24 June 2008

Opening the plenary meeting as the incoming president of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Ambassador Christina Rocca of the United States outlined her plans for the term of her presidency and expressed support for the proposed programme of work, CD/1840. The ambassadors of Australia and Japan informed the Conference of the the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The ambassadors of Russia and Canada spoke on space security issues, South Africa and Sri Lanka's ambassadors critiqued the impasse in the CD, France's ambassador invited all member states to visit France's military fissile material facilities, and the ambassadors of China and New Zealand offered support for the US plan to revive informal discussions on all agenda items.

Brief highlights

-As the new rotating president of the CD, the United States announced that it aims to hold a series of informal meetings during the third session, in late July and August, to allow member states to address again the full range of issues on the agenda underneath the seven coordinators who were appointed during the first session.

-Australia outlined the objective and plans for the Australian/Japanese International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and gave its full support for CD/1840.

-Japan also announced its cooperation with Australian on the new International Commission and offered its support for CD/1840.

-Russia outlined its support for continuing informal discussions on all agenda items and reported on its introduction of the Russian/Chinese draft treaty on outer space weapons to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

-South Africa described CD/1840 as “possible and practical” and outlined its understanding of the impediments to commencing negotiations in the CD.

-Canada tabled a report on the conference “Security in Space: the Next Generation.”

-France extended an invitation to all CD member states to witness the dismantlement of its military fissile material production facilities and to join in the implementation of the French president's “ambitious disarmament plan”.

-Sri Lanka outlined CD/1840's “structural anomalies” and suggested revisiting all the agenda items might be necessary to address key states' interests.

-China offered support for the US plan to revive informal discussions on all agenda items.

-New Zealand offered support CD/1840, the negotiation of an FMCT, the US plan to revive informal discussions on all agenda items, and the Australian/Japanese and French initiatives for nuclear disarmament.

CD/1840
Most delegations that spoke offered their support for CD/1840. Explaining that the United States will “continue to focus on CD/1840 as the desired outcome of this year's CD activities,” Ambassador Rocca of the United States said, “CD/1840 is a compromise—and thus by definition, unable to meet anyone's goals perfectly, but well-suited to advance everyone's interests—to get the CD back to work.” Ambassador Caroline Millar of Australia said CD/1840 “represents a balanced and well-considered proposal for commencing our work,” arguing that it “does not prejudice any countries' position on any core issue.” Ambassador Sumio Tarui of Japan also described CD/1840 as a “well-balanced compromise” and said that while “discussions in each field should progress independently and on its own merit, and logically it is inappropriate to hold back potential progress in one area just because of slower progress in others,” CD/1840 allows discussions to be held on the other three core agenda items, which his delegation finds enough reason to adopt the programme of work.

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of Russia explained that while his delegation “would like a stronger, more focused mandate” on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, it is “prepared, with a view to be as quick as possible in the resumption of the work of the CD, not to oppose” CD/1840. Pointing out that none of the 2008 CD presidents has claimed that CD/1840 is perfect, South Africa's Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali explained, “whilst not perfect, my delegation believes that CD/1840 represents that which is possible and practical under the present circumstances.” New Zealand's Ambassador Don Mackay said CD/1840 is the best basis for advancing work in the CD, noting that while his delegation would like to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament, or any other issue on the agenda, “we acknowledge that it is necessary to start somewhere and ... we do have to begin in our view with one of the core elements.” He also argued it that it is not reasonable to try to start negotiations on more than one issue at a time right now.

Emphasizing that CD/1840 “is definitely a basis for very serious negotiations,” Sri Lanka's Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka outlined “certain underlying structural anomalies or problems of geometry which have to be addressed if this happens to be successful.” He explained, “CD/1840, like its precursor, privileges one agenda item over the others—now there maybe some logic for this, the argument is there is some prospect for negotiation on that agenda item. But that particular item which is elevated over the others involves certain member states more than they do to some others.” With this in mind, Amb. Jayatilleka argued that if these member states “feel that their fundamental national interests are at variance with the spirit of 1840, then is it not simply a question of a handful of holdouts who are to be convinced, but ... their concerns have to be very seriously engaged with. And if it is the perception of these states that is it more than a matter of wants, but the core strategic matters and interests that are at stake, then we maybe have to do better than we have done in getting them on board.”

Work of the CD
Noting that the lack of negotiations in the CD “has been ascribed to a number of things,” including the lack of political will of member states, Ambassador Mtshali of South Africa argued that diplomats at the CD “have an important role to play in recommending courses of action to our principals that may influence or shape the exercise of political will.” She argued, “one cannot claim that the structure of the Conference does not allow negotiations to take place,” for if this were true than it would not have been able to negotiate the treaties it already has. She further argued, “one cannot argue that if the CD's Secretariat had more staff, then negotiations could commence. One cannot say that a lack of funding prevents the CD from negotiating. Neither can one make the case that the Conference's agenda does not allow negotiations to take place,” nor do the Rules of Procedure prohibit negotiations. Looking to the consensus rule, Amb. Mtshali asked, “is it not perhaps the misuse of the consensus rule, rather than the rule itself, that has created the problem?” She argued, “The consensus rule does not apply itself; it is the Members of the CD that choose when and how to apply it. When it is used to block the commencement—not the finalization—of negotiations, one can perhaps understand why some refer to the 'tyranny of consensus.'” Finally, she emphasized, “it is the Member States who decide whether or not to negotiate: not the 'machinery', or the institution.”

With this mind, Amb. Mtshali emphasized, “With a little ingenuity and a lot of flexibility and compromise it should be possible for us to work with—and not against—each other,” as “different priorities need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.” Getting to Yes, a guide to negotiations published by the Harvard Negotiation Project, explains that the underlying problem in negotiations “lies not in conflicting positions but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears,” and argues, “Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions” works because behind opposed positions often lie many more shared and compatible interests than conflicting ones. Figuring out and understanding both one's own and others' interests rather than just their positions is thus key to reaching agreement on a programme of work at the CD—once all relevant parties understand everyone's interests, they can, as suggested by Getting to Yes, invent options for mutual gain that they might not have otherwise considered. As Amb. Jayatilleka of Sri Lanka said, it is a matter of “core strategic matters and interests that are at stake,” which means all delegations at the CD need to think creatively in order to find compatible interests lying behind states' positions on CD/1840.

Resuming informal discussions
As an attempt to encourage discussion and hopefully consensus on CD/1840, Ambassador Rocca of the United States outlined her delegation's plan to resume informal discussions on the CD's seven agenda items underneath the coordinators who led discussions on these issues during the first session of 2008. She explained, “The full exchange of views in our renewed informal discussions will help refresh all the issues in members' minds, will help advance consensus on CD/1840, and will help inform our final report.” According to Amb. Rocca, each topic will be allotted a half-day meeting. She anticipates that each delegation will be able to consult their capitals before the discussions and arrange for the presence of experts if so desired.

While not directly referring to the US plan, Amb. Jayatilleka of Sri Lanka said that it might be necessary to look “afresh at other agenda items because it is no secret that for certain states, there is an underlying linkage and there maybe the possibilities of making progress on fissile material if there is progress on some of the other agenda items. Depending on how serious we are, even in this prioritization, how sincere we are, it maybe necessary into to precisely make progress, to revisit and upgrade the status of some of the other agenda items.”

It is unclear if the US plan for reviving informal discussions is intended to “upgrade” some of the other agenda items, but such a consideration might encourage the critical and creative thinking necessary to build consensus for a programme of work. New Zealand's ambassador agreed that anything that “helps refresh all the issues in members mind will actually remind all of us that the issues before us can only be positive. And certainly if it goes further and helps gain consensus on CD/1840 then that too will be invaluable.”

Prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS)
The Russian ambassador offered his support to the president's proposal for holding these informal discussions, arguing that consensus for CD/1840 could be facilitated by “in-depth thematic discussions on all agenda items which were initiated at the winter session.” He expressed conviction that discussions on PAROS, scheduled for 5 August, “will make it possible to continue the discussion [that] began this spring, including the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the use of force or the threat of force against space objects PPWT, as well as the problems of transparency and confidence-building measures in space activities.” Lamenting that half a day “is hardly going to be enough to discuss the aspects of the draft treaty including questions from a number of countries so in this connection,” he suggested, together with the Chinese delegation, continuing the discussions on 6 August in an informal open-ended meeting with all interested delegations, “as a matter of side event or bilateral consultations with participating experts from capitals.” New Zealand's ambassador agreed this was a good idea, for any of the agenda items.

Amb. Loshchinin also noted that Russian introduced the Russian/Chinese draft treaty on weapons in space on 17 June to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in Vienna. He explained that most delegations expressed support of the idea of beginning real interaction between the CD and COPUOS on questions related to the draft treaty and reported that the Bureau of COPUOS and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs “are looking at alternatives for joint work in this regard.”

Canada's Ambassador Marius Grinius announced the release of a report on a conference, sponsored by China, Russia, Canada, the Secure World Foundation, and the Simons Foundation, held 31 March to 1 April on “Security in Space: the Next Generation.” He explained that the conference was the latest in a series of conferences held by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Researchon issues related to outer space security, the peaceful uses of outer space, and PAROS. These conferences offer an opportunity for CD member states to convene “with academics, experts, non-government organizations, scientists and the private sector to discuss the challenges in space and to stimulate our thinking on how to address these issues.”

Fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT)
Japan's ambassador emphasized that while some states have expressed differences of opinion over “the modality and scope” of negotiations of an FMCT, “no delegation has expressed opposition to negotiations on the prohibition of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” He argued that CD/1840 only outlines “the clear objective of negotiating a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons purposes” and that it “does not in anyway prejudge the outcome of negotiations.”

Amb. Mackay of New Zealand argued it is a mistake to look at an FMCT in isolation, as an FMCT, especially one that is comprehensive, would contribute to nuclear disarmament. He said his delegation would thus like to see verification and existing stocks included in such a treaty, though he does not “expect everyone to agree in advance on the contents of an FMCT ... That is the outcome of the negotiation. It is not something that you determine in the advance of the negotiation.”

Outside initiatives
Ambassador Millar of Australia informed the CD of the Australian prime minister's announcement of the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and of a joint statement released on 12 June 2008 between the prime ministers of Australia and Japan on their renewed determination “to strengthen the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime and to cooperate closely to achieve a successful outcome to the 2010 NPT Review Conference.” The new International Commission, which will include “senior international experts from a range of countries,” is intended to follow up on the work undertaken by the Canberra Commission and the Tokyo Forum. It's findings, which are intended to “enhance global efforts to strengthen the NPT” will be “considered by a major international conference of experts, sponsored by Australia, in late 2009.” Japan's Amb. Tarui explained that Japan and Australia “are bilaterally consulting on the specific terms of cooperation for this commission.”

Amb. Mackay of New Zealand welcomed this new initiative, emphasizing the “pressing need to develop a common approach in the lead up to the Review Conference,” the need for high level cross regional leadership.

Ambassador Jean-François Dobelle of France pointed to the French president's “ambitious disarmament plan” and “unprecedented transparency measures” that France will use “to strengthen confidence”. He argued that the white paper on defense and national securitythat President Sarkozy presented on 17 June stresses his disarmament plan once again. Amb. Dobelle explained, “At Cherbourg, the President proposed in particular to invite international experts to come and witness the dismantling of our facilities for the production of military fissile material at Pierrlatter and Marcoule.” He renewed this invitation to all CD member states, explaining, “a visit to those facilities will be organized on September 16. All member states of this forum are invited to send a representative. My delegation will be prepared in the coming weeks to provide all the necessary and practical information.”

Amb. Mackay again welcomed this initiative, agreeing that transparency and confidence-building measures are clear themes that came through at the 2008 NPT Preparatory Committee and also in discussions in the CD.

The next plenary meeting of the CD is scheduled for Wednesday, 25 June at 10am, which will feature a statement by Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. This will be the last public plenary of the second part of the 2008 session of the CD. The third and final part of the 2008 session will be held from 28 July to 12 September.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will