Poorbesh

The United States introduced a draft Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty and a draft mandate for negotiating it in this morning's May 18th discussion on existing stocks during the week of the Conference on Disarmament's focused debate on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). US Acting Assistant Secretary of International Security and Nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker traveled to the Conference topresent the draft treaty. Following the introduction, the CD paused its speaking list to give delegations an opportunity to react to what Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands called “possibly the most important statement in 3/4/5/6 years.” India, United Kingdom, Iran, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, France, Pakistan, Germany, Venezuela, Chile, Belgium, China, Russia, Bulgaria, Algeria, and Canada reacted to the draft treaty, mandate and statement. All welcomed the statement and text as a sign of US engagement with the CD, even if many were not fully satisfied with its content.

The Text
The draft treaty does not include existing stocks or provisions for verification. The draft mandate is “to negotiate a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devises,” leaving out “internationally and effectively verifiable” from the previously agreed-upon Shannon Mandate for an FMCT. The draft treaty requires the ratification of the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) to enter into force and includes a withdrawal provision. Interestingly, Assistant Secretary Rademaker proposed either an ad hoc committee, or this plenary, begin negotiations. He also suggested they aim to approve a text by the end of this 2006 CD session.

As delegations only received the text this morning, most were not able to officially comment on specifics because they must send the draft to their capitols, but were interested in further discussions. Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Russia hoped the negotiating mandate and draft treaty were a flexible starting point for negotiations that “will help us to strike a balance” among differing positions, as Algeria said. Germany was “happy about some elements of flexibility in the mandate and draft proposal.” Pakistan hoped neither the text nor the US statement were “intended to support the notion that it is a take it or leave it document” and Russian said the draft treaty was “not the final word” on such a treaty, hoping it was open for comments and ideas.

Australia, Belgium, and the Netherlands were particularly concerned about the lack of verification in the draft treaty, although all agreed with the Netherlands who said “it seems we should, can and will discuss that” in negotiations. Even Pakistan, who has long held that “the agreed upon negotiating mandate [Shannon Mandate] cannot be called preconditions”, today said that “we believe all issues can be raised once negotiations start.” Although Australia holds that an effective FMCT should contain verification measures, it believes the treaty could contain states' commitments, followed by secondary agreements on verification, similar to the process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's initial commitments followed by secondary agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Possibilities for Beginning Negotiations
As discussed yesterday, the CD must agree by consensus on a program of work to establish the Ad Hoc Committees that negotiate treaties, and has been unable to agree for ten years. Many delegations expressed hope today that the draft text and mandate would provide momentum and/or the opportunity to “bring the Conference back to negotiating mode” in the words of Italy. Some, like Spain and the UK, recommended dropping the links among the CD's four core issues in order to begin work, while others, like China, suggested the CD “speedily begin work on an FMCT, the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), nuclear disarmament, and Negative Security Assurances.” Belgium, Bulgaria and France were ready to begin negotiations “immediately”, “right away”, and “today”, respectively. Russia said the introduction of a draft FMCT text “cannot serve as an obstacle to our work on other issues”, and Venezuela said that if a program of work is to be adopted it “must address the concerns of all States Parties.”

The compromise Five Ambassadors' proposal for a program of work with Ad Hoc Committees on each of the four core CD issues has been rejected by the US, who only wants to work on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. Although all the other CD members agreed to the Five Ambassadors' compromise, Rademaker said, “a package approach will never work.” He called the linkage among the issues “unconscionable hostage-taking... by proponents of less worthy ideas”. The US saw no need for new agreements on outer space, nuclear disarmament, or security assurances.

Canada and the Netherlands both suggested a more compromising attitude. The Netherlands, reacting to the US characterization of linking issues as hostage-taking, advised that “in practice... insisting on not talking about anything but an FMCT is exactly the same approach as insisting on multiple subjects.” Canada reminded the Conference that the Five Ambassadors' proposal contains a negotiating mandate for an FMCT, but only discussion mandates for the other three subjects. “Americans do not usually shy away from a good debate,” said Canadian Ambassador Meyer. “If the US would signal a willingness to engage, secure in the knowledge they would not advance to negotiations without explicit US approval, it would make an important contribution to bringing this body back to productive channels.”

The text is indeed an opportunity. Although the Conference may not be able to agree by the end of the session, it should be able to use this text, in combination with the timetable of scheduled discussions on all the issues, to find a way to begin working.

The US and Iran
Rademaker's speech also accused Iran of having less than peaceful intentions with its nuclear program, and said “the US expects Security Council to live up to its responsibility to address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. It will be a defeat for effective multilateralism should the Council fail to live up to this responsibility.” Iran responded to Rademaker's list of reasons why Iran's nuclear program is not logically about energy independence by recalling the timeline of US accusations about weapons of mass destruction leading up to its invasion of Iraq, telling the Conference “not to take [the US's] words as real facts, and recalling that the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no diversion of nuclear materials to weapons purposes in Iran.

New US Ambassador to the CD
Assistant Secretary Rademaker announced the new US Ambassador to the CD as a sign of the US intention to begin negotiations, and followed it with the veiled threat that hopefully the former Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Christina Rocca would not “be the last US Ambassador to the CD.”

Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Speakers
Following the discussion of the draft treaty and negotiating mandate, South Africa, Brazil and Nigeria spoke. Egypt addressed the Conference at its afternoon session devoted to “any other FMCT matters”.

South Africa offered that its experience destroying its nuclear program and the following International Atomic Energy Agencyinvestigations would give some insights for FMCT verification. Egypt said compliance must be strict and with guarantees, requiring a complete inventory of stockpiles in all states, including Nuclear Weapon States and states that are not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nigeria pointed out that “In other disarmament instruments stockpiles, verification and compliance mechanisms have been incorporated because of their importance in achieving the set of objectives of such instruments. Why should these elements not be considered in our work on fissile material?”

All four supported including existing stockpiles in an FMCT as a step towards nuclear disarmament. South Africa said because stockpiled material could be used for the production of future nuclear weapons, in order for an FMT to be truly credible, in should include stockpiles in its scope: “It is clear that a complete halt in the production of fissile material would leave enough of the material available to further increase – and not decrease – the number of nuclear weapons.” Egypt said not including existing stocks in an FMCT would not reflect the majority of states' wish to reach complete nuclear disarmament. “The fact that certain countries insist on excluding stockpiles from the scope of the treaty is not in conformity with the spirit of the NPT,” they added.

Brazil stated that the scope of an FMCT must clearly be defined in order to preserve the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Next Meeting
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held tomorrow morning, with a focused debate on compliance. The afternoon session will address verification.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Published in Database Statements2

Tagged under

Wednesday, 18 May 2005 00:00

18 May 2005, No. 13

Hold that pessimism
Rebecca Johnson | Acronym Institute

Published in Database Statements2

Tagged under

Monday, 18 March 2013 00:00

18 March 2013: Vol. 6, No. 1

Another chance for the arms trade treaty
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

Published in Database Statements2

Tagged under

Tuesday, 18 March 2008 00:00

18 March 2008

Ambassador Yevhen Bersheda of Ukraine, the new rotating president of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), formally introduced the Presidential Draft Decision CD/1840, which was distributed to delegates last Thursday in an informal session. The representatives ofChina, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Indonesia, and Algeria took the floor to comment briefly on the draft decision and to welcome the new Ambassador of Brazil, Ambassador Luiz Filipe De Macedo Soares, who introduced himself to the Conference.

Toward a programme of work
Ambassador Bersheda described CD/1840 as "an attempt to integrate the efforts of each and every CD-member to step up the work of the Conference and gain consensus on the way forward." He said, "It provides a good basis for the continuation of consultations and intensification of our common endeavours towards achieving global security." As explained in the 13 March CD Report, CD/1840 is virtually identical to the 2007 draft decision L.1 and CRP.5, the complementary draft statement reflecting the CD's understanding of the implementation of L.1. Ambassador Bersheda argued that L.1, which is the basis for the 2008 draft decision, has not lost its relevance, explaining that in this year during informal discussions the most active debates have taken place on the four core issues contained within L.1.

He went on to explain his belief that a compromise could more easily be found if informal debates gradually turned into formal negotiations, which could occur if discussions were to focus on interactive exchanges of views and "concrete comments on the items set out in the agenda" rather than declarations of government positions.

