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

15 May 2007

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) continued its disappointing delay today. The six Presidents of 2007, or P6, have brought the Conference to the brink of a programme of work, and thus the closest to negotiating a new disarmament treaty in years. However, several governments continue to insist they need more time to decide if they can begin negotiating on the basis of this compromise. The P6 proposal (decision L1) would begin negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (Fissban), and continue discussions on nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Governments that would be most affected by a Fissban have raised the most concerns about the P6 proposal, except for Israel and North Korea, which have both been quiet. Of the countries with concerns, India and Egypt seemed the most amenable to agreeing, whilePakistan seemed the least. Ireland spoke for the New Agenda Coalition, noting that the NAC, of which Egypt is a member, welcomed the P6 proposal in a statement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee.

Although the current proposal has been before the Conference for seven weeks, China still needs more time to give an answer. Hopefully, this is because China is taking a decision at the highest political levels about whether it can commit to a Treaty that will stop it from producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and this is not just a stalling tactic. Of the five recognized nuclear weapon states, China is the only one that has not declared a unilateral moratorium on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and has significantly fewer stockpiles of such material than the United States and Russia.

Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Algeria are showing various levels of resistance to the current proposal, which they are expressing in concerns about process, procedure, and substance. India, Pakistan, and Iran expressed a substantive preference for the previously consensus negotiating mandate for a Fissban, known as the Shannon Mandate. The 1995 Shannon Mandate called for “a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty”, while the P6 proposal only calls for “ a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty”. The US has indicated it does not believe a Fissban could be verified without compromising national security interests, and, while every other governmental speaker has supported a verified treaty, most believe they will negotiate with the US in Fissban negotiations. India, Pakistan, and Iran want this issue to be agreed prior to negotiations. Pakistan stated this most plainly today when it said the CD “should continue to adhere to the agreed parameters” of the Shannon Mandate. India said it was “attached” to the Shannon Mandate, and asked the P6 to clarify their proposal in light of the Shannon Mandate. Iran said negotiations should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate.

Egypt and Algeria expressed concerns primarily about process, which Pakistan and Iran echoed. While Egypt said the P6 effort could be “the ray of light gaining visibility at the end of a long tunnel”, it asked that future formal and informal consultations be “structured, inclusive, transparent, and multilateral”. Pakistan said space should be made for “open consultations”, Iran requested an “open negotiating process in the CD”, and the Algeria called for “multilateral consultations in the CD”. Pakistan said it reserved the right to introduce amendments to the proposal, and Algeria said such amendments should be accepted. Sri Lanka indicated the P6 believed their process was both comprehensive and inclusive, and listed the extensive consultations they have had with all governments.

Perhaps some of this desire for an “open process” is the opportunity it would create to reveal other outlying states' positions on the current compromise. The US is opposed to including verification in the mandate for a Fissban. France has said it would not be able to accept the proposal if amendments were made to the mandates for discussing negative security assurances or nuclear disarmament. Concessions have been made to bring these outliers in the intractable CD deadlock on board, and they have also made concessions to agree to it. The struggle now is to ensure other outliers can also join in a consensus without breaking the delicate compromises already reached. Of course, it is also possible that some states do not want to begin work at all, but simply do not want to be blamed for it. They could thus propose amendments that would be disagreeable to the US and/or others, and then blame them for blocking movement forward.

If the delay continues much longer, discussing substantive positions will be moot. The proposal for work would only last for the 2007 CD, which now has only 12 weeks remaining for negotiations. The Conference was supposed to finally be able to take this decision today. The time for vague procedural concerns has passed, and the time for capitals to get back is now.

The next CD plenary session will be held on Tuesday, May 22, at 10am.