Incoming rotating President Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey opened the Conference on Disarmament (CD) session and gave a general outline of the schedule of activities for the Conference during Turkey’s term. Germany’s delegate was the only representative to deliver a statement during the session; he spoke about the draft treaty on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space introduced by the Russian Foreign Minister last week.

Ambassador Üzümcü welcomed the second round of informal discussions on the CD’s agenda items, scheduled to begin today under in the organizational framework introduced during Ambassador Labidi’s presidency. He intends to devote the final week of his term to an evaluation of progress by the agenda item coordinators. He also explained that he plans to “pursue intensive consultations” toward “the possibility of a consensus building on the Presidential Proposal crafted by last year’s Presidents.” Ambassador Üzümcü also mentioned that the Human Rights Council will hold its high-level segment in Geneva during the first week of March, during which time he would like senior political figures, who will already be in the city, to address the CD.

Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany welcomed the draft treaty on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space introduced by Russia’s Foreign Minister. He argued, “Clear delimitations between purely peaceful uses and distinct military uses have become a meaningless fiction. Just as an example: Space tracking and surveillance capabilities for monitoring debris, following satellites for avoiding potential collisions, inherently also have a potential for offensive space applications.” With this in mind, Ambassador Brasack suggested elaboration through discussion on three issues “not yet sufficiently covered by the draft”: the relationship between a potential new instrument and the existing ones, particularly the Outer Space Treaty; the dangers posed by the development and testing of anti-satellite weapons; and compliance and verification mechanisms. He also remarked, however, that “meaningful discussions” in the CD on space security issues “will only be possible if the CD agrees to a Programme of Work.”

Although little has been said in the formal sessions of the CD on the draft treaty submitted by Russia, discussions on agenda item three, prevention of an arms race in outer space, will be held during the informal session on Thursday.

The upcoming US anti-satellite maneuver
Delegates to the CD have also not yet mentioned the US announcement to disable a failed satellite carrying a half-ton of hydrazine rocket fuel (a toxic chemical) by shooting it down with a Standard Missile-3, whose primary vocation is interceptor for the US Navy’s missile defense system. This incident highlights one of the deficiencies of the draft treaty proposed by Russia and China, which does not address attacks from ground- or sea-based interceptors such as the SM-3. It has also evoked criticism from many space security experts, who have vocalized two primary concerns.

One concern is the debris. While Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said most of the debris will come down within two orbits, Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation said, “modeling of debris creation isn’t an exact science,” arguing, “the debris that the light-weight interceptor will kick into higher orbits when it hits the massive (bus-sized) satellite” will remain in orbit, posing a risk to the International Space Station.

The second, but no lesser, concern is the political implications of conducting what amounts to an anti-satellite test. The US administration has argued the test is not the same as the Chinese anti-satellite test in January 2007, which it condemned. The US government says the Chinese test was “designed specifically” to test the ability to destroy satellites, and argues that its own plan is only aimed at protecting civilians on the ground. However, the Russian Defence Ministry asserted the US plan is “in many ways close” to China’s test, arguing, “The impression arises that the United States is trying to use the accident with its satellite to test its national anti-missile defence system as a means of destroying satellites.” Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, likewise argued, “The Bush administration is magnifying the risk to justify the testing of new dangerous and provocative offensive space warfare technologies.” Jeffrey Lewis also argued that the “deck is stacked” in favour of shooting down the satellite, pointing out the administration’s worst case scenario for intercepting the satellite is that they miss, “not that they are wrong about the debris estimates or how much debris would reenter with a successful intercept,” while they have considered the worst case for the tank of hydrazine coming down into a populated area from which people cannot evacuate.

For a government that pours millions of dollars into its potential dual-use missile defense and space technology each year and is openly hostile toward a ban on attacks against space objects and on weapons in space, the decision to use some of that equipment, on grounds which have been described by most experts as ill-considered at best, gives the impression that the US military is just looking for an excuse to test its offensive space capabilities and demonstrate its military dominance.

Informal discussion on nuclear disarmament
During informal discussions today on nuclear disarmament, Ambassador Hans Dahlgren of Sweden delivered a statement on behalf of Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland on de-alerting nuclear weapon systems. During the 2007 General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, these five states introduced a draft resolution called “Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems,” inspired by the recommendations of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. The resolution was adopted by the First Committee (124-3-34) and the General Assembly (139-3-36), with France, the United Kingdom, and the United States voting against it each time. Ambassador Dahlgren emphasized that de-alerting is was one of the thirteen practical steps agreed to at the 2000 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, that it would signal the nuclear weapon states take their obligations seriously in the lead up to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, that it “can be achieved easily,” and that it “brings us further on the path to reducing nuclear dangers.”

Ambassador Dahlgren indicated that his group has carefully considered the views of those states who were not ready to support the initiative last year. He said they are looking forward to constructive dialogue on the issue, but “would prefer not to repeat a debate on terminology.” He explained, “What we ask for is a change of deployment practices. With a view to today’s security policy threats, we would see a significant increase in security and confidence if none of the States possessing nuclear weapons would have the capacities or policies to launch its missiles within a few minutes.”

Cluster munitions
The plenary was less-attended than usual, as many CD delegates are currently in Wellington, New Zealand for the latest preparatory conference of the Oslo Process, an international initiative to ban cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, to assist survivors and affected communities, and to ensure clearance of their land. More than 150 representatives from 50 countries are there along with over 100 non-governmental organization representatives from 42 countries. The conference will result in a draft treaty text that states will agree to negotiate in Dublin, Ireland during the next stage of the Process from 19–30 May 2008. See the Cluster Munitions Coalition, www.stopclustermunitions.org, for more information. The issue of a ban on cluster munitions was taken out of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in early 2007 when it became clear that progress on the issue would be painstakingly slow.

On Wednesday, informal sessions will focus on agenda items one and two, and Thursday’s informal session will focus on agenda items three and four. There will be no formal sessions on Thursday.

The next formal plenary is scheduled for Tuesday, 26 February at 10am.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will
- Sandra Fong, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom