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

CD discusses strategies for beginning work

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Tuesday, 22 February for the first plenary meeting of the Chilean presidency. The delegations of Chile, India, Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Austria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Cuba, China, Canada, Argentina,Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Mexico, Netherlands, Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ireland, Algeria, Indonesia, and the Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Ordzhonikidze, participated in the discussion.

Highlights

  • Incoming CD president Ambassador Pedro Oyarce of Chile distributed an indicative timetable, outlining the schedule of activities during his presidency.
  • Ambassador Oyarce raised the issue of a simplistic programme of work and asked delegation for their views on such approach.
  • Many delegations showed interest in such a proposal, but several argued that it would have to lead to concrete moves forward in order to lead to substantive progress.
  • The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Ordzhonikidze, called upon delegations to put such a proposal on paper in order for the CD to consider it.

Indicative timetable
The CD president, Ambassador Oyarce circulated a new schedule of activities during his presidency, which will last until 17 March. Aside from high-level speakers that will address the CD during several occasions, delegations will continue with exchanges of views on the specific agenda items. This schedule is a continuation of the Canadian approach and Ambassador Oyarce similarly emphasized that it’s only a suggestion for the organization of the work and not up for a decision. Just as the previous president, Ambassador Oyarcenoted that these meetings will “not be negotiations or even pre-negotiation” and that delegations are free to raise any issue at any time.

Programme of work
The CD President also noted that consultations on a programme of work would continue and invited delegations to make statements on this topic. He stated that the CD has been presented with many different versions of work programmes during the last years, such asCD/1864 and CD/1889, but also asked for delegations views on other options, such as the more streamlined and simplistic proposal made by Ambassador Grinius last week. Ambassador Oyarce argued that such a programme of work could take the shape of a simple schedule of activities and pointed out that the CD used such a form successfully until 1997.

Ambassador Soares of Brazil reminded delegations of the already existing guidelines for a programme of work contained in rule 28 of the rules of procedure and stated that it provided a good starting point for achieving an agreement. He also drew attention to the recommendations to the CD from the General Assembly in resolutions 65/43, 65/44, 65/46, 65/56, 65/61, 65/65, 65/72, 65/80, and 65/85and noted that they should also contribute to the roadmap of the programme of work. Ambassador Soares also argued that it is always worth recalling that a large number of countries are prepared to consider proposals for the commencement of negotiations on any of the four core issues of the agenda.

Ambassador Akram of Pakistan stated that his delegation has made abundantly clear its reasons for delaying the start of negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT) but that it has always stated that it is ready to begin substantive work and negotiations on other core issues on the agenda. He argued that the CD is not there only to negotiate on fissile materials and that it should engage in negotiations on those issues on which consensus is possible. Ambassador Akram noted that Pakistan has clearly stated why it can not join negotiations on an FMCT, but it had not heard any clear explanations for why negotiations on the other core issues could not begin.

The Iranian delegation argued that a comprehensive and balanced programme of work would start negotiations on all four core issues. Ambassador Qun of China argued that the CD should seize the momentum it had and work to put aside differences to adopt a programme of work as soon as possible. To that end, the CD should work to identify areas of consensus; it must treat all agenda items in a balanced way; and it must focus on the real impact of the work, rather than being bogged down by the formulation in a programme of work.

Ambassador Rao of India stated his delegation would not stand in the way of consensus on a programme of work that included negotiations on an FMCT, but noted that it was not in favour of re-opening the consensus reached on the Shannon mandate. The Colombian delegation voiced its support for CD/1864 and other similar documents but stated that a programme of work containing specific mandates is not the only option for the CD.

The Dutch and the Algerian delegation noted that while CD/1864 is not a perfect document, it had reached consensus and would be a sound foundation for future work. This was supported by the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom. The representative of Algeria also warned that the CD should not just agree on a programme of work in order to simply give a perception that it is working. Ambassador van der IJssel argued that the Netherlands did not support an approach to a programme of work that would “mean merely changing the present consensus minus one in the CD for a consensus minus 3, 4 or more.” He also argued that it was problematic to support the adoption of a programme of work that is lacking substance in the sense that it will not bring the CD closer to the start of negotiations and highlighted that such a programme of work is not an end in itself nor is its adoption a proof of the CD making progress. Ambassador Kennedy of the United States supported the comment by the Dutch delegation. Mr. Gartshore of Canadaemphasized his delegation’s support for CD/1864 and noted the importance many delegations attach to a programme of work included negotiations mandates. However, Mr. Gartshore reminded the CD that until 1997, the CD adopted a simple schedule of activities—without subsidiary bodies or mandates—and that such programme of work would remain consistent with the CD’s rules of procedure today. The Canadian delegation had presented this idea to delegations during its presidency, but received mixed reactions. Mr. Gartshorestated that while some delegations supported such an attempt, others countries asked what exactly such schedule of activities would allow the CD to do? He noted that even after a simplified programme of work was agreed upon, mandates of any subsidiary bodies would still need to be agreed upon.

