22 May 2007

Today, China blocked the best chance in years of starting substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), which has been deadlocked for a decade. Purportedly it wants a stronger mandate for discussing its priority issue, preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS). No government has publicly objected to working on any of the four core issues as they are in the proposal: a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FissBan), PAROS, nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances. All objections have either been procedural or in support of stronger mandates for certain issues. CD members know that any variety of stronger mandates will cause at least the United States and/or France to object to working on those issues. Why then let the best be the enemy of the good? As Nigeria said today, "when you cannot get what you desire, you make due with what is available- especially if what is available is not fundamentally harmful." 

China said that the current compromise six Presidents (P6) proposal for work "has not fully... met [China's] concerns." China then suggested several changes to the current proposal, both substantive and procedural. Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt supported opening the proposal to amendments, even though the P6 have been consulting CD members about this proposal for months. Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group encouraged a transparent multilateral process to pursue compromise. The Netherlands expressed surprise that some still think the compromise lies elsewhere, and said the P6 proposal "is the middle." The P6 said they continue to believe their proposal is the best opportunity to begin substantive work after a decade of deadlock. 

China wants a stronger PAROS mandate that spells out the possibility of negotiating a new legal instrument. It also wants the mandate for negotiating a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FissBan) to include verification. Procedurally, China continues to maintain its attachment to working in ad hoc committees, rather than under a coordinator, which it is afraid "will not ensure effective and substantive work on the relevant items." 

In typical bridge-building fashion, Canada tried to open up a dialogue with China on these concerns. Ambassador Meyer, who coordinated discussions on PAROS throughout the first session and would continue to do so under the P6 proposal, particularly emphasized the utility of continuing work on PAROS. China said it wanted a more specific negotiation-oriented mandate for PAROS, because otherwise discussions might be an "unfocusing, rhetorical exercise". Meyer assured China that discussions under his coordination would have a focused and practical orientation, recalled the "strong convergence" of views around a PAROS treaty during the first session, and hoped China did not find those discussions unfocused.

While Nigeria noted that what is possible, while not perfect, is also not harmful, rejecting the package is harmful. To have the most intense build towards substantive work in years fail to initiate negotiations will undermine confidence in the CD. Procedural concerns do not stand up in this situation, nor does it make sense to hold out for more. After 10 years of waiting, it is quite clear that this is what is possible here and now.

As the Rolling Stones said so eloquently, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need." Everyone is making a compromise here, and no one will get everything they want out of the package. By accepting a less-than-ideal package, governments, and the people they represent, will build a stronger international security regime, something we all need.