MONGOLIA, NORWAY, KENYA PRAISE INFORMAL PLENARY SESSIONS IN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
| Press Release DCF/443 |
MONGOLIA, NORWAY, KENYA PRAISE INFORMAL PLENARY
SESSIONS IN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
Conference Concludes Second Part of 2004 Session
(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 24 June (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament today heard praise from Mongolia, Norway and Kenya for the informal plenary sessions it has been holding recently, during which delegates discuss issues relating to the agenda of the Conference in closed meetings.
Ambassador Omar Hilale of Morocco, the incoming President of the Conference, said he would hold an informal plenary to discuss the issue of new forms of terrorism and their consequences on the proliferation of arms of mass destruction, an issue which the Secretary-General had highlighted. He would also continue to hold consultations. The informal plenaries were an opportunity to identify common denominators which would help to forge a consensus which would allow the Conference to continue with its mandate to negotiate.
The President said that Latvia had asked to become the twenty-third observerState to the 2004 session of the Conference on Disarmament.
Ambassador Hilale welcomed the new Permanent Representative of Nigeria, Joseph Ayalogu, and bid farewell to Ambassador Kryzsztof Jakubowski of Poland. Both Ambassadors addressed the Conference.
The plenary was adjourned to allow delegates to watch the passing of the Olympic Torch through the Palais des Nations. The Conference reconvened in an informal plenary to discuss item 7 on its agenda: transparency in armaments.
The next plenary of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 July, 2004. The third and last part of the 2004 session of the Conference will take place from 26 July to 10 September.
Statements
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), incoming President of the Conference, welcomed Joseph Ayalogu, the new Permanent Representative of Nigeria, and bid farewell to Ambassador Kryzsztof Jakubowski of Poland. He said Ambassador Jakubowski had always articulated and upheld the position of his Government with elegance, and praised his profound knowledge of disarmament affairs which he had used to try to foster consensus on a programme of work in the Conference.
Ambassador Hilale said that he was pleased to accede on behalf of Morocco to the presidency of the Conference, and it was an exceptional privilege for his country to be president for the third time since 1979, when it had joined the Conference. This was an opportunity for Morocco to reaffirm its unswerving respect for all United Nations efforts on disarmament issues. The profound strategic changes that had taken place in recent years had added new threats to the international community. Never had international security been so fragile because now it did not only face classic threats like nuclear armaments or the militarization of outer space. Insecurity had become globalized since the emergence of international terrorism whose members had a desperate quest for weapons of mass destruction, which could cause a nuclear, biologic or chemical 11 September. Only the will and determination of all the international community could prevent this. The Conference on Disarmament should and must play a role in providing a proper response to this threat. It had to adapt to the international environment and the early challenges of this new century.
Ambassador Hilale noted that for many years, the Conference had become desperately lethargic. The absence of agreement on its programme of work came in serious contradiction with the international challenges. The return of the Conference on Disarmament as the sole multilateral negotiating body in the international arena was essential. The Conference needed to adapt its priorities and security needs to the challenges of today, not to the affairs of yesterday. He said that he would hold an informal plenary to discuss the issue of new forms of terrorism and their consequences on the proliferation of arms of mass destruction which the Secretary-General had highlighted. He would also continue to hold consultations. The informal plenaries were an opportunity to identify common denominators which would help to forge a consensus, which would allow the Conference to continue with its mandate to negotiate.
KHASBAZARYN BEKHBAT (Mongolia), whose country’s presidency of the Conference concluded last week, said that the purpose of his statement was to present the highlights of the informal plenary meetings held under the presidency of Mongolia on 3, 10 and 17 June during which the Conference discussed various aspects of the following items on its agenda: effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, radiological weapons; and comprehensive programme of disarmament, items 4,5,6 of the agenda of the conference respectively. He would limit his presentation to the main issues that were highlighted during the discussion.
Ambassador Bekhbat said that the views on negative security assurances differed considerably. At one end of the spectrum, there were advocates of a multilateral, unconditional and legally binding instrument negotiated in the Conference against Disarmament, and at the other, those who considered the existing assurances provided by nuclear-weapon States, either in unilateral declarations or in the context of nuclear-weapon-free zones, sufficient. On the issue of new types of weapons of mass destruction, delegations mainly addressed the issue of radiological weapons. Some, however, tried to explore new avenues on this subject. There were proposals to establish criteria for identifying new weapons of mass destruction, and it was suggested that the Special Coordinator envisaged in the A5 proposal could provide more insight in this matter. Discussions on the comprehensive programme of disarmament led to recalling the original objectives of this item, as well as to exploring its potential utility in addressing arms control and disarmament issues and to make it applicable to both conventional and nuclear weapons.
