CD discusses "other issues"

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Thursday, 17 February, for a final plenary meeting during the Canadian Presidency. It was also an opportunity for states to raise issues other than the four core issues. The delegations of Israel, Sweden, Australia, Brazil, Philippines, Belarus, the Russian Federation, France, China, Belgium, the Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, Algeria, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Poland, Italy, Hungary and CD President, Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada participated in the discussion.

Transparency in Armaments
Ms. Rahamimoff-Honig of Israel argued that while the stalemate persists over the four core issues, substantive progress could be made on other issues, such as Transparency in Armaments under agenda item 7. She suggested that the banning of transfers of arms to terrorists should be addressed. The Israeli representative agreed that a “lacuna exists regarding a clear and comprehensive norm banning such transfers,” and stated that the CD could explore the possibilities of creating such a codified norm as well as placing a demand for concrete steps to be taken against those who continue to transfer arms and ammunition to terrorists. Ambassador Danon of France stated that politically, France supported work on this issue. However, he highlighted the problems of implementing it and drew attention to unsuccessful attempts by six working groups to try to define terrorism at the UN in New York.

Ambassador Van den IJssel of the Netherlands argued that transparency in armaments is very important as a confidence-building measure and as an important instrument for clarification and implementation. He noted that the Netherlands is committed to transparency regarding conventional weapons and issued an annual report in this regard and sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly on theUN Register on Conventional Arms. As for exploring a ban on the transfer of weapons to terrorists, Ambassador Van den IJssel agreed this is an important issue but said it has to be considered whether member states should discuss it within the CD or in another forum. Also, the Algerian delegation noted that other international fora could be more appropriate for discussing some of the proposals made on transparency in armaments, like the definition of terrorism. He argued that the CD did not have a mandate to look at definitions of terrorism.

The Israeli delegation took the floor again in response to the comments made on its proposal and highlighted that Israel was well aware of the debate on the definition of terrorism. However, Ms. Rahamimoff-Honig noted that there is agreement on what constituted terrorist acts, so perhaps the CD could approach it from that side.

New weapons of mass destruction
Ambassador Khvostov of Belarus raised the issue of new types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including radiological weapons. He argued that the international community should consider elaboration of a legally-binding instrument to deal with this before production of new WMD becomes reality. Mr. Novokhatsky of Russia argued that there is no doubt how important it is to monitor trends in military science and technology so that new types and systems of WMD can be identified in time. But he also argued that there was a need to rethink of the concept of weapons and get away from the military definition. Mr. Novokhatsky argued for a more comprehensive discussion on weapons of mass “disruption” and not just of mass destruction, including using science and technology for hostile reasons. He called for debate on information and communication technological progress which could be used against the security interests of states. The French ambassador argued that his delegation always encourages the CD to deal with new subjects and threats and is willing to work on new issues. However, he emphasized that delegations cannot forget the real priorities before the CD, i.e. threats linked to nuclear proliferation and the need to stop nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapon free zones
Assuming the role of Coordinator of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Brazilian delegation gave a presentation on the historical background on the Agency and the Tlateloco treaty. Ambassador Soares highlighted the importance of spreading nuclear weapon free zones to ensure that the majority of the inhabitants of earth are safe from the scourge of nuclear weapons. However, states that had renounced nuclear weapons are still jeopardized by nuclear threats. Brazil and the other 113 member states living in nuclear weapon free zones insist on the need for a multilateral and legally-binding instrument that guaranteed no threats to states that do not have nuclear weapons. Responding to Brazil’s remarks, the French ambassador stated that France would work fully with Brazil to coordinate on issues of the reality of the nuclear threat to countries that have set up nuclear weapons free zones.

Observer states
The informal group of observer states (IGOS) of the CD took the opportunity to thank Ambassador Grinius for working on the issue of expansion of membership during his presidency. The group argued that the Rules of Procedure call for the periodic review of the membership and noted that over a decade has passed since the last review. The group stated that this lapse does not reflect current international security realities, especially since the CD is mandated to negotiate instruments which are expected to have universal effect. The group reiterated its call for a Special Rapporteur on the question of membership expansion.  

Side events around the CD
The Swedish delegation took the opportunity to report from the side event on space security organized by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) last week. Ms. Holm Ericson argued that the event was useful for increasing knowledge about the topics.

Ambassador Woolcott reported briefly on behalf of the Australian and Japanese delegations from the three side events that they had organized on definitions in a future fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). He highlighted that the first seminar had included a presentation by the International Atomic Energy Agency on the nuclear fuel cycle, followed by an exchange on how the term “fissile material” might be defined in a future treaty. The second seminar had focused on definitions of “production” and the third one dealt with the question of any other definitions that were relevant for a future FMCT.

Ambassador Woolcott noted that the discussions were not indented to reach any definitive answers, but that the seminars allowed delegations to engage in the issues in greater depth and brought out linkages between particular definitions as well as between definitions and other core elements of the treaty, such as scope and verification. Ambassador Woolcott announced that he would submit a more detailed report on this in his personal capacity and also stated that Australia and Japan are looking to coordinate a second experts side event on the FMCT in the near future, following further substantive debate in plenary. The delegations of the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, and the Republic of Korea expressed support for such additional events in the near future and Ambassador Manfredi of Italy also encouraged other delegations to organize side events on other core issues as well.

The Swiss delegation highlighted its appreciation of the side events and argued that the outcome of these events could be an important contribution to the work of the CD. Ambassador Lauber noted that the topics of verification and scope could be dealt with in the same way, as well as other issues in front of the CD. However, whilst supporting these side events, Ambassador Lauber also pointed out that such an approach would only complement and never substitute the official meetings of the CD. He hoped that the efforts to reach consensus on a programme of work would continue and encouraged future Presidents to use the Canadian model and hold more thematic discussions.

Mr. Khelif of Algeria agreed that the side events were a useful opportunity for an exchange of views but recalled Algeria’s position that these side events had nothing to do with the activities of the CD. The Indian delegation noted that both Australia and Japan have stated that the discussions at these side events were “neither negotiations nor pre-negotiations”. Ambassador Rao believed that the side events are without prejudice to substantive positions of delegations and that the objective of the exercise is “solely to promote understanding of issues and to build confidence and momentum toward FMCT negotiations in the CD on the basis of the Shannon Mandate.” Ambassador Rao stated, “it is obvious that discussions in the CD or in side events outside the CD cannot be a substitute for formal FMCT negotiations in a subsidiary body in the CD in accordance with its rules of procedure.”

Ambassador Danon of France acknowledged that he had been reluctant at the beginning of the side event on the substance of the debate, but stated that he had been pleasantly surprised by the debate. He noted that there were new elements on the table concerning definitions and that there was true pressure and willingness to deal with this issue.

Ms. Rahamimoff-Honig of Israel argued that it is important to seriously examine independent initiatives launched as possible alternatives to the CD and “their actual value and the extent to which they will realistically promote the global arms control, disarmament and non proliferation agenda.” She argued that such exercises may succeed in achieving an agreed outcome of the like-minded, but noted that it may come at the cost of undermining the CD, a result which Israel would view as highly unfortunate.

The Chinese ambassador reminded delegations of its position from 8 February, and highlighted again that China was not in favour and did not participate in these events. Ambassador Qun stated that these side events lacked the extensive participation of the relevant parties and that any conclusions coming from such side events did not have any status in the work of the CD. Also the Pakistani delegation clarified that it had not participated in these side events as a matter of principle, as it felt that this kind of events would undermine the work of the Conference as the only multilateral negotiating forum. Ambassador Akram argued that some sensed that side events could be a “pre curser” to the negotiations on a FMCT being taken outside the CD, and stated that while delegations wishing to do so were welcome, Pakistan would not participate in such an alternative. Ambassador Akram also suspected that a large number of countries would not participate either, some on principle, and some because they would no longer have the comfort of consensus.

The Hungarian representative disagreed with the comments that side events could undermine the CD and instead argued that one should look at such events as supporting walls for the work of the conference.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held at 10:00 on Tuesday, 22 February where the Ambassador of Chile will take over the Presidency.