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 discusses General Assembly meeting

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) convened its third part of the 2011 session on Thursday 4 August under the Presidency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Statements were delivered by the Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, as well as by the delegations of Myanmar, France, Cuba, Russia, Colombia, Chile, Iran, Malaysia, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, Norway, Mexico, DPRK, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and the United States.

Highlights

  • The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Tokayev, reported from the recent plenary meeting of the General Assembly on revitalizing the CD.
  • Ambassador Danon of France shared some conclusions from the recent P5 meeting in Paris.  
  • The delegations of Myanmar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Iran, DPRK, and Nigeria supported the convening of a Fourth Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD-IV).
  • Mexico, South Africa, Chile, and Norway argued that if the CD continues to fail other options might be explored.
  • Many speakers supported reforms such as expansion of membership, change of the rotating presidency mechanism(?), and more inclusion of civil society.
  • The delegations of Chile and Malaysia supported the establishment of a panel of eminent persons to address the revitalization of the CD.
  • Colombia suggested that a Working Group could be created to devote the remaining time of this session to come up with a proposal for improving the procedures of the CD.

The problem with the CD
Despite many meetings and discussions on the reason for the current deadlock, several delegations reiterated their position on what has caused the problem. The representatives of Myanmar, DPRK, Pakistan, Iran, and Cuba did not believe that the existing Rules of Procedure were the problem, but rather a lack of political will. While agreeing that political will is the main problem, Ambassador Oyarce of Chile highlighted that inaction is not a reasonable alternative. He noted that if Member States do not achieve measures to improve the situation, the General Assembly will take action that will influence the CD.  He argued that “outside paths” such as the idea of exploring negotiations through the General Assembly (GA) could not be ignored, and this could be a potential vehicle while the CD remains deadlocked.

Ms. Jaquez of Mexico did not support the idea that the CD was the victim of outside circumstances; political will is not something that is generated spontaneously and need to have a feedback loop going into it. She argued that the CD was designed to respond to a situation that did not exist anymore, namely the Cold War, so perhaps it no longer met the needs of its members. She argued that if the CD continues to fail to act, the GA should return to the right to participate in decision-making on disarmament matters. Mr. Combrink of South Africa stated that while he would like to see the CD resume its rightful place in the multilateral system, his delegation remain ready “to consider any proposals that would help break the impasse.” He argued that if the CD continues to fail in executing its mandate, “there would be no reason not to consider other options in taking forward the important work that this body has been entrusted with.”

Mr. Romero Puentes of Cuba advocated against the idea of replacing the CD with an ad hoc solution, as such an approach would mean “a step backwards”. .Ambassador Loshchinin of Russia believed that universal agreements in the area of disarmament can be elaborated upon only under the auspices of the UN and while maintaining the principle of consensus. He argued that any parallel tracks outside the conference would likely not be able to ensure universality and viability of such agreements. Also the Israeli representative noted that the relevance of “independent negotiating initiatives, comprised of like-minded countries, that seek to circumvent the complexities of the multilateral arena by catering to a limited group of countries” would remain contested, “due to their deficient membership.”

Suggestions for reform
During the plenary meeting, several concrete suggestions for reform were mentioned. The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Tokayev, suggested that the monthly rotating Presidency impaired the efficiency of the Conference and should be reformed. This was echoed by the delegations of Chile and Mexico. Mr. Tokayev also suggested an expansion of membership, which was supported by Chile, Mexico, and Norway. Several speakers commented on the need to re-interpret or amend the consensus rule, including Mr. Tokayev, Chile, Norway and Mexico. The delegations of Mexico, Norway, and Chile also suggested a broader inclusion of civil society in the work of the CD. Mr. Reid of the United States added that he wished for the CD to carry out an analysis of its time allocation and utilization. He noted that many delegations have been repeating things that have been said over and over again, and that he did not see many signs of progress in what’s been said so far. The delegations of Malaysia and Chile supported the UN Secretary-General’s decision to establish a panel of eminent persons to address the revitalization of the CD.

The Iranian delegation believed that the substantive work of the CD cannot be achieved by changing the format or the modality of the Rules of Procedures, neither can it be achieved by changing the interpretation about these rules. Instead, he argued that the CD should “deal with the root causes of the problems,” namely a lack of political will. The delegations of Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, and Nigeria called for a SSOD-IV.

The Israeli delegation noted that the need to revitalize the work of the CD could not be disputed and argued that by not focusing solely on the four core issues, perhaps work on other issues could start. Ms. Rahamimoff-Honig argued that banning arms transfers to terrorists, and Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) could be possible topics for negotiations under the Agenda Item 7, Transparency in Armaments.

A move forward?
The Colombian delegation advocated for a more action-oriented way forward. Ambassador Arango Olmos stated that the CD must not “stagnate in the repetition of positions and routine diagnosis.” She argued that if members truly wanted to make the CD thrive and if such a process should be guided by member states, one must start with more practical measures. Ambassador Arango Olmos stated that in the final six weeks of the 2012 session, it was high time to implement some of the recommendations and ideas that have been suggested during the year. She noted “it would be unacceptable at the end of this session if there are not any specific outcome or any process in place to enable the revitalization of the Conference.” She suggested the creation of a Working Group within the CD to consider possible actions that might strengthen the work of the Conference, which would be based on the ideas and suggestions mentioned during the last meeting, as well as other relevant opinions. She noted that such a group could work informally and present a proposal for adoption by the CD at the end of the session, which would include measures aimed at improving the procedures of the CD, but mainly to allow the start of substantive work of the Conference as soon as it opens the 2012 session. The delegations of Pakistan and United Kingdom voiced support for the Colombian proposal.

However, the Norwegian delegation expressed skepticism over the CD’s future ability as an institution to deal with disarmament according to its mandate. Mr. Stromo questioned whether the CD was able to reform itself, as the consensus rule seemed to hamper any attempt to revitalize the body.

The P5 meeting
On 30 June – 1 July, the five nuclear weapon states met in Paris for a second meeting to discuss nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Ambassador Danon of France gave the CD a brief report of the outcome of the meeting. He highlighted that the meeting in particular had focused on transparency, nuclear doctrines and verification. The French Ambassador further noted that the P5 had approved the establishment of a working group that would pursue work on definitions for key nuclear terms, in order to facilitate future consultations and discussions. Ambassador Danon further referred to the relatively short press release from the meeting, which was the only official outcome thus far. 

In addition to this, Ambassador Danon announced that next week, the P5 will work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries on the question of the nuclear weapon free-zone in Southeast Asia and at the end of the month the five nuclear weapon states will have a meeting about questions concerning the First Committee and the cut-off treaty. The delegation of the United States highlighted its appreciation for the P5 meeting and stated that it was determined to meet its “voluntarily undertaken commitments” of the NPT Review Conference Action Plan.

Next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting will take place on Thursday 11 August at 10:00am in the Council Chamber.