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

The CD continues searching for a programme of work

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met twice on Tuesday, 24 May. The plenary in the morning was devoted to welcoming the newly appointed Director-General of the United Nations Office in Geneva and the Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, while the afternoon meeting heard a statement by the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Mr. Ahmet Üzümcü, and focused on further discussions on a programme of work.

Statements were delivered by the Eastern European Group, the Group of 21 (G21), the Western Group, China, Switzerland, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Iraq, the Informal Group of Observer States (IGOS), the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iran, the European Union, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Germany, Algeria, and the CD President, Ambassador Qun of China. 

Highlights

  • In his first speech as Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Tokayev raised concerns about the continued deadlock and stated that he would do his utmost to get the CD back to work
  • The Eastern European Group, the G21, the Western Group, China, Switzerland, ASEAN, Iraq, the IGOS, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iran, the European Union, DPRK, and Germany all welcomed the new Secretary-General and ensured him of their full cooperation.
  • The Director-General of OPCW, Mr. Ahmet Üzümcü, reported on recent developments in the work on chemical weapons and argued that the CD could learn some lessons from this multilateral disarmament treaty.
  • The CD President, Ambassador Qun of China, called upon delegations to engage in another debate on a programme of work, but concluded that he was not in a position to present a draft during his presidency.
  • The Russian representative noted that since the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, the General Assembly, and its First Committee would all discuss the future of the CD, delegations in the CD should also do some brainstorming and figure out how to overcome the current situation and deadlock.

Programme of work
The EU reiterated its long-standing position that its priority is the negotiations of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) on the basis of the Shannon mandate, but that it is ready to engage in substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and prevention of an arms race in outer space.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea noted that a programme of work needs to be inclusive, balanced, and fully take into consideration all nation’s security concerns.

Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany reminded delegations that the CD was in fact established as a negotiating body, but that it has not fulfilled its role and task in any satisfactory manner in many years.  He noted that CD/1864 has a “near consensus” in the CD and that no other approach has come closer to consensus. Ambassador Hoffmann therefore urged delegations not to abuse the consensus rule to veto the beginning of any negotiating process. 

CD President Ambassador Qun of China believed that CD/1864 is a good document that enjoyed consensus once and therefore is the best basis for any further breakthrough. He acknowledged that the language would need to be modified but argued that it needed to maintain the central points of the balance that was achieved. Ambassador Qun noted that conditions were not ripe for him to propose a draft programme of work under his presidency but believed that “this important issue should be further explored through plenary meetings and informal meetings.”

The future of the CD
As the new Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Tokayev noted that he assumed his role in a crucial moment for the CD. He recognized that calls are being made to take issues outside and argued that such an approach “will seriously affect the CD and make this body irrelevant.” However, Mr. Tokayev continued by acknowledging that if this year ends without agreement on a programme of work, the discussions in the future of the CD at the General Assembly “might be very complicated.” He referred to the recent op-ed by Ban-Ki Moon and urged states to take the Secretary-General’s five-point proposal seriously and consider it as a platform for starting substantive work.

Mr. Vasiliev of Russia drew attention to the fact that outside bodies are currently considering the deadlock in the CD, such as the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, the upcoming General Assembly plenary meeting in July, and the First Committee of the General Assembly in October. Mr. Vasiliev argued that the CD could find itself in a situation where a decision on its future will be taken elsewhere. He therefore called on the CD to “indulge in some brainstorming as to how we could overcome the current situation and how we could contribute to the CD coming out of its deadlock.” Mr. Khelif of Algeria highlighted that the CD was established in 1978 and did not approve any instrument before 1983, without any programme of work “or “ultimatum”. He argued that the CD “needs more patience” and that more negotiations are necessary to reach the right formula for achieving progress.

Notes from the gallery
While many formats and different versions of a programme of work have been attempted over the long years of deadlock, the obstacles are quite straightforward. Currently, Pakistan’s delegation has clearly stated that it will not agree to a programme of work that includes a negotiating mandate for an FMCT without including existing stocks. Other delegations, including the United States, have made it clear that they will not accept a programme of work that does not include negotiations of an FMCT based on the Shannon mandate. While language of proposals for a programme of work can be modified and tweaked as often as delegates wish, it is difficult to see any proposal being able to bridge the gap between these two positions and achieve consensus on this point.

While attempts to convince both sides to compromise or to change their position are of course welcome, the CD’s time would perhaps be spent most fruitfully not on discussing how a programme of work in the CD could be phrased, but rather on what the CD should do when consensus on a programme of work is impossible. Otherwise, as some delegations have noted, these discussions will happen elsewhere.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, 26 May 2011 at 10:00 am.