Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports
back to the acronym home page
WMD Possessors
About Acronym

Conference on Disarmament (CD)

CD Notes

Back to the main page on the UN and the CD

Delegations seek clarification of Pakistan position, 27 August 2009

Compiled by Acronym Geneva Intern Nafiseh Baeidi

Pakistan, Ambassador Zamir Akram

  • Despite substantive difficulties with the text, Pakistan had joined the consensus on decision CD/1864 in order to enable the Conference to make across-the-board progress on all the four core issues and in return it was Pakistan's expectation that those issues would be addressed in the implementation of the decision.
  • Pakistan was confronted with "disappointing and alarming" maneuvers even on procedural issues on the part of some delegations.
  • Pakistan had a right to ask for flexibility from others since it had accepted several of the amendments proposed to it.
  • Further highlighted that his delegation’s demand for balance on the four core issues “is not an extraneous negotiating link but normative, legal and substantive correlation established freely, voluntarily and collectively.”
  • Read out his delegation’s amendment to the chapeau of the implementation document, CD/1870/Rev.1, which specifies that the CD “will ensure, without discrimination, balanced outcomes in the consideration of all agenda items, particularly the four core issues, while recognizing the principle of undiminished security for all.” He said that, this text “has not yet been formally shared with all delegations.
  • Pakistan was also alarmed by arguments that rotation of chairs of all bodies could not be accepted as a principle.
  • There could be no understanding on the time frame for rotation. Similarly, the rules of procedure, which required negotiating the programme of work at the beginning of every year, had been sought to be bypassed, with suggestions that the present programme should be rolled over for next year and perhaps beyond.
  • Pakistan strongly opposes if issues such as fissile materials will be negotiated outside of the conference.


Iran, Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri

  • The notion of balanced outcome of the work carried out under the four core items of the conference should in our view not be at all a controversial issue at the level that prevents the CD from entering into substantive discussions after such a long stalemate.
  • Iran called on delegations to accept the practical suggestion by Pakistan.
  • The language presented by Pakistan would not hinder in any manner implementing properly and fully the programme of work, in particular for 2009.
  • There would be no more opportunity to implement the programme of work if the meeting of today could not adopt a plan for the programme of work; deadlock for the case of not reaching the decision today would have far more broad negative implications for the CD than Pakistan’s amendments.


Egypt, Ambassador Hisham Badr

  • Emphasized the importance of recognizing that collective ownership of the process is necessary for its sustainability.
  • A very large number of delegations, including Egypt have indicated their willingness to accept consensus on CD/1870-Rev1.
  • Expressed Egypt’s flexibility in addressing suggestions, presented by other delegations.
  • Believed that with most issues having been addressed a convergence of opinion is close at hand.


Cuba, Deputy Representative Manuel Sanchez Oliva

  • Reaffirmed Cuba’s hope that in the future there would be flexibility and resolve to move forward, and respect for the rules of procedure as well as constructive dialogue and the search for consensus.


China, Ambassador Wang Qun

  • The amendment read out by Ambassador Akram  is a “tiny issue” and it seems the presidents and the Pakistani delegation are close to reaching a solution.
  • China hopes that all parties will work in a joint way to try to achieve this objective.


Brazil, Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares

  • Amendment should be given very objective and detailed attention so that they could come to a decision on it in plenary as soon as possible.


Bangladesh, Ambassador Abdul Hannan

  • The progress made so far, on the basis of consensus, should only enforce our commitment for achieving it.
  • We must all fight to overcome the final hurdle and achieve convergence of opinion with collective diplomatic skill and wisdom. And remember that failure to achieve consensus is not an option us.


United Kingdom, Ambassador John Duncan

  • Our collective ambition is to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. The CD is an important part of taking forward the commitment of those Nuclear Weapon States that have signed the NPT.
  • It is the right of any State to remove itself from consensus. However, it was not particularly helpful to make references to procedural manoeuvres or veiled criticisms of the work of Presidencies.
  • It is also standard diplomatic practice that, if that country does nevertheless seek progress, that it should take responsibility for that act and itself should seek to reformulate consensus, to persuade others that the changes they seek are acceptable.


CD President Austria, Ambassador Christian Strohal

  • Agreed with everybody who has said that we have reached a critical moment. Indeed one of the critical elements of this moment is that we are approaching the end of the 2009 session of the Conference very fast. It was for that reason that the Presidency had continued intensive consultations with a view to allowing for consensus on the implementation of the programme of work. But he was not of the view that they were ready to come to a consensus.


Back to the Top of the Page

© 2009 The Acronym Institute.