We use Google Analytics to learn more about who is reading the resources on our website. Please read Google Analytics privacy policy for further information. Close

logo_reaching-critical-will

Thematic discussion on nuclear disarmament

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Tuesday, 1 February to discuss the first of its four core issues, nuclear disarmament. Delegates from Pakistan, the European Union, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Malaysia, Ireland, Canada, Argentina, Algeria,Switzerland, Australia, United Kingdom, Chile, Iran, China, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Egypt, Cuba, Austria, and Ethiopia participated in the discussion.

Highlights

  • Many delegations welcomed unilateral and bilateral reductions in arsenals by nuclear weapon states but recognized that such efforts are complementary to, and not a substitute for, binding multilateral nuclear disarmament agreements.
  • Several delegations expressed concern about nuclear weapon modernization, especially as conditions for ratification of New START.
  • While most delegations called for further reductions in nuclear arsenals, the Russian delegation argued that New START has brought the international community to a point where considerable lowering of nuclear capabilities makes deeper reductions impossible without due regard to all other processes in the area of international security.
  • Several delegations emphasized their disappointment in the CD’s ability to deal with the topic of nuclear disarmament and most delegations supported the establishment of a subsidiary body on this issue. Some delegates suggested how the CD could help implement the 2010 NPT action plan on disarmament.
  • The delegations of South Africa, Switzerland, Mexico, Austria, New Zealand, Egypt, India, and Cuba discussed the importance of delegitimization of nuclear weapons and international humanitarian law.
  • The delegations of Pakistan, Malaysia, Argentina, Algeria, Chile, Canada, Iran, South Africa, Indonesia, Egypt, Austria, and Switzerland all recognized the calls for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) or a legally-binding agreement on nuclear disarmament.
  • The ambassador of Algeria suggested that further follow-up discussions in the CD should focus on technical and political issues around the Model NWC submitted by Malaysia and Costa Rica to the UN General Assembly in 2007.
  • The ambassador of Ireland suggested that the CD could serve as a forum for ongoing exchange of information on nuclear weapons reductions, doctrines, and policies.

Nuclear disarmament: the highest priority
The overwhelming majority of delegations participating in the discussion today highlighted nuclear disarmament as their top priority in the CD. Several delegations noted that when the First Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD I) adopted the Decalogue, it placed nuclear disarmament as the first priority for the CD. Speakers repeatedly mentioned other important historical events that have confirmed the international community’s commitment to nuclear disarmament, such as the first UN General Assembly resolution which called for nuclear disarmament, article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice.

Follow-up of START 
Most delegations welcomed the recent approval of New START in Russia and the United States. The delegations of South Africa, Argentina, and the European Union encouraged further reductions in nuclear arsenals, which they argued should include non-strategic weapons such as tactical nuclear weapons.  Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland also hoped that a new round of negotiations to further reduce arsenals would take place soon and argued that it should include strategic and non-strategic, deployed and non-deployed weapons, and the reduction of operational readiness of nuclear weapons. However, Ambassador Lauber also noted that achievements in disarmament seem “rather modest compared to the overall scope of the problem” and argued that “efforts are random instead of systematic and coordinated.” He further argued, “disarmament steps are often results of budget cuts or consequence of technological changeover rather than the conception of a long-term plan to one day give up all these weapons.”

The P5 on nuclear disarmament
While Russian Ambassador Loshchinin is convinced that the implementation of New START will pave the way “for the nuclear disarmament process to be continued in a wider context and for other states possessing nuclear arsenals to join the disarmament efforts of Russia and the United States,” he also stated that the signing of this Treaty “has brought us to a point where considerable lowering of nuclear capabilities makes deeper reductions impossible without due regard to all other processes in the area of international security.” He argued that further steps towards nuclear disarmament “should be considered and implemented in strict compliance with the principle of equal and indivisible security and taking into account all factors capable of affecting strategic stability.”

China’s delegation welcomed the New START and argued that the biggest nuclear weapons arsenals should further drastically reduce them in order to create necessary conditions for disarmament, but also highlighted that other nuclear weapons states should join negotiations.

Ambasssador Duncan of the United Kingdom drew attention to its Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR), which according to him not only “reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to maintaining a minimum effective nuclear deterrent,” but also contained “a number of new disarmament measures”.

As France is a member of the European Union, the United States was the only P5 member that didn’t deliver a statement on nuclear disarmament in today’s meeting.

Modernization and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons
While welcoming the recent progress in nuclear disarmament, such as New START and unilateral disarmament measures, many delegations noted that these cuts came with a high price. Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland emphasized that some nuclear powers are still building up their arsenals in quantitative terms, and all are upgrading them in qualitative terms and shared concerns that such modernization efforts could undermine, if not jeopardize, the quantitative reductions. Ambassador Jazaïry of Algeria argued that the resolutions that accompanied the ratification by the US Senate and the Russian Duma give rise to concern about how irreversible the commitments in the Treaty are. He noted that the idea to maintain an “effective and credible” nuclear capability and to continue to conduct activities to modernize nuclear arsenals and their means of delivery.

The Iranian delegation believed that the CD had an urgent task to address the concerns emanating from the “development and deployment of new nuclear weapons by the nuclear-weapon States.” Ambassador Sajjadi argued that these concerns should be alleviated by the prohibition of development and production of any new nuclear weapons, particularly mini-nukes, as well as a ban on the construction of any new facility for development, deployment and production of nuclear weapons in home and foreign countries. The Cuban delegation also raised concerns about vertical proliferation and the billions of dollars used for modernizing arsenals.

Security doctrines and deterrence
Ambassador Akram of Pakistan argued that contrary to their claims about nuclear disarmament, some major nuclear powers continue to pursue policies based on the outdated Cold War concept of nuclear deterrence through Mutual Assured Destruction. “The fact that the cold war ended more than two decades ago seems to make very little difference in their commitment to acquire ever more powerful and lethal nuclear weapon,” he argued.

The delegation of Algeria highlighted that many doctrines continues to play up the deterrence role and argued that if deterrence allows for legitimate possession of nuclear weapons it would be an argument for proliferation, not against it. Ambassador Jazaïry also argued that the right to use nuclear weapons to protect what is termed “vital interest” is hardly reassuring for non-nuclear weapon states. He continued to argue that such doctrines are not likely to lead to nuclear disarmament, as they are an extension of ideas from cold war.

The Irish ambassador noted that as long as a number of states deem that their nuclear weapons are essential for their security, others will aspire to acquire them. China’s delegation called for all other nuclear weapon states to join their no-first use pledge. The delegation of Argentina called for the reductions of importance of nuclear weapons in military doctrines and in military alliances while Iran’s delegationraised concerns over transfer and deployment of nuclear weapons in territories of non-nuclear weapon states as well as transfer of nuclear weapon technology to non-NPT states. On the issue of nuclear weapons and military alliances, the Canadian delegation argued that NATO’s new Strategic Concept—where it affirms that “as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, {it} will remain a nuclear Alliance” —was neither contradictory nor disingenuous.

The NPT action plan and the CD
Many delegations highlighted the successful adoption of the action plan at the NPT Review Conference in May 2010 and urged for its full implementation. Ambassador Woolcott of Australia noted that the action plan has “again given the CD an important responsibility to help build the conditions for a more secure world.” Ambassador Corr of Ireland suggested that the CD could serve as a forum for ongoing exchange of information on nuclear weapons reductions, doctrines, and policies, “with a view to increasing trust and confidence between States and facilitating more rapid progress towards nuclear disarmament.”

The Mexican delegation expressed frustration with the lack of implementation of article VI, despite the achievement of the action plan and other measures that have contributed to the current “momentum”. Ms. Jáquez Huacuja noted that article VI committed parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. She said it is surprising that despite this commitment, paired with the CD’s mandate to negotiate disarmament treaties, many delegations assume that only “deliberations”—not negotiations on nuclear disarmament—should take place in this body.

A nuclear weapons convention (NWC)
Several countries spoke favorably of a legally-binding agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons or a NWC, such as Pakistan, Argentina, Algeria, Chile, Iran, South Africa, Indonesia, Egypt, Austria, and Switzerland. While the degree of commitment to such a process continues to vary, several delegations highlighted the UN Secretary-General’s five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament, which includes such a legally-binding agreement.

Ambassador Akram stated that Pakistan, along with the vast majority of UN member states, believes that the issue of nuclear disarmament is ripe for negotiations in the CD, and that it must start working on a nuclear weapons convention. Speaking from national experience of disarming a nuclear weapons programme, Ambassador Matijla of South Africa highlighted that a world free from nuclear weapons would require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally-binding instrument, such as a nuclear weapons convention, or a mutually reinforcing set of instruments. Iran’s delegation also believes in the need for negotiations on a phased programme for nuclear disarmament within a specified time limit, including a NWC. Austria’s delegation stated its support for a legally-binding agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons and indicated that it would participate in all constructive processes that would contribute to this. The Canadian representative recognized the growing impetus for a NWC, but believes that the process of nuclear disarmament is best built on a foundation of incremental agreements.

Delegitimization and international humanitarian law (IHL)
In addition to a NWC and incremental steps, many delegations advocated for complementary measures through delegitimization and the application of IHL. Ambassador Matilja of South Africa argued that nuclear weapons are a source of insecurity, not security, and stated, “they are illegal, inhuman and immoral instruments that have no place in today’s security environment.” The Mexican delegation agreed and argued that the use of nuclear weapons violates all principles of IHL and violates the Charter of the United Nations and constitutes a crime against humanity. The Cuban representative called the use of nuclear weapons “illegal” and an “immoral act that cannot be tolerated”. The representative said that such use would be a violation of IHL and related to genocide.

The Swiss delegation argued that nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral because they cause massive and indiscriminate destruction in terms of human llives, material resources, and for the environment, and that they are illegal with regard to international humanitarian law. Their indiscriminate effect “violates without exception all fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” Ambassador Jürg Lauber highlighted the landmark reference in the final document from the 2010 NPT Review Conference, which emphasized the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed the need for all states to comply with applicable international law. He argued that the process of delegitimizing nuclear weapons needs to be advanced and announced that Switzerland intends to present a substantial contribution in the CD on this topic in order to stimulate a comprehensive debate.

Delegates from New Zealand, Egypt, and Austria also highlighted the NPT outcome document’s reference to IHL, while Ambassador Ali Rao of India agreed that progressive steps for delegitimization of nuclear weapons are essential to achieving the goal of their complete elimination.

What now?
While most non-nuclear weapon states that spoke in the plenary called for the establishment of a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament, some delegations made more specific comments and suggestions on potential progress.

Ambassador Akram of Pakistan noted that in the CD, as well as in the First Committee, “it has become habitual for certain major powers to extol their own virtues and claim their commitment at the highest levels to nuclear disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation. But, in actual practice, their actions and policies are totally contrary to these objectives.” Ambassador Akram argued that this is what is currently blocking the CD, and there “is nothing inherently wrong with our rules of procedure”.

Ambassador Higgie of New Zealand noted that if the CD were to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament it could provide a platform for the members to deepen their treatment of the topic and in a more focused manner. She argued that the CD should be able to contribute to the process of mapping out the path ahead to a nuclear-free world and to help build the mutual confidence which is an essential element of being able to carry that forward.

Ambassador Jazaïry of Algeria hoped that this first round of thematic discussions would be followed by a more structured debate on specific issues. He suggested that the follow-up discussions would focus on technical and political issues around the Model NWCsubmitted by Malaysia and Costa Rica.

Expressing its disappointment in the failure of the NPT Review Conference to adopt a specified timeline for the full implementation of article VI, the Iranian ambassador stated that his delegation would resolutely follow the cause of nuclear disarmament in the framework of the CD, and requested the preparation of a programme of work to be phrased in a manner that enables the CD to commence negotiations on nuclear disarmament and the conclusion of an internationally legally-binding convention on a total ban of all nuclear weapons.

The Canadian delegation, on the other hand, argued that beginning negotiations on a FMCT would be the most significant, practical advance that the CD can make towards nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Marschik of Austria, chair of the Subsidiary Body I on nuclear disarmament at the NPT Review Conference in 2010, noted that the action plan called for negotiations and discussions of core issues at the CD. However, he asked if the CD really could deliver and shared concerns that this body is becoming obsolete. He argued that in a changing international environment, the institutions must adapt or perish. He noted that this had happened in the conventional weapons, where the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons failed and other instruments such as the Ottawa and Oslo processes took over. While Ambassador Marschik admitted that in the nuclear area, things are different, he still emphasized that the institutions are too static and if we want to retain them, we have to come up with new ideas.

Notes from the gallery
While it is encouraging to hear delegations make statements on substance rather than procedural issues, it is equally discouraging to remember that the General Assembly called for nuclear disarmament in 1946. Despite the recent “progress” or “momentum,” we don’t appear to be much closer to multilateral negotiations of nuclear disarmament, especially not in the body that was created for this task. Unfortunately, the step-by-step approach has not reached successful outcomes either. As Ambassador Lauber highlighted, the unilateral and bilateral achievements are very modest, include huge modernization packages, and do not appear to be moving the world closer to complete disarmament.

Next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held in the Council Chamber at 10:00am on Thursday, 3 February. The delegations are encouraged to focus on the topic of a fissile material treaty.