The CD Report

The CD Report is a weekly reporting service from Reaching Critical Will, prepared in collaboration with the WILPF Geneva office. To receive these weekly summaries, fill out the subscription form.
The CD Report is made possible through the Arsenault Foundation. To support RCW, see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/donate.htm

Access our archives: 2004 and 2003

First Session

January 31, 2005

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) opened its first session of 2005 last week under the rotating Presidency of Netherlands. The CD Secretary-General, Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, delivered a message on behalf of the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Russia, Peru, Kenya, France, Poland, Germany and Algeria also delivered official statements. All available statements can be found here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html.

The Conference on Disarmament is the world's lone forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament treaties. Past successes include the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). However, the CD, has been unable to agree on a program of work for the past 8 years, a disagreement that has blocked all substantive progress on important issues such as fissile materials, the weaponization of outer space, nuclear disarmament and more. (The standing agenda of the CD, or Decalogue, can be found here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/agenda533.pdf).

Dutch Ambassador Chris Sanders, in his role as Rotating President of the CD, warned the 66-member body that "if the present problems persist, the CD might well lose its relevance, and follow in the footsteps of the UNDC," a reference to the United Nations Disarmament Commission, which has also failed to reach agreement during its last substantive session. Agreement on an agenda for the next UNDC meeting has also yet to be reached.

Ambassador Sanders pledged "to be pragmatic, and make an effort to get the CD back to work," he said, clarifying, "Real work."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan affirmed the "critical" role of disarmament in "conflict prevention, peace-building and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals." He called upon all CD Members "to seriously consider" the recommendations of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, which urged the CD to "move without further delay to negotiate a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty that, on a designated schedule, ends the production of highly enriched uranium for non-weapon as well as weapons purposes."

You can read the High-Level Panel report in its entirety, as well as a brief RCW analysis of the report on our website.

Russia's Ambassador Leonid Skotnikov noted his country's recent ratification of the Amended Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons convention, showing their "full commitment to the solution of the 'landmine' problem." Russia views the Protocol as "an optimal solution" that "unites both supporters of an immediate ban...and those who advocate a step-by-step approach."

Ambassador Elizabeth Astete discussed some of Peru's commitments to disarmament, such as their membership in the Organization on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (OPANAL), ratification of the CTBT and other regional efforts. Ambassador Astete warned of decreasing support for the 13 Practical Steps, established in the Final Document of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stressing that "(i)t is necessary to reinforce the international compromises on disarmament." She also implored the CD to demonstrate "flexibility" in their search for a balanced program of work, one which takes into account the "significant" changes to the international system while maintaining "the traditional themes ...of enormous relevance for the collective security" of all.

Ambassador Amina Mohamed of Kenya discussed the "resounding success" of the recent Nairobi Summit on a Mine Free World, which adopted "the Nairobi Plan of Action 2005-2009," which outlines commitments to universalization of the Ottawa Convention, the destruction of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines, assistance to mine victims, and more.

Ambassador Rivesseau of France urged the Conference to consider "the new menaces" that challenge international security and suggested that the Conference introduce the topic of terrorism into its discussions.

Algeria's Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry deplored the emergence of "new military doctrines" that work in conjunction with the notion of preventive war, presenting challenges to the international commmunity of unprecedented gravity. Algeria reaffirmed their support for the Final Document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly, the A5 Agenda, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 13 Practical Steps, which "regrettably...remained dead letter and no progress was recorded in this field."

As the CD met on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, both Poland's Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki as well as Germany's Ambassador Volker Heinsberg, gave brief interventions commemorating the horror of the Nazi death camps.

*******************************
Rhianna Tyson
Project Manager
Reaching Critical Will

February 15
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) has held an array of formal and informal sessions over the past two weeks, as part of their efforts of adopting a program of work. Dutch Ambassador Chris Sanders, outgoing President of the Conference, had attempted to obtain consensus on the appointment of Special Coordinators for four subsidiary bodies, but without success.

Several Member States offered their perspectives on reaching consensus on a program of work. New Zealand suggested that rules of procedure, which ensure that the Conference operates on consensus, may be the structural problem blocking necessary progress. New Zealand also reminded its colleagues of the high expectations of the CD, placed not only by the United Nations but also by the States Parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

South Africa suggested that the CD should suspend its activities until a consensus-based resolution from the General Assembly was adopted, which would mandate the CD to commence negotiations. The 2004 resolution on a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) was adopted by the First Committee by a vote of 147-1-2, with the United Kingdom and Israel abstaining and the United States voting against.

Pakistan rejected the proposal to suspend the CD, insisting that the CD should remain engaged, rather than be "put to sleep". Ambassador Umer argued that if the duties of the Conference were appropriated by other fora- an implicit reference to the Security Council- it would be a "collective misfortune" for multilateralism.

Norway, showing interest in the South African proposal, referenced a workshop held in Oslo in December of 2003 on the revitalization of disarmament machinery, wherein participants discussed "consequences" for machinery with "no activity in sight". He suggested that the Conference should establish three to four subsidiary bodies, with the proper mandates, and stressed that Norway's priority lies with negotiating a verifiable FMCT.

Russia reiterated its priority to prevent an arms race in outer space and reiterated its commitment not to be the first to place weapons of any kind in outer space, a declaration first announced at this past year's General Assembly First Committee. China announced that they, Russia, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and the Simons Foundation would be holding an international conference on "Safeguarding Space Security" on 21 and 22 March in Geneva.

Spain advocated for "imaginative solutions" to breaking the deadlock, and declared that they were ready to demonstrate flexibility on the CD agenda, so long as it "integrated the goals" of the Conference and did not compete with other international fora.

Italy, too, declared that its priority remains with an FMCT, but that they respected other priorities, including terrorism, conventional disarmament, outer space and negative security assurances. Italy also deplored the recent announcement by North Korea that it was withdrawing from the Six-Party Talks, prompting a response from North Korea immediately thereafter.

On February 8, the Conference officially adopted a broad agenda based on the Decalogue, but failed to reach consensus on the establishment of any subsidiary bodies, as called for in the Five Ambassadors' (A5) Proposal. French Ambassador Rivasseau noted with satisfaction the informal debates on the agenda that had taken place. He suggested that the Conference's troubles reflect its inability to adapt to the new security environment, maintaining, as France often does, that the CD should discuss "new issues" such as terrorism.

March 7

Lately, landmines have been the focus at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva. On February 17, Colombia announced its recent destruction of 6,784 anti-personnel mines, the last of 18,501 in the military stockpile to be destroyed. The remaining 986 mines, maintained Ambassador Ucros, would be used only "for the instruction and training of deminers."

Last week the CD commemorated the sixth anniversary of the entry-into-force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known otherwise as the Ottawa Convention.

On the March 3 anniversary, Austria, Canada, Kenya, Algeria, Australia, Switzerland, Argentina, Belgium, Croatia, Norway, the United States, Italy and Venezuela all made statements under the presidency of New Zealand.

Austria's Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch discussed the objectives and achievements of the Convention's First Review Conference in Nairobi, over which he presided. He noted that 144 States have ratified the Convention, which "has established an international standard", and that, as a result of the Convention, "produc(tion) and trade with this perilous weapon has almost completely ceased."

Ambassador Petritsch highlighted five of the 70 "concrete actions" agreed upon in Nairobi, including:
- "universal adherence to the Convention will remain an important priority";
- "mak(ing) sure that States Parties meet the 10-year mine-clearance deadline" as "the most significant challenge for the next 5 years";
- a recommitment "for the care, rehabilitation and reintegration of mine victims";
- "the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines...(as) a key priority";
- acknowledging the "substantial political, financial and material commitments" which will be required to meet the Convention's aims.

Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada stressed the norm-building function of the Ottawa Convention, noting the "de facto observance throughout the international community...even by States outside of the Convention." He also noted that "(o)f the 135 States that participated, 25 were States not yet Party, the majority of which expressed their overwhelming support of the principles and objectives behind this Convention, many stating publically their intention to eventually join." Canada, which holds the Chair of the Universalization Contact Group, believes that "there is good reason to believe that continued momentum towards universalization will achieve impressive results in the near future."

Canada urged hold-out States to "take steps to further emphasize their commitment to (the convention's) humanitarian objectives, through issuing on a national basis moratoria not to produce or transfer anti-personnel landmines, initiating stockpile destruction programmes, funding mine action initiatives, or... submitting voluntary transparency reports." Such unilateral actions, he stressed, "would reflect and support the important international norm established by the Convention."

The United States, one of the major producers of landmines and a non-party to the Convention, reiterated that it was "not yet in a position to join the Convention", but that the US has proposed a ban on the sale or export of "persistent" landmines. Ambassador Cynkin stressed that this proposed ban was meant to be a "complementary measure" to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).

Kenya, which hosted the Review Conference, urged States to implement the Nairobi Action Plan and "persistently apply the Common African Position on Anti-Personnel Mines, which was adopted by African Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 23 September 2004." Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Owade stressed the need to universalize the Convention, assist African States parties in fulfilling their obligations, enhance assistance to mine victims and work toward realization of other objectives in the Action Plan.

Australia, Switzerland, Argentina, Croatia, Algeria, Belgium and Italy briefly expressed their support for the Convention and noted their national progress in fulfilling the objectives of the Convention and the Nairobi Action Plan.

Australia's Ambassador Michael Smith also noted "one of the striking features of the Ottawa treaty (insofar as) it was negotiated, outside of the UN system and in partnership with civil society...This negotiation on landmines had to be taken out of the CD in order to produce real results that have impacted positively on millions of people's lives." Adding that, "frankly, the situation here has not improved since that happened," the CD, he fears, has "lost the ability to react and respond to new challenges in the arms control/disarmament field, or indeed to the old challenges." Norway echoed this sentiment, wondering out loud if an "Ottawa-like process" could be pursued on other issues that were "ripe for negotiation."

On March 3, New Zealand Ambassador Tim Caughley presented a "progress report" on his consultations as President of the CD. Using the non-paper put forth by the previous President, he ascertained "an overwhelming concern to get down to real work" on at least one, if not more, of the topics on the proposed agenda: Fissile Materials Treaty, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, Negative Security Assurances and nuclear disarmament.

The inability of the CD to appoint four Special Coordinators was met with "widespread regret." His efforts to enhance transparency were widely supported, and he felt a great level of support for the directions he is pursuing in breaking the impasse and adopting a program of work.

While the news on landmines is certainly encouraging, especially in light of the glacially slow progress on other disarmament fronts, many in the disarmament community are hoping for more movement by the CD on nuclear disarmament talks, especially with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference nearly around the corner. As Japan's Ambassador Yoshiki Mine stated on February 17, "It is essential that we maintain a robust and reliable NPT regime... The Conference on Disarmament is not the NPT, but I believe both have to work to achieve the common objective of international security."

March 15

On Thursday, March 10, the Conference on Disarmament observed International Women's Day, the one day a year when civil society is permitted to make a statement to the world's lone body for negotiating disarmament treaties. Afterward, the CD heard brief statements from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Algeria, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, and Germany, as well as a closing statement by the CD President. All available statements can be found here.

The session began with New Zealand's Ambassador Tim Caughley, who, as rotating President of the CD, read the NGO statement, which was produced from the International Women's Day Seminar held that week. Speaking in his national capacity, Ambassador Caughley remarked that he agreed with the Secretary-General's assertion that, “more organized and sustained dialogue with the NGO community...increases the likelihood that United Nations decisions will be better understood and supported by a broad and diverse public,” as quoted in the NGO statement.

Norway's Minister Paulsen hoped that the CD could hear the voices from civil society directly from the source. He agreed that the CD was a deadlocked body for the moment. However, the CD should invite representatives from civil society to the podium and listen to their concerns.

Ireland's Deputy Permanent Representative Fallon echoed the sentiments of New Zealand and Norway, deploring the continued lack of direct NGO access. He, too, is looking forward to the day when NGOs can participate directly in this forum. He believes that such increased participation not only reflects the spirit of the UN Panel on NGO participation (the Cardoso Report), but also of the UN charter itself.

Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands and Ambassador Volker Heinsberg of Germany also spoke in favour of direct NGO participation at the CD.

Remarking on the paralysis of the CD, Counsellor An Myong Hun of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea confessed that his delegation felt a sense of guilt regarding the time, labour, and money wasted in the past eight years without a program of work. While acknowledging the continuous efforts made by the majority of Member States to start discussions on the main issues, Counsellor An Myong Hun asserted that the problem did not lie in procedure or work method, but rather the lack of political will. He stressed the only way to revive the CD would be to decisively change the negative political approach of some.

Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, Ambassador Jazairy of Algeria stressed the importance of creating an atmosphere of security based on the principle of multilateralism and universality. He expressed the hopes of the Arab Group that the Nuclear Weapon States respect their commitments adopted at the 6th Review Conference, implement existing General Assembly resolutions, and work toward strengthening and affirming Nuclear Weapon Free Zones and the 13 Steps at the 7th Review Conference. He reiterated the Arab Group's concern with the spread of weapons in the Middle East, and called upon Israel to accede to the treaty and accept IAEA safeguards.

Finally, Ambassador Caughley provided another update on his ongoing bilateral consultations and the agenda for next week’s high level political focus. His consultations, based on an informal non-paper, have provided "valuable insights into the degree of their flexibility" on one or more of the four priority core issues: negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament, fissile materials treaty (FMCT) and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. He stated that no new or additional issues were put forward seem to be capable of securing consensus for inclusion in a programme of work.

On the FMCT, Ambassador Caughley noted the "main negotiating fault lines":

1) Securing agreement on an FMCT mandate without any conditions may lead to securing discussion mandates on the other three issues. This works in reverse as well: if the CD is able to secure discussion mandates for the three other issues, it may lead to acceptance of an FMCT mandate without conditions.

2) Those willing to negotiate an FMCT want to ensure that the negotiation encompasses verification talks.

He recognized that, "It is relatively easy to state the nature of the problem; it is much harder to suggest an answer." He did, however, suggest "a procedural way forward on the content of the mandate for the negotiation of the FMCT," through a subsidiary body on FMCT which would establish a group of experts "to advise it on matters relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed treaty."

Ambassador Caughley concluded that compromises which can "restore to the CD its credibility as a negotiating body" may "not be particularly palatable," but, "if (the CD) address(es) non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the negotiation of an FMCT, it will contribute to the security of every nation."

In upcoming weeks, the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Peru, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Slovakia, Japan and Poland will address the CD.

-Philomena De Agrella,
WILPF Disarmament Intern

March 21

High-level governmental representatives continue to address the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva as part of the efforts to draw attention to the world's lone body for negotiating disarmament treaties and to impel the long-stalemated body into action.

On March 15, the CD heard statements from the Foreign Ministers of Peru, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine.

Finland's Minister Tuomioja warned of the "danger that this conference will sink into irrelevance" if it does not adopt a program of work as quickly as possible. He urged the CD to "redeem itself by engaging, finally and in earnest, in the FMCT negotiations". The Minister did not specify whether or not Finland supports the inclusion of verification in these negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials, which is one of the greatest sticking points blocking negotiation at this stage.

He also discussed Finland's activity in creating "common global standards for arms exports...based on existing international obligations under relevant international law."

Minister Borys Tarasyuk of Ukraine, a country which once possessed the third largest nuclear arsenal, reaffirmed his country's faith in the NPT as "the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament."

Netherlands' Minister Bok acknowledged "a major challenge for the Review Conference" will be to update the Thirteen Steps, which remains, in the eyes of his delegation, "the benchmark for progress toward disarmament."

He reaffirmed "the utmost importance" of the entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, "the need for a further reduction of tactical nuclear weapons" as well as an FMCT. He also urged greater transparency and more regular reporting on the part of the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS).

Minister Bok also stated that the Netherlands "fully support the activities of the IAEA Working Group on Multinational Approaches", the report of which was issued just a few weeks ago.

Sweden's Minister Freivalds maintained that the problem of the CD deadlock "is not diplomatic. It is political." As such, she argued, "(p)olitical difficulties require political attention"; she urged "(t)hose blocking progress must be made to understand that the inertia in the CD is doing damage to both their own security and to our common security."

Likewise, the Minister reasoned, "the problem" of the NPT "is not the...Treaty itself, but the way States choose to comply or not comply with various commitments as they deem politically opportune. Non-compliance breeds non-compliance," she asserted, linking the "lacklustre disarmament" with the proliferation challenges from some Non-Nuclear Weapon States.

On March 17, the CD heard statements from the Foreign Ministers of Kazakhstan, Slovakia and Poland, as well as statements from representatives from Japan, Algeria, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Ambassador Tim Caughley, the outgoing President of the CD.

Minister Tokayev offered "the basic position of Kazakhstan on the major issues in disarmament and security," including "universal application of the regimes of non-proliferation", support and ratification of the IAEA Additional Protocol, support for a legally binding agreement on negative security assurances, early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, involvement in the negotiations to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, the draft Treaty of which was finalized in February 2005. He also expressed explicit support for an "internationally verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile materials."

The failure of the CD to negotiate an FMCT, said Minister Kukan of Slovakia, is "a hard blow to the credibility of this body...(and) has to be addressed with utmost seriousness". Minister Kukan, while acknowledging that "a major breakthrough in the CD seems yet unlikely to happen soon," highlighted two "windows of opportunity" that should be seized: the NPT Review Conference and implementation of Security Council resolution 1540. Taking advantage of these opportunites "would create an overall positive atmosphere" and "have a strong impact on...confidence-building efforts as well."

Japan's Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs offered suggestions to break the CD stalemate. He noted that while "(t)here may well exist different perspectives with regard to the possible substance of negotiations" on an FMCT, "no Member State...disagrees on the commencement of negotiations itself." They should, therefore, "begin without further delay, and eventual questions on verification can be resolved during negotiations."

He also suggested that "the CD should be examined in a new light" in the spirit of UN reform that is currently underway.

Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs drew attention to the "New Political Act" that they submitted to the UN Secretary-General in February of this year. The New Political Act offers "a new consensus over how the UN Charter could best serve the implementation of its principles and objectives at the dawn of the XXI century."

Finally, Ambassador Tim Caughley, offering a statement as outgoing President of the CD, affirmed his support for the A5 Proposal. "The deal that it represents," he stated, "necessarily contains elements that are not universally palatable. That is what compromises are all about. The individual pills may be bitter to swallow but the dose in this case is ineffective unless we swallow them all."

Nigeria's Ambassador Ayologu will assume the Presidency this week.
*******************************
Rhianna Tyson
Project Manager

March 25

With just two weeks left until the close of the CD session, and just one month before the start of the Seventh Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Ambassador Ayalogu of Nigeria, the new rotating President of the Conference, faces a sizeable task.

In the first session under the Nigerian Presidency, Pakistan took the floor of the CD, followed by brief notes from Algeria and Hungary and a right of reply from India. All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html.

In order to affect “a positive change in the process of the CD…(that) can possibly energize the NPT,” Ambassador Ayalogu intends to continue consultations based on the “Food for Thought” paper used by his predecessors, Ambassadors Sanders and Caughley, of Netherlands and New Zealand, respectively. If, however, “after two weeks, there were no positive indications of broad support” for the ‘Food for Thought’ paper, he will then “focus the search light on the A5 proposal,” a “multidimensional approach” that may enable the CD to “identify and narrow down” possible points of consensus.

He will also be meeting with the Regional Coordinators, who will be asking their groups:

”1) What are the problems in your groups in commencing discussions on the Five Ambassadors Proposals (A-5)? and
2) What are the amendments if any, or the accommodation that your group is willing to make on the A5 in order to facilitate discussions?”

Quoting Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Freivalds, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan noted that the failure of the CD is “political”, not “diplomatic”. He believed that, “if the stalemate is deliberate, not advertent, it cannot be broken with innovative semantics, as the dynamic of this Conference is influenced by the changing paradigm of international politics.”

Ambassador Khan, the CD's newest member, said that whenever negotiations on an Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT) begin, they must cover existing stockpiles and include an effective verification mechanism. Also, they should strive to Prevent an Arms Race in Outer Space. Furthermore, he asserted, the Conference on Disarmament should include a program of work on conventional arms control at regional and sub-regional levels, and it should also take up the issue of missiles in all their aspects.

Ambassador Khan also touched on Pakistan’s nuclear capability, insisting that “pursuit of nuclear capability was security driven, not status driven,” and proceeded to explain at length the modus operandi of his country’s nuclear program and the measures they have undertaken to prevent proliferation, ensure safety and responsibility of their arsenal, and easing tensions with its nuclear neighbor, India.

Algeria’s Ambassador Jazairy expressed concerns that the "Food for Thought" paper might have actually increased the divide on the issues stalling the program of work of the CD. He reiterated his delegation’s support of the A5 proposal, of which Algeria is a principal drafter, and called on the President to carry out negotiations based solely on that.

Ambassador Tibor Tóth of Hungary, who presided over the Fifth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), remarked on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the entry-into-force of the BWC. He announced that the DVD containing the video files of the 2004 meeting of experts and the meeting of States Parties of the BWC are available to the States Parties of the BWC. He also asked the States to reply to their questionnaire in order to update the Repository.

In a right of reply to the lengthy statement by Pakistan, Ambassador Jayant Prasad of India stated that “India does not accept the linkage between nuclear restraint and conventional balance. The defence requirements and threat perceptions of India and Pakistan are not identical, hence we do not entertain the idea of a conventional military balance between India and Pakistan.” Ambassador Prasad insisted that India was open to all constructive suggestions on nuclear and conventional confidence building measures.

The two weeks that remain before the close of the CD, might just be, as Ambassador Ayalogu worried, "too short to expect such changes" that would be necessary to impel progress in that august body. Soon, members of the CD, as well as States party to the NPT and the NGOs that closely monitor these fora, must turn to the NPT Review Conference itself, with the hopes that its outcome, as stated by Ambassador Ayalogu, will be the basis of newfound political will needed to "energize or catalyze the CD."

March 31

Another session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) has come and gone and, despite the immense pressure of the looming Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 66-member Conference failed to adopt a program of work or make substantive progress in disarmament and nonproliferation.

Under the rotating Presidency of Nigeria, the final CD session heard statements from Japan, the New Agenda Coalition, Mexico and the United Kingdom. All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html.

Japan's Ambassador Mine suggested, "that the term of the CD presidency," which lasts four weeks and rotates alphabetically, "is too short to ensure consistency and integrity" and recommended "therefore, that it be extended." Such a re-structuring of the rules of procedure could help address "an institutional deficit of the CD," which has been unable to agree on a program of work since it concluded negotiations on a Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty eight years ago.

Ambassador Mine recognized what he views as "a strong momentum in the CD" toward reaching agreement on an agenda. "It is the responsibility of the CD members," he concluded, "to keep the momentum to initiate substantial work in the CD".

New Zealand's Ambassador Tim Caughley, speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), expressed grave disappointment in yet another failed CD session, which has "not only harmed the credibility of the Conference on Disarmament but (has) done nothing to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself."

