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 opens its 2011 session

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) began its first session of 2011 on Tuesday, 25 January, with Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada as president. The Conference adopted the annual agenda and approved the Observer states, but was not able to agree on a programme of work. Formal statements were delivered by the delegations of Hungary, Sweden, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Pakistan and a debate around the Secretary-General’s visit to the CD took place.

Brief highlights

  • CD President Ambassador Grinius outlined his priorities for his presidency, but as disagreement on a programme of work remains, he indicated that consultations would continue.
  • Ambassador Grinius also announced an indicative timetable for more focused substantive discussions on the four core issues in absence of a programme of work.
  • The United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) will visit the CD on Wednesday, 26 January and will hold an informal meeting after his speech. The invitations to this meeting were originally limited to the six CD presidents of the 2011 session, the regional coordinators, and the five permanent members of the Security Council. After hearing objections from many delegations to this selective list of invites, the UNSG decided to open the meeting for all CD members.

A programme of work
In his opening remarks, CD President Ambassador Grinius from Canada explained that during his consultations, it became clear that some members will only accept a programme of work if it includes negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), while at least one member will not accept a programme of work if there are negotiations on a FMCT. While noting that he would continue to consult and work with all interested parties, in order for time not to be wasted, Ambassador Grinius suggested an indicative timetable for substantive discussions in plenary meetings on the four core issues during the coming weeks of his presidency:

  • 1 February will be devoted to nuclear disarmament,
  • 3 February will be focused on a fissile material cut-off treaty,
  • 8 February will deal with prevention of an arms race in outer space,
  • 10 February will discuss negative security assurances.

The delegations of Iran and Pakistan raised some questions about these meetings. Ambassador Sajadi of Iran highlighted the need of conforming with the rules of procedure, and argued that such an exercise would be just discussions—not “negotiations or pre-negotiations”. This was echoed by Ambassador Akram of Pakistan, who also added that it was his understanding that the four core issues would be treated equally and that any other issue could be brought up at any time. Emphasizing and clarifying that this was not an “agreed schedule,” nor were the discussions to be “pre-negotiations” in any way, Ambassador Grinius argued that he was not asking for the CD to take a decision on this. He noted that in accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, any delegation can raise any issue at any time, and these four meetings should be used for those states that would like to prepare to say something or bring experts from capitals.

Ambassador Akram reiterated Pakistan’s view on a FMCT, which was the main reason previous programmes of work such as CD/1864failed to be implemented. Ambassador Akram highlighted recent developments that further strengthen Pakistan’s opposition to negotiations of a FMCT, such as the announcement by “one of the major powers” of its intention to support India’s full membership in four multilateral export control regimes, namely the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group, and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Ambassador Akram stated that this “irresponsible undertaking” was a “blatant violation of national and international commitments” and argued that “selectivity, exceptionalism, discrimination and double standards are being employed at the cost of international principles as well as commitments.” While the opposition to negotiations on a FMCT remained, the Pakistani ambassador emphasized that substantive progress can and should be made on other core issues on the agenda and proposed that the issues of missiles in all their aspects and conventional arms control at the regional and sub-regional levels be raised in the CD.

However, Ambassador Jan Knutsson of Sweden noted that the carefully crafted compromise of CD/1864 that was agreed upon in May 2009 was never meant to resolve real differences in security perceptions, but “that has to take place in the actual negotiations.” The Swedish ambassador said he is convinced that a programme of work could form the basis for substantive work without undermining anyone’s ability to defend their security interests. Ambassador Camacho of Mexico drew attention to other multilateral negotiations, such as the recent climate change meeting in Cancun, where the international community came together to generate agreements for the good of humanity. The Mexican delegation also highlighted that the CD must fulfill its mandate to negotiate disarmament treaties, as this is the obligation of the member states. Ambassador Camacho proposed the establishment of a deadline for the CD to fulfill its mandate and resume its negotiating work.

The Secretary-General’s visit
In connection to the UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon’s visit to the CD on Wednesday, 26 February, it was announced that a separate, informal meeting would take place between the Secretary-General and a group of selected delegations. These selected delegations consisted of the six presidents of the 2011 CD session, the regional group coordinators and the five permanent members of the Security Council. The delegation of Pakistan expressed concerns with this selective group and objected especially to the fact that the permanent members of the Security Council was invited, as this group has no official or even informal standing in the CD. Ambassador Akram argued that the P6 and the regional coordinators would have been accepted participants in a smaller meeting, but found it “unacceptable that the P5 countries seem to take it upon themselves to represent all of us” and highlighted that Pakistan would not be bound by any outcome of this meeting. The delegations of Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Brazil, India, Venezuela, and Germany also took the floor to express their views on this meeting, most of them expressing a wish for a more transparent and open participation of delegations in this meeting. The delegations that intervened highlighted the need for building confidence and trust in order to bring CD members closer to each other, rather than separating them. The Secretary-General’s representative at the CD, Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, responded to the comments by highlighting the limited time available during the Secretary-General’s visit, and argued that the UNSG has the right to meet any delegation or group of delegation that he wants to. Mr. Ordzhonikidze also argued that the UNSG always meets with the five permanent members of the Security Council, and stated, “without the P5, I don’t think it’s possible to go ahead seriously.” He emphasized that the meeting is an informal meeting without any new ideas or proposals; it is simply intended for the SG to ask what is going on and how CD delegations are going to proceed.

However, after a proposal from Ambassador Hoffmann of Germany to expand the meeting to include the entire membership of the Conference, Mr. Ordzhonikidze consulted with the Secretary-General and his office and invited “everyone that wants to come”. Mr. Ordzhonikidze hoped that the bigger forum would be helpful in achieving a speedily adoption of a programme of work.

Notes from the gallery
At its inception, the 2011 session of the Conference does not appear to be headed in a different direction from previous session and agreement on a programme of work does not seem to be within reach. While substantive discussions on agenda items have been carried out before in the absence of a programme of work, this year it would be a more useful exercise if member states are willing to go beyond stating national positions and engage in in-depth discussions and concrete proposals around the four core issues. The CD was created with a mandate to pursue negotiations on its agenda items and while disagreement on a programme of work is blocking official talks, the substantive discussions could still lay a useful ground—no matter what it is called. While the delegations in the CD are protecting their national security interests, the practical security requirements of ordinary people, such as adequate food, shelter, clean water and air, health care, and education are continuing to being neglected and deprioritized. Disarmament treaties must not to be negotiated with the intent to pursue geopolitical and military goals, but rather to enhance security and peace for all of mankind.

Notes from the world
Earlier this month, Zia Mian of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) posted some links on the IPFM blog that outline theevolution and politics of Pakistan’s position on an FMCT and a November 2009 cable from the US embassy in Islamabad made available by Wikileaks on the internal FMCT debate in Pakistan.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held on 26 January at 3:00pm in the Council Chamber, where the Conference will hear a statement from the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon