July 8, 2005

Yesterday, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) held the last of its four thematic plenary sessions under the rotating presidency of Norway. 18 States addressed the issue of security assurances, including South Africa, Peru, China, Colombia, Canada, Syria, Malaysia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Algeria, Iran and Argentina. Australia also made a statement unrelated to negative security assurances (mainly on the merits of the Proliferation Security Initiative and their other favorite non-proliferation projects), and Norway's Ambassador Wegger Strømmen delivered his closing statement as President.

All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second.

Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) have been seeking legally-binding negative security assurances (NSAs) for years. The NNWS are, according to China, "fully justified and reasonable to demand not to be threatened by nuclear weapons and to insist that this form of security assurance be made legally binding." This demand has been pursued with greater urgency in recent years since, as Pakistan's Ambassador Khan noted, "most Nuclear Weapon States presume that they have the right to retain nuclear weapons while nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT remains open-ended. The geographical scope for the use of nuclear weapons has increased with the expansion of nuclear alliances... New security doctrines expound possible use of nuclear weapons...(and) the development of new types of nuclear weapons is being considered."

The Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) argue that the assurances that have already been given are sufficient, such as Security Council resolution 984 and those provided in the Protocols to Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) treaties. These agreements, according to theUnited Kingdom, "provide, on a credible, regional basis, the internationally binding legal instruments on NSAs that many are looking for."France, too, cited these existing assurances as well as the EU's call for the NWS to reaffirm resolution 984 and to ratify the Protocols to NWFZs.

Russia announced that it "would be ready to move towards the elaboration of a global negative assurances agreement, provided, obviously, that it would take into consideration out military doctrine and the national security concept."

But for the NNWS, including Mexico, Algeria, Argentina, Peru and Syria, the existing assurances remain insufficient. As Italy succinctly pointed out, "NSAs given under resolution 984 are not considered legally binding...(and) NSAs given within the NWFZs provisions, although legally binding, do not cover the whole world...(nor even) the most sensitive regions in the world." New Zealand noted that NWFZ agreements "are regional rather than universal and their negative assurance prtocols have been subjected to interpretive statements and reservations." These inadequacies are, to China, "a far cry from the objective of concluding an international legal instrument on security assurances."

While most States are in agreement over the need to negotiate a legally binding NSA, there remains a dispute over the appropriate forum. Most support discussions taking place in an Ad Hoc Committee of the CD, such as Pakistan, while others, such as Canada, prefer the NPT context, "given that we consider such assurances as one of the benefits of adherence to the NPT," said Ambassador Meyer. Italy, South Korea and France voiced tepid support for the CD to deal with NSAs, whereas South Africa adamantly maintained that, "security assurances rightfully belong to those States that have foresworn the nuclear weapons option, as opposed to those who still prefer to keep their options open." South Africa also suggested that "an internationally legally binding instrument...could either be in the format of a separate agreement reached in the context of the NPT, or as a protocol to that Treaty."

In the meanwhile, Italy encouraged "more thought to the option of granting NSAs on a unilateral, plurilateral or regional basis... (or) on a bilateral basis." China suggested that all NWS, in the absence of a negotiated, legally-binding mechanism, refraim from "list(ing) any States as nuclear strike targets and (to) not make any nuclear strike plans against any (NNWS, which) will facilitate progress in the area of security assurance for (NNWS)." Pakistan, which noted that "(p)roposals, including drafts of an international convention, have (already) been submitted under the relevant item in the CD," further suggested that "(u)nilateral declarations made by (NWS) can be expanded."

However and wherever a new instrument on NSAs is negotiated, it remains indisputable that, as China's Ambassador Hu pointed out, "without the commitment on no-first-use of nuclear weapons and security assurance for (NNWS), the objective of nuclear disarmament cannot be truly served, nor will the world be freed from nuclear weapons in the true sense."

In his final statement as president of the CD, Ambassador Strømmen lamented that he "has received no indications from any delegation that we are closer to a resolution with regard to a programme of work for the conference." He made a point to "encourage civil society and academia to analyze the records (of these recent plenary meetings) from their particular perspective and assist all of us in identifying prospects and opportunities".

And with that, Ambassador Strømmen passed the presidency of the CD on to Pakistan.