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

A new draft programme of work, but the same challenges remain

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Thursday morning for a final plenary under the Brazilian presidency. Ambassador Soares of Brazil introduced a new draft programme of work. Delegates from Canada, Mexico, Pakistan, Brazil, Germany, Algeria, Netherlands, Indonesia, Belarus, United States, United Kingdom, Chile, Syria, G21, and Australia delivered statements commenting on the new draft.

Highlights
- After a month of consultations, CD President Ambassador Macedo Soares presented a draft programme of work for the Conference, contained in CD/1889.
- The draft programme of work was not adopted during the plenary meeting, but no delegation officially opposed it.
- Canada, Mexico, Germany, the Netherlands, Belarus, the United States, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Australia expressed support for the draft.
- Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Syria, and G21 did not explicitly support the proposal.

CD/1889
The CD President, Ambassador Macedo Soares of Brazil, introduced a new draft programme of work to the plenary meeting. He explained that he had attempted to test formulas that could encompass the concerns for the entire CD membership and presented the draft as being developed on basis the comments of delegations received during consultations on the previous draft, CD/WP.559, submitted by Belarus in March earlier this year.

CD/1889 has some significant changes from previous attempts. In the new draft, paragraph 1 (b), which establishes a working group that shall negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, now also says “while taking into consideration all other matters related to fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.

The draft also modifies paragraph 1 (c). This paragraph, just like the previous drafts, calls for a working group to discuss substantively and without limitations issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space. However, it now also adds “not excluding the possibility of multilateral negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament” to the mandate of this working group.

In paragraph 3 (d), the draft now adds that the Conference recognizes the principle of “increased” and undiminished security for all.

Reactions to the draft
The proposal received support from the delegations of Canada, Mexico, Germany, the Netherlands, Belarus, the United States, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Australia. However, while no delegation formally opposed the draft yet, some delegations were not ready to accept it.

Ambassador Akram from Pakistan stated that the draft was different from the one that had been discussed during the informal consultations and he therefore needed instructions from capital before being able to express Pakistan’s position. The Indonesian representative called it “a good starting point” but argued that there were some points in the proposal that he wished to see different. The Syrian delegation noted that the proposal was “decreasing the difference between us” and expressed hope that more consultations and transparency would lead to the adoption of a programme of work.

Ambassador Jazairy of Algeria noted that it was unfortunate that the Conference could not yet achieve consensus on the programme or work, but argued that this should not be seen as a failure, but rather as incapacity of the Conference to address the security concerns of delegations. He also noted that it was not right to say that one issue is ripe over another, since that means prioritising the concerns of one group over another. Ambassador Jazairy instead reiterated the need for reaching agreement on issues required to provide security for states and believed that when that was done, delegations could then move into negotiation mode.

A high-level solution to broken machinery
Ambassador Camacho of Mexico focused on the machinery, arguing that the CD should be seen as a vehicle or a tool rather than a purpose in itself. However, because “this tool has been totally broken and unusable,” he argued that delegations needed to explore the different alternatives that exist in the international community, in order to achieve what everyone wishes to attain, disarmament. Ambassador Camacho stated, “For Mexico it is clear cut, 100%, that this vehicle, this tool, this machinery is no longer responding neither to the current world situation or the needs of international peace and disarmament that we are experiencing today.” Ambassador Oyarce from Chile asked whether the right conditions existed outside the CD to conduct the work they could not fulfill inside this forum.

Both these delegations referred to the scheduled high-level meeting in September. Ambassador Oyarce argued that the meeting would be an opportunity to review and take stock of what the external conditions are right now and that it is time for an “exercise of thinking and reflecting”. Ambassador Camacho argued that this meeting would be an opportunity to address the machinery. and Ambassador Jazairy of Algeria suggested that the “very short” meeting could be used to discuss how to achieve consensus on a programme or work. Ambassador Jazairy also suggested that the CD should take the opportunity to discuss different views on expected outcomes of this meeting before the summer break, as it would be useful to have consultations on how to make the most of this opportunity.

Carlos Duarte, Director of the Department of International Organizations, Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, explained that the high-level meeting is not intended to circumvent the CD, but should support its work. He further reminded delegations that the political impetus would be more effective if the CD has already agreed on a programme of work by then. The German delegation reiterated this, and hoped that the CD would be able to deliver a positive message to the meeting in New York.

Notes from the gallery
The draft presented by the Brazilian ambassador is very similar to previous drafts. Contrary to previous suggestions reportedly made during the informal consultations, the draft retains the negotiating mandate for FMCT talks. However, it adds an opening for discussions on “other matters related to fissile material,” which is most likely a reference to stockpiles of fissile material. The draft also signals a possibility of multilateral negotiations on space issues in the CD.

Despite these small changes, the draft still does not seem to be acceptable to all states, and it is unclear whether there is room for any additional changes to be made. Delegations should realize that it is not necessarily in their best interest to hold out for a “perfect” programme of work. Government representatives often say to NGOs that one “should not let the best become the enemy of the good”. This advice applies to government delegations as well. One state’s priority will not necessarily be the priority of another’s. Compromises must be made on all items of the programme in order to move forward on any of them.

Despite being unable to reach consensus, the warm words from all delegations for the hard work carried out by the Brazilian president shows that his transparent approach is appreciated. We hope that the next president, Ambassador Ganev of Bulgaria, as well as all other CD delegates, will be continue to work in a transparent and engaged way and to be willing to make compromises in order to move forward.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held on Tuesday, 13 July at 11.00am, where Mr. Nikolay Mladenov, the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria will address the Conference, and Mr. Frank Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Policy and Verification Operations in the United States will present the new US National Space Policy.