14 June 2007
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) continues to flounder on rocky shoals. No decision on the L.1 (P6) proposal for work or the Complementary Presidential Statement was taken at this morning’s plenary. Instead, CD President Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonniersubmitted the Complementary Presidential Statement to the Conference but suggested that a very short third document would be needed to clarify the relationship between the Presidential Statement and L.1. These three documents present the last and final opportunity for the Conference to reach a consensus and begin substantive work. Pakistan, which has not stopped producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, continued to resist this package deal, noting that its concerns are about national security.
As time drags on and consensus on L.1 remains elusive, the situation of the Conference appears increasingly bleak. The Conference heard a message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, urging the CD to take a decision on L.1 immediately. “I cannot emphasize enough just how important it is that you overcome you differences. This is a matter that transcends concerns about the effectiveness and utility of the Conference. It goes to the very heart of the current international security environment, and for that reason, Member States of the Conference bear a heavy responsibility,” he said. He also reminded delegates that “finding a fair accommodation now would deprive no Member of the ability to assert its national position in the phases of the Conference’s work to follow the adoption of the Presidential Decision.”
The Complementary Presidential Statement (CD/2007/CRP.5) was created to clarify questions and concerns delegations had about L.1. As Ambassador Bonnier explained, certain delegations require an explicit expression of the relationship between the Presidential Statement CRP.5 and the L.1 proposal. Others have stated that it is equally important that the documents not be modified. “To square this circle,” Ambassador Bonnier said, “I am today suggesting a very short third document. It brings the two documents together in a very simple draft decision by the Conference. If accepted, it would mark the end of a decade long stalemate and the beginning of the kind of work this Conference was established to pursue.”
The Complementary Presidential Statement (CRP.5) defines the intentions and scope of the L.1 proposal. It states that the purpose of L.1 is to “provide a basis for organizing the work of the Conference. It does not prejudice any past, present or future position, proposal or priority of any delegation”. L.1 “will constitute a programme of work for the 2007 session,” but “it does not prejudge any future decision the Conference might take on this programme of work.”
It also clarifies that L.1 “sets no preconditions for the negotiations under paragraph 2” (on FMCT) and that delegations can “actively pursue their respective positions and priorities.” This implies that delegations can pursue both verification and existing stocks in an FMCT, without explicitly saying so.
CRP.5 says the L.1 document “does not prescribe or preclude any outcome(s) for the substantive discussions” on the three other core issues, leaving open the possibility that such discussions could lead to negotiations.
The CRP.5 also explains that Coordinators presiding over specific issues are comparable to a subsidiary bodies: “Coordinators appointed by the Conference will work under its guidance, be accountable to it and submit their reports to it for consideration, as would any chair-person of any subsidiary body. All work will be carried out under the Rules of Procedure of the Conference.”
Ambassador Bonnier also provided delegations with a draft decision linking the two documents. The decision states that the CD will adopt the document L.1 and “for its implementation the Conference will be guided by the Presidential Statement in CD/2007/CRP.5.” It is difficult to imagine a more unambiguous package for the L.1 proposal.
Egypt and Pakistan were the only delegations to comment on Ambassador Bonnier’s proposal.
Egypt said that the Complimentary Presidential Statement has resolved many of its concerns and called the current decision package “a good basis... for the Conference to resume its substantive work and to allow us to reach a consensus that my delegation should like to join when it is completed.” However, Egypt reiterated its desire for greater clarity and precision in the text of paragraphs 2 and 3, as “we are discussing points of paramount importance to all of us.” Paragraph 2 contains the negotiating mandate for an FMCT, and paragraph 3 contains the discussion mandate for the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Pakistan remains one of the largest obstacles to reaching consensus on the L.1 proposal. In today’s plenary, Pakistan stated that it will need time to receive new instructions from its capital. Pakistan said it believes there has been a great deal of effort by all to compromise, but accommodation has been lacking. Pakistan emphasized that “there are some very critical and crucial concerns… regarding specific issues on L.1 which are of direct relevance to [member states'] national security.” Pakistan has not yet ceased producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
The next formal plenary will be June 19th at 10:00am.
-Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom