18 March 2008

Ambassador Yevhen Bersheda of Ukraine, the new rotating president of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), formally introduced the Presidential Draft Decision CD/1840, which was distributed to delegates last Thursday in an informal session. The representatives ofChina, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Indonesia, and Algeria took the floor to comment briefly on the draft decision and to welcome the new Ambassador of Brazil, Ambassador Luiz Filipe De Macedo Soares, who introduced himself to the Conference.

Toward a programme of work
Ambassador Bersheda described CD/1840 as "an attempt to integrate the efforts of each and every CD-member to step up the work of the Conference and gain consensus on the way forward." He said, "It provides a good basis for the continuation of consultations and intensification of our common endeavours towards achieving global security." As explained in the 13 March CD Report, CD/1840 is virtually identical to the 2007 draft decision L.1 and CRP.5, the complementary draft statement reflecting the CD's understanding of the implementation of L.1. Ambassador Bersheda argued that L.1, which is the basis for the 2008 draft decision, has not lost its relevance, explaining that in this year during informal discussions the most active debates have taken place on the four core issues contained within L.1.

He went on to explain his belief that a compromise could more easily be found if informal debates gradually turned into formal negotiations, which could occur if discussions were to focus on interactive exchanges of views and "concrete comments on the items set out in the agenda" rather than declarations of government positions.

Civil society and some delegates have been calling for this approach for some time. Certain delegations have requested, or even spontaneously instigated, interactive debate in the sparse moments sometimes available at the end of "debates" in the UNGA First Committee or at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conferences. During the 2007 First Committee, informal question and answer periods were held after each of the panel presentations given by experts and analysts, providing for some of the most interesting discussions of the conference. Discussing specific items directly, without prepared statements laying out unchanging government positions, could lead to a more positive experience in diplomatic fora—experiences which could be explained to capitals, helping to foster a possibly more dynamic exchange between decision-makers and their diplomatic envoys. More creative interactions could help iron out issues that would undoubtedly come up during negotiations, while increased transparency would help reveal what these problems are and where they lie, giving others the opportunity to help overcome the impasse. However, interactive discussions are not an adequate replacement for a negotiating mandate. After more than a decade of discussion, we know what the issues are—it's time to start solving them.

Response to the proposed programme of work
Some of the delegates commented briefly on CD/1840. China's Ambassador Wang Qun said he is encouraged by the new text, but is aware that some delegates are still concerned about it. He expressed hope that they would "continue to endeavor to resolve and bridge their differences in bringing about the programme of work that is acceptable to all parties through further constructive dialogue and consultation." Ambassador Chang Dong-hee of the Republic of Korea reminded CD delegates "that we have now arrived at an important crossroad and we should choose the right direction. If we take the wrong turn and lose this opportunity it will take again a long time and a lot of efforts to get there on the right track." Mr. Pieter Van Donkersgoed of the Netherlands said his delegation would "actively participate" in continued consultations contained in CD/1840.

Ambassador I Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja of Indonesia spoke cautiously about the draft decision, saying that his delegation appreciates "any endeavor to break the impasse in such a way as to bring the CD back on track," but emphasizing "thorough and prior consultations ... should be conducted as broadly as possible in order to ensure that any proposal is worth further discussion. I believe Mr. President in the strength of intensive consultation that will help strengthen the conducive condition that is being developed this far." He said genuine and constructive dialogue "should become the means through which a transparent approach is applied to our efforts to move this process further along." He also called for "a cohesive process through intensive informal meetings, in a spirit of coordination, understanding, and flexibility."

Mr. Hamza Khelif of Algeria was also cautious in his endorsement of CD/1840, noting that while his delegation believes it "is a significant step forward to document L1," they still have some concerns. He invited Ambassador Bersheda and the other 2008 presidents "to continue their consultations within the framework that you would find appropriate in order to bring positions together and overcome the stalemate that we have been witnessing here."

It is unclear, however, how CD/1840 is a significant improvement or step forward from the 2007 proposed programme of work, as an examination of the documents proves that they are identical in content, though CD/1840 is much more efficiently organized. Despite this, some delegates emphasized the need for continuing dialogue, perhaps indicating that they are hesitant to endorse a proposal that, after a year of consultations, is exactly the same as the previous one.

Civil society and the CD
Ambassador Bersheda concluded with a note about the International Women's Day statement read to the Conference on 11 March. In response to the concerns expressed in that statement, he reminded us, "conducting multilateral negotiations on disarmament is a very complicated and delicate process which does not bring immediate results." He said that CD members "reasonably behave cautiously and make comprehensive analysis of discussed issues," which are complicated because of "geostrategic and internal situation[s] in member states." While the members of civil society who call for progress at the CD appreciate the complexity of international relations, we also understand that "geostrategic" interests—coupled with a lack of respect for multilateral processes and agreements—have led to increased military spending, war and weapons profiteering, inter- and intra-state tensions, and crises of human security and sustainable development.

We have never called for immediate results, but the CD has not adopted a programme of work since 1999 and has not negotiated a treaty since 1996. The issues on the proposed programme of work have been in discussion at the CD for many years. Thus what we call for is sincere, progressive, creative, transparent, democratic engagement in multilateral fora, respect for international law, and the development of an architecture for international relations more conducive to peace, security, and justice.

The next plenary is scheduled for Thursday, 27 March at 10am.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will