Civil society and some delegates have been calling for this approach for some time. Certain delegations have requested, or even spontaneously instigated, interactive debate in the sparse moments sometimes available at the end of "debates" in the UNGA First Committee or at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conferences. During the 2007 First Committee, informal question and answer periods were held after each of the panel presentations given by experts and analysts, providing for some of the most interesting discussions of the conference. Discussing specific items directly, without prepared statements laying out unchanging government positions, could lead to a more positive experience in diplomatic fora—experiences which could be explained to capitals, helping to foster a possibly more dynamic exchange between decision-makers and their diplomatic envoys. More creative interactions could help iron out issues that would undoubtedly come up during negotiations, while increased transparency would help reveal what these problems are and where they lie, giving others the opportunity to help overcome the impasse. However, interactive discussions are not an adequate replacement for a negotiating mandate. After more than a decade of discussion, we know what the issues are—it's time to start solving them.

Response to the proposed programme of work
Some of the delegates commented briefly on CD/1840. China's Ambassador Wang Qun said he is encouraged by the new text, but is aware that some delegates are still concerned about it. He expressed hope that they would "continue to endeavor to resolve and bridge their differences in bringing about the programme of work that is acceptable to all parties through further constructive dialogue and consultation." Ambassador Chang Dong-hee of the Republic of Korea reminded CD delegates "that we have now arrived at an important crossroad and we should choose the right direction. If we take the wrong turn and lose this opportunity it will take again a long time and a lot of efforts to get there on the right track." Mr. Pieter Van Donkersgoed of the Netherlands said his delegation would "actively participate" in continued consultations contained in CD/1840.

Ambassador I Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja of Indonesia spoke cautiously about the draft decision, saying that his delegation appreciates "any endeavor to break the impasse in such a way as to bring the CD back on track," but emphasizing "thorough and prior consultations ... should be conducted as broadly as possible in order to ensure that any proposal is worth further discussion. I believe Mr. President in the strength of intensive consultation that will help strengthen the conducive condition that is being developed this far." He said genuine and constructive dialogue "should become the means through which a transparent approach is applied to our efforts to move this process further along." He also called for "a cohesive process through intensive informal meetings, in a spirit of coordination, understanding, and flexibility."

Mr. Hamza Khelif of Algeria was also cautious in his endorsement of CD/1840, noting that while his delegation believes it "is a significant step forward to document L1," they still have some concerns. He invited Ambassador Bersheda and the other 2008 presidents "to continue their consultations within the framework that you would find appropriate in order to bring positions together and overcome the stalemate that we have been witnessing here."

It is unclear, however, how CD/1840 is a significant improvement or step forward from the 2007 proposed programme of work, as an examination of the documents proves that they are identical in content, though CD/1840 is much more efficiently organized. Despite this, some delegates emphasized the need for continuing dialogue, perhaps indicating that they are hesitant to endorse a proposal that, after a year of consultations, is exactly the same as the previous one.

Civil society and the CD
Ambassador Bersheda concluded with a note about the International Women's Day statement read to the Conference on 11 March. In response to the concerns expressed in that statement, he reminded us, "conducting multilateral negotiations on disarmament is a very complicated and delicate process which does not bring immediate results." He said that CD members "reasonably behave cautiously and make comprehensive analysis of discussed issues," which are complicated because of "geostrategic and internal situation[s] in member states." While the members of civil society who call for progress at the CD appreciate the complexity of international relations, we also understand that "geostrategic" interests—coupled with a lack of respect for multilateral processes and agreements—have led to increased military spending, war and weapons profiteering, inter- and intra-state tensions, and crises of human security and sustainable development.

We have never called for immediate results, but the CD has not adopted a programme of work since 1999 and has not negotiated a treaty since 1996. The issues on the proposed programme of work have been in discussion at the CD for many years. Thus what we call for is sincere, progressive, creative, transparent, democratic engagement in multilateral fora, respect for international law, and the development of an architecture for international relations more conducive to peace, security, and justice.

The next plenary is scheduled for Thursday, 27 March at 10am.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will