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
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
The ties that bind
Dr. Robert Zuber | Global Action to Prevent War
Editorial: Not just “one of those instruments”
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Rhianna Tyson, Project Associate
This week at the CD, Malaysia, Myanmar, Venezuela and France delivered statements.
Venezuela's Ambassador Blancanieve Portocarrero delivered a brief presentation on her country's recent activities relating to disarmament and arms control. Venezuela has made significant progress in its de-mining campaign, as well as in the implementation of its small arms control law. It is also in the process of ratifying the Convention on the Prohibition of Certain Conventional Arms.
Myanmar Ambassador U Mya Than offered amendments to the A5 proposal, which, despite the wide agreement, has still not been officially adopted as a program of work for the stalemated body.
Under the original A5 proposal, the CD would create Ad Hoc Committees on the four main subjects: nuclear disarmament, Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and Negative Security Assurances. The proposal also calls for the appointment of Special Coordinators to solicit Member views on three other areas of importance: new types of WMD; a
complete program of disarmament; and transparency of armaments.
Myanmar holds the view that the simultaneous creation of Committees and Coordinators creates a linkage between the two. The Ad Hoc Committees on the four main issues are the priority, he said, and must "be liberated from the rigid framework of a linkage with the question of the appointment of the Special Coordinators. This makes it shorter, simpler, and easier to build consensus on."
On the issue of nuclear disarmament, "the highest priority for Myanmar," the proposed amendment incorporates "agreed language of the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference," the commitments of which, "have been called into question. to our dismay."
Ambassador Dr. Rajmah Hussain defended Malaysia from the "undue references" made to it in the U.S. President's speech last week. The speech has "offended" Malaysia by its implicit "question (of) the commitment of the Government of Malaysia on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation."
Ambassador Hussain maintained that the Malaysian company SCOPE is in no way "involved with an international network which supports the illegal production of centrifuges," as claimed by Bush in the speech last week. Although the U.S. statement notes that many other countries are involved in
the illegal network, "Malaysia has been deliberately singled out.thus tarnishing Malaysia's track record."
These points and others were also made by Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, whose comments of 13 February were also circulated as a CD document.
Ambassador Rivasseau of France noted his country's dissatisfaction with "certain paragraphs" in the decision on enhancing the participation of civil society in the work of the Conference which was taken last week. He asked for clarification on "the cost of the decision," and urged that the draft decision on NGO access be just one part of the general debate on improving the methods of work of the Conference.
Read the draft decision on NGO access here.
This and all other CD Advisories are archived here.
Editorial: Revitalization or procrastination?
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Editorial
Jennifer Nordstrom | Reaching Critical Will
More...
If you want a world free of whaling, stop killing the whales.
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will
The Conference of Disarmament (CD) continued its general debate on a Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), followed by brief focus on definitions, at its May 17 plenary session. The Conference is meeting every day, twice a day, this week, during its week of focused discussion on an FMCT. President Doru Costea of Romania also announced the Conference will invite an expert from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to speak in plenary next Monday, May 22, on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
India, Algeria, Belgium, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, China and Syria made general debate statements, and Australia, the Republic of Korea and Japan made definitions-related statements in the morning plenary session before the Conference moved to informal mode. South Africa, Algeria, Australia, the Republic of Korea, Japan and Germany made statements in the afternoon plenary session devoted to scope before the Conference broke into an informal meeting.
While only about one quarter of the yesterday's general statements discussed the FMCT in the context of the Conference's program of work, seven of today's eight statements did. As CD Report readers know, the Conference needs consensus on its program of work in order to establish the ad hoc committees in which Member States negotiate treaties like the FMCT, and there has been no consensus on the topics or mandates for these committees for the past ten years. The 2001 Five Ambassadors' (A5) proposal to establish ad hoc committees on “four core issues” (FMCT, Nuclear Disarmament, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and Negative Security Assurances) simultaneously, is the most popular compromise, but does not enjoy consensus. Therefore, all the discussions about an FMCT are taking place in a forum which is unable to agree on a program which would allow it to negotiate an FMCT.
Today, Syria pointedly said it only supports establishing an ad hoc committee on an FMCT when the CD adopts a programme of work on all four issues. Yesterday, Spain said it is necessary to abandon such linkages among the issues given the impossibility of moving forward with them. Today, Algeria called the Five Ambassadors' proposal the only means to find agreement on a programme of work, while China reminded the Conference of its flexibility in finally agreeing to the Five Ambassadors' proposal in 2003. New Zealand expressed hope that the FMCT discussions this week could break the deadlock.
Today's general statements again addressed scope, stocks and verification. Member States continue to differ over including existing stocks in an FMCT, as they have since Ambassador Shannon first conducted his consultations in 1994, as South Africa noted. China is “of the view that future FMCT negotiations should not involve the issue of stockpile.” South Africa, who like Pakistan yesterday chose to use the term Fissile Material Treaty, said that “Although cognizant of the difficulties associated with the past production of fissile material, we believe that stocks should be included in the Treaty.” Australia said an FMCT should deal with the status of pre-existing fissile material stocks and be a “forward-looking” treaty. India said the Treaty should deal with future production only.
Different points of view were also made concerning verification. Although China said the Shannon Mandate was a delicate balance to be maintained, it also said all draft provisions for verification, including no verification, should be “carefully explored and prudently considered.” Algeria recommended a verification mechanism with a comprehensive safeguard regime similar to that of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's safeguards for Non-Nuclear Weapon States, thereby ending the discrimination between Nuclear Weapon States and Non Nuclear Weapon States. Belgium said that appropriate verification must be guaranteed in the outcome of the Treaty, though negotiations should begin without preconditions. India was concerned that “Absence of a verification mechanism may engender lack of confidence in compliance with the Treaty, encourage willful non-compliance, and lead to allegations and counter-allegations of non-compliance.”
Australia, the Republic of Korea and Japan had experts with working papers who gave statements at this morning's thematic discussion of definitions. Australia considered definitions of four relevant terms: fissile material, productions, stocks and non proscribed activities. “Fissile material should be only those relevant to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. The material regarded for IAEA safeguards purposes as unirradiated direct use materials could serve as a useful template,” said Australia's Mr. Russel Leslie. The Republic of Korea shared definitions of fissile material from UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents, and said that “direct use materials can be used as a reference for the considerations to define fissile material for FMCT negotiations.” Japan, who suggested the Conference use the International Atomic Energy Agency's definition of fissile material, said the inclusion of other material should be studied in detail by experts and possibly discussed in the International Atomic Energy Agency.
South Africa began the afternoon's thematic discussion on scope by emphasizing the Conference does not need consensus on the scope of an FMCT before beginning negotiations. Australia outlined the framework for the Treaty: the principle article would be the prohibition of fissile material production for nuclear weapons. It would also include definitions, entry into force provisions, mechanisms for revisions and amendments, provisions for the status of stocks and verification, and a mechanism for the declaration of non-proscribed military use of fissile materials (ie naval propulsion).
Algeria said the objective of an FMCT is to ensure fissile materials are not produced for nuclear weapons, which is therefore the same objective as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards regime, contrary to Japan's earlier assertion they were different. Therefore, fissile materials production in Nuclear Weapons States will either cease or be under safeguards. Japan said there was “no doubt” that civilian use of fissile materials should not be subject to an FMCT. The Republic of Korea said the FMCT and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should complement each other in scope and safeguards, and that it is dangerous to make distinctions between them.
The conference will hold its next plenary meeting tomorrow, Thursday 18th May at 10 am, with a thematic debate on existing stocks.
-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Lost in the echo chamber
Rhianna Tyson | WILPF
