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 unsuccessfully considers a new approach to a programme of work

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Thursday, 17 March for a final plenary meeting under the Chilean presidency. The delegations of Japan, Algeria, ASEAN, Norway, Colombia, Sri Lanka, China, the Russian Federation, Bangladesh, the United States, Belarus, Iran, the Group of 21 (G21), Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Finland, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico,Germany, Indonesia, India, Syria, and CD President Ambassador Pedro Oyarce participated in a discussion on establishing a programme of work. Several delegations also addressed issues related to the CD’s non-core agenda items and the nuclear crisis in Japan.

Highlights

  • Outgoing CD President Oyarce circulated a non-paper containing proposed elements for a new type of programme of work, a compromise between elaborate mandates and a simplified time-table.
  • The delegations of Colombia, Bangladesh, DPRK, Finland, Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Syria, and Mexico appreciated and supported the Chilean initiative.
  • No delegation spoke out against the suggested language in the non-paper.
  • The Norwegian delegation said that if the CD cannot deliver on its mandate, “we must explore other options”.
  • The Chinese ambassador believed that progress has been made and that, the CD’s “current momentum” is “most precious”. The ambassadors of Russia and Belarus agreed and noted that there simply isn’t an alternative to the CD.
  • Ambassador Suda of Japan gave a brief report of the situation at the Fukushima reactors and asserted that the Japanese government is making every effort to cool down the reactor.
  • The delegations of Norway, Brazil, Mexico, Algeria, and Bangladesh argued that the situation in Japan highlighted the need for action on nuclear weapons in the CD.

A new programme of work
In his concluding remarks, outgoing CD President Oyarce of Chile explained that he has attempted to overcome the difficulties for agreement on a programme of work. As Pakistan continues to oppose CD/1864, Ambassador Oyarce noted that the disagreement on this type of programme of work persists. He also stated that a simple schedule of activities has shown not to be acceptable, as some members consider that a programme of work must include one or several mandates.

In an attempt to find a middle way between the two opposing views, the Chilean ambassador explained that he explored formulations for a common mandate for four working groups that would be flexible enough to allow substantive work to commence. While calling such an attempt “constructive ambiguity,” Ambassador Oyarce admitted that it could cause concerns among those that deem any departure from negotiations of a fissile material (cut-off) treaty a step backwards. Because of these difficulties in finding any common ground for an agreement in the CD, he announced that he had refrained from putting forward a formal draft programme of work on this topic and instead circulated a “non-paper” containing proposed elements for such a document.

The non-paper suggests that four working groups should be “entrusted to address” the four core issues related to agenda items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Instead of specific mandates, each working group is established “with the objective of conducting substantive, progressive and systematic work, including, where relevant, consideration of concrete approaches and, as appropriate, the immediate launch of negotiations on a non-discriminatory and internationally and effectively verifiable legally binding instrument.”

The non-paper also suggests the appointment of three special coordinators to seek the views of member states to deal with questions related to agenda items 5, 6, and 7.

The delegations of Colombia, Bangladesh, DPRK, Finland, Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Syria, and Mexico appreciated and supported the Chilean initiative. Ambasssador Arango of Colombia noted that a simplified programme of work could be a way of making progress and called for delegations to show flexibility. Ambassador Macedo Soares of Brazil regretted that the document had not been submitted as an official CD document, since it would have added to the documentation of the debate in the CD and could serve as further inspiration. The representative of Ecuador suggested that the non-paper should be discussed and analyzed at the next plenary meeting under the next president. Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany also appreciated the efforts of Ambassador Oyarce and noted that given the contradictory pressures from various sides, it is in fact “practically impossible to come to an agreement on the programme of work.” Ambassador Hoffmann further argued that the task is not helped by the fact that even for insiders in the CD, it is not easy to see who blocks exactly what.

No delegation spoke out against the suggested language in the non-paper.

The future of the CD
The stalemate of the CD continued to raise disagreement between delegations. Ambassador Angell-Hansen of Norway welcomed the thematic debates, but voiced her concerns that the CD might duplicate the role of the Disarmament Commission unless negotiations take place. She highlighted that her delegation is skeptical about the CD’s ability to deal with disarmament and called the current state “dysfunctional”. The Norwegian ambassador stated that if the CD cannot deliver on its mandate, “we must explore other options.”

Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany noted that the CD in the 2011 session so far had heard 277 statements in 16 plenary meetings. Listening to these statements was a lot of déjà-vu, he stated, arguing that just because the CD has heard 277 statements in seven weeks does not automatically mean that the CD is moving forward. Ambassador Macedo Soares expressed a different opinion, arguing that in order to reach the stage of negotiations, delegations have to speak and listen to each other. He argued that this is work too, and believed when people say that the CD needs to get back to work, perhaps are they not considering that delegations are working already.

Ambassador Qun of China did not agree with the view that no progress had been made during recent years. He argued that the work carried out is a “process of gradual accumulation, with quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes. Considerations, communications, consultations and discussions are quantitative accumulations while making breakthroughs, reaching consensus and concluding treaties are quantum leaps.” Ambassador Qun further stated, “the CD’s current momentum is most precious. We should all cherish and strive to maintain such a momentum.” The ambassadors of Russia and Belarus agreed and noted that there simply isn’t an alternative to the CD, and that the situation was neither critical nor impossible.

In his concluding remarks, CD President Oyarce highlighted other issues that would need further consideration, such as appropriate interaction between the CD and the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on the issue of revitalization of the CD.

Agenda items 5, 6, and 7
Today’s plenary also gave delegations an opportunity to discuss the additional agenda items: new types of weapons of mass destruction; a comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments.

The US delegation distributed a written statement on transparency in armaments, in which it expressed its support for the UN Instrument for Reporting on Military Expenditures and the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that has been tasked to review the operation of this instrument. The US delegation also supported other efforts to develop measures that will broaden participation in and improve comparability and reliability of submissions to the Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures. The US also argued that the UN Register of Conventional Arms has been “a resounding success, establishing a global norm of transparency and accountability in military matters and reinforcing civilian control of the military.” However, the US delegation expressed disappointment that the 2009 GGE on the UN Register failed to include small arms and light weapons as an eighth category in the Register, due to the blockage of one single expert. In the view of the US delegation, this was a significant missed opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the UN Register.

The Iranian representative drew attention to General Assembly resolution 46/36, which constitutes “main terms of reference for the transparency in armaments.” Mr. Daryaei argued that these terms have not been fully implemented and called for inclusion of transparency in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the concept of transparency in armaments.

Ambassador Khvostov of Belarus argued that a precondition for ensuring transparency in arms is the effective coordination between states and the structures within the UN, particularly those that are responsible for UN Security Council resolutions on arms embargoes. However, Ambassador Khvostov believed that such cooperation is not always observed.

The situation at Fukushima
The natural disasters in Japan and the resulting damages to its Fukushima nuclear power plants were also highlighted in the debate.Ambassador Suda of Japan gave a brief report of the situation at the Fukushima reactors and asserted that the Japanese government is making every effort to cool down the reactors. All speakers expressed their condolences and sympathy for the people of Japan and some delegations took the opportunity to point out the enormous threat of nuclear technology.

The ambassadors of Norway and Bangladesh believed that the accidents in Japan put the work of the CD in perspective and reinforced the sense of urgency to return to work. Mr. Khelif of Algeria highlighted that radioactive leakages due to accidents from peaceful use of nuclear energy are highly dangerous and asked what catastrophic scenario could happen if it was related to an accident or deliberate use of a nuclear weapon. He emphasized that the current situation in Japan should alert the CD to the fact that the nuclear threat is a collective threat, inherited from the huge arsenals of the cold war. Ambassador Basave of Mexico agreed that the nuclear incident in Fukushima could serve as a lesson for delegations. By highlighting the current fears that the radiation leaked from the reactors will have serious effects on the lives and health of the people of Japan and impact the world food chain, he asked delegations to think about what would happen if nuclear technology were used for military, criminal, or terrorist. Ambassador Macedo Soares of Brazil agreed, noting that in this situation, it is not possible to refrain from thinking on the threat posed by nuclear weapon stockpiles.

Notes from the gallery
While civil society is aware that delegations have indeed worked during the 14 year long stalemate in the CD, it is important to point out that the output of these efforts has been zero. While no treaties have been negotiated, positions, priorities, and agenda items have also remained static.

During the last 14 years, thematic and focused debates have been repeated. Delegations have debated reasons for the stalemate over and over again and all attempts to establish a programme of work have failed. Civil society keeps being excluded, membership is not expanded, and even the parameters of potential FMCT negotiations outlined in the Shannon mandate in 1995 remains the same. Delegations tend to say that the CD does not operate in a vacuum, but listening to statements from the gallery, it sometimes appears to be a room completely separated from the reality outside.

While some CD delegations are dismissing another proposal for a programme of work without officially stating their reasons why, the devastating catastrophe in Japan is another wake-up call about the dangers about radiation and nuclear technology.

As WILPF noted in its statement on the crisis in Japan, radiation, whatever its source, is a major threat to humanity and the environment and therefore it is most urgent to commence work on phasing out all sources of radiation—from uranium mining, nuclear reactors, nuclear accidents, nuclear weapons development and testing, and nuclear stockpiles. The nuclear weapon states have made a legally-binding commitment to nuclear disarmament and the international community is now asking for it to be implemented. The CD should adopt any programme of work that can make a contribution to this goal, such as the proposed compromise of Chile, or the international community must find other ways to make progress.