Statement by H. E. Mr. Akio SUDA
Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament
Geneva, 30 June 2011
(Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters)
I would like to welcome the members of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters to the CD.
Since this meeting is being conducted in an informal setting and is an important opportunity to express our opinions, today I will state frankly my personal views.
1 The issue of revitalization of the CD and review of the disarmament negotiating machinery is, as was concurred by an overwhelming majority at the HLM in September 2010, very important and a priority issue. Japan continues to actively participate in and contribute to these discussions.
However, in our view, this issue should not be mixed up with the issue of commencing FMCT negotiations. To talk of nuclear disarmament, as I have repeatedly stated, Japan regards also the issues of nuclear disarmament and NSA as matters of importance in our process of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and we are very much willing to participate in further developing these issues.
At the same time, I would like to stress that commencing FMCT negotiation is the next logical and indispensable step for international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. As was made clear by the Foreign Minister Maehara at the HLM last year, if there is no emerging prospect of launching negotiations on an FMCT within the CD, Japan together with other like-minded countries, is ready to take the initiative to provide a venue for negotiations.
2 The CD has three unique characteristics, the combination of which can clearly explain the reason of the deadlock today.
The first characteristic is the inclusion of all the nuclear-weapon states and states possessing nuclear weapons in the membership of the CD. The second characteristic is the CD’s believed role as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, particularly on nuclear disarmament. And the third characteristic is the strict consensus rule.
Many delegates consider these three characteristics as valuable features of the CD. But on the other hand, the combination of these triple characteristics could produce a poisonous effect paralyzing not just the functioning of the CD but also possible multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a whole.
Because of these three characteristics, any single nuclear weapon possessing state can logically block even the start of any negotiations on a disarmament issue. That is what is happening now. Since all the nuclear-weapon states and states possessing nuclear weapons participate in the CD, which is good, and it is said to be the sole international disarmament negotiating body, just one member, including any of nuclear weapon possessor, can, by misusing the consensus rule, veto even the start of any negotiations in this body and freeze progress on disarmament.
Unless we address this fundamental structural problem, we won’t find any breakthrough for the CD and I am afraid that the Conference will lose its relevance in the world of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament.
In this regard, the matter that we should seriously discuss and examine is the improvement of the use of the consensus rule. The rule of consensus should be considered as a productive way to achieve cooperation among the member states and to generate positive results through negotiation. But in the CD a strange thing has happened. In 2009 the CD adopted its program of work, CD/1864, by consensus, but we could not implement that program which we had adopted ourselves by consensus. The consensus rule betrays the consensus. Apparently there is something wrong with the application of the rule.
These structural problems of the CD should be discussed at the high-level meetings in New York and elsewhere, because these structural problems should not be left for the CD members alone since they relate to the whole matter of progress in nuclear disarmament of the international community.
3 Another practical problem of the CD is the linkage of issues under the program of work. The CD has failed to produce any concrete results since it started linking various issues in the program of work. Making linkages sounds good if we can form a package that contains all the important issues and if we could make steps forward on all of them.
But the reality of past practices is the other way around.
At the CD informal meeting under the Colombian presidency the other day, Mr. Caughley of UNIDIR suggested one possibility for the CD to think about in the future: a less ambitious program of work that merely allocates time for dealing with subjects successively with a view to agreeing mandates separately for more detailed treatment.
Once CD member states recognize that an issue is mature for negotiation, we can then proceed on that particular issue. I believe that FMCT is already at that stage. By advancing this way in discussions, we can make headway on some issues – maybe not all at once – but at least in the direction of nuclear disarmament as a whole.
4 Lastly, I do not understand arguments that claim the reason for the CD’s dysfunctional state is not internal but rather external. How can we continue to say that the CD doesn’t need to do its task because the difficulties are outside the CD and of a political nature? Needless to say, the CD is a forum for advancing disarmament, including, most importantly, nuclear disarmament through the negotiation of treaties. Through such a task the CD can contribute to improving the global security environment and making the world safer and securer. It is of course the legitimate right of any country to put a paramount importance on its national security and to draw attention of others to its concerns. However, we must once again reaffirm the raison d’être of the CD, that is the negotiating body on disarmament and not a discussion forum on security issues themselves. And in relation to such a raison d’être, we must admit that the CD has not been functioning for more than a decade and that the status quo is not allowed any more.
I thank you.