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 breaks for recess without adopting a programme of work

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met for its final plenary meeting of the first part of its 2011 session on Wednesday, 30 March. The CD President, Ambassador Qun of China, asked delegations to specifically focus on what necessary elements they believed should be included in a programme of work. The delegations of Colombia, Brazil, Italy, Australia, Pakistan, Chile, the United States, the United Kingdom, Cuba, Netherlands, India, France, Japan, Iran, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Algeria, and Germany shared their views on this topic.

Highlights

  • On Tuesday, 29 March, the CD approved a revised version of the original Chinese timetable in CD/WP.565.Rev.1, which includes specific coordinators on all agenda items.
  • The CD ended its first session of 2011 by discussing different aspects of a programme of work.  

The timetable
On Tuesday, 29 March, the CD held a very brief plenary meeting before going into informal mode. In this plenary, CD/WP.565/Rev.1 was accepted by all delegations and is a revised version of the original Chinese proposal. It contains a similar schedule of informal meetings on the agenda items and lists specific coordinators for each. Ambassador Senewiratne of Sri Lanka will chair the meetings on nuclear disarmament, Ambassador Manfredi of Italy will chair the meetings on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), Ambassador Macedo Soares of Brazil will chair the meetings on prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS), and Ambassador Seck of Senegal will chair the meetings on negative security assurances (NSA). Ambassador Khvostov of Belarus will chair the meeting that will deal with the other topics on the agenda. The coordinators will report orally to the President of the CD in their personal capacity.

The continued debate on a programme of work
In a second scheduled meeting on the topic of a programme of work, CD President, Ambassador Qun asked delegations to focus on the “indispensible elements” of a future accepted programme. However, most delegations reiterated previous positions on different types of programme of works, ranging from CD/1864 to a minimalistic approach in line with the Chilean non-paper.

The representative of Colombia believed that a minimalistic approach to a programme of work would allow delegations to focus more on substantive discussions and the individual mandates for each of the agenda items. Mr. Munoz also highlighted that the first session was coming to an end and that a consensus on a schedule of activities over the remainder of the year could not only be easier to achieve that a full programme of work, but also save crucial time. Ambassador Soares Macedo of Brazil noted that while in principle his delegation is open to suggestions, any acceptable proposal would need to move the Conference towards negotiations, as this is the mandate of the CD. Ambassador Oyarce of Chile believed that since negotiation of treaties is the objective of the CD, a minimalistic approach to a programme of work could contribute to such a goal. Ambassador van den Ijssel of the Netherlands expressed that his delegations was open to suggestions on a programme of work, but cautioned for any proposals that would move delegations further apart, from consensus minus one to consensus minus three or four. The delegations of Italy and Germany spoke in favor of CD/1864, but would not oppose any other reasonable proposal.

Mr. Wilson of Australia highlighted the three references to the CD in the 2010 NPT action plan and argued that all NPT states in the CD have an obligation to contribute to the implementation of the action plan. Mr. Wilson therefore believed that it is indispensible for a programme of work to provide for or lead directly to the implementation of these actions. Ambassador Duncan of the United Kingdom agreed and stated that the overwhelming majority of CD delegations still would accept CD/1864, which could therefore contribute to the implementation of the NPT action plan. However, the Egyptian delegation highlighted that the language in CD/1864 is actually not the same as in action 6 and 7. Mr. El-Atawy noted that the references to potential work by the CD on nuclear disarmament and NSAs in theaction plan goes slightly further than in CD/1864 and he expressed hope that this language could be used in good faith in the CD when it agrees on a programme of work.

Fissile material
The delegations of the United States, France, the Netherlands, and Japan argued that a programme of work would need to include negotiations on an FMCT. Ambassador Kennedy from the US highlighted that in “forum after forum, in different contexts, the urgency of an FMCT negotiations has been endorsed repeatedly.”

While reiterating its support for CD/1864 and its call for negotiations on an FMCT, the Algerian delegation questioned what criteria are used to decide if an issue is ripe or not. Ambassador Danon of France replied, arguing that both the 2010 NPT Review Conference and the General Assembly had been able to call for negotiations on FMCT, while no similar language on, for example, NSAs was agreed upon. He also pointed out that five nuclear weapon states, holding about 98% of the world’s nuclear weapons, are willing to negotiate such treaty, while a very small part of the same states support negotiations of NSAs. Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany argued that the ripeness of an FMCT was confirmed by CD/1864. 

Ambassador Soares Macedo argued that the obstacle to negotiation of an FMCT lies in the fact that some delegations only want to see a prohibition on future production while others want aspects such as existing stockpiles to be taken into account. While agreeing that the Conference should not prejudge the result of any negotiations, the Brazilian ambassador believed that the mandate should give assurances to all delegations that every aspect concerning fissile materials will be considered. Ambassador Danon of France did not believe that the issue of stockpiles is the only reason for preventing negotiations on an FMCT. He argued that the reasons put forward by the Pakistani delegation for opposing an FMCT were several, including the freeze of the current gap between Pakistan and India and the strategic situation in Pakistan in addition to the issue of stockpiles. If Pakistan would tell the CD that negotiations could start if the question of stockpiles was settled, then Ambassador Danon believed that his delegation would be prepared to reconsider its position on this topic. US Ambassador, Laura Kennedy, believed that the Shannon mandate is balanced and did not exclude stocks in a future treaty’s scope. She noted that the mandate provides for stockpiles to be decided upon in the course of the negotiations. The Indian ambassador did not support the re-opening of any longstanding mandates, as he believed this would cause problems and lengthy negotiations. While still supporting CD/1864, the Dutch ambassador shared that he could also support a reference to stocks in the mandate of an FMCT. Mr. Daryaei of Iran argued that any negotiations of an FMCT without inclusion of stockpiles would have no real content.

Notes from the gallery
As the first part of the 2011 session comes to an end, it is obvious that the CD has failed to move any closer to commencing work on any topic of its agenda. Despite several rounds of thematic debates, discussions have not led to any significant progress beyond reiteration of national positions. The two concluded presidencies of Ambassador Grinius of Canada and Ambassador Oyarce of Chile managed to get the Conference off in a good start. They included immediate thematic debates on substance, interaction with civil society, and showed that a President of the CD has an ability to move forward on procedural issues without having to stop and ask for consensus.

Another interesting development took place on the outside of the CD. The delegations of Australia and Japan organized a series of private side events for delegations and observer states to discuss particular aspects of a future FMCT, such as definitions and verifications. These events were arranged in order to “build confidence about FMCT and momentum towards FMCT negotiations in the CD on the basis of CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein.” Several delegations participated with experts from capitals and the discussion was brought back into the CD by Ambassador Woolcott of Australia who reported on the first series of seminars on definitions on 3 March. This initiative was appreciated by many delegations and lead to a constructive debate in the CD on 3 March and a circulatedtable that summarises four options for definitions of “fissile materials” by Australia and Japan.

But however encouraging the start of its 2011 session was, there is still no formal progress or concrete results. The CD is now on its thirteenth consecutive year without carrying out any substantive work. While a simplified programme of work perhaps wouldn’t change the prospects of starting substantive negotiations in a near future, it is an option that should be given a chance at this stage. By looking at the topics in a longer period and with the ability to formally report on the discussions, a simplified programme of work such as the Chilean non-paper could assist in de-linking the four core issues and truly find out what is ripe for negotiations. While one delegation vocally opposes negotiations of a FMCT, no delegation opposes the convening of an ad hoc committee devoted to PAROS. And since the new US Space Policy now notes that the US is ready to consider arms control measures in space if they are “equitable, effectively verifiable,” and enhances the national security of the US and its allies, perhaps space could be the issue truly ripe for negotiations at this stage. Furthermore, most of the nuclear weapon possessors have said that they want a nuclear weapon free world; perhaps they should be held to this through the establishment an ad hoc  committee on nuclear disarmament.

Delegations must use the recess to take a constructive look at what “flexibility” could mean in the current context of the CD and truly start considering other options than CD/1864. By looking at programmes of work from the 1980s and 1990s, we can see that the practice was far from what is considered to be today’s “golden standard” of CD/1864. For example, in 1990 and 1989, the programme of work consisted of a schedule of discussions on the agenda topics.

While specific negotiating mandates might have been the preferred way of dealing with substantive work the past 14 years, the lack of progress has shown that CD delegations might need to rethink this approach. Perhaps the CD should abandon processes that have not proved to be efficient, and return to what has worked before. And if that is not possible, perhaps we should abandon the CD and try something new.

Next plenary meeting
The second part of the CD’s 2011 session will begin on 16 May. In the interim, the UN Disarmament Commission will meet from 4–22 April in New York.