Chair, 
Thank you for giving me the floor.
In addition to the explanation of vote before the vote as read out by the distinguished representative of Sweden, I will add our national perspective on our “no’’ vote on the resolution on the Report of the Conference on Disarmament as well as with regard to the functioning of the Conference more in general. I also take this opportunity to respond to the Right of Reply exercised by the Russian Federation during the Thematic Debate on Cluster 7, in which the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation asked a question to my delegation on the relationship between insisting on inclusivity on the one hand, and cutting the number of meetings on the other hand. 
Responding to the Russian Federation’s question “what does the Kingdom of the Netherlands want” regarding the CD, I would say: to spend our time and resources in a useful and productive manner, in accordance with its mandate. This mandate, as indicated in paragraph 120 of the final document of SSOD-I, as well as in rule 1 of the CD’s own rules of procedure, stipulates that the forum is to negotiate disarmament agreements. 
We have been unable to fulfil this negotiating mandate CD for 30 years now. Yet we still have the resources, including rooms blocked for meetings and interpreters and translators available, for up to 24 weeks per year. Last year, the UN started the UN80 process on the reform of the entire UN system. These reforms imply streamlining, cost-saving measures and more across the UN system. We see no reason why the Disarmament Machinery and in particular the CD and the UN Disarmament Commission, should be exempted from this. Especially when the Machinery is not delivering on its mandate. 
Let me remind delegations that the financial resources of the CD come from the UN budget. This budget is derived from assessed contributions, in other words from resources paid by all UN Member States. By that logic, it is only fair to allow non-members of the CD to observe the work of a Conference they ultimately also pay for so they can judge themselves whether the money is spent wisely. 
Chair,
This is not to say that we are seeking to abolish the CD, or that limiting the number of meetings is a goal by itself. Rather, in the absence of the prospect for any negotiations, we feel everyone’s time and budget would be spent better if we would cut the number of meetings, as a number of Presidencies already did this year, instead of making the CD a kind of day care centre for diplomats with panels and thematic discussions on topics already dealt with elsewhere. Which is what we tend to end up doing in the CD already for years. 
Furthermore, it has become impossible to reflect even the most general descriptions of these discussions transparently in the report and the resolution.
For this we oppose keeping things as they are and simply hoping for better times, for hope is not a strategy; it is delayed disappointment.
Chair,
The Netherlands stand for transparency and accountability for the CD. We call upon the membership to allow eligible observers regardless of their political views into the meetings of the CD, and to rationalize the amount of time and financial resources we spend on the CD at the same time, and to revisit such a decision once the CD has resumed its function as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. 
I thank you Chair for giving me the floor.