Speakers Urge Action on Membership Expansion, Adopting Balanced Work Programme of Disarmament Conference, as First Committee Concludes Debate on Key Forums
All nations were responsible for international peace and security and had the right to participate in disarmament negotiations, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today during the conclusion of its thematic debate on the United Nations disarmament machinery, as member States stressed the urgent need to reignite that work.
Concerned at the longstanding deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament, the representative of Latvia, speaking for the 38 States making up the Informal Group of Observer States to the Conference, said that when enlargement of that forum’s membership was last considered, no further action was taken. Although the Conference’s rules stipulated such reconsideration at regular intervals, the 16 years that had passed could “hardly count” as falling within that “regular” timeframe.
Noting the fact that many countries had expressed interest in Conference membership, Slovakia’s representative said the proposal deserved proper consideration, and welcomed the appointment of a special coordinator on its expansion. However, he stressed that in its efforts to move multilateral disarmament efforts forward, the international community should not ignore, omit or bypass the established disarmament and non-proliferation forums.
Particularly encouraged by the in-depth discussions on a treaty to ban fissile material, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that some serious efforts had been made over the past two years to bring the Conference back to life. The final report of the Group of Governmental Experts on fissile material, adopted by consensus, had made recommendations that could contribute to future negotiations of a fissile material cut-off treaty.
However, the Conference on Disarmament itself, once a success story, had been dormant for too long, Turkey’s representative said. The problems hampering the Conference were not created by its procedures or internal dynamics. Instead, the stalemate was a reflection of the strategic bottlenecks at different yet interrelated levels.
Urging the Conference to address its expansion in a serious and consistent manner, Portugal’s representative said that a concrete decision on membership could provide a fresh impetus to the entire internal process and would demonstrate that the Conference was still able to reach consensus. At the current stage, the Conference’s credibility was clearly challenged by its immobility and ineffective ritual functioning, and it seriously risked being known for its long-lasting inability to accomplish its mandate, rather than for its past achievements.
Egypt’s representative said that it was the absence of political will which had prevented the Conference from adopting a balanced, comprehensive work programme. The solution lay in addressing all the issues on its agenda through an integrated approach, including negotiations on nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, a treaty to ban fissile material, and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Revitalizing the Organization’s disarmament machinery required efforts that were collective, complementary and consensual, as opposed to individual, contradictory and divisive.
During the meeting, the representative of New Zealand introduced a draft on the report of the Conference on Disarmament. The representative of Nepal introduced a draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.
Also speaking were the representative of Kuwait, Iraq, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and Morocco.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m., on Thursday, 29 October to continue its thematic debate segment.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to conclude its thematic debate on the disarmament machinery. For more information, see Press Release GA/DIS/3534.
Statements
JANIS MAZEIKS (Latvia), speaking on behalf of the 38 States making up the Informal Group of Observer States, said that more than half were waiting to become full members of the Conference on Disarmament. All nations were responsible for international peace and security and had the right to participate in disarmament negotiations. He remained deeply concerned at the longstanding deadlock in the Conference, and said there was an urgent need to reignite the work. When enlargement of the Conference was last considered, no further action was taken on membership even though its rules stipulated that membership would be reconsidered at regular intervals. However, 16 years could hardly be considered a regular interval.
The Conference possessed the necessary tools, he said, to broker disarmament and make a global impact, but that required global participation. He invited member States to overcome obstacles preventing the Conference from performing with its full capability. He also called for the early nomination of a special rapporteur to review membership, while recognizing that that did not automatically lead to outcomes and that decisions would have to be made by Conference member States. In the evolution of the Conference, enlargement was not a goal in itself, unlike universalization.
DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand) introduced the draft resolution entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament” and said that the language therein adhered closely to what had been agreed on in previous years. By its terms, the Assembly, in reaffirming the role of the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, would appreciate the strong support expressed for the Conference during 2015. It would also recognize the significant efforts undertaken in 2015 to try and break the deadlock. The Assembly would reflect concern about the ongoing stalemate in the Conference and would reiterate the overwhelming call for greater flexibility so that substantive work could commence without further delay. The Assembly would also emphasize the importance of civil society engagement, as well as the value of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).
SEO EUNJI (Republic of Korea) said that over the decades, the shared call of a safer and more secure world had led to some significant progress in disarmament. The United Nations disarmament machinery had played a central role in making those achievements possible. The need for further progress in multilateral disarmament was greater than ever, and it was therefore unfortunate that the Organization’s machinery was unable to function. Over the past two years, some serious efforts had been made to bring the Conference back to life. As an important step, an informal working group had begun talks on a possible programme of work. Her delegation was particularly encouraged by the in-depth discussions on a treaty banning fissile material. The final report of the Group of Governmental Experts was adopted by consensus, which made recommendations on possible aspects that could contribute to negotiations of a fissile material cut-off treaty. That report would be a good basis for the future negotiations of such a treaty. She noted with disappointment that the Disarmament Commission was also unable to make substantive progress, since the international community could not accept another cycle of the Commission’s work that was “in vain.”
ABDULAZIZ A M A ALAJMI (Kuwait), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, reiterated the importance of multilateral work as the ideal way to face challenges in the field of disarmament and strengthen cooperation in line with the United Nations Charter. Strengthening the disarmament machinery represented by the Conference and the Commission must be States’ common goal to guarantee that that machinery could fulfil its mandate. He expressed concern over the Conference stalemate because it was the single negotiation forum within the United Nations on disarmament matters. The lack of political will of major States had prevented the Conference from achieving its goals. Because its mandate on the fissile material cut-off treaty and other relevant treaties was extremely important, he emphasized the importance of the Commission as well. He reiterated the Arab States’ position on the importance of conducting a comprehensive review of that body and updating it as soon as possible in a special session of the Assembly.
SARMAD MUWAFAQ MOHAMMED AL-TAIE (Iraq), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, attached great importance to the Conference because it was the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Regrettably, however, for 18 years it had suffered a stalemate and had not been able to exercise its mandate. He reiterated the importance of summoning the necessary political will to move forward. The international community was seeing “a height” of international crises and risks due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which threatened international peace and security and led to a deviation of resources away from development aims. Accordingly, he called for the international community to multiply its efforts to reach a comprehensive, balanced programme of work that fulfilled everyone’s aspirations. He agreed with many States that nuclear disarmament should remain a priority for the Conference. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons violated international law. He emphasized the importance of the role of the Commission, but regretted that it was facing failure in the form of a stalemate since 1999. He therefore welcomed resolution 69/77 entitled “Report of the UNDC” and called upon member States to show the flexibility necessary to succeed in negotiations.
GHANA SHYAM LAMSAL (Nepal), introduced a draft resolution under agenda item 98/2 titled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific” (document A/C.1/70/L.53). Its sponsors included Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam and Nepal. He said the Regional Centre could be used to facilitate dialogues in the field of peace and disarmament in the region and beyond. Despite its temporary relocation to Bangkok because of the earthquakes in Nepal this year, it had continued to organize conferences and seminars on thematic issues and undertake projects for capacity-building in arms control and non-proliferation. His Government was ready to provide support for the early resumption of operations for the Regional Centre from Kathmandu. Disarmament goals could not be achieved without effective programmes at the regional level. The Regional Centre’s programmes were conducted using voluntarily contributed resources which were not sufficient to sustain its mandated activities.
VLADIMIR YERMAKOV (Russian Federation), speaking first in his national capacity, said that most States had already expressed their concerns on the lack of progress in the Commission and the Conference. However, the recipes being put forward would not solve the problems as they currently existed, and could in fact lead the international community away from progress. Issues of international security would not be solved by simply raising one’s hand or pressing a button. The only way to achieve progress would be through a negotiating process based on consensus. He was against any attempts that called into question that founding consensus principle, which when followed, would ensure that the disarmament process unfolded in such a way so that the world became more secure, without conflicts, rather than the opposite. However, some States were making “titanic efforts” and suggesting that building a nuclear-weapon-free world could somehow take place without the participation of the nuclear-weapon-States. That was “absurd”. The idea of establishing an open-ended working group also raised serious doubts. He urged all his colleagues to look very carefully at “what you are being led into”. Emotions were the worst advisor in that kind of very serious work. The Russian Federation was willing to take part in negotiations, but would not accept any kind of double standard.
Speaking on behalf of a group of likeminded States, including Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, China, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Syria, Tajikistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe, he reaffirmed the commitment to resume negotiations in the Conference without further delay. Tangible progress in multilateral disarmament and the strengthening of international arms control and non-proliferation regimes could only be achieved within the framework of the existing multilateral disarmament mechanisms. The Conference, as the single multilateral negotiating forum, could not be substituted by any other forum for the purpose of addressing the complex issues in its agenda. He welcomed the reestablishment of the informal working group, with the aim of producing a work programme. He called on the States participating in the work of the Conference to demonstrate political will in order to reach an agreement on a balanced, comprehensive programme of work and resume its substantive work on its core issues: nuclear disarmament, a treaty banning fissile material, preventing an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances.
MATTHEW ROWLAND (United Kingdom) said the Conference was the main negotiating forum of the United Nations disarmament machinery and it had an agenda that allowed the concerns of all participating States to be addressed. It also included the nuclear weapon possessing states. If there was to be meaningful multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament, it had to take place in the Conference. The member States should do all it could to ensure the relevance of the Conference since it was the heart of the multilateral approach to disarmament issues. The United Kingdom welcomed the work of the Group of Governmental Experts of the fissile material cut-off treaty and its report and called again on all Conference members to engage in a constructive manner across the various regional and other groups. Member States needed to make a concerted effort to build an understanding on key issues. This included progress toward a verifiable and internationally acceptable treaty, negotiated on the basis of Conference document 1299 and its mandate.
TAREK MAHFOUZ (Egypt), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said the absence of political will had prevented the Conference, the sole multilateral body for disarmament negotiations, from adopting a balanced, comprehensive work programme. The solution lay in addressing all the issues on its agenda through an integrated approach, including negotiations on nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, a treaty to ban fissile material, and prevention of an arms race in outer space. The very first Assembly resolution in 1946 was on nuclear disarmament. The Conference should shoulder its responsibility by launching negotiations on a universal ban on the possession, development and use of nuclear weapons. Similar efforts were needed to revitalize the Commission. The global community had to preserve the voluntarily-funded UNIDIR as an impartial actor. Revitalizing the Organization’s disarmament machinery required efforts that were collective, complementary and consensual, as opposed to individual, contradictory and divisive.
RAUF ALP DENKTAŞ (Turkey) said that the Conference, once a success story, had been dormant for too long, and the same was true of the Commission. In view of the spectrum of security challenges the international community faced today, enhancing the effectiveness of relevant institutions and mechanisms should be a shared goal and priority. Turkey believed that the problems hampering the Conference were not created by its procedures or internal dynamics, but instead, the stalemate was a reflection of the strategic bottlenecks at different yet interrelated levels. Turning to the Commission, he regretted that it had not been able to submit any substantive recommendations to the Assembly in 15 years. It was time to rekindle collective efforts to revitalize the whole disarmament machinery.
RICHARD GALBAVY (Slovakia), aligning with the European Union, expressed continued concern about the paralysis in the disarmament machinery and saw a pressing need for progress. Despite increased and concerted efforts, the Conference had once again failed this year to meet its obligation to establish a programme of work. The Conference should resume its work without further delay. His delegation had paid due attention to the fact that many countries had expressed interest in the membership of the Conference, and he believed it deserved proper consideration. In that regard, he welcomed the increasing support for appointing a special coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the Conference. The international community needed to work together to focus on finding a consensus in order to take its multilateral efforts forward. However, those efforts should not lead to ignoring, omitting or even bypassing the established and relevant disarmament and non-proliferation forums. Despite many differences, the international community should keep in mind that it remained united by a common goal and was bound by a shared vision of achieving and maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal) urged the Conference to address its expansion in a serious and consistent manner as it respected its rule of procedure, Rule 1 No. 2. Portugal regretted that the appointment of a Special Rapporteur to examine the expansion issue had not taken place. A concrete decision on membership could provide a fresh impetus to the entire internal process and would demonstrate that the Conference was still able to reach consensus. That would answer the membership requests of States who were declaring how they valued the Conference as a dedicated United Nations forum for broad disarmament negotiations. At the current stage, the Conference seriously risked being known for its long-lasting inability to accomplish its mandate, rather than for its past achievements. Its credibility was clearly challenged by its immobility and ineffective ritual functioning. That situation could endanger the perception of the Conference as the sole United Nations body devoted to negotiating international disarmament instruments.
MOUNA OUAZZANI (Morocco), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said that she remained deeply convinced of the relevance and competence of disarmament mechanisms, particularly the Conference. Since its inception, the Conference had been the sole multilateral negotiation forum on disarmament issues. But the lethargy that had beset the Conference for more than a decade was in contrast to developments on the international scene and the security challenges facing the world. She urged the body to adopt a programme of work to renew its goals. Her delegation was prepared to consider any constructive proposals aimed at breathing new life into disarmament mechanisms, but also remained firmly attached to the integrity of the Conference. She called on the working group on the fourth special session on disarmament to begin, and to make a general diagnosis of the mechanisms and their systemic problems. It should strengthen and renew the consensus on disarmament, taking into account international developments since 1978, including the existence of States that had nuclear weapons but were not bound by any legal obligations.