Collective ownership, collective ambitions
During Thursday’s plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Pakistan’s delegation outlined its concerns with the state of play in the Conference since the programme of work was adopted and its main amendment to the document for implementing the programme of work. Other delegations, including those of Iran, Egypt, Cuba, China, Brazil, Bangladesh, and the United Kingdom. Representatives of Australia and the Secretariat also took the floor to issue clarifications to the Pakistani statement, which Pakistan’s ambassador accepted. At the end of the meeting, the current CD president, Ambassador Strohal of Austria, invited all interested delegations to join him in informal consultations next door. Nearly all delegations attended.
Brief highlights
- Pakistan’s delegation emphasized the importance of ensuring a balanced outcome for all four core issues by adding a paragraph specifying this principle in the implementation framework.
- Iran’s ambassador argued that Pakistan’s amendments will be less damaging to the CD than continued deadlock will be.
- Egypt’s ambassador argued that ensuring collective ownership over a healthy process is important to the long-term health of the CD itself.
- China’s ambassador said he feels the Pakistani amendment is a “tiny issue” and would like to start substantive work right away.
- The UK ambassador noted that the collective ambition of the CD is a nuclear weapon free world and that the CD is an important part of “taking forward the commitment of those nuclear weapon states that have signed the NPT” to disarm.
Pakistan’s position
Amassador Akram of Pakistan explained that while his delegation joined consensus on the programme of work, CD/1864, it was “confronted with disappointing and alarming maneuvers even on procedural issues on the part of some delegations.” Specifically, his delegation was alarmed:
- by “efforts to ensure that the mandates of the Working Groups would remain static without progressing towards negotiation on all four core issues in the future;”
- that the rotation of chairs cannot be accepted as a principle;
- that there is no understanding on the time frame for rotation;
- that some delegations sought to bypass the rule that the programme of work has to be negotiated at the beginning of each year;
- that some delegations have proposed that the rule of consensus “may have to be reconsidered if they don’t get their way;” and
- with “the implied threat that if the CD does not make progress as defined by some delegations, it may be necessary to take negotiations on issues such as fissile materials out of the CD.”
Ambassador Akram argued that matters of substance and procedure are inextricably interlinked, which means the rule of consensus must be applied to both. He further argued that his delegation’s demand for balance on the four core issues “is not an extraneous negotiating link but normative, legal and substantive correlation established freely, voluntarily and collectively.”
To this end, Ambassador Akram read out his delegation’s amendment to the chapeau of the implementation document, CD/1870/Rev.1, which specifies that the CD “will ensure, without discrimination, balanced outcomes in the consideration of all agenda items, particularly the four core issues, while recognizing the principle of undiminished security for all.” He said that in discussions with some delegations, this paragraph has been met with approval, but that this text “has not yet been formally shared with all delegations and no effort has been made so far to determine whether and which delegations have any objection to this formulation.”
To this point, the preceding CD president Ambassador Caroline Millar of Australia noted that all documents the Pakistani delegation asked her to circulate were given to the Secretariat to do that. “Some of those we agreed to send to the regional coordinators for consultations in regional groups. Also as President, I feel quite clear in saying I made exhaustive efforts to determine whether any or all formulations, proposed by all delegations, could achieve consensus. Sadly that was not the case.” Speaking on behalf of the Secretariat,Jerzy Zaleski noted that the document in question was received by the Secretariat on Friday, 21 August. It was given priority “and was processed and distributed to the normal channels of the delegations on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 10am. It is available in all languages.”
Responding to a comment made by the Canadian delegation in Tuesday’s plenary, that outcomes cannot be predicted, Ambassador Akram went on to argue that CD/1864 “clearly outlines the possibility of negotiations on all four core issues,” and that the CD “must ensure outcomes that would balance the interests of all member states.”
As to the question of principles, Ambassador Akram argued that the principles they want incorporated in CD/1870/Rev.1 are drawn directly from the final document of the First Special Session on Disarmament.
Reactions
Iran’s Ambassador Alireza Moaiyeri said that since many delegations have been pushing for a balanced approach to the four core issues for years, it should not now come as a surprise that some delegations want this reflected in the implementation of the programme of work. He also argued that the Pakistani delegation’s amendment “will not hinder in any manner the engagement of the CD in implementing properly and fully its programme of work.” Finally, Ambassador Moaiyeri argued, “even if some speculation could be made about possible interpretation and accordingly possible implication of the suggested language in the text today, we believe that brutal fact of continued deadlock for the case of not reaching the decision today would have far more broad negative implications for the CD.”
On behalf of the Egyptian delegation, Ambassador Hisham Badr said it is important to recognize that “collective ownership of the process is necessary for its sustainability. Such collective ownership can be achieved by addressing the concerns of all parties and taking into consideration the various positions.” He noted that while the Egyptian delegation is ready to accept CD/1870/Rev.1, it is also ready to accept suggestions presented by other delegations. He also argued that consensus is needed to move the CD’s work forward “in a healthy and productive manner,” which is important for the long-term productivity of the Conference. Cuba’s delegation expressed its hope that respect for the rules of procedure, constructive dialogue, and search for consensus “will all prevail and dominate” in the work of the CD.
Ambassador Wang Qun of China said he thinks the amendment read out by Ambassador Akram is a “tiny issue” and that it seems the presidents and the Pakastani delegation are close to reaching a solution. Echoing the UK representative’s statement from last week, Ambassador Wang ended his statement with, “we would like to start substantive work as soon as possible. Right now. Just do it.”Ambassador Soares of Brazil said his delegation is not in a position to reactor to Ambassador Akram’s proposal without first consulting with its capital, but urged the CD to hold a plenary after consultations so that the issue could be resolved quickly.
Remarking on Ambassador Badr’s comments about “collective ownership” of the CD’s work, Ambassador Duncan of the United Kingdompointed out, “[o]ur collective ambition is to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. The CD is an important part of taking forward the commitment of those nuclear weapon states that have signed the NPT, notably Article VI, to a commitment to disarm.” Furthermore, he called out the jargon of the CD being the “sole” multilateral negotiating forum, arguing, “[tt]he CD is the only permanent negotiating forum and it is not the sole. There could be others, as there have been others. We have seen in Geneva what happens in other fora when the rule of consensus is abused. These are facts, they are not threats.”
Ambassador Duncan noted that while it is “the right of any state to remove itself from consensus ... it is not particularly helpful to make allegations about maneuvers or have veiled criticisms of our Presidencies.” And while this right exists, he argued,
(...) it is also standard diplomatic practice that if that country does nevertheless seek progress, that it should take responsibility for that act and itself should seek to reformulate consensus, to persuade others that the changes they seek are acceptable. It is not, I am afraid Mr. Chairmen, practice which involves trying to establish an alliance of supporters for those changes. That is not an approach for a collective endeavour that most of us in this room would recognize, but unfortunately that is where we are.
Next meeting
Agreement was not reached during informal consultations after the plenary today. The next plenary meeting is scheduled for Monday, 31 August 2009.
Notes from the gallery
WILPF welcomes the UK delegation’s reference to the NPT nuclear weapon states’ commitment to disarm their nuclear arsenals and its articulation that the work conducted in the CD provides steps along the way to this goal. Hopefully this perceived collective ambition of the CD will result in a solution to the current stalemate. Most importantly, this collective ambition, if it it truly exists, needs to manifest not just within the CD but without, in the national security priorities and doctrines of all states, in the decisions governments take regarding their relationship to nuclear weapons, to militarism, and military spending, to the theories and principles they espouse and enact. A nuclear weapon free world is indeed the collective ambition of most of the world’s people and we look forward to seeing it represented by our governments in the CD.
- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF