Chair,
Let me start on a positive note: We have a number of hard-working
implementation support units (ISUs) that serve our conventions with
professionalism, making much out of limited resources; be it the AntiPersonnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), the Convention on Cluster
Munitions (CCM), the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW),
the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) or the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Provisional Technical
Secretariat of the CTBT provide tremendous value to the Chemical Weapons
Convention, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) respectively. They are going above and beyond
in carrying out their mandates with credibility, integrity and skill. We hope that
the institutional framework of the BWC will be strengthened and look forward
to the work on this topic in the BWC intersessional working group. Meanwhile
we are thankful to the BWC-ISU for its role in maintaining dynamism and
progress in the work under the convention.
Chair,
The UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) is invaluable. We are
pleased to note the increased activities from UNIDIR over the last years. Its
semi-autonomous status and very high-quality research makes it a trusted
partner and source of information across the board. It is important that
UNIDIR have sustainable funding, and we encourage all states to support
calls for larger subventions to UNIDIR over the regular budget. We support
this year’s resolution on UNIDIR, L. 66.
Chair,
We also note with satisfaction that the UN Disarmament Commission (DC)
has been able to get back to work in the past couple of years.
Chair,
On a less positive note, the parts of the machinery that are supposed to lead
us to negotiations are not working well. The Conference on Disarmament
keeps breaking its own dismal record every year. It has not fulfilled its
negotiation mandate since the CTBT in 1996. Instead, months are spent every
year on negotiating the programme of work, which ultimately ends up not
being agreed. And this year 17 UN member states were not granted observer
status, violating a core tenet of multilateralism. The adoption of five
subsidiary body reports was a welcome development; as was the suggestion
in the decision on the work of the conference that the subsidiary bodies
continue their work in 2025. This kind of multi-year workplan is progress. It
falls, however, short of what the CD should do i.e. to negotiate. We call on the
CD to expeditiously start negotiations on a treaty that prohibits the
production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and that also addresses
existing stocks.
It is often said that the problem is not the architecture, but the lack of political
will. 30 years of stalemate nevertheless raises the question of whether the
design is optimal for stimulating that political will. It raises the question of
whether the lack of political will in as little as one member state out of 65
should be allowed to block progress – even on procedural issues,
observerships and the like. The cost of blocking progress on substance is low,
especially because it can be done on the procedural level. Also problematic is
the CD membership. It is at once too large and too small. Too small for
legitimacy; too large to get work done under the strict consensus rule that
currently applies. We believe the solution is to enlarge the CD membership in
combination with a softening of the consensus rule.
The CD was created 46 years ago, in a world that was very different to ours. It
is time to revisit the architecture in earnest. There are no easy solutions.
Precisely for that reason we should start structured discussions of the issue.
In this context, we welcome recent discussions about the need to revitalize
the CD.
We end with a call to support the preparations for an SSOD-4, as was
recommended in the Pact for the Future, Action 26. In the meantime we, as
the hand that feeds the CD, should communicate some clear expectations
that go with the funding. First order of business: agree on a programme of
work.
Thank you.