More debate on the purpose, process, and outcome of the 24 September meeting
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
During the longest plenary meeting of the year, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) continued its discussion about the 24 September high-level meeting, which will be convened in New York by the UN Secretary-General. Delegates from Brazil, Algeria, the UN Secretariat, Pakistan, Germany, Canada, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Informal Group of Observer States to the CD, the United Kingdom, the United States, Morocco, Ireland, Sweden, Netherlands, Ukraine, Republic of Korea, Norway, Mexico, Italy, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Cuba, France, India, Colombia, Iran, and Australia took the floor.
Brief highlights
Delegates from Germany, Canada, the Informal Group of Observer States to the CD, the United Kingdom, the United States, Morocco, Ireland, Sweden, Ukraine, Norway, Mexico, Italy, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, France, Colombia, and Australia issued support for the UN Secretary-General’s convening of the 24 September meeting.
The delegations of Brazil, Algeria, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom urged the 24 September meeting to prevent the establishment any “parallel” negotiating initiatives on CD issues.
Delegates from Brazil, Algeria, and Pakistan called for the convening of a fourth Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD IV) to give impetus to all of the disarmament machinery. The UK and Russian delegations argued there is no consensus on SSOD IV.
The delegates of Algeria, Syria, and Ireland noted that external factors are important to solving the CD’s problem, not just procedural issues.
The CD Secretary-General predicted that the CD would probably have at maximum one more year to start working, at which point parallel initiatives would likely be organized by some delegations. The delegations of Pakistan, Cuba, and Iran criticized this comment, but the Dutch ambassador agreed he would not be willing to wait longer than one more year.
The delegations of Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Mexico indicated they are not adverse to parallel processes if the CD is unable to overcome its deadlock.
Pakistan’s ambassador said it is clear there are options to negotiate a fissile materials treaty outside of the CD and that Pakistan has no problem with that but would not take part in those negotiations.
The UK representative urged the meeting to support immediate negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the CD. Pakistan’s ambassador argued that this is all the western delegations are interested in and predicted that the UN Secretary-General’s outcome summary would simply reflect this position.
Morocco’s ambassador suggested than instead of a summary outcome the 24 September meeting should issue a compromise document on statements made, or a road map, but India’s ambassador said the outcome should not draw conclusions.
The representatives of Pakistan and Iran suggested the CD start negotiations on its other core issues.
India’s ambassador issued his delegation’s support for negotiations of a nuclear weapons convention.
Delegates from Germany, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, and Colombia continued to express support for the CD President to convene an informal meeting to discuss the 24 September meeting. The CD President said he would continue trying to convene this informal meeting.
Concerns about “parallel initiatives”
Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares of Brazil argued that the credibility of the CD and other disarmament machinery is directly affected by the Conference’s continued deadlock on the adoption of a programme of work. Noting that the outcome of the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference led many to expect that the CD would start substantive on its core issues, he urged the 24 September meeting to prevent the establishment of parallel negotiations on CD issues and to promote a disarmament agenda, not just one of non-proliferation. He also suggested that a fourth Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD IV) “could provide the only way for an encompassing and balanced review of the entire multilateral ‘machinery’ in the area of disarmament.”
Algeria’s Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry and Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram agreed that the 24 September high-level meeting should prevent parallel negotiating initiatives and that SSOD IV should be convened. While the UK’s Rupert Barthorp agreed that the meeting should not seek to change the CD consensus rule or “damage” its role as the “sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum,” he did not agree that convening SSOD IV is the solution.
Ambassador Jazaïry argued that events outside of the CD have upset the “fragile balance” in the Conference, preventing it from commencing substantive work. Describing the CD as a “captive of external problems,” he posited that the deadlock in the Conference is not caused by the body itself but by security concerns between states and the selective approaches taken by some governments to implementing the non-proliferation regime. He encouraged the summary of the 24 September meeting, to be prepared by the UN Secretary-General, to take into account all priorities expressed and to ensure that any follow-up mechanism “not jeopardize the work of the Conference” but instead strengthen its “authority and prestige”. Ambassador Jazaïry later emphasized that it is not the CD, but the international approach to disarmament, that has created problems. He thus argued that the search for alternative forums would not be a solution as long as the root of the problem goes unaddressed. Syria’s Ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui agreed with this assessment, arguing that some capitals have neglected disarmament.
Ambassador Gerard Corr of Ireland also agreed, saying it would naïve to assume that all of the CD’s problems lie within the CD itself and that external factors have played perhaps a major role. However, he also questioned the practice of demanding consensus before negotiations could begin in the CD, suggesting this should be addressed.
On the matter of parallel initiatives, Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada reminded delegations of the success of the Ottawa and Oslo processes. Ambassador Hellmut Hoffman of Germany said that if the deadlock is not overcome soon, his delegation is ready to consider innovative ideas. Ambassador Arturo Hernández-Basave of Mexico said he understands the appeals for opening discussions outside the CD, arguing that as the world moves on, international bodies should not remain static but should evolve in face of the international challenges.
