Address at Ministerial Disarmament Conference

 Check against delivery.
The Minister based his address on the following points:

Mr Secretary-General,

• I would like to commend you for convening this high-level meeting to move our disarmament agenda forward. It is a timely initiative as we seek to capitalise on the achievements of the NPT Review Conference in May.
• In order to maintain and increase the momentum of our work for a world free of nuclear weapons, as you yourself so eloquently phrased it in your five point plan, we can no longer postpone the debate on how we should organise and structure the multilateral disarmament machinery. The message from the NPT Review Conference was clear – either the CD gets back on track, or negotiations will take place elsewhere.
• At this juncture, we should ask ourselves some basic questions about what it would take to make our negotiating structures productive and ready to take on the challenges we face in today’s political environment: 
• First of all, we maintain that the consensus principle should not be applied to procedural issues. The consensus principle should be there to protect vital national interests, not to block all meaningful work.
• Second, our negotiating processes should be open to all interested states and all stakeholders. Norway questions the claim by several countries that the CD should be the sole designated multilateral negotiating body on nuclear weapons as long as it is limited to only 65 members. Disarmament is in our common interest, and should be a joint endeavour. Disarmament should not be left to diplomats alone. Our negotiating bodies should be open for interaction with civil society, as this is vital to advancing our disarmament aims.
• Third, the regional groups – fashioned along the divides of the Cold War – have become barriers to progress, allowing individual countries with narrowly defined national security interests to hide behind group positions. This is no way to work in our modern world.
• Fourth, the disarmament machinery has been unproductive for many years, but at the same time, important results have been achieved outside it. I believe we have much to learn from the processes that resulted in the Mine Ban and Cluster Munitions Conventions, both with regard to approach and process. In addition to meeting the criteria of being open, inclusive and free of artificial procedural barriers, these processes were characterised by their use of results for ordinary men and women on the ground as a measuring stick for success. The humanitarian concerns should also be the guiding principles when addressing the most inhumane, indiscriminate and disproportionate weapons ever invented. The humanitarian and moral imperatives made it necessary to pursue the Land Mine and Cluster Munitions Conventions outside established multilateral negotiating forums. A powerful norm has now been established against the use of these weapons. We have already seen that the political costs of using such weapons are heavy regardless of whether or not a given country is party to the convention.