20 May 1999
(U.S., U.K.,Franceseek to break impasse) (1190) Geneva -- The United States, the United Kingdom and France introduced a new proposal at the May 20 plenary session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) which is intended to break the impasse in the world's only multilateral disarmament body and allow it to resume negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty. Introducing the proposal, Ambassador Robert Grey, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the CD, said the three co-sponsors hoped to provide the basis for a general agreement that would allow the CD to proceed with its paramount task: negotiating multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements for which consensus exists. In particular, Grey emphasized that the CD has not yet heeded the U.N. General Assembly's "clear and uncontested call for prompt resumption of negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty." "The sponsors of the proposal cannot believe the international community intends for negotiations to prohibit the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to proceed in fits and starts," Grey said. "It would be irresponsible for the Conference to make limited progress this year, then refrain from returning to the task promptly and energetically when it reconvenes in January." Australia, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and the Ukraine took the floor during the May 20 session to express support for the proposal. The following is the May 20 statement by Ambassador Robert T. Grey, Jr. to the Conference on Disarmament. (Begin text) Mr. President, This is the first time I have spoken since you assumed your current duties, and I would like to congratulate you on the energy and imagination you have shown in presiding over the work of the Conference. I regret that overall circumstances have not favored your efforts, and in doing so I am sure I speak for many others. In any case, I assure you of my delegation's full cooperation as you complete your term of service. On behalf of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, I would like to introduce a proposal on the Conference's work program and ask that it be circulated as an official document. The proposal preserves many elements of the work program proposal I tabled on February 2, at a time when I was seated where you are sitting now. But in all frankness, Mr. President, I greatly prefer my own chair and believe you fully understand why. The new proposal differs from the old one in two important ways. First, the new proposal starts with a draft declaration that the President would make on the day the Conference proceeds to adopt the decision, in order to clarify and explain the Presidency's plans for intensive consultations on topics related to nuclear disarmament. This draft declaration resembles the Presidential statement delivered on March 26, 1998 (CD/1500), but the new wording incorporates a number of enhancements we hope will be helpful. The sponsors are proposing these clarifications because we believe the Presidency's consultations this year should not be limited to procedural factors. To the contrary, we are seeking to foster informal dialogue on substantive endeavors leading toward nuclear disarmament. To us the new text seems quite clear about that, but others might be able to advance suggestions that may serve to reinforce the point. The second major improvement appears in paragraph 2 of the draft decision we propose. According to that paragraph, the Conference would decide to re-establish, under item 1 of the agenda entitled "Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament," the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate, on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator (CD/1299) and the mandate contained therein, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Up to this point, the wording is the same as in the Conference's decision of August 11, 1998 (CD/1547), as well as in operative paragraph 1 of UN General Assembly resolution 53/77 I -- which was adopted without a vote last December 4. But in the next sentence of its decision, the Conference would instruct the Ad Hoc Committee to commence negotiations immediately with a view to their early conclusion, and then go on to decide that the Ad Hoc Committee shall meet in successive sessions of the Conference until its work is completed, without the need for annual reauthorization. Mr. President, In considering our proposal, it is important to bear in mind the clear desire of the international community that negotiations be concluded at an early date, as evident from the General Assembly resolution adopted without a vote last fall. But given the subject's well known complexities, and because of the limited time left in this year's session, it is impossible to believe that negotiations will be concluded before the Conference adjourns in September. Work on the treaty will have to continue during next year's session of the conference, and many observers predict that further negotiations will be required in one or more years that follow. The sponsors of the proposal cannot believe the international community intends for negotiations to prohibit the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to proceed in fits and starts. It would be irresponsible for the Conference to make limited progress this year, then refrain from returning to the task promptly and energetically when it reconvenes in January. Mr. President, Mid-way through this year's session, we are confronted with a salient and disturbing fact: Members of the Conference have not yet heeded the General Assembly's clear and uncontested call for prompt resumption of negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT). The sponsors strongly believe the Conference must take affirmative measures to prevent further delay at the beginning of next year's session for reasons unrelated to the merits of the treaty we have all agreed to negotiate. In a procedural sense, the wording of our proposal takes account of an important idea that was suggested in 1998 by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile, in his capacity as special coordinator for improved and effective functioning of the Conference. At that time, Ambassador Illanes proposed that subordinate bodies should continue in being until their purposes have been fulfilled. Members of the Conference could not reach agreement on that as a general principle; but in view of the General Assembly resolution, the sponsors believe it should certainly apply to work of the FMCT Ad Hoc Committee. In conclusion, Mr. President, the sponsors commend the proposal to Members and ask them to give it active study and reflection. We hope the proposal will soon be the basis for general agreement, so the Conference can proceed with its paramount task: negotiating multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements for which consensus exists, while taking appropriate account of the capabilities, strengths, and experience of the Conference in conducting such negotiations and bringing them to a successful conclusion. Thank you, Mr. President. (End Text)