28 June 2007

Today’s plenary was the last meeting of the 2007 second session of the Conference on Disarmament. CD President Ambassador Jurg Streuli of Switzerland presented the Conference with the Presidential Report, summarizing the work of the Conference to date. The UK made a statement clarifying its position on nuclear disarmament in light of speculations that a recent speech by Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett represented new UK policy. Germany reiterated the importance it attaches to PAROS and the increasing need to address threats to space security. The EU, in a statement delivered by Germany, and Turkey also called upon the three remaining states to join consensus on L.1 (P6) and allow the Conference to begin substantive work.

Pakistan reiterated that it still had significant substantive concerns over the L.1 proposal and accompanying Presidential Draft Decision, which sparked a frank and pointed exchange with New Zealand and Brazil. The second session concluded with a sense of stalemate, as Pakistan is becoming increasingly adamant about its difficulties with the L.1 proposal. Pakistan concluded that it will continue to work with the Conference, but the “Presidential Draft Decision is a proposal that has yet to obtain consensus.”

The UK spoke about Margaret Beckett's June 25 speech at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference. Fiona Paterson told the Conference that “the ideas that were expressed in Mrs. Beckett’s speech are a logical progression of what the UK has been saying and practicing in different arms control bodies…These ideas do not represent a new UK policy, but they are a continuation and a deepening of our overall approach which acknowledges that there must be parallel purpose on both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” Ms. Paterson outlined the following UK nuclear disarmament policies:

-Recognition that the bargain between the haves and have-nots requires Nuclear Weapon States to do more on nuclear disarmament to get more on the non-proliferation front

-Recognition on the pressure on the NPT regime

-Ratification of the CTBT

-Commencement on negotiations on an FMCT

-Cuts in US and Russian nuclear arsenals upon the expiration of SORT

-A UK commitment to engage in multilateral negotiations on the elimination of nuclear weapons once the US and Russia have reduced their arsenals considerably

-To engage in transparency and confidence building measures with any other Nuclear Weapon State in the meantime

The UK will also intends to participate in a new project by the International Institute of Strategic Studies to identify the practical steps required for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Germany called for increasing attention to the issue of security in outer space. It pledged that it will work to increase communication among relevant fora and provide specific input to the CD once it continues to work on the issue. Germany reminded states that space debris is increasing, and that space security must be addressed holistically by the entire international community due to the dual-use characteristics of civil and military technologies.

The European Union, in a statement delivered by Germany, and Turkey urged China, Iran, and Pakistan to join consensus on the L.1 package. The EU mentioned Ban Ki-Moon’s warning that a lack of action in the CD will have a devastating impact on multilateral and bilateral disarmament efforts. Turkey called on states to remember that by joining consensus now states will still be able to assert their positions down the line, as Ban Ki Moon noted, adding that the L.1 proposal is merely the beginning of the multilateral negotiating process.

Pakistan, however, reiterated its concerns and problems with the L.1 package. Pakistan insisted with greater forcefulness and clarity that it wanted to begin negotiations on all four core issues of the CD simultaneously. Pakistan then outlined its position on each issue and its reasons for expecting commencement of negotiations.

On FMCT, Pakistan asked, “Why is there insistence for the CD to start negotiations in one area only, in complete disregard of consensus as reflected in the Shannon Mandate—especially at a time when asymmetries are deliberately being allowed to increase?” It reiterated that an FMCT must include verification and existing stocks and asked, “If we all agree that the scope of the FMCT instrument should include stockpiles and verification, why are we unable to include them in L.1?”

Pakistan called for negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on effective nuclear arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, or NSAs. Pakistan said this would build confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear states.

On PAROS, Pakistan stated that the Conference is ready to begin negotiations. “Enough work has been done in the CD,” it stated. “We should be able to being negotiations on the legally binding basis of material provided by China and the Russian Federation for example.”

Pakistan also stressed the importance it places on nuclear disarmament and the need to start negotiations on general and complete disarmament. Pakistan claimed that the CD has an obligation to heed civil society’s demands for work on nuclear disarmament. Civil society certainly wants work on nuclear disarmament to begin, but has long been critical of states using negotiations on general and complete disarmament to stall nuclear disarmament.

Pakistan’s remarks incited replies from New Zealand and Brazil. New Zealand stated that it suspected that Pakistan’s repeated calls for the inclusion of stocks and verification in L.1’s paragraph on an FMCT may have more to do with Pakistan attempting to “gain an advance or an outcome on negotiations” before negotiations have commenced. Ambassador MacKay of New Zealand said, “We share Pakistan’s position on the substance, but we accept and I think that all colleagues accept, that when one goes into a negotiation, one doesn’t predetermine in advance what the outcome will be.”

New Zealand also bluntly stated that it is impossible, for many reasons, to begin negotiations on all four core issues at the same time. Ultimately, “there will be a balancing of issues required,” New Zealand said, “But it is simply not practical to negotiate at the same time these four issues and I think we need to be quite realistic about this and I think we need to be quite realistic about the level of resources…” available to members of the CD.

Pakistan’s remarks also sparked comments from Brazil. Ambassador Paranhos stated that Brazil had never made a statement calling for the same or equal treatment of the four core issues and has always indicated that it is flexible in the ways to handle the issues. Brazil added that perhaps stating that negotiations must commence at once or in parallel on all four issues “is really a way perhaps not to engage in any negotiations whatsoever.”

Concluding the 2007 second session, CD President Ambassador Streuli introduced the Presidential Report on Part II of the 2007 Session. The Report summarizes the history of the progress that has been made so far, providing a timeline of events from the tabling of document L.1 to the addition of the Complementary Presidential Statement and Draft Decision.

-Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom