20 May 2008

Presiding over his final session as rotating Conference President, Ambassador Yevhen Bersheda of Ukraine opened the Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary meeting and delivered his closing remarks at the end. The representatives of Germany, Brazil, and Canadadelivered states focused mainly on CD/1840, the proposed programme of work. The Syrian delegation delivered a short statement on behalf of the Group of 21 offering condolences to China and to welcome the new ambassadors of Brazil and Chile. China also took the floor to thank the Group of 21 for its condolences.

Brief highlights

-Germany, Brazil, and Canada spoke in favour of CD/1840. Brazil expressed some reservations about its character while agreeing it constitutes a way forward.

-Brazil supported negotiations without preconditions on an FMCT, though emphasizing that any final treaty should include a verification mechanism and stockpile controls.

-Canada called for informal, unofficial, and frank discussions outside of the CD between member states regarding the issues behind the impasse as a way to move forward.

CD/1840
Ambassador Brasack of Germany marvelled that the P6 have "managed to merge all these views [of CD member states] into a coherent layout for our work." He spoke in support of CD/1840 as an "honest, fair, balanced and comprehensive" document, which "in a realistic sense of compromise leaves [member states] equally unhappy with it." He equated the adoption of CD/1840 to the adoption of a "fundamental decision to get back to work," arguing that it would "testify our commitment to a multilateral treaty system."

While expressing his delegation's support for CD/1840, Ambassador Soares of Brazil noted that it "represents less" than his and other delegations want in terms of negotiations of legally-binding instruments—Brazil and many others would prefer negotiations toward treaties on all items of the agenda. He cautioned that the adoption of CD/1840 "should not preclude other decisions of the Conference" nor should it "be read as a prejudgment of the outcome of discussions and negotiations. Moreover, it should not be considered as closing the possibility of new avenues being opened in the future."

Fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT)
Recognizing that some states have valid concerns about starting negotiations on an FMCT without preconditions, Amb. Soares recalled that any state can raise any issue in the course of negotiations, and is equally free to accept or reject proposals from others. He emphasized that his delegation favours an FMCT with "a multilateral verification mechanism and stockpile controls."

A moment of context for the CD
Ambassador Soares of Brazil expressed his concern with the deteriorating international security environment, which has affected "political will as well as economic prospects." He argued, "The lack of progress in nuclear disarmament lies at the basis for the general instability," that while the "growing number of local or regional conflicts may receive more attention in the media ... the ominous amount of lethal potential lies in the nuclear arsenals." Arguing that his country "does not identify itself with the logic of any system which relies upon the accumulation and refining of armament to ensure stability," Amb. Soares said he is "convinced that disarmament cannot be understood apart from the fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter."

Relating the "immobility in disarmament negotiations" to the failure of the multilateral system as a whole, he argued that "as individual states remain aloof or worst, adamantly keep their arsenals and improve their technological weapons capabilities," the complex system of cooperation, flexibility, and compromise that has been built up "since the days of the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Commission" is being undermined and corroded. He called for "multilateral responses within a framework of collective responsibility." In this spirit, he emphasized that despite his government's reservations about CD/1840, it supports the draft decision "as a contribution to consensus building and to the end of the longstanding stalemate the CD is facing."

How to move forward
Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada, expressing his frustration with the lack of movement in the CD, suggested that CD member states engage in

a number of unofficial, off-the-record discussions that would really try to ascertain what the fundamental concerns with respect to states' sovereign and security interests are, and have those sort of discussions, again, unofficially, informally, so that certain persons like myself would understand a lot better what it is that doesn't allow this negotiation forum to move forward—and certainly, I would welcome more than simply the polite official exchanges that we tend to have.

The CD currently has "informal debates" on all CD agenda items, which civil society representatives are not permitted to attend, but Amb. Grinius' comments suggest these "informal" discussions are neither off-the-record nor unofficial. The type of discussion Amb. Grinius is requesting could represent a substantial step forward. The core principles of effective "win-win" negotiation strategies could be much more effectively employed in an unofficial setting. Even though the unofficial discussions would not be negotiations, they could allow for delegates to develop and use negotiating techniques in order to better understand each other, to learn to be more flexible with each other, and to think creatively and cooperatively.

For example, the famous guide to negotiations, Getting to Yes, explains the importance of not bargaining over positions, as positions are not negotiable, but rather focusing on interests, which define the problem. The book argues that shared and compatible interests often lie behind opposed positions, and that successful negotiation requires creative open-mindedness in order to explore or propose new options that might satisfy all parties' needs, based on these shared interests. While nothing in an unofficial discussion would be binding or even necessarily approved by capital, it could provide an excellent space for brainstorming and fresh thinking, which could be transferred back to the Council Chamber and eventually to the negotiating table.

That said, there must be a balance between off-the-record brainstorming sessions and transparency. One of the main impediments to the development of international security and to success in multilateral fora is lack of transparency. In order to build confidence, governments and citizens need to know and understand the policies and activities of our counterparts around the world—we need to have open and frank discussions at all levels among all parties. The spirit of compromise called for by the Brazilian delegation, combined with new creative approaches as called for by the Canadian delegation, is our only hope for progress in the CD, in other disarmament fora, and in increasing true international security.

The next plenary meeting is scheduled for Monday, 26 May at 10:30am, under the presidency of the United Kingdom.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will