Farewell statement by H.E. Ambassador Johannes C. Landman
Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to
the Conference on Disarmament
Geneva, May 26, 2009
Mr President,
The Netherlands has shown a keen interest in security matters ever since our neutralitywas violated and we regained our freedom after the Second World War.Together with the promotion of European integration, it became one of the two centralpillars of our Foreign Policy.
The Netherlands Constitution is in that sense even unique, whereit proclaims the pursuit and promotion of the Rule of Law, the international rule of law as a fundamental obligation of our Nation.Reinforcing the rule of law and strengthening international security & stability have been for decades the bedrock of the Dutch approach to the outside world.
The Netherlands, in fact, was one of the earlier countries to be invited to become member ofthe CD, or the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD)as it wasthencalled.In 1969 the Government appointed AmbassadorEschauzier as its first Permanent Representativeto this body. And ever since the early nineties we maintained an independent Mission at the CD.
However, on the 23rd of March I was informed that the Netherlands Government wished to savetax payers money for better purposes and had chosen this particular juncture in timeto decideon the abolishment of the Netherlands Mission to the CD, to reduceits staff by half and to integrate the remainder into the Netherlands PR to the Office of the United Nations and other International Organizations.
Under the now prevailing mood of optimism that Arms control, at last, is back center stage on the world agenda, this can be seen as an act of audacious foresight that, anyhow, nothing will come out of it, and surely not in the CD.
Another reason might be that my performance in these 4 years has been evaluated and led to the conclusion that it was sub-standard, or, anyway, without much relevance to the Dutch national interest.
Whatever, thefact is that the CD even now, after all that change we have witnessed at the global level and after all the efforts you personally, Ambassador, have put into this, building onthe collective efforts of your predecessors - after all that, the CD appears until this veryday to continue to ponder instead of to decide.
However, personally speaking,I think there is reason to be optimistic now, although itwould not be the first time that success eluded us at the very moment everybody thought we were there.
We are clearly on the brink of the breakthrough we need. "The fierce urgencyof now," to speak like the Financial Times. The events of yesterday underline that point even more.
Indeed, we need it now, if we really want to be able to start these negotiations and have these substantive discussions in the foreseeable future - we all, let's face it and be honest about it, we all and even more so our capitals, will need time to put our act together. We have lost the habit, we have lost the manpower and we have lost the expertise totackle the issues at hand efficientlyand conclusively. Inretrospect, this interval of over twelve years has beenfar too long a period indeed.
Thus, in case we take the required decision, as we must and are expected to do in the forthcoming days, we have still a long way of preparation to go before being really operationaland ready.
We have to work out in more detail the rules to follow in implementing in good faith our Programme of Work, chose our chairmen, decide on duration of chaimanships, etc.
All this and more is required as a preliminary, to allow us to really start next January or so. But nothing of the sort will happen if we do not give a clear signal NOW of our common determination to that effect by taking a Decision on the draft proposal you submitted to us, on behalf of the P6.
Mr President,
Having come sofar, it is only fair to look back a moment to where we came from. When I arrived in Genevain September 2005, the CD was in utter stalemate. It was not possible to discuss anything else than an FMCT, and that on a basis which was rejected by most of the member states.
It was thanks to the then incoming Polish Chair, Ambassador Rapacki and his innovative idea of a common platform of the 6 Presidents of the forthcoming year, what we call now the P6; it was thanks to his courage and persistence while tenaciously preparing already as from September 2005 for 2006, and his efforts to establish a schedule of debates fixed in advance on ALL the subjects of major concern, not just FMCT, that the CD was able to gather momentum again.
It took another decisive person, to bring this proces further; Ambassador Pauline Mtshali of South Africa and the astute, painstakingly methodical, and empathic way she prepared her Chairmanship one year later, while initially not convinced and even rather sceptical about this new P6 approach and the advisability to continue that way.
They both in particularprovided the basis, on which, Mr President, you were able to make this hopefully final jump.
We live in a world of twitter and tweeds, of newsheadlines and instant satisfaction, while Arms Control andDisarmament are of a long term nature. Moreover, such negotiations are often technical and do not lend themselves to snappy sound-bites. Worse, they only have a chance to succeed in the quiet of confidentiality. Woodrow Wilson's “open Covenants of Peace openly arrived at” don't work here. For Participating States far too much is at stake. Their security, they feel, as sovereign nations, their very existence. What one State Party considers legitimate protection of its own security, is often seen by another as a potential threat, opined an expert at the Ministry in the Hague already in 1979, to explain why Disarmament negotiations represent one of the most difficult kinds of international bargaining. Public Diplomacy doesn't work here. It is counterproductive.
Too bad for us, to perform such a great job in such thankless environment.
The purpose of Diplomacy is not to outwit the opposing nation but to engage it in a web of common interests, thereby serving the interests of one's own nation.
Diplomacy, as I found in Freeman's "The Diplomat's Dictionary,"diplomacy, like war,is too important a subject to be left to blundering amateurism. It marks the phase of policy prior to war; it makes and breakes military alliances; it ends war.There is much lore(profound knowledge) to it;
it is a subtle calling. Diplomacy is too portentousto be entrusted to the politicians but it is too political to be left to the Generals. Those
who may be fatally affected by diplomacy's failures have every reason to demand that only its most skilled, professional practitioners represent their interests.
Mr President,
I do not want to end this farewell speech, leave this gilded Hall, Jose Maria Sert's Temple of Peace and Harmony, without having mentioned two colleagues, who left last year and whom I particularly appreciated because they owned exactly those outstanding qualities as consummate diplomats I just described. They combined patriotism and a keen notion of the national interest with empathy and understanding of otherones position, as we are all citizens of this one world the survival of which we collectively have an interest to protect and to defend.
I am referring to Ambassador Masood KHAN of Pakistan and Ambassador Jingye CHENG of China. I owe them in particular a lot.
I wish to express my thanks also to our Secretary General, Personal Representative in our midst of the SG of the UN, Ambassador Sergei Ordzhonikidze. I highly appreciated his continuous interest in our work and tremendously enjoyed our contacts, his sharp insights, wits and observations.
My heartfelt thanks go also to the Secretariat which continues to improve itself, and to the translators which had to put up with my often unexpected improvisations.
As regards civil society, my Japanese colleague has already expressed most eloquently how we value their role. Their importance can hardly be overestimated.
And finally, Mr President, I wish to thank my wife here and now, because without her extraordinary support my performance would have been much less, and my career as it evolved in the diplomatic service of my country would even never have been possible.
Mr President,
I belong to the generation that believed in the axioma "Trust but verify." Verification is indeed of irreplaceable importance, but without Trust we cannot do anything at all. These days trust and confidence are surging again.
It is surely sad to leave, exactly at the very moment when things start moving again, as I am confident they will. But I shall always remain grateful for the time spent here, for the friendship and goodwill I found from all sides.
Paraphrasing a great 18th - 19th century G e r m a n poet, scientist and explorer, born in theC h a m p a g n e region in the eastern part of France, and above all a great European and citizen of the world, practicing the art of outreach between cultures and civilisations long before the word was even invented, Adelbert von Chamisso, alias Adelaide de Chamisso de Boncourt, when he had to leave for good what was dear to him:
You will always live in my heart, although I can't be there any more....
As regards myself, me, I commence anew. I am going, with my music instrumentin hand.Traveling and exploring, singing from country to country.May be I meet you on the way, again.
Thank you, Mr President