26 June 2007

21 June
In her last plenary as President of the Conference of Disarmament, Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden asked delegations the following question:

“Is there any delegation which is NOT, at this point in time, in a position to go along with a consensus to begin substantive work on the basis of the three documents, taken together (i.e. L.1, CRP.5 and the Draft Decision by the Conference)???”

China, Pakistan, and Iran stated they were not ready to move forward along the lines of the L.1, CRP.5 and Draft Decision at this time. President Bonnier replied that they would be given more time.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan all made statements expressing their support for the L.1 package and the dire urgency for the Conference to move forward and adopt a program of work.

In this way, a decision was not taken on the three documents today and the package presented by the P6 is still on the table. While the Conference remains in limbo, at least today’s plenary has provided some of the clarity which has been so frequently requested.

Pakistan, one of the most consistent and vocal delegations to express hesitation to join consensus on the L.1 package, concisely and definitely stated both the procedural and substantive concerns it had concerning the three documents.

When questioned about substantive concerns, Pakistan clearly laid out its substantive concerns and expectations. “We would want not substantive discussions, but negotiations, on nuclear disarmament. We would want amendments in text of L.1 that clearly state that the mandate [of Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations] should be in accordance to Shannon Mandate, and a clear reference made to an international and effectively verifiable treaty and also takes into account stocks. On PAROS [Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space], we would also want discussions, and sorry, negotiations to start, and similarly with NSA [Negative Security Assuraces], we would want negotiations to start, with a view to reaching agreement on a legally binding instrument and effective international arrangement to assure Non-Nuclear Weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons,” Pakistan explained.

Pakistan also clarified its national security concerns. In response to a comment from New Zealand that delegations must move away from focusing on national security concerns and look at the context of global security, Ms. Janjua of Pakistan replied, “I agree that we should each of us first have to look at national security interest and then place it in the global security interest of everyone. It is difficult to understand that we be talking about focusing just on narrow national security interests of a few countries here while the national security interests of other countries are being well taken care of in security arrangements and nuclear umbrellas that are provided.” In addition to calling out states that have nuclear umbrella arrangements with the US, Pakistan is likely concerned about the proposed US-India nuclear deal, which could substantially increase India's ability to make nuclear weapons.

From a procedural standpoint, Pakistan said linking the L.1 and the Complementary Presidential Statement with the Draft Decision was inadequate. “As part of these efforts you [Ambassador Bonnier] have presented a draft decision of the Conference... you had said that it could square the circle and clarify the relationship between the two documents. We consider that it could further complicate the process of consultations,” Pakistan said. “While we value your efforts, it is the collective responsibility of the Conference to work towards addressing the fundamental problems and anomalies in the Presidential Draft Decision. Instead of addressing the real substantive issues and rectifying procedural anomalies, the Draft Decision does not help us move forward. Our capital is, however, still looking and evaluating these documents.”

Pakistan concluded by saying that, “We are willing to work with the Conference to find solutions to these problems and to our concerns, and these can be addressed if we can revisit L1.”

China said it believed the L.1 package moves the Conference in the “correct direction” towards a foundation for consensus on L.1. China said simply that it will need more time to study the question posed by Ambassador Bonnier today.

“We still have some worries and concerns concerning the status and content of the Complementary Statement—rather we have some queries and concerns. We believe it would be more reasonable and clear for the Complementary Statement to be an integral part of L.1. We also believe wording of paragraph 3 of the Draft Complementary Statement leaves room for further improvement,” China stated.

China also supported India’s remarks in the last plenary meeting on June 19 on the issue of an FMCT. China added that it“advocate[s] for substantive work on agenda items of PAROS and other agenda items.”

Iran also said L.1 contains both substantive and procedural problems. “The document L.1 has fallen short of addressing our priorities, such as nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, thoroughly and comprehensively. We had expected a clear commitment in the P6 proposal to start negotiations in Conference on Disarmament,” Iran said.

Iran also reiterated its concerns with an FMCT. “My delegation has always supported international and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory FMCT. In our position, past and present stockpiles are to be covered under the scope of the treaty, and we stress the negotiation process on a possible FMCT should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate. The P6 proposal needs to be improved to cover these concerns. We are uncertain about the usefulness of an FMCT with no verification system and excluding existing stockpiles that can be used for nuclear weapons. We are of the belief that with a balanced programme of work, the Conference on Disarmament will start its substantive work and play a major role in strengthening the peace and security of the international system,” Ambassador Moaiyeri said.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia impressed on the Conference the urgency of the situation before it. The UK said the price of indecision will be a high one and that there are signs that the significance of L.1 is not fully understood in some capitals. New Zealand reminded the Conference that while no one has rejected the proposal but have only requested more time, if the Conference is unable to move forward it will face fundamental questions as to its future. Resources to support delegations are finite, New Zealand said, and while it is committed to the CD, it will have difficulty justifying its commitment if the Conference is “going through some sort of charade.” Australia echoed these remarks, saying the credibility of the Conference hangs in the balance.

The UK and New Zealand also reiterated their support for negotiations on an FMCT. New Zealand said that proceeding with an FMCT that would involve verification and existing stocks will allow the Conference to seriously engage in nuclear disarmament, but unless the Conference can agree to begin negotiations in a program of work, it will be unable to move forward.

The Netherlands suggested that text proposals might be put forward addressing the issues outlined by China, Pakistan, and Iran, as commonly done in other conference fora.

Japan and Ukraine both stated their support for the proposal as Ambassador Bonnier presented it.

As Sweden’s Presidency draws to a close, Ambassador Bonnier expressed her heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for the efforts made by delegations, the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General of the UN, her fellow P6 coordinators, and the seven Coordinators. She also had a special message for NGOs and civil society.

“At every plenary meeting the outside world have eagerly followed our attempts from the balcony,” she said. “To you, representatives from the civil society who so conscientiously work to uphold the link between the Conference itself and the societies we are meant to serve, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation. Your sense of optimism and pessimism has fluctuated with that of the delegations in the room. I have felt your support and I thank you for that. As we, the delegations need to continue our quest for consensus in a positive spirit, so do you need to continue your work in a positive spirit to support us in this quest.”

Following Ambassador Bonnier’s request for support and optimism from civil society, we will remain hopeful and endeavor to be positive as we await a decision on L.1. As she stated, “We have come a long way. We have an almost-consensus. But ‘almost’ is not enough. We need to cross the last hurdles. I believe we can do it. And that is what we now need to do. All of us. Together.”

-Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom