The CD will take the summer to “ripen”

Thursday morning’s plenary meeting marked the conclusion of the second part of the Conference on Disarmament (CD)’s 2009 session.Ambassador Bernhard Brasack of Germany delivered his farewell speech to the CD, outlining some his personal thoughts on fissile material treaty negotiations. The delegations of the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Colombia,Ireland, Turkey, Iran, China, Egypt, and Mexico spoke about ongoing efforts to implement the programme of work. Kelvin Thomson, an Australian parliamentarian, spoke about the work of the Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the disarmament area. The current CD president, Ambassador Millar of Australia, said she would undertake intensive consultations with delegations during the CD’s summer break to try to reach consensus on the implementation of the programme of work.

Brief highlights
• The delegations of Colombia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, and the United States reiterated their endorsements of CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867.
• The delegations of China, Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan called for consideration of security concerns and building a strong foundation when implementing the programme of work.
• Pakistan’s delegation suggested that CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 be merged and clearly indicate that their mandates are limited to the CD’s 2009 session.
• In his farewell speech, Ambassador Brasack of Germany gave the CD some personal advice on conducting fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations.

Implementation of the programme of work
Consensus on the two draft documents for implementing the programme of work—CD/1866/Rev.1, the draft schedule of activities, andCD/1867, the suggested chairs and special coordinators—has not yet been reached. The process currently appears to be stuck on the issue of “protecting national security interests” through the procedural documents, as Pakistan’s delegation urges, and building an unambiguous foundation for future work, as China’s delegation requires. 

Concerns with the proposed documents
Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram noted that his delegation has suggested “that the special security interests of non-nuclear weapon states, that do not belong to a military alliance or enjoy a security umbrella, deserve special consideration—even in procedural matters, so that they are in a better place to protect their interests”. He also noted that several delegations, including his, “have made proposals and sought clarifications on some aspects of the two draft documents before us,” CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867. He urged for the two documents to be merged for the sake clarity and clearly indicate that they are relevant only for the remainder of the CD’s 2009 session.

Agreeing with the Pakistani delegation, Iran’s representative emphasized the importance of addressing delegations’ concerns about the two documents, arguing that outlining the practical start to negotiations requires common understanding of the approach. He expressed optimism that the CD is very close to being able to implement its programme of work. Egypt’s representative likewise argued that the valid security concerns of all parties must be adequately addressed to ensure consensus, which is a prerequisite for movement.

China’s representative told the Conference that no delegation has a right to ignore or prevent consideration of other delegations’ concerns about procedural matters. Mr. Li Yang also outlined specific elements of China’s position on the two draft documents, arguing for the importance of foundation. He noted that the delegations that wished to build a solid foundation for their work are being criticized for trying to block the work of the CD and waste its momentum. However, he argued, more than a month after the programme of work was adopted, the CD still does not know the length of the chair’s mandates, how the rotations would work, where the rolling text would come from, or how meetings would be arranged. Mr. Li Yang explained that the Chinese delegation has no problems with CD/1866/Rev.1 or CD/1867, but that it is concerned that these issues would affect its future work, in 2010.

Concerns with the delay in implementation
In contrast, Mexico’s representative appealed to all delegations to “take advantage of the prevailing favourable climate to give new inspiration to the CD and return its credibility.” She warned against getting “bogged down” in procedure, arguing that questions on procedure are not related to security interests. US chargé d’affaires Garold Larson noted that the rules of procedure provide the necessary protection to states’ national security interests during the process of negotiations, which is why the United States supports the adoption of CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 to implement the programme of work. 

The representatives of the Republic of Korea and Ireland expressed disappointment that a month after the adoption of its programme of work, the CD would be well underway with its work. Ambassador Im Han-Taek of the Republic of Korea noted that because of the future implications of negotiation structures, the framework established now is very important. He said it would be ideal if the CD could address certain delegation’s concerns about the framework now, especially since CD/1866/Rev.1 and CD/1867 do contain some ambiguities. However, he argued, to get the CD off the ground it might be necessary to maintain some “constructive ambiguity” for the time being.

Mr. James O’Shea of Ireland commented on Ambassador Akram’s statement about affording special consideration to non-nuclear weapons states, saying that as a non-nuclear weapon statement, Ireland does not seek any special treatment in procedural issues. However, Mr. O’Shea also noted, “it is true that we, the states in this Conference that are in a particular position from a security point of view … hope that in the longer term there will be no distinctions in this Conference between states with and without nuclear weapons, that we would all have a world free of nuclear weapons for everyone.”

The current CD president, Ambassador Millar of Australia, said she would undertake intensive consultations with delegations during the CD’s summer break to try to reach consensus on the implementation of the programme of work.

Ambassador Brasack’s farewell statement
In his farewell speech, Ambassador Brasack of Germany reminded the CD that the programme of work is not yet action, but the promiseof action. He warned against falling back into “sleepwalking mode” and argued that it is not just the task, but the duty of the CD to negotiate relevant treaties. On this note, he offered some personal, not-cleared-by-capital advice regarding the negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT). 

FMCT negotiations
Regarding definitions of an FMCT, Ambassador Brasack said he believes that the perspective that states have to agree on all the underlying definitions before beginning negotiations on scope or verification is incorrect. He argued this would be a “dead-end” for negotiations, since “[d]efinitions are a servant to the intended scope,” and “should be in tune with effective verification measures.” He suggested that definitions, scope, and verification be treated in parallel and fine-tuned to each other throughout the course of negotiations.

Ambassador Brasack also argued that if verification is entrusted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it would require a dramatic overhaul of the Agency, especially in terms of its inspection system and resources. This advice comes just as Yukiya Amano of Japan was today chosen to be the new Director General of the IAEA. Ambassador Brasack suggested such an overhaul “would be possible with the acceptance of IAEA verification of fuel cycle plants in nuclear weapon states on a voluntary basis, as a measure of a steady phase-in.” He noted this would alleviate “one of the unequal features of the NPT,” wherein non-nuclear weapon states have to place all of their nuclear facilities under safeguards while the nuclear weapon states do not.

Ambassador Brasack also warned fissile material-producing states against trying to “pre-cook” an FMCT by working out a lowest common denominator arrangement behind closed doors and then forcing it upon the rest of the CD. He noted that this strategy led to failure in Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) negotiations on cluster munitions and would lead to failure again in FMCT negotiations.

He called for equal standards to be applied to all states, arguing that pleading for unlimited verification requirements for non-nuclear weapon states while “raising at the same time an unlimited number of questions and concerns and asking for manifold exemptions, as soon as the FMCT-verification of ones own relevant nuclear installations is concerned, would also doom the FMCT negotiations to failure.”

Specific proposals
Ambassador Brasack suggested the CD set up a Group of Scientific and Safeguards Experts now, to consider questions of verification. He also suggested that discussions about stocks should not be approached “upfront in a generic way” but rather should “be started in the context of the requirements for an effective verification system.” Specifically, he explained, if “an effective verification of the production of ban required a specific tangible baseline for the cut-off, it might be necessary to provide data on the size of the existing stocks at least in an aggregate manner.” He also noted the issue of existing stocks would need to be addressed when dealing with “possible transfer bans.”

Further, Ambassador Brasack argued that an immediate binding moratorum on fissile material production for explosive purposes is necessary to avoid “complicating matters unnecessarily” and delaying negotiations.

Shout-outs to civil society
In his closing remarks, Ambassador Brasack of Germany commended the efforts of many civil society organizations, including theWomen’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, and the Middle Powers Initiative, among others.

Notes from an Australian MP
Mr. Kelvin Thomson of the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Treaties, said his committee has been asked by the Prime Minister to carry out an inquiry on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and provide a report. So far, it has focused on the need for real outcomes for the NPT 2010 Review Conference and the need to strengthen arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament architecture and some of the relevant steps on the way to disarmament—inter alia, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, IAEA safeguards, FMCT, and multilateral fuel assurances.

Other business
The CD approved observer status for Thailand. The third part of the CD’s 2009 session will meet from 3 August to 18 September.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF