Sustainability through collectivity

Beatrice Fihn and Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

On Thursday, 25 February, the Conference on Disarmament heard (CD) statements from Brazil and Nigeria on the work of the CD. The President of the CD, Ambassador Khvostov from Belarus, updated the Conference on the current consultations on a draft programme of work.

Highlights
The CD President announced that he had circulated a “trial for the programme of work” to regional coordinators. The document works of the basis of previous consensus-based documents such as CD/1864, A/RES/64/29, A/RES/64/64, and other proposals in the CD from this year. He indicated that this has been circulated to regional coordinators and that consultations on this draft would continue.

Ambassador Soares from Brazil provided some counter-arguments for why the CD should begin work on a fissile material treaty, what that treaty should look like, and how the current world order needs to be improved through efforts for collective security rather than individual security.

Ambassador Uhomoibhi of Nigeria made his final speech in the CD, where he stated that in order to achieve nuclear disarmament, immediate steps towards that goal must be taken. He argued that the initiative of Nigeria, together with Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland in their UN General Assembly resolution on de-alerting nuclear weapons is such a step.

A draft programme of work
The President of the CD, Ambassador Khvostov announced that while there was still no consensus on a programme of work for 2010, he has circulated a document containing a “trial” for a programme of work, based on previous consensus based documents, such as the adopted programme of work in 2009, CD/1864, the two consensus resolutions from the General Assembly, A/RES/64/29 (on a fissile material treaty) and A/RES/64/64, as well as a number of proposals from this year that have not yet received consensus. Ambassador Khvostov hoped that delegations would be able to respond to this circulated document and that it could constitute a basis for the development of the programme of work of the CD.

Working for nuclear disarmament
Last week, the CD heard a suggestion from the Pakistani delegation that the CD begin negotiations on nuclear disarmament instead of a fissile material treaty. Today, Ambassador Soares of Brazil argued that while nuclear disarmament is the ultimate goal, achieving it “requires a gradual approach.” Acknowledging the importance of all the issues on the CD’s agenda, he said that those other items cannot “base the refusal to deal with fissile material.”

In his farewell speech, Ambassador Uhomoibhi of Nigeria also argued that in order to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, incremental success must be achieved. The Nigerian ambassador highlighted his delegation’s initiative in the UN General Assembly in 2008, a resolution on “decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems” together with Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. Ambassador Uhomoibhi stated that de-alerting nuclear weapons is a practical mean of minimizing dangers posed by such weapons.

The broader context
Ambassador Soares pointed out that while “national security” has been raised as an objection to begin negotiations on a fissile materials treaty, it is in fact the non-nuclear weapons states that “suffer from acute asymmetry in terms of national security.” While geopolitical situations may raise additional security concerns, “these situations cannot justify the development of weapons of mass destruction as well as disregard for the principles and norms of International Law and oblivion to the conduct of civilized international relations.” He argued that while the international community should not be indifferent to the security concerns of any individual country, “an international system restricted to individual concerns is not sustainable.”

Echoing the Norwegian delegation’s comments from last Thursday, Ambassador Soares also argued that disarmament is “not the domain of those sole States that possess or intend to acquire weapons of mass destruction,” but that “every government has the responsibility before its people to pursue international conditions best suitable to their well-being.” He specified, such conditions do not include war, threats, and coercion.

On a fissile material treaty
He argued that a fissile materials must include both a ban on future production and regulation of existing fissile material, both of which must be subject to verification. He argued that the issues surrounding both the ban and regulation are so complex that trying to solve them through a negotiating mandate “would preclude the very negotiation.”

Notes from the gallery
The ambassador of Brazil touched upon many of the issues in the Pakistani statement from last week and it’s useful to hear this kind of debate being held openly in plenary meetings. As Ambassador Soares said, “it is necessary to explore different viewpoints, to openly and bona fide respond to arguments instead of simply repeating national positions.”

While national security concerns are legitimate problems, regional insecurity cannot justify another unproductive year of the CD let alone constant stalemate in international discussions on nuclear disarmament-related issues. The CD has been deadlocked for so many years because of different priorities and perceptions of “national security threats” of major nuclear powers. The CD cannot passively sit around for another decade to wait for “security” to emerge. It must take action and contribute to improve global and regional conditions. The CD has an opportunity to use its role as a multilateral body in order to promote and enhance global security. The news from the CD president about circulating a document on a potential programme of work is encouraging. By emphasizing recent consensus documents, it shows that common ground between member states does exist and that the CD can build upon this in order to resume work.

Notes from the world
We continue to encourage members of civil society to get involved in the work of the CD, in this report we include a contribution from Chuck Baynton of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice:

The Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice thanks Reaching Critical Will for extending an invitation to comment as we monitor events at the Conference on Disarmament.What we see that matters most is completely invisible on examination of any particular session’s squabbles over procedure, but appears in sharp focus when we step back to view the last dozen years. In that time, the Conference has contributed precisely nothing to disarmament. If any contribution emerges in the next several years, it will represent a radical departure from a stable and entrenched pattern. However, no evidence suggests an institutional capacity for radical change.Governments are properly instruments of the well-being of people. Though it is a perversion to turn that principle on its head, an utterly conventional intervention in this Conference does so, invoking national interest to frustrate what human interest requires: disarmament.

Next week’s meetings
Next week will see a large number of high-level speakers in the Conference. The schedule is as follow:

Tuesday, 2 March at 10:00: Hyun Cho, Deputy Minister for Multilateral and Global Affairs of the Republic of Korea;
Tuesday, 2 March at 15:00: Micheál Martin, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland;
Wednesday, 3 March, at 15:00: Bogdan Aurescu, Secretary of State of Romania;
Thursday, 4 March at 10:00: Chinami Nishimura, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan; and
Friday, 5 March at 10:00: Kanat Saudabayev, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan.