Principles for progress

 At the morning Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary, several delegations outlined their priorities and ideas for implementing the programme of work, CD/1863. Representatives from Iran, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines took the floor.

Brief highlights
• Iran’s delegation argued that an FMCT must be both a disarmament and non-proliferation measure and should include existing stocks.
• Pakistan’s delegation argued that the working group chairs “should not be from P-5, non-NPT states or countries in a military alliance or countries enjoying nuclear protection.”
• The delegations of China, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom emphasized the importance of following the rules of procedure throughout the CD’s undertakings.
• The UK delegation highlighted the importance of three principles: trust, good faith, and balance.
• The delegation of the Philippines added a fourth principle, of inclusivity, arguing for observer states to be afforded the same rights in the working groups and special coordinator groups.
• The delegates of Colombia and Indonesia spoke on civil society participation.

FCMT
Iran’s Ambassador Moaiyeri emphasized that an FMCT should not merely be an instrument for non-proliferation, but “should be a clear and meaningful step for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.” He argued that the treaty’s scope should include existing stocks and future production. 

Other core issues
Ambassador Moaiyeri also called on the CD to “vigorously pursue its deliberations with the view to start negotiations on legally binding instruments on the four core issues.” He reiterated that his delegation’s first priority is nuclear disarmament and called for the negotiation of a time-bound, phased framework for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including the prohibition of their possession, development, stockpiling, and use.

Work of the CD
The current CD president is still engaged in consultations regarding the appointment of working group chairs and special coordinators and the schedule of meetings. While awaiting specific proposals from the P6, several delegations outlined their considerations for implementing the programme of work.

The Iranian delegation called for the observation of the rules of procedure, balanced allotment of time for the working groups and special coordinators, equitable geographical distribution and rotations, and the avoidance of parallel meetings. Other delegations echoed these positions, some with slight variations.

Chairs and coordinators
Colombia’s representative also called for balanced geographical criteria for appointing chairs of working groups and special coordinators, suggesting the CD keep in mind formulas used in previous years. The representative of Malaysia likewise suggested that the tasks should be carefully distributed among the various regional groups, with an eye to ensuring continuity in the CD’s work. Mexico’s delegation suggested the same distribution as last year be used: four posts to the Group of 21, two to the Western Group, 1 to the Eastern European Group (as reportedly contained in the president’s “proposal 421”). Pakistan’s delegate noted that the Group of 21 is “in the process of consultations” on this issue.

Pakistan’s representative also argued that since neutrality “is the key factor in reaching consensus on nomination of Chairs and Special Coordinators,” the chairs “should not be from P-5, non-NPT states or countries in a military alliance or countries enjoying nuclear protection.” Regarding terms of the chairs, the Pakistani delegation suggested that chairs could rotate in synchronicity with the CD presidents.

The UK delegation agreed with the emphasis placed on balance, and urged the CD to harness the talent in the CD chamber across the regional groups, composed of “experienced colleagues who have earned the confidence of the Conference.” He urged these individuals to step forward to help move the work of the CD along. The representative of the Philippines echoed this comment, and also suggested that some of this talent could come from “colleague backbenchers from CD observer states.” He urged the principle of inclusivity be honoured by ensuring that observer states are ipso facto given the same rights and privileges in the working groups and the groups of the special coordinators. He argued that observer states, by virtue of having been accepted into regular sessions, should be allowed to participate in the rest of the CD’s work as well.

Meeting schedule
The Colombian delegation called for balance in the allocation of time, “at least to the four main topics, with the nuance that further ahead we should be flexible bearing in mind that the dynamics of the meetings … will determine that allocation of time.” The Malaysian delegation called for a balanced schedule for the four working groups and urged consideration be given to the possibility of participation of experts from capitals. Mexico’s delegation said it would “prefer time allocation to allow all items to be taken up with necessary flexibility.” Pakistan’s delegation called for balanced time for the four working groups and that “sufficient time” should be allocated to the three special coordinators “to explore the way forward through consultations.”

Colombia’s delegate further urged that the CD should initially avoid holding simultaneous meetings, to enable delegations to cover most of them. Further ahead, he noted, programming of meetings will become difficult, bearing in mind the many commitments that member states have in other fora. Indonesia’s delegation likewise noted the importance of avoiding “conflicting meetings” and of providing adequate time for consultations, coordination, and preparation.

In terms of establishing sub-groups within the working groups, Pakistan’s delegation suggested that the working groups should have debates and exchanges of ideas to determine the necessity and number of each sub-group.

Rules of procedure
Pakistan’s delegation emphasized the importance of consensus in carrying forward all of the CD’s work, including the appointment of chairs and coordinators, allocation of time, and preparation and adoption of working group reports. The Chinese and Malaysian delegations urged the CD to follow the rules of procedure in all its undertakings. The UK ambassador noted that following the rules of procedure, which “are what they are and they are well known,” is a measure of good faith. He urged delegates not to try to set new conditions and to “avoid the trap of identifying new obstacles,” encouraging them instead to “look for new solutions.”

Beginning and continuing work
The Mexican delegation said it believes the working groups and special coordinators should begin work now, and plenary meetings “can serve for those groups to report on progress and delegation can comment on issues, with the understanding that matters of substance will be resolved as they come up.”

Mexico’s representative also stressed the importance of continuing any work that starts during 2009 into 2010 “so that we don’t find ourselves at the beginning of the next session paralyzed because we don’t have a programme of work.” Pakistan’s delegation reminded the Conference that the CD “cannot afford to have mere discussions without any outcome,” noting that CD/1863 “is a package with a clear objective to work on four core issues with a view to negotiate legally binding instruments.” To this end, the Pakistan delegation suggested that the CD should make an assessment at the end of its 2009 session to determine the programme of work for next year.

Civil society participation
The Colombian delegation reminded the Conference that it needs to consider other subjects, such as the participation of civil society. The ambassador from Indonesia also noted, “one informal meeting should be allocated to relevant NGOs to address the CD,” as decided in 2004. He also noted that the participation of “independent experts” could also help enable the CD’s work.

Notes from the gallery
WILPF is encouraged to see delegations talking about the importance of principles such as trust, good faith, balance, and inclusivity. We also see Pakistan’s proposal regarding the neutrality of the working group chairs as part of these principles. In a body that maintains as its goal the negotiation of legally-binding disarmament and arms control treaties, in an international political and military climate of unease, distrust, and inequality, it is greatly important that the individuals at the helm of the CD’s work represent governments that have demonstrated their commitment to disarmament, peace, and equitable international security. This is essential for ensuring the principles of trust, good faith, balance, and inclusivity. The idea of limiting the chairs to those states that do not possess or “benefit from the protection of” nuclear weapons or from military alliances deserves sincere consideration.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be announced at a later date.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF