31 January 2006

The January 31 third Conference on Disarmament plenary session of 2006 also marked the 1000th plenary meeting of the Conference, and nine delegations used the opportunity to assess the CD’s history and current state. While delegations acknowledged the important contributions the CD has made to disarmament throughout its history, including the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992) and theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996), as Chinese Ambassador Zukang Sha put it, “The glory of the CD’s past cannot cover up its present difficulty.” The President of the Conference, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, the Russian Federation, China, the Netherlands, Colombia, Sweden, the Secretary-General of the CD, and the Ukraine delivered statements.

Once again, Member States underscored that the reason for the almost decade-long deadlock is not the CD as an institution. They instead recognized the CD as a means to an end, and commonly identified that end as increased common security. Italy, Switzerland and the Secretary General of the Conference also noted that a working CD would increase common security through disarmament-funded development.

As Ambassador Jürg Streuli of Switzerland stated, the problem derives from “the lack of political will of the States to engage in new negotiations.” Many statements today encouraged creativity, flexibility and initiative in positions, not procedure. In his capacity as President, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland likened the CD of recent years to Sleeping Beauty dreaming of her brave programme of work Prince to come and kiss her out of her sleep, when what it really needs is creativity “to get ourselves out of this hibernating state!” When the Netherlands encouraged imagination, Ambassador Landman specified that the CD must come up with a security analysis as broadly shared as possible.

Italian Ambassador Carlo Trezza encouraged effective multilateralism where “delegations not … simply express their national postures but also take into account the priorities of others.” Former US President John F. Kennedy was quoted several times at the 1000th CD plenary session when he said “What is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.”

This stubborn self-interest is particularly evident because states do not have a shared security analysis. Norway suggested the CD’s successful negotiations all came at moments when states shared perceptions of self interest, and that negotiations would not come again until those perceptions of self interest aligned. Sweden, on the other hand, encouraged states to reexamine their positions from a position of self interest. The consequence of states’ unyielding positions “is doing damage not only to our common security,” said Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier, “but to their own.” By getting caught in the false dichotomy between old and new dangers, they are failing to address either one.

The Ukraine encouraged the CD to maintain the crucial balance between non-proliferation and disarmament, negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and the establishment of a Nuclear Disarmament subsidiary body in the context of the CD. Sweden, repeating a commonly shared perception among delegations, expressed the need for the CD to begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) without delay. Ambassador Kjetil Paulsen of Norway was not convinced that states were ready to negotiate an FMCT. He suggested the nuclear weapon states get together – far away from the CD – with the biggest consumers of fissile material for peaceful purposes to consider negotiations. “Then we will see if time is ripe.”

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation also put forward a proposal on fissile materials, by referencing President Putin’s initiative of 25 January 2006, on the “creation of a prototype of a global infrastructure which will assure all interested countries equal access to the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear power.” This ‘infrastructure’ would establish international centers for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel “under strict compliance with all norms of nuclear non-proliferation regime” and functioning “on a non-discriminatory basis under the IAEA control.”

While the Russian Federation claims such an initiative would work to ensure global energy security, it fails to mention the environmental and humanitarian implications of encouraging increased global reliance on nuclear energy. Gigantic facilities for radioactive waste will contaminate its surroundings for centuries to come; highly dangerous nuclear waste will be transported across the world, threatening everything on its way; and hundreds of thousands of lives world-wide will be set at risk everyday as more nuclear power plants are established.

Non-proliferation concerns, characterized in the current situation with Iran, are presumably a motivator for this proposal and others for internationalizing the fuel cycle. However, the Ukraine proposed a much fairer fix that is not a toxic terrorist target: strengthening the non-proliferation regime through legally binding negative security assurances, thus “eliminating plausible incentives for pursuing nuclear weapon programmes.”

Member States discussed civil society’s absence from and potential utility to the CD once again. The Netherlands’ Ambassador Johannes Landman bemoaned, “NGOs are only allowed to communicate with this body in writing, as well as through a once-a-year joint statement to be read by the Secretary General. It would be a good laugh if it weren’t so sad”. Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros of Colombia similarly called for finding ways and means for NGOs to participate, recalling the Irish proposal from 2004, which CD Secretary-General Ordzhonikidze recommended civil society use more fully. Reaching Critical Will strongly encourages NGOs to submit substantive papers to the CD Secretariat, and to //www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches06/[email protected]" style="color: rgb(142, 95, 189); text-decoration: none; ">contact us if you are interested in collaboration this year.

Many delegations again supported the P6 (six rotating Presidents for 2006) initiative, whose timetable for substantive debate we can expect no later than February 9th. With this timetable, NGOs and governments can both begin preparing for substantive input on the four core issues in order to submit working papers, participate in discussions, and organize side events. The Netherlands commended the Presidents’ prerogative to identify ‘Friends of the President’ to help in the preparation, moderation and follow-up of consultations, and although the Friends will not be formally announced until the timetable is released, the Ukraine was “pleased to be invited to be one of the group of Friends.”

Although there are these glimmering possibilities, Ambassador Landman likened the Council Chamber to a dim “Pharaonic Tomb that lost its golden brightness long ago” and with Goethe’s death bed plea for “Mehr Licht!” called for the CD to draw the curtains metaphorically as well as literally. Let us hope the Conference moves on not through the “slippery slope towards anarchy and use of force” as warned by the Swedish Ambassador, but rather towards the rule of law, global security, disarmament and non-proliferation the world is expecting.

-Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
and
Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom