17 June 2008

At the 17 June Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary meeting, the Swedish ambassador delivered a statement on behalf of Sweden and Finland urging states to endorse the proposed programme of work, CD/1840. The representatives of Cuba and Pakistan  outlined their governments' positions on the document, while Canada and Algeria commented on their statements. As the current rotating president of the CD, the UK ambassador closed the meeting by speaking on the work of the CD and welcoming the ambassador of the United States as the next president of the 2008 session.

Brief highlights

-Finland and Sweden said CD/1840 is a “balanced and carefully crafted compromise” and argued it should be considered “as another grand bargain”.

-Cuba said it would support CD/1840 if everyone else agreed to it, even though Cuba's highest priority is nuclear disarmament.

-Pakistan reiterated its concerns about CD/1840 and argued that given the history of the discussions and efforts on a fissile materials treaty, “CD/1840 is crafted with a built-in prejudgment about the outcome of discussions and negotiations.”

-Canada argued that that not all four of the CD's core issues—fissile materials, nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances—are ripe for negotiation and that nuclear disarmament is a long term objective but is not realistically ready for negotiation yet.

-Algeria responded to Canada's comments, arguing that none of the issues are ripe for negotiation or negotiations would have already started on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

-The United Kingdom questioned if four parallel negotiations is realistic for the CD.

CD/1840
On behalf of Sweden and Finland, Swedish Ambassador Hans Dahlgren delivered a statement in support of CD/1840. He emphasized the responsibility of member states to “seize opportunities to negotiate treaties that strengthen global security,” arguing that these opportunities do exist. Amb. Dahlgren said CD/1840 would allow the CD to resume substantive work, to “start a process of hard bargaining based on 'give and take' and respect for each others' security perceptions,” which would lead to legally-binding agreements.

Cuba's representative, Mr Abel La Rose Domínguez, said his country would support CD/1840 if consensus was reached on the document. However, he emphasized that nuclear weapon states need to “unambiguously face up” the commitments under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament—and until then, CD member states “cannot continue to delay the adoption of a universal legally binding instrument without conditions which would provide security guarantee for non nuclear weapons states.”

Referring to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for “political vision” at the 22 January CD plenary meeting, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan agreed with the Secretary-General's assessment that “Top-level political leadership and cooperation can forge a fresh consensus on future projects.” Amb. Kahn explained that Pakistan's position on a fissile material treaty (FMT)—and thus its position on CD/1840—“has been determined at the highest decision-making level”—the National Command Authority.

Outlining the process the six CD presidents undertook to develop CD/1840, Amb. Kahn argued that despite their claim that the version of CD/1840 presented to the Conference on 26 May “commands almost complete consensus,” nothing actually changed between the version presented to states during informal consultations on 13 March. He emphasized, “No engagement to amend or negotiate the text of the paper has yet taken place. The document remains as it was introduced. Not a single comma has been changed, though several substantive and procedural suggestions were indicated by our delegation and other delegations. Our understanding was it was not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal.” He went on to argue that while the six presidents did make sincere attempts to engage and consult with CD member states' missions in Geneva, and in some instances, even with capitals, “No serious overture has been forthcoming so far to accommodate the known concerns of the paper.”

Amb. Kahn outlined the response officials in Pakistan have given the six presidents:

-Pakistan would sign any dispensation or mandate that is non-discriminatory;

-Pakistan proposed the CD should work on a mandate for a verifiable FMT; and

-Pakistan started an interdepartmental evaluation of the recent draft proposal.

He also reiterated Pakistan's concerns with CD/1840, including the necessity of including existing stocks; the need for negotiations on all four core issues; and “differentiation between the role of the coordinators to facilitate informal discussions and the function of formal CD subsidiary bodies to conduct negotiations in the context of the programme of work.” Finally, agreeing that the CD should commence work without preconditions, he argued that there currently are preconditions, imposed by other states, that should be dropped: that no negotiations can start if verification is part of the mandate; that negotiations cannot start if ad hoc committees will deal with the four core issues minus FMT; and that negotiations will only take place on FMT, not on the other three issues.

At the close of the plenary meeting, Amb. John Duncan of the United Kingdom argued that 12 rotating presidents of the CD (from this year and last year), from across all regional and political groupings, have noted almost complete agreement on the proposed programme of work, whether L.1 and its supporting documents (2007) or CD/1840 (2008). He said all of these presidents have called on the remaining states to demonstrate flexibility.

Fissile materials vs. the other three core issues
Responding to Amb. Kahn's remarks, Canada's Amb. Marius Grinius said that not all four core issues are ripe for negotiation, especiallynegative security assurances (NSAs) and nuclear disarmament. He said negotiations on NSAs would require as much background material and in-depth discussion on the subject as has been generated for a fissile materials treaty. He also argued that nuclear disarmament and a new outer space treaty are not ripe for negotiation and called on member states to be realistic about expectations and not to insist on negotiating everything together at once.

Algeria's Amb. Hamza Khelif, also speaking without a prepared statement, responded to Amb. Grinius' comments. He asked if the Canadian ambassador meant that consensus is lacking on the other three core issues or if there are other technical questions that need to be clarified for any of these items. He also questioned Amb. Grinius' comment that lack of consensus on NSAs is reason for it to not be ripe for negotiation, arguing that there is no consensus on any of the core issues, including fissile materials, or else negotiations would have already started on a fissile materials cut-off treaty.

The next plenary meeting of the CD is scheduled for Tuesday, 24 June at 10:00am under the presidency of the United States.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will