We use Google Analytics to learn more about who is reading the resources on our website. Please read Google Analytics privacy policy for further information. Close

logo_reaching-critical-will

27 March 2007

On behalf of the 2007 six Presidents (P6), Ambassador Fernando of Sri Lanka announced today that they intend for the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to take a decision on their draft proposal for work (L.1) on Thursday, March 29. The P6 formally presented this proposal, which would enable the CD to begin negotiating a new disarmament treaty for the first time in 10 years, last Friday. About eighty percent of governments that spoke said then that they would be able to agree to the proposal, but some, while supporting the process, showed resistance to the proposal. Today, the P6 responded to concerns raised by delegations on Friday. France and Iran shared their positions for the first time, Algeria and China elaborated some of their concerns, and Egypt appreciated the P6 response to concerns, which it said would allow its delegation to take the decision. 

As we reported last week, this package proposal's extremely careful language derives from extensive consultations with all CD members, and the P6 assessment of the work done during the CD's First Session. It designates a Coordinator to preside over negotiations on a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (FissBan or FM[C]T). It also appoints Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; issues related to the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS); and appropriate international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the threat or use of nuclear weapons (NSAs). The P6 statement today stressed that the proposal "reflects the views" of CD members, and is a "compromise between different views, priorities and interests". The P6 also stressed that the proposal is in conformity with the Rules of Procedure, which exist to enable the CD's work. Thus, the proposal will last for the 2007 session, and the Coordinators will report to the CD. 

France shared its position on the proposal today, and the European Union was simultaneously able to present its joint position. Both the European Union and France said they would not object to the proposal as it now stands. However, although France said it would not block consensus "in the spirit of compromise", it also warned that "any amendment which would end up strengthening [the mandates for work on] nuclear disarmament or negative security assurances...would definitely spoil any chances for consensus." Immediately following the French statement, Algeria said it believed the mandates for nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances could be improved, and Iran agreed.

China gave an extensive list of questions about which it hopes "clarifications can be made". The first questions were primarily procedural and nominal: why not name the proposal a programme of work? Why not name the Coordinators "Special Coordinators"? Why not have ad hoc committees? A couple questions pertained to the process, both of which were answered in the P6 opening statement: Did the Coordinators Reports represent the views of the CD? What is the time frame for/duration of the decision (L.1)? Finally, on substance, China asked if the "other issues" included in the substantive discussions on PAROS referred to a treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in space, and if so, why that was not explicitly stated.

Algeria was also concerned about the length of time the Coordinators would be appointed, and, hearing from the Presidents that the decision would only last for the year because the CD must renew its mandate every year, said it would be important to make that explicit. 

Algeria, Iran, Egypt all said they needed more time for the capitals to get back to them with a position on the new proposal. China also said it needed time to study the proposal seriously. As we said last week, although delegations will certainly need to check with capital on such an important decision, states must not stall to postpone the decision indefinitely. Italy reasoned that this proposal "cannot come as a surprise to the delegations that have followed our deliberations and to capitals that have been briefed."

Iran also recalled its previously stated position that it would only support negotiations on banning the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes if it was based on the Shannon Mandate. Because the current proposal does not include verification, it is not the Shannon Mandate.

The vast majority of governments that have spoken have said they can agree to the proposal, including four of the five nuclear weapon states: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France. The sole nuclear weapon state that has not declared a moratorium on producing fissile materials, China, has been resisting the proposal. None of the four states currently producing fissile materials for military purposes-India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan-have supported the proposal. Israel and North Korea have not yet spoken in plenary about the proposal . 

The US, Australia, the UK, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile, Germany, Argentina, Turkey, Ireland, Japan, and Mexico indicated on Friday that they are ready to move forward. Austria, the European Union, France, Slovakia, Poland, South Korea, and Bulgaria joined them today. The world is waiting to hear decisions from Algeria, Iran, Egypt, China, Cuba, India, and Pakistan, and to hear statements from Israel and North Korea. 

We agree with Slovakia that CD members should pay more respect to representatives of the international community and ordinary people, the vast majority of whom want total and universal disarmament. We are are ready for our governments to stop making and start dismantling these weapons, and want to know if our governments are ready to represent us.