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

A new schedule of activities

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Tuesday morning for the first plenary meeting of the Chinese presidency. Delegations debated a schedule of activities and possible elements of a programme of work. The delegations of China, Senegal, Sri Lanka, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Morocco, Nigeria, Italy, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, Bangladesh, France, the United States, and Chile participated in the discussions.

Highlights

  • CD President, Ambassador Qun of China, distributed a draft indicative timetable contained in CD/WP.565.
  • The delegations of Italy, Japan, and Germany asked for time to consider this document before agreeing to it.
  • The delegations of Japan and Mexico argued that the thematic debates should take place in formal plenary meetings, rather than in informal meetings as laid out in CD/WP.565
  • After a debate surrounding this timetable, the CD President distributed a second draft (CD/WP.566) with scheduled plenary meetings and announced that he would approach this draft in the same manner as the previous presidents during the 2011 session: as a simple proposal for a timetable without the need for consensus.

The aims of the Chinese presidency
The new president of the CD, Ambassador Qun of China, outlined his priorities for his term in his opening statement. He stated that he would devote time to discuss a programme of work as well as continue substantive discussions on all agenda items; to maintain close communication with delegations, regional coordinators, and the P6; and allow delegations to exchange views on the issue of expansion of CD membership and participation of civil society in the work of the CD. Both the Senegalese and the Moroccan delegations highlighted the importance of increased interaction with civil society. Ambassador Seck of Senegal welcomed the more positive interaction that has developed between the CD and civil society and argued that in the long run, such interaction should expand the membership of the CD to include some civil society organizations. Ambassador Hilale of Morocco was flexible on the format of such interaction “providing that the choice of NGOs is done on a case by case basis and in an objective fashion.”

A new indicative timetable
Ambassador Qun circulated a draft indicative timetable, which laid out a schedule of informal meetings to be chaired by coordinators. He announced that Ambassador Hannan of Bangladesh would chair the meetings focused on nuclear disarmament, Ambassador Macedo Soares of Brazil would chair the meetings on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and Ambassador Khvostov of Belarus would chair the meetings on agenda items 5, 6, and 7. Ambassador Qun was still consulting about coordinators on the issues of negative security assurances and fissile materials. 

The indicative timetable caused some discussion in the CD, as the ambassadors of Italy, Japan, and Germany asked for more time to consider it. Ambassador Suda of Japan noted that the previous thematic debates during the 2011 session had taken place in formal plenary meetings and argued that he did not see any particular reason to go back to procedures from previous years. The Mexican delegation agreed with this view and highlighted the importance of allowing the public to understand the debate through NGOs and civil society.

Ambassador Suda of Japan also questioned the additional value of repeating this exercise one more time. The German ambassador agreed, noting that delegations have undertaken thematic debates on the core agenda items twice this year already.

On the basis of the intervention of Japan, Ambassador Qun of China quickly circulated a new indicative timetable, which included the same meetings but in plenary meetings. By convening plenary meetings on the agenda items, such meetings will be chaired by the President himself rather than any appointed coordinators. Ambassador Qun noted that this would be in line with previous practice from the 2011 session and clarified that as such, it was not up for formal approval by the Conference but rather a similar indicative timetable as the Canadian and Chilean presidents presented.

Programme of work
After the discussion on the indicative timetable, Ambassador Qun called upon delegations to focus on potential elements of a progamme of work. He announced that he plans to hold three plenary session on this topic, one where delegations can discuss “non-starters” and elements that are utterly impossible for states to include; the second would focus on any indispensible elements of a programme of work; and the third plenary would include a summary of the status and the various positions by the president.

Ambassador Hannan of Bangladesh noted that tackling the non-starters aspect of a programme of work was “a provocative yet stimulating question.” Ambassador Hannan highlighted consensus and balance between all four core issues as essential components of a programme of work. Ambassador Duncan of the United Kingdom warned that such discussion might be risky and perhaps will only create a long list of national positions that cannot take member states as a group very far. Mr. Reid of the US delegation echoed this. While hoping that this discussion would lead to common ground, Mr. Reid raised doubts about its possible success. He highlighted that the US priorities are very clear and consist of the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). 

Ambassador Danon of France argued that it is of highest importance that the CD can demonstrate to the First Committee of the General Assembly that the CD has indeed worked and has been able to make headway on substantive issues during 2011. The French ambassador argued that in order to produce an annual report on its work, the CD must have a programme of work. While still preferring CD/1864, the French delegation stated that it was open to accept a programme of work that would only comprise a schedule of activities of the entire session. The Pakistani delegation repeated its long-standing position that an FMCT is already rendered ineffective even before being negotiated, due to regional and international actions of some states.

Next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting will take place on Thursday, 24 March 2011 at 10:00am