16 August 2007

Today’s plenary was one of goodbyes and reassessments. In the last plenary of the Swiss Presidency, Ambassador Streuli gave his closing remarks and assessment of the CD’s progress during the weeks of his Presidency. Ambassador Paul Meyer (Canada) took the floor to deliver his farewell remarks with his characteristic humor and frank analysis.

China and Pakistan reiterated their positions on a programme of work (L1 proposal). For China, not much appears to have changed whereas Pakistan expressed its concerns in greater detail, contextualizing them in light of recent developments affecting regional security in South Asia. New Zealand and Argentina also took the floor.

CD President Ambassador Streuli began his closing remarks saying he was hesitant to make a final statement, as each Presidency of the CD is only a stage in a process of dialogue and analysis. Ambassador Streuli announced that he had received a proposal for a slight amendment of the text of the Complementary Presidential Statement, while leaving document L1 unchanged. He stated that his consultations had revealed that these suggestions could be met with broad approval, but that acceptance of the proposed amendment on the Complementary Statement would not influence consensus on the L1 package, as it is now being considered. He said that he preferred not to introduce the proposed amendment as it would not change countries’ ability to accept L1, for the time being.

Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada followed with his own farewell remarks and assessment of the four years he spent in the CD. He reminded the CD of its essential purpose and of the expectation of the international community that the CD fulfill its goals and justify the investment made in keeping it alive. “Alas, we have to acknowledge that the return on that investment has been virtually nil. If the CD was a business, it would have been declared insolvent long ago and shut down,” he added.

Rather than dwell on the weaknesses of the Conference and “its dysfunctional consensus rule that sacrifices the commitments of the many to the preferences of the few,” Ambassador Meyer had the following message: “If States are serious about accomplishing something in the field of multilateral arms control, they will find the appropriate diplomatic vehicle for doing so.” It is not a matter of the “death” of the CD necessarily, but of finding other fora or processes to achieve results. He gave the example of the CCW (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) and the negotiation of the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines outside of the Convention, when it was unable to move forward on the issue. The CCW continued to exist, and will continue to do so, even if it is again overtaken by a new process to ban cluster munitions this year.

Continuing the spirit of reassessment, China and Pakistan requested the floor to provide the Conference with updates on their present positions. China stated that it remained willing to constructively participate in discussions, and recalled to the Conference the ideas it raised on the 21st of June on document L1 and the Complementary Presidential Statement, saying that it has room for improvement, referring to its desire for stronger wording on PAROS.   Pakistan then reiterated that it continues to have “serious and substantive concerns” with the L1 proposal. “Since May this year, Pakistan has been ready to table its amendments to the PDD [Presidential Draft Decision]. We have refrained from doing so to allow for the completion of our own interdepartmental policy review and to make room for more consultation in the CD,” Ambassador Masood Khan said.

On August 2nd, Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA), the highest body responsible for the formulation and development of Pakistan’s strategic policy and systems, met and discussed, inter alia, issues being considered in the Conference on Disarmament. Ambassador Khan reported to the CD that “‘The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states.’”

Ambassador Khan then referred to “recent developments in the nuclear field” that have implications for strategic stability in South Asia—polite diplomatic code for the US-India nuclear deal. “The strategic restrain regime, which we have been seeking since 1998, will increasingly become elusive. Pakistan is therefore pursuing a brief that it firmly anchored in its core national security interests,” Ambassador Khan said. While Pakistan remains ready to work with all Members of the CD, Ambassador Khan stated that “the heart of the problems in the CD are competing security interests of the CD members.”

Ambassador Khan’s remarks are an important reminder to the CD to evaluate Pakistan’s reluctance to join consensus on a broader context, in light of recent changes in the security climate of South Asia. The US-India nuclear deal has serious implications for security in the region. Pakistan was more specific about the effects of the deal in a press release referred to by Ambassador Khan in today’s plenary. It states that “The NCA noted that the US-India Nuclear Agreement would have implications on strategic stability as it would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from un-safeguarded nuclear reactors. The objective of strategic stability in South Asia and the global non-proliferation regime would have been better served if the United States had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India, the two non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States, with a view to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region and promoting restraints while ensuring that the legitimate needs of both countries for civil nuclear power generation are met.”

The new instability created by the US-India deal is playing out in the CD— although States have been mostly silent on this critical issue. In light of these developments, an FMCT takes on added significance for Pakistan and added national security concerns. Pakistan insists that the wording of the L1 proposal be changed to included language specifying that a future FMCT will address existing stocks and verification. An FMCT without verification or existing stocks will provide no reassurance to Pakistan, as it will have little or no impact on the US or India. Such an FMCT will place the onus of the treaty’s obligations on Pakistan alone, as it possesses the least amount of fissile material of any Nuclear Weapon State. Pakistan may feel that it has little reason to trust that, unless specifically stated at the outset that an FMCT will include verification and stocks, countries who have opposed these critical requirements like the US, will allow a future instrument to include them.

Ambassador MacKay of New Zealand responded to China and Pakistan’s remarks stating that he was encouraged to hear Ambassador Khan’s statement that Pakistan was in favor of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable FMCT treaty, as this is entirely the same as the position of New Zealand. ‘The difference,’ he said, ‘is that we don’t regard it as necessary to negotiate the outcome in advance of actually beginning negotiations and we don’t consider it necessary to stipulate the parameters of the outcome of the negotiations,’ until negotiations have commenced.

Argentina also addressed the Conference, providing an update on the outcome of a regional seminar on conventional weapons held from 30-31st July. The Seminar was co-organized by the Netherlands and the UK and attended by 25 representatives from Latin America and the Caribbean, NGOs, and the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. The seminar discussed synergies between the UN Register of Conventional Arms, General Assembly resolution 61/89, on an arms trade treaty, and regional instruments. Small arms and light weapons were also considered, at both the regional and global level.  In addition, the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs has just made the views of UN member states on the feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty available online, here:http://disarmament.un.org/cab/ATT/Views_Member_States.html as called for in UNGA Resolution 61/89.

The next formal plenary will take place on Tuesday, August 21st under the Presidency of Syria. The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Sergio Duarte, will be present.

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

See the Reaching Critical Will website for:
     - all statements delivered to the CD;
     - all CD Reports, including this one;
     - press releases from UNOG;
     - the Reaching Critical Will Guide to the CD;
     - Other background information on the Conference
and more.