreement here on how to undertake the labourious negotiation of consensus on new binding multilateral disarmament covenants.  At the moment there were more questions than answers -- and agreement on a programme of work would require more answers, a steadier state, a much broader base of shared comprehension, vision, aim, and political commitment.  Meanwhile, the grave threat of nuclear proliferation had not changed; nor had the threat of biological or toxin weapons; nor had the stark need for comprehensive international cooperation.  The values and vision needed to prevail had not changed, either.  The disarmament community's responsibilities were as thick and heavy as ever.

MARKKU REIMAA (Finland), referring to the statement of the Belgian Representative, said the Conference was doing its work under the rule of consensus and all States had equal obligations.  His country was mentioned among those States that supported the initiative of the Five Ambassadors.  His delegation's statement on the issue was made during an informal meeting.  He hoped that the new Italian Presidency would keep the Conference alive and pave the way for it to engage in substantive work.

NONTOMBI MAKUPULA (South Africa) announced to the Conference the official departure of South Africa's Permanent Representative to the United Nations at Geneva, Ambassador Sipho George Nene.

KUNIKO INOGUCHI (Japan) said she had learned that Ambassador Mario Maiolini of Italy, who had just assumed the Presidency, was also to leave the Conference.  Mr. Maiolini had injected new ideas into the debate on the future of the work of the Conference that might stimulate the Conference's search for comprehensive solutions to its outstanding issues.

MARIO E. MAIOLINI (Italy), President of the Conference, in closing remarks, said the forum was the only comprehensive negotiating body on disarmament at the disposal of the international community.  Everything possible should be done to keep the Conference alive and to be aware of the fact that shortcomings or long pauses in the pursuit of success should never discourage diplomacy.  The Conference should consider the fundamental elements that characterized the present international situation, and then ask whether there were chances for progress in the disarmament process.

Mr. Maiolini said the achievement of a programme of work remained the main goal of the moment, and the best chance for a solution was to pursue the minimum in order to keep the Conference alive.  Just what that minimum was had been emerging in recent months, and the Conference should continue to explore the possibility of consensus in the relevant areas.

* *** *