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

Another round of debate on disarmament

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Thursday, 24 March to engage in a third round of thematic debates in the 2011 session. However, the plenary was dominated by a continued debate regarding the Chinese proposal for a timetable for its presidency. States did engage in a brief discussion on nuclear disarmament. Statements and interventions were made by the delegations of the United Kingdom, Germany, Algeria, Japan, United States, Brazil, Algeria, France, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Mexico, the Philippines,Pakistan, Iran, South Africa, Chile, and Nigeria.

Highlights

  • Despite the decision from Tuesday, 22 March, several delegations asked the CD President to allow for more time to consider his first proposal contained in CD/WP.565.
  • CD President Ambassador Qun of China explained that since the Japanese delegation had opposed the format of that proposed timetable, he believed that the status of this proposal was clear and had no consensus. Ambassador Qun therefore believed that his second proposal, CD/WP.566, would be the appropriate way to move forward.
  • Ambassador Suda of Japan reiterated that his intervention on 22 March contained a few questions and a request for more time to consider the proposal contained in CD/WP.565, rather than a formal opposition to it.
  • After a long debate, CD President Ambassador Qun decided to schedule a consultation on Friday, 25 March for the consideration of his proposal.
  • The remainder of the plenary was devoted to another thematic debate on nuclear disarmament.

The timetable for the Chinese presidency
The confusion from Tuesday’s plenary continued as the Ambassador Duncan of the United Kingdom opened the plenary meeting by emphasizing that he had asked for more time to consider CD/WP.565, as it might constitute a more practical form for future work than simply yet another round of thematic debates. Ambassador Duncan called for the CD to consider this proposal again, while including the appointment of all coordinators on all issues. The German Ambassdor expressed surprise over this initiative by the UK representative, as he was of the understanding that the CD President had already ruled in the previous plenary that CD/WP.566 would be the basis of further work. However, Ambassador Hoffmann noted that if there were strong views on this "and in particular if it can be demonstrated that by basing our work on the Indicative Timetable with informal meeting as contained in CD/WP.565 we can make more progress" he would not object if the President decides to reverse his decision and go back to CD/WP.565. Ambassador Kennedy of the United States indicated that her delegation could support either CD/WP.565 or CD/WP.566, but that in terms of CD/WP.565, she would have been interested in looking at a fully fleshed out proposal, with a specific emphasis of the reporting requirements of the coordinators.

In an attempt to address the points raised by delegations, CD President Ambassador Qun argued that since the Japanese delegation had “clearly disputed the formula” of his first proposal, he had been compelled to move to the second proposal. He quoted Ambassador Suda’s questions regarding the move from formal to informal meetings and stated that such inputs gave the impression that there was no consensus at that stage. Ambassador Qun therefore stated that CD/WP.565 was already put behind them and the CD had moved to discussions under the new formula in CD/WP.566.

After additional clarification of the Japanese ambassador, as well as continued support for discussing the original proposal from the delegations of Brazil, Algeria, France, Germany, and the Russian Federation, the Chinese ambassador finally announced that he would hold an open-ended consultation for all delegations on Friday, 25 March to further discuss the original proposal and the way forward.

Discussion on nuclear disarmament
After the debate on the indicative timetable, the Conference started its third round of thematic debates on the agenda items. The delegations of Algeria, Iran, and Pakistan highlighted the importance of making progress on nuclear disarmament. Ambassador Jazaïry of Algeria drew attention to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice from 1996 which unanimously stressed the importance of undertaking to negotiate and to make necessary efforts to bring about nuclear disarmament. He argued that any diversion from those obligations would be a step backwards and believed that the UN Secretary-General’s five-point action plan for nuclear disarmament, including a nuclear weapons convention, should be used by the CD to achieve its goals. Mr. Daryeai of the Iranian delegation argued that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not provide a right for nuclear weapon states to keep their nuclear arsenals indefinitely. The Pakistani representative argued while the world has changed dramatically in recent years, this had not been reflected in the control and elimination of nuclear weapons. He argued that there is a need for reflection on the reasons and consequences of such inertia and inaction on nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear weapon states disagreed with these comments. Ambassador Duncan of the United Kingdom did not believe that there has been any inertia or inaction, drawing attention to the commitments made in the 2010 NPT action plan. In order to move the debate on nuclear disarmament forward, Ambassador Duncan wanted to “learn from the non-nuclear weapon states what it is they intend to do to carry out their obligations.” Ambassador Danon of France argued that while there was no consensus on a nuclear weapons convention at the NPT Review Conference in 2010, the commitments in the action plan had agreement. He therefore believed that the action plan provided a road map for the future and noted the special responsibility for its implementation by the nuclear weapon states. Ambassador Laura Kennedy of the United States pointed out that the UN Secretary-General not only discussed a nuclear weapons convention in his five-point action plan on nuclear disarmament, but also an alternative method through a framework of mutually reinforcing steps. She argued that she couldn’t see how one can get to nuclear disarmament and a world without nuclear weapons until the necessary step of halting production of fissile materials is taken. “You don’t have nuclear weapons if you don’t have fissile materials,” she stated.

Mr. Combrink of South Africa agreed that addressing production of fissile materials is of great importance. However, he argued that this issue must be related to the production, use, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and in the end, the total elimination of such weapons. Mr. Combrink therefore argued that he cannot support just negotiations on one particular issue in the CD.

Ambassador Jazaïry of Algeria raised concerns about the continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military doctrines by the nuclear weapon states, despite their commitments to nuclear disarmament. He pointed out that in these doctrines, nuclear weapons are considered to protect “vital interests,” despite the fact that also non-nuclear weapon states have such vital interests. Ambassador Jazaïry believed that there is a need to find other formulas of protecting a state’s interest.

Notes from the gallery
All nuclear weapon states have made an unequivocal commitment to eliminate nuclear arsenals, but processes through neither the CD nor the NPT have successfully delivered any concrete results on this topic. Despite rhetorical commitments to nuclear disarmament, vertical proliferation through continued production and modernization of weapons and infrastructure is taking place.

If the CD is to negotiate a treaty banning the production for fissile material, that treaty must lay the groundwork for complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmament. It must be undertaken within the framework of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. A step-by-step approach can only be successful for achieving our goal if we lay out the whole picture and act in accordance with it.

The next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 29 March, but due to continued discussions on CD/WP.565 and CD/WP.566, the discussions could be changed to informal sessions, closed to the public.