Ambassador Bekhbat said that finally, as the discussions of items on the Conference’s agenda progressed, questions on the possible follow-up to this exercise had also been raised. Lively discussions with the elements of interaction among delegations had prompted some of them to express interest in the continuation of informal plenary meetings, which would be devoted to specific topics that could be identified and agreed upon. There were also proposals that the President of the Conference could commence consultations on the ways and means of continuing the discussions in a structured manner. He would like to add his voice to these proposals. The efforts of his predecessors in office had generated a new momentum in the Conference. Frank and comprehensive discussions had engaged almost all of the members of the Conference in clarifying their views on all the items of the agenda. This might be the long-awaited sign that after many years of impasse, the Conference had finally moved forward from discussions on the programme of work to a new stage, that of actually addressing the substance of the items on the agenda. This might be a very modest achievement, but it was still worth making additional efforts to consolidate and nurture these gains.
KJETIL PAULSEN (Norway) said that when the Conference started in January to discuss the possibility of convening informal consultations, some reluctance was expressed from different quarters. There was concern that the consultations might be unbalanced and other concerns. Today, he believed that there was almost full agreement that the consultations so far had been useful, clarifying and constructive. A large number of delegations had participated and contributed to fruitful discussions and exchanges of view. This augured well if the Conference was ever to enter a phase of real negotiations.
Highlighting a few points from the informal consultations that were of particular interest to Norway, Mr. Paulsen said that while several delegations, including his own, had as a first priority negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), a corresponding willingness had been expressed on the part of many of these delegations to also address other issues, one way or the other. And those who advocated the prominence of nuclear disarmament or militarization of outer space had not rejected the importance of an FMCT. Also, many non-nuclear-weapon States had reconfirmed that they had an active interest in the issue of negative security assurances, and he hoped that nuclear weapon States would take these concerns seriously into account. And some new and specific proposals had been made during the informal consultations relating to an FMCT, prevention of an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament, and so-called new issues.
The informal consultations had demonstrated that the Conference members were all capable of communication and discussion and that perhaps there were fewer secret agendas than had been anticipated, Mr. Paulsen concluded.
KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI (Poland) said in a farewell speech that his seven years as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Poland to the United Nations Office in Geneva had been an extraordinary time. During that period, Poland had joined NATO, and most recently the European Union, events which had set new horizons for his work. On the other hand, the tragic events of 11 September had also taken place during that period, highlighting the need to think about international security in a new perspective. At the Conference, although Member States had not been able to agree on a programme of work, the Conference had worked substantially. It served as a platform for exchanging views, informing about national positions, and broadening mutual understanding. It was a perfect confidence-building measure of its own.
Ambassador Jakubowski said that the role of the Conference on Disarmament remained valid, even more so because of the new challenges that the world faced, especially terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Those new challenges for international security should be reflected on the deliberations and work of the Conference. New, innovative thinking was needed, and also a new vision. It was important to start and prove that the Conference on Disarmament was not only on paper the sole multilateral negotiating body in the disarmament area, but that it could also be productive and effective.
PHILIP OWADE (Kenya) said that the informal plenary debates in the Conference had proven that it was indeed a path worth treading in efforts to make progress on the substantive work of the Conference. He said he had asked for the floor to join a number of speakers who had previously underlined the importance of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. He recalled that Kenya would be hosting the First Review Conference of the Convention in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December 2004, and extended an invitation to all delegates to the Conference to attend the Review Conference. The Ottawa Convention enjoyed a membership of 142 States parties as of March 2004 and had achieved significant success in the field of disarmament. It was unique in the sense that it was both a humanitarian and disarmament treaty. Since its adoption, the resort to the use of anti-personnel mines had diminished considerably, while their production had also decreased. More than 30 million stockpiles had been destroyed.
Mr. Owade said that the First Review Conference provided an important opportunity to evaluate areas of progress and to address the remaining challenges, one of which was the question of the universality of the Convention. It remained of concern that major States were still not parties to the Convention. Kenya welcomed the recent pronouncements by the Governments of China and the United States at the ongoing intercessional meeting reaffirming their support for the principles enshrined in the Convention.
JOSEPH AYALOGU (Nigeria) thanked the President for his kind words of welcome and assured him of Nigeria’s unflinching support in the work of the Conference on Disarmament. He hoped to count on the cooperation, wisdom and experience of his colleagues in order to discharge his mission. Nigeria would help to advance all disarmament issues.
* *** *