Pakistan’s Ambassador Akram said it is clear there are options to negotiate a fissile materials treaty outside of the CD and that Pakistan has no problem with that but would not take part in those negotiations. In the meantime, he argued, the CD should start negotiating on its other core issues. Iran’s representative agreed. India’s Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao issued his delegation’s support for negotiations of a nuclear weapons convention as called for by the UN Secretary-General.
Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, explained that through his meetings with member states, he understood the purpose of the 24 September meeting is to revitalize the work of the CD and to address the larger challenges facing the wider disarmament machinery. He said that the UN Secretary-General’s summary would include his own views and the views of delegations, and suggested that CD delegations should write to their foreign ministers and encourage them to make statements in support of the CD during the high-level meeting. Expressing his personal opinion, Mr. Ordzhonikidze said that if the CD is not able to resume its work within the next year, parallel mechanisms and meetings could take place.
Ambassador Akram of Pakistan and Mr. Mohamad Hassan Daryaei of Iran accused Mr. Ordzhonikidze of “threatening” the CD with his remarks and Mr. Juan Antonio Quintanilla Roman of Cuba criticized his remarks as an “ultimatum”. Amabssador Grinius of Canada argued that Mr. Ordzhonikidze’s comment was not a threat but a reality check. Ambassador Omar Hilale of Morocco said he didn’t agree with Mr. Ordzhonikidze’s assessment that the CD would disappear within a year. On the contrary, Ambassador Paul van den Ijssel of the Netherlands indicated he was not willing to wait longer than another year for the CD to commence substantive work.
CD informal meeting to discuss the high-level meeting
Ambassador Hellmut Hoffman of Germany asked if the CD President still intended to convene an informal CD meeting to discuss the 24 September high-level meeting. The President, Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria, explained that he received a request this morning from a regional group to postpone the planned informal meeting. Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada argued that with only four weeks until the high-level meeting, delegations needed to have some more open discussions to prepare. Ambassador Paul van den Ijssel of the Netherlands expressed surprise that this meeting has not already been convened and Ambassador Eric Danon of France noted that the fact that the CD cannot even decided whether to hold an informal meeting is a sign of its growing inefficiency. Brazil’s Ambassador Soares said that if states were uncomfortable holding an informal meeting he would be happy to continue discussions in a plenary meeting. The CD President said that he would try to reschedule the informal meeting.
Suggested agenda items, procedures, and outcomes
Taking up the issues that would likely be discussed during such an informal meeting, Mr. Andriy Kasianov of Ukraine focused on the procedural aspects of the 24 September meeting. He suggested that the meeting be extended to a full day to give everyone a chance to speak and to allow for an interactive dialogue. He also encouraged the outcome to include specific recommendations on how to restart substantive work of the CD. Following these comments, Ambassador Im Han-Taek of the Republic of Korea urged delegations to explain that they would be participating in the 24 September meeting as members of the United Nations, not as members of the CD. Mr. Jon-Erik Strømø of Norway and Ambassador Giovanni Manfredi of Italy expressed hope that the 24 September meeting would start a discussion on the wider disarmament machinery. Mr. Strømø also encouraged the participation of civil society, arguing that their exclusion prevents the CD from benefiting from their experience.
Cautioning the CD against trying to pre-negotiate the outcome of the 24 September meeting, Ms. Riccarda Torriani of Switzerland explained that the Swiss delegation is hoping for a debate on current challenges to the disarmament machinery, medium- and long-term measures to make the CD fit to address the challenges of the 21st century, and a debate on short-term measures to allow progress on the CD’s core issues. Morocco’s Ambassador Hilale suggested than instead of a summary outcome the 24 September meeting should issue a compromise document on statements made, or a road map. India’s Ambassador Rao, on the other hand, supported the idea of the summary, arguing that the outcome should not draw any conclusions.
The UK representative urged the 24 September meeting to help the CD agree on a “balanced” programme of work and support immediate negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Pakistan’s ambassador argued that this is all the western delegations are interested in and predicted that the UN Secretary-General’s outcome summary would simply reflect this position.
CD membership
On behalf of the Informal Group of Observer States to the CD, Mr. Uglješa Zvekic of Serbia noted that according to Article 2 of the CD’s Rules of Procedure, the membership of the Conference should be reviewed at regular times. He encouraged the high-level meeting to address this issue and to appoint a Special Coordinator on the expansion of the membership of the CD in 2011. Ambassador Carr of Ireland agreed that the question of the CD’s limited membership needs to be addressed, as all states have an interest in the mandate of the Conference.
Next meeting
The time and date of the next plenary meeting of the CD has not yet been determined.