Stockpiles or no stockpiles?

Anina Dalbert and Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
12 March 2013

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Tuesday, 12 March to focus on fissile materials. WILPF’s statement on the occasion of the International Women’s Day was followed by statements from the European Union (EU), Brazil on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, Spain, Canada, United States (US), Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Australia, Japan, Netherlands, France, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Finland, Iran, Pakistan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Turkey, Algeria, and India. The plenary closed with some concluding remarks by the outgoing CD President, Ambassador Sujata Mehta of India.

Fissile materials

While many of the speakers called a fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT) the next logical step, several delegations such as South Africa and Cuba, and believed other issues, nuclear disarmament in particular, to be ready for concrete action.

FMCT scope: future production only or including the stockpiles

As many times before, the main discussion around a future FMCT focused on whether the scope should cover only the production of possible future fissile material or if it should also address the current stockpiles. Some states—or as Ambassador Hellmut Hoffmann of Germany noted, “mostly the nuclear weapons possessor states” —feel that the first and foremost a FMCT should deal with the future production so that the stockpiles don’t increase.

Ambassador Laura Kennedy said the US position on scope is “that FMCT obligations, including verification obligations, should cover new production of fissile material. Existing stockpiles should be dealt with separately, through other agreements and voluntary measures.” She feared that linking a ban on future production with existing stockpiles would only “further complicate” consensus on beginning the negotiations.

According to Ambassador Jo Adamson of the United Kingdom, “a treaty, if effectively verified, would put a ceiling on the total amount of fissile material available for weapons.” This would in Ambassador Adamson’s view lead to a legally-binding agreement on the moratorium already announced by the US, Russia, UK, and France and would place the same commitment on other states.

Mr. Shafqat Ali Khan of Pakistan, on the other hand, made it once again very clear that his country will not support a “discriminate treaty”. According to Mr. Ali Khan, the five official nuclear weapons states blocked negotiations of an FMCT earlier and only now that they have huge stockpiles are they interested in stopping future production. He argued that the ambiguities of the Shannon mandate might have been sufficient in 1996, but believed this to no longer the case today.

The Iranian delegation argued that without stockpiles and a framework aimed at elimination, an FMCT would be an “ineffective measure in the field of disarmament” and therefore meaningless. Several others such as Mr. Michiel Combrink of South Africa, Ambassador Urs Schmid of Switzerland and Mr. Robert Jackson from Ireland asserted that in order to be non-discriminatory it is imperative that the treaty address existing stockpiles. Ambassador Schmid argued: “this way one will be able to judge if the NWS want to make a real effort in this context;” and Mr. Combrink noted that “the outright rejection of dealing with stocks before even commencing negotiations” raised questions about the real commitment to disarmament of those upholding this view.

Group of Governmental Experts (GGE)

The Canadian sponsored FMCT resolution A/RES/67/53, “Treaty banning the production of fissile material for explosive devices,” which will establish a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) was mentioned by almost every delegation and supported by a vast majority of those speaking. While many highlighted that the GGE is not tasked to negotiate, some delegations expressed expectations that it would achieve concrete results. For example, Ambassador van den Ijssel of the Netherlandssaw the GGE as “the way forward towards the start of negotiations on an FMCT.”

The delegations of Canada and Ireland noted that the UN Secretary-General has been asked to collect the views of UN member states on an FMCT and report those views to the 68th General Assembly as part of preparations for the work of the GGE, and called on states to submit such views. Switzerland reiterated the importance of regional representation in this group.

International Women’s Day

As has become an annual tradition, WILPF delivered its annual International Women’s Day statement to the CD. This year, the focus was on the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations next week, and the importance of including a criterion to prevent armed gender-based violence. The statement also highlights the importance of taking a humanitarian approach to nuclear weapons, welcoming the conference held in Oslo last week and the announcement by Mexico that it will host a follow-up meeting.

Next plenary meeting

The next plenary meeting will be held on Tuesday, 19 March at 10:00, and will focus on the issue of preventing an arms race in outer space.