|
||||||||||||||||
The P-6 proposal for continuing work in the CD in 2007 Statement to the Conference of Disarmament
Before commenting on the substance of the P-6 proposal, I want to express to you and your P-6 colleagues the profound appreciation of my delegation for your efforts. Because of your dedication, determination and creativity the CD now has an opportunity to break out of the morass that has stymied our work for a decade. I know that this has been a difficult process for the P-6, but you have worked in a methodical way: you have consulted each and every delegation individually as well as in regional groups; and you have taken note of all the interventions throughout two rounds of informal meetings on each agenda item. As you said, Madame President, when you met with the Western Group, this proposal reflects what the presidents heard during those consultations and during the informal plenaries. As you said, this is our proposal. We take your wise words to heart and recognize that the proposal requires compromise from all of us. It represents what, in the considered judgment of the six presidents, could garner consensus and allow this body to return to its primary task: negotiating international instruments. The U.S. well realizes that the Presidential document has been carefully crafted with each word and idea weighed and balanced. It is no secret that the United States would have preferred a clear cut decision to start negotiations on FMCT based on the mandate we tabled (CD/1776) without reference to any other issue. We have spoken against linkages for years and we are not convinced that all linkages have yet been broken as result of this plan ~ it bears a very close resemblance to the A-5 proposal, something we oppose. Despite those concerns, the United States has decided it will not stand in the way of consensus on the P-6 proposal -- as you have presented it to us today. For ten years CD members have used procedural arguments as a proxy for differences over substance and as a result, the CD has come to the brink of irrelevance. We understand that proposing amendments to the P-6 proposal, for ostensibly procedural reasons, would have the effect of preventing substantive work in the CD. After all the wasted years of fighting over a procedural mechanism, you and your fellow presidents have presented us a way forward. This proposal perfectly fits the definition of compromise in that there is something in it for everyone not to like. In this regard, if the CD cannot agree to this compromise, we do not believe it will ever be able to break out of its stalemate. Madame President, We owe you and your fellow presidents a debt of gratitude for
presenting the CD this chance to save itself. Thank you. |