2 March 2006
The Conference of Disarmament saw another set of lively plenary meetings of structured debate with special focus on nuclear disarmament under the sub-item ‘Future nuclear disarmament measures’. Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Algeria, China, Russian Federation,Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Nigeria, Morocco, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Sri Lanka, Italy and Brazil delivered statements in the morning; and Cuba, UK, Chile and Sweden in the afternoon.
Several delegations, including Algeria, DPRK, Nigeria, and Ireland pointed out that quantitative reduction of nuclear arsenals seem to be accompanied by qualitative improvements of the same. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan noted the disturbing fact that “Development and actual battlefield use of mini-nukes have been theorised”.
Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation stated that new challenges in proliferation need to be dealt with within the NPT regime especially by the IAEA, regarding Iran and DPRK. He expressed the importance of Iran renewing the moratoria on uranium enrichment. Ambassador Loshchinin, supported by delegations of China, Morocco and the DPRK, also pointed out the need for nuclear weapon states to withdraw and bring home all nuclear weapons outside their own territory.
The issue of transparency gained attention in the plenary. Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland spoke on the important role of increased transparency for creating a favorable climate to progress nuclear disarmament. States possessing nuclear weapons should develop an understanding among themselves about the level of detail required to build confidence in the disarmament process. She suggested plurilateral scientific consultations among states possessing nuclear weapons on the “verification requirements for the implementation of effective and irreversible disarmament measures”, as well as regular progress reports to the CD.
“Transparency can also help confirm that nuclear material in weapons removed from deployment… is not being recycled into new warheads.”, stated Ambassador Whelan. Annika Thunborg of Sweden echoed the same, in relation to the Moscow Treaty between Russia and the US: as the destruction of warheads is not required by the treaty, these could easily be fitted to new weapons. Sweden asked the nuclear weapons states to provide concrete reports and plans to the CD for the destruction of weapons Thunborg further looked forward to specific and detailed information on arsenal reductions in written form, as well as answers to the questions posed by her delegation 28 February. Statements by Switzerland, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria and Canada all called for greater transparency, pointing it out as one link between nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In this regard, Fiona Paterson informed the CD that the explosive power of the UK nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 70 % since the end of the Cold War.
The plenary heard a number of delegations present concrete proposals for next steps on nuclear disarmament in the CD- the theme of the day’s plenary session. Malaysia noted the importance of considering “the requirements for a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime in order to develop an international understanding of the final destination” and provided seven suggestions toward that end. Algeria suggested that efforts on nuclear disarmament could continue either globally- all at once, or gradually- in a step-wise process. While the global approach could learn lessons from the demonstrated effectiveness of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Ambassador Jazairy noted that gradual steps would find favor with more delegations. Certain measures were suggested to build confidence between nuclear and non nuclear weapons states including the reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, and the removal of nuclear weapons from alert status. Other delegations also noted the importance of removing nuclear weapons from alert status- including India, Algeria, and Sweden.
Ambassador François Rivasseau of France spoke on the scope of a future FMCT. He suggested that solution to the verification aspect has to be found in the course of negotiations. Chile’s Ambassador Juan Martabit proposed that the CD consider incremental negotiations on an FMCT that would tackle the verification issue in the near future. Canada listed issues with potential for the CD to engage in, e.g. the role of nuclear weapons in national security doctrines; confidence building measures; non-strategic nuclear weapons and dismantlement disposition.
The issue of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) were mentioned by some delegations. Chile stated that his delegation does not accept that nuclear weapon states not Parties to the NPT are not legally bound to grant NSAs to non nuclear weapon states.
Rotating CD President In-kook Park of the Republic of Korea summed up the debate held on nuclear disarmament this week, commending the more than 40 Member States that took the floor and contributed useful ideas and suggestions. In order to stimulate and structure the upcoming general debate on agenda items 1 and 2, the President extricated four commonly brought up issues from previous statements: the role of nuclear weapons in security policies; ways to strengthen transparency; the principle of irreversibility, and FMCT, each of which will be the sub-theme of upcoming plenary sessions. We look forward to further substantive debate, eventually leading to negotiations towards the ultimate goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In the words of Nigerian Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu – “nobody can proliferate what does not exist while those determined will proliferate what exists no matter what control measures put in place”.
Alexandra Sundberg
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom