At this year’s session, my delegation has not made a policy statement yet, waiting for an adequate occasion to do so , the possibility after the CD successfully adopts the work programme

STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. AKIRA HAYASHI,

AMBASSADOR OF JAPAN TO THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

2^nd March 2000

Geneva

Mr. President,

At the outset, I should like to congratulate you most warmly on your assumption of the presidency and wish you every success in discharging your important duties. I am certain that your wisdom and diplomatic skills will help bring about to the CD, the long awaited positive agreement on our work. My delegation pledges its full cooperation to your endeavours. I should also like to pay tribute to your predecessor, Amb. Harald Kreid of Austria, for his initiative and tireless efforts to promote the start of substantive work in the CD.

Mr. President,

It is unfortunate that my delegation has not yet been able to make a policy statement at this year’s session. I had been waiting for an opportunity conducive to do so, possibly after the successful adoption of the work programme. Much to my regret, I now have missed that opportunity for good, because today I am speaking for the last time at the CD, while a prospective work programme is still under consideration or possibly even in long hibernation.

After my two and a half years tenure here, today I should like to state some of my personal observations on the CD, apart from my government’s position. First of all, I would not be honest if I said, “I am satisfied with the work I have done here and I am leaving with a sense of achievement”. It is regrettable that I have not been able to participate in any substantive negotiations in the CD.

Before I came to Geneva in 1997, I was told that the situation at the CD was not very propitious for the commencement of the negotiations of a FMCT, despite the fact that it had long been agreed as its next item for negotiation. But, honestly, I did not anticipate that such a situation would continue during my entire tenure.

Mr. President,

The Report of the Tokyo Forum published last year stated as one of its recommendations: “The Tokyo Forum calls on the Conference on Disarmament to revise its procedures, update its work programme, and carry out purposeful work, or suspend its operations. The consensus rule is causing perpetual deadlock. Consensus among members of the Conference on Disarmament should not be necessary to begin or conclude negotiations on a multilateral convention”.

I understand that this is a kind of manifestation of a deep frustration felt by some experts looking at the CD from the outside. The frustration and the disappointment for those who are inside, including myself, are naturally much greater. But I personally do not agree to this recommendation, since the existence of the consensus rule itself is not the only cause of the sorry state of the CD, and suspension of the CD’s operations would certainly not change the situation for the better.

My predecessor, Ambassador Kurokochi, referred to the CD’s consensus rule in her farewell speech. In it, while admitting that the consensus rule was indispensable to the CD, she stated: “When a point at issue is a procedural matter which does not prejudge the question of substance, every country should refrain as much as possible from exercising a veto”. This assertion apparently did not obtain much support at the CD. Instead, I frequently heard such words of caution as, “Procedure is substance” and “Devils are in detail”.

Mr. President,

I have to confess that my own experience here during these two and a half years, has made me more sympathetic to the argument of my predecessor.

Different views have been expressed on this famous consensus rule of the CD. Some advocate to adhere scrupulously to this rule at every nook and corner of the CD’s operations. Some argue for the necessity of a less rigorous application of the rule, especially to procedural matters. The recent case of this difference is the interpretation of paragraph 5(d) of CD/1036.

Mr. President,

Despite all these disputes on the consensus rule, one thing I should like to stress is that the consensus rule should be taken as distinctly different from granting the right of veto to each member. If this distinction is not made properly, the rule would inevitably turn out to be a recipe for indecision and no action.

What is essential to the consensus rule, in my view, is the common recognition of the prerequisite for employing the rule. That prerequisite is the fundamental orientation towards achieving compromises for the sake of agreements rather than a pursuit of individual positions by ultimately resorting to the right of veto. This necessitates opportunities for thorough discussions through which differences among the participants are identified and efforts to narrow such differences are pursued based on self-restraint.

Mr. President,

I have the impression, though I hope I am wrong, that the members of the CD have collectively become insensitive to the prerequisite that makes the consensus rule workable. Such sense of resignation as, “nothing to do because there is no consensus”, is prevailing. Clearly, something must be done to redress the situation for the purpose of restoring normalcy to the Conference.

I have no magic formula, but my humble suggestion is this: Create more opportunities for discussions in informal settings across regional groups where we could conduct frank exchanges of views – the kind of exchanges that have often remained within each group and within bilateral contacts. This will enhance the transparency of the work of the CD and increase the awareness for progress, and would consequently create more chances for consensus to emerge in the CD. It is my earnest hope that the CD will start its substantial work as soon as possible.

Mr. President,

I was told when I arrived in Geneva that the CD was the best club in town. In fact, it is. I have enjoyed immensely the company of my colleagues and have been tremendously stimulated intellectually. But the CD should not be complacent with only good comradeship.

Lastly, I wish to take this opportunity to express my wholehearted gratitude to the Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Vladimir Petrosvky, and Deputy Secretary-General Mr. Abdelkader Bensmail, all other members of the Secretariat, as well as the interpreters for the cooperation and help they extended to me and my deep appreciation to them for their dedication and efficiency.

Thank you.