The CD debates the draft programme of work

Beatrice Fihn and Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Thursday morning to debate the draft programme of work that the CD President, Ambassador Khvostov of Belarus, presented on Tuesday, 9 March. The CD heard comments from Brazil, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, the Eastern European Group, Iran, Ukraine, Poland, Ireland, Russian Federation, Germany, France, United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand, Netherlands, India, Sweden, Italy, Republic of Korea, Hungary, China, South Africa, Syria, Sri Lanka, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, Colombia, Pakistan, Australia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Japan, Austria as well as both outgoing President, Mr. Khvostov of Belarus and incoming President, Ambassador Van Meeuwen of Belgium.

Highlights

- The draft programme of work contain in CD/WP.559 received widespread support from the majority of delegations.
- Many of those delegations that supported CD/WP.559 also stated that they were ready to engage in constructive proposals made in good faith for amending the document in order for it achieve consensus.
- Pakistan’s delegation reiterated its opposition to the draft and took the opportunity to counter some of the arguments made by other delegations.

Views on CD/WP.559
In an open and transparent exchange of views, 39 delegations shared their thoughts on the draft. A majority of delegations declared their support for the proposal as it stands. The delegation of Brazil took the lead in expressing its support for CD/WP.559, and was followed by the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Eastern European Group, Ukraine, Poland, Ireland, Russian Federation, Germany, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand, Netherlands, India, Sweden, Italy, Republic of Korea, Hungary, Colombia, Turkey, Australia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Japan, and Austria.

A smaller group of delegations from Group of 21—Syria, Iran, Sri Lanka, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, and Indonesia—while not publicly opposing the draft, argued that it could be improved. They reiterated that they prioritize nuclear disarmament and referred to the G21 statement delivered to the CD on 2 February. This statement called upon the CD to establish “an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as soon as possible and as the highest priority” and emphasized “the necessity to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention.”

Most of these delegations also called for a treaty on fissile materials to advance both disarmament and non-proliferation objectives.Ambassador Badr of Egypt argued this “would only be achieved through the inclusion of stocks.” He explained that his delegation would delegation would like to see language reflecting this position in the programme of work. The Iranian delegation agreed that a fissile material (cut-off) treaty should include past and future production and existing stocks and verification in order to “be a clear and meaningful step for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.” It also suggested that the programme of work should start negotiation on all four main issues.

The Chinese delegation neither endorsed nor rejected the draft programme. Ambassador Wang commended the efforts of the CD president but agreed with those who had pointed out that differences still remain. He expressed hope for open and transparent negotiations to “bridge differences and address the concerns of each country.”

The main opposition
In his statement of 18 February, the Pakistani ambassador laid out the underlying reasons for his delegation’s opposition to a programme of work similar to CD/1864, referencing regional security issues and the US-India nuclear deal and the Nuclear Supplier’s Group exception for nuclear trade with India. Today, Ambassador Akram of Pakistan emphasized that from his delegation’s perspective, a fissile material (cut-off) treaty is only considered ripe for negotiations because it “is or will be cost free for the nuclear weapons states” that have assembled huge arsenals of nuclear weapons and do not need to produce any more fissile material.

Regarding the negotiation of other issues, Ambassador Akram noted that even though “the high and mighty of the powerful of this world have themselves acknowledged an agenda for nuclear disarmament,” they cannot seem to “agree to initiating those negotiations on nuclear disarmament in this forum, whose raison d’être is nuclear disarmament.” He argued that if the rhetoric issued outside the CD is true then the nuclear weapon states “should have no hesitancy in initiating negotiating nuclear disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament either.”

Regarding the references to Article 27 of the CD’s Rules of Procedure, which states the CD must take into account the recommendations of the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Akram argued that the CD cannot be selective in its choice of which resolutions it pays attention to—noting that the General Assembly has also recommended the CD negotiate a treaty on nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Comments to the opposing arguments
The US delegation stated that it sees no limit or prejudgement in the current proposal, and emphasized that CD/WP.559 does not preclude any future possibilities of negotiations on other agenda items. Ambassador Larson declared that his delegation is ready to engage on all agenda items.

Many delegations pointed out that they were ready to engage in constructive proposals for amending CD/WP.559. Ireland’s representative stated that any amendments must make an effort to achieve consensus, not to move away from it. This was echoed by Switzerland’s delegate, who argued that such proposals must “not just state national positions, but instead help to reach consensus.” Several speakers raised the fact that the proposed draft programme of work actually contains a mandate to conduct work on all agenda items. Ambassador Hellgren of Sweden pointed out that the draft does not close any doors for more ambitious work in the future, whileAmbassador Hoffmann from Germany argued that the draft contains “a very elaborate and differentiated approach to many of the issues on the CD agenda” and as such leaves many options open for the future. He emphasized, “It is not only a work programme on FMCT negotiations.” Ambassador Hoffman also noted that if there is a need to flush out the language for the other agenda items, his delegation is willing to look at such proposals.

Transparency and accountability 
Many delegations expressed appreciation for the transparent and open discussion today. While the draft programme still only achieves “near-consensus,” by tabling it, the CD has something concrete to work with. Ambassador Van den Ijssel from the Netherlands stated, “after a period of shadow-fighting, it is important that we are out in the open.”

It is also encouraging that this debate took place in a formal plenary meeting, and many delegations argued for the importance of conducting these discussions in a transparent way. China’s ambassador echoed others view of the need of transparent and open consultations, stating, “It helps us to bridge and address concerns of issues.” Ambassador Hoffmann from Germany said it is a good thing that Pakistan’s specific grievances are out in the open, arguing that the international community has a right to know what governments’ positions are and why they hold them.

Ambassador Hoffman also raised an important point by highlighting the fact that the general public does not seem to be aware of what is going on in the CD. He stated that “most probably the public assumes that the sheer fact of sessions taking place year-in-year-out at theConference on Disarmament surely can only mean that serious disarmament work is going on here” and that “many would be flabbergasted to learn that since the negotiation of the CTBT the CD has basically only been discussing what it should do next and many would be surprised to really understand what complex sets of blockages, linkages and policies of pre-conditions and respective policies of denying requested clarifications were at the heart of this unsatisfactory situation.” He argued that making the public aware of the situation should be enough reason to strengthen the role and positions of NGOs in the CD.

What’s next?
The Brazilian ambassador noted that in the culture of the CD, absence of consensus is taken as inevitably leading to paralysis and as soon as one or more delegations express objections, all further efforts are suspended. Ambassador Soares reminded the CD that while the Rules of Procedure require consensus for the taking of decisions, they do not prohibit that further negotiations be conducted in order to circumvent divergences.

Ambassador Van den Ijssel of Netherlands stated, “if we cannot agree on this, we have to look elsewhere,” and declared that the CD could not waste another year. Mr. Vasiliev from the Russian Federation suggested that thematic debates should be held while the CD continues to work on a programme of work. While stating that this was an interesting idea, Ambassador Lauber from Switzerland argued that it must not distract delegations from solving the problem of a programme of work. India’s Ambassador Rao argued that discussions on the sidelines cannot be considered as negotiations and cannot be binding upon CD member states.

Notes from the gallery
While the programme of work is a procedural document, it is well known that core substantive issues are behind this decade long stalemate over its adoption. While Reaching Critical Will shares the view that a treaty on fissile materials should be a both a disarmament and non-proliferation treaty and should include existing stocks, we also recognize that continued stalemate in the CD will not lead to any improvement in international security or progress for disarmament. The CD has not negotiated anything in the last decade. Continued blockage of the programme of work will not help solve move the world any closer to nuclear disarmament.

CD/WP.559 is not a perfect document. We would be delighted to see negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention take place—the issues of fissile materials in all their aspects would be better dealt with within the framework of a nuclear weapons convention. However, we believe that the creation of structured discussions on nuclear disarmament in a formal working group as described in CD/WP.559, as well as discussions on negative security assurances, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negotiations on a fissile material treaty, would be a significant improvement to the current stalemate in the CD. Once negotiations have started, there is no reason that delegations have to accept a treaty that does not address existing stocks. The course of negotiations will provide delegations with the opportunity to craft a strong disarmament treaty and will also provide civil society with much better opportunities to engage their governmental representatives to push on specific elements, such as stocks and verification.

Next plenary meeting
The next plenary meeting, the first under the Belgian Presidency, is not scheduled yet but will be announced shortly by the CD Secretariat.