The delegations of Austria, Canada, South Africa, Switzerland, Mexico, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, and Ireland signaled that they would be willing to support other types of programmes of work, such as a simplified schedule of activities without mandates. Ambassador Strohal argued that the substance of the CD’s work was clear enough through its agenda and through the recommendations from the General Assembly. However, he also noted that it is important to not only find agreement on a programme of work, but breaking the deadlock by implementing it with substantive work. Mr. Wollenmann of Switzerland noted that “the excessive focus on mandates” had become a key problem for the CD and a programme of work is today being interpreted as “a complicated document that needs to be negotiated”. He argued that instead of negotiating a programme of work, the CD should simply establish a programme and agree on it. The Mexican delegation said it was unacceptable that negotiations of a programme of work and working groups have replaced substantive work on the topics of the CD agenda. Ms. Jáquez Huacuja argued that “pre-conceptions in negotiating mandates” represent an obstacle to negotiations and since none of the proposals that had been tabled over the last 15 years had ever been implemented, it was important to explore new avenues. Mr. O’Shea of Ireland noted that only when the CD made the programme of work more complicated than a schedule of activities has it failed to agree on it. He asked if perhaps delegations should stick to what has succeeded in the past, rather than trying to do what has failed over and over again. Ambassador Suda of Japan reminded delegations that a simplified approach would still need to lead to discussions on mandates and subsidiary bodies eventually, and therefore any simplified work programme must be flexible and allow for review for changes depending on such discussions. After listening to the comments on a simplified programme of work, the Algerian representative had some questions regarding the support such proposal. He asked whether the adoption of a simplified agenda meant that the CD would discard the Shannon mandate for FMCT negotiations and start over from scratch.

The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Ordzhonikidze, said he had followed the discussion on a programme of work with interest and urged delegation to put forward any proposals for a more simplistic work programme on paper. While it was possible to argue against and for hypothetical approaches, positions and options might be clearer if it was outlined more specifically.

Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany noted that openness and transparency are important factors in this debate and expressed hope that the Chilean president would keep all delegations informed on the consultations on the topic of a programme of work. The Irish representative agreed and argued that he was not convinced about the use of regional groups in these consultations, as he preferred open discussions in plenary meetings.

Side events and informal discussions
Encouraged by the engagements in the thematic debates, the Peruvian delegation wanted to continue such an approach by discussing existing proposals in front of the CD and referred to the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention submitted by Costa Rica and Malaysia, as well as several proposals such as the Shannon mandate and draft treaties for the FMCT. Mr. Wollenmann of Switzerland supported delegations who would wish to hold side-events on the other three core issues, as well as encouraged those that want additional side events on a possible fissile material treaty.  Ambassador Strohal of Austria believed that there had been a good exchange of views on the core items and welcomed further discussions on the margins of the CD. But while supporting these initiatives, he argued that they couldn’t substitute core activity of the CD. This was also echoed by the Swiss delegation.

Special Coordinators
The Philippines and the Informal Group of Observer States (IGOS) reiterated their call for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur for the question of expansion in order to facilitate discussion on the matter without pre-judging the outcome. The Serbian delegation, which spoke on behalf of the IGOS, regretted that the CD has not yet been able to adopt or implement a programme of work, but continued to encourage the Conference to realize at its earliest opportunity a balanced programme. Mr. Wollenmann of Switzerland suggested that the CD could appoint a Special Coordinator on the effective functioning of the CD, which could review the rules of procedure, the regional groupings or the ways the CD engages with civil society. He also noted the potential for other special coordinators on topics such as expansion of the CD or on the review of the agenda.

Next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, 24 February at 10:00 am and will be devoted to agenda items 1 and 2, with a general focus on nuclear disarmament.