Ambassador Caughley reminded the Conference that the CD was charged by the 2000 and 1995 NPT Review Conferences to conclude negotiations on a verifiable treaty halting the production of fissile material (Fissile Materials Treaty, or FMT). "Each unfulfilled agreement and undertaking reached at Review Conferences," he warned, "merely serves to diminish the Treaty, not strengthen it."

He recalled the "broad support" for General Assembly resolution 59/75, sponsored by the NAC, which "surely demonstrates increased impatience and dissatisfaction" with nuclear disarmament commitments and the "efforts by several of the nuclear weapon States to renege from the agreed practical steps" contained in the 2000 Final Document. These "attempts to downplay or undercut the 2000 outcome serve only to draw attention to nuclear disarmament and away from nonproliferation."

While attention must surely be paid to nonproliferation and nuclear energy, the other two pillars of the treaty, the NAC insisted that "the focus" of the 2005 Review Conference "must be on systematic and progressive efforts to implement the obligation in Article VI" relating to nuclear disarmament. The NAC, he forewarned, "will not accept the mere reiteration of solemn undertakings entered into at past Review Conferences (that are) left unfulfilled."

The NAC also drew attention to the recent report, "In Larger Freedom," wherein the Secretary-General asserted that "the unique status of the nuclear weapon States also entails a unique resonsibility, and they must do more, including but not limited to further reductions in their arsenals and pursuing arms control agreements that entail not just dismantlement but irreversibility."

(Reaching Critical Will offers an analysis of the High-Level Panel report, "A More Secure World," upon which the Secretary-General's report is largely based.)

In this vein, and in correspondance with GA resolution 59/75, the NAC "will press for practical implementation of existing obligations and undertakings, including the universalization of the Treaty... and will insist on further reductions in the strategic and non-strategic nuclear arsenals and the operalization of steps agreed upon." He maintained that in order "to gain the confidence of the international community," these further reductions "must incorporate the essential elements of irreversibility, verification and transparency."

Mexico's Ambassador Macedo briefly discussed the upcoming Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) treaties, to be held in Mexico City April 26-28. This meeting seeks to strengthen effectiveness of existing NWFZs as well as to "contribute to the success" of the NPT Review Conference. Mexico remains "convinced that the establishment of new zones, including the consolidation of existing zones, constitute an invaluable contribution to international peace and security as well as to the cause of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation."

In the spirit of interactivity, the UK's Ambassador Freeman associated his country with the remarks of Japan, which offered "a right perspective" on the CD. Like Japan, the UK finds "some positive evolution" and "a recognition of the possible" through the work of the past CD Presidents from New Zealand and Netherlands, and he has faith in the diplomatic skills of Nigeria's Ambassador Ayelogu to build on this momentum.

For his part, Ambassador Ayelogu recognized the work that he must undertake these next few weeks before the Review Conference: "the intersessional period," he sighed, "is not a holiday for the President."

Nor should it be for any other CD Member or NPT State party, who have but one month before the start of the NPT Review Conference and many issues- procedural as well as substantive- upon which to reach agreement.

The CD Report will be suspended until the start of the second CD session, scheduled to resume June 2. In the meanwhile, be sure to follow the NPT negotiations through a subscription to the News in Review, the daily newsletter from Reaching Critical Will reporting from the Conference, including updates on the Main Committees, NGO side events, interviews with diplomats and much more. The NIR is distributed each day to all NPT participants and is available in PDF format through a free subscription service. To subscribe, fill out the form at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/action/joinlistform.html

Second Session

June 13

The Conference on Disarmament (CD), the world’s lone body for negotiating disarmament treaties, opened its second session of 2005 in Geneva on June 2. All statements from this session are available on our website.

At its first meeting after the abysmal failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon), CD President Joseph Ayalogu of Nigeria noted that the failure of the Review Conference has “widened the gap” between the divergent positions at the CD, which hasn’t been able to agree on a way forward in eight years.

So far, however, the obstructionist tactics of a few that mired the RevCon (see News in Review, No. 21) seem to continue at the CD. Ayalogu noted that 60 of the 66 delegations that are members of the Conference support the A5 agenda- the proposed work program from five ambassadors from Belgium, Algeria, Chile, Colombia, and Sweden. Without consensus support, however, the Conference cannot adopt it as a program of work. Some delegations, noted Ayalogu, recommended that the CD President "marry" the A5 agenda with that of the "Food for Thought" paper, "generally a watered down version of the A5", which was circulated by the previous CD President from the Netherlands.

Of the three regional groups, only the Western Group does not support the A5 agenda, while the Eastern European Group and the Group of 21- the Non-Aligned members of the CD- have voiced support.

The issues blocking consensus continue to be the mandates for discussions on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and for negative security assurances (NSAs). During his consultations, President Ayalogu heard support for starting negotiations on an FMCT without "pre-conditions"- that is, eliminating references to verification in the mandate for the negotiations, a position favored by the United States, which does not believe that an FMCT can be verified.

Of the five delegations which took the floor on June 2, only Algeria discussed the outcome of the NPT Review Conference as evidence of the need for the CD to step up its efforts in addressing "nuclear disarmament and freeing... mankind from these lethal weapons." (While we appreciate the sentiment of the statement by Algeria's Hamza Khelif, we urge him nevertheless to read "NPT Gender Credentials" on page 4 of the News in Review Final Edition.)

Russia noted the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which was adopted by the General Assembly on April 13, and suggested that the Conference on Disarmament "could contribute to fighting international terrorism by adopting at the earliest possible moment a balanced programme of work."

India discussed national measures it has taken in accordance with Security Council resolution 1540, which calls upon all Member States to enact national legislation criminalizing the development, acquisition, manufacturing, possession, transport or transfer of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery by a non-state actor.

Speaking on one of its favorite topics, Poland took the floor to praise the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was launched two years ago in Krakow. Turkey, too, used the opportunity of the PSI anniversary to announce that participants of the Initiative will "hold a joint land, air and sea exercise in 2006 in the East Mediterranean, under Turkey's auspices and lead."

In its second meeting of the second session, Russia and China took the floor to speak on the need to Prevent an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), a "major issue of international security" made "even more urgent" in light of "the news (that has) arriv(ed in) recent weeks," a reference made by Russia's Ambassador Skotnikov to the May 18 report in the New York Times that the Bush administration was moving towards implementing a new space policy that would move the US closer to placing offensive and defensive weapons in space.

Russia and China submitted a new non-paper on "Definition Issues", which draws on other joint Russian-Chinese documents on PAROS, including a June 2002 working paper (CD/1679) on "Possible Elements for a Future International Legal Agreement", an informal paper on "Comments and Suggestions" to the working paper, distributed July 31, 2003 and "Existing International Legal Instrument" and "Verification Aspects" circulated in August 2004.

The new non-paper offers specific proposals on definitions of "outer space", "outer space objects", "weapon (in outer space)" and others, and is intended to be "mainly an invitation to common creative work, a food for thought and further discussions." Skotnikov also announced their "intention to organize a new meeting of an open-ended group to discuss all three thematic non-papers by the Russian and Chinese delegations."

Canada welcomed the new non-paper from Russia and China, and reiterated their preference to continue work on the issue "via a re-established Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS that was an earlier feature of this Conference." Ambassador Meyer also noted Canada's support for the creation of "an experts group on PAROS (that would) look at topics like definitions" and suggested that Russia's proposal to organize an open-ended working group be "pursued...in consultation with the Presidency with a view to providing the Conference with an appropriate forum in which to consider and comment on these working papers in the manner that they deserve."

Also last week, the European Union submitted their Common Position relating to the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT as a CD document. "The European Union," said the Netherlands' Ambassador Chris Sanders on its behalf, "thinks the document might also be useful for the Conference on Disarmament."

In the coming weeks, the CD may hold informal sessions to discuss "In Larger Freedom", the report of the Secretary-General and the High-Level Panel report on which the Secretary-General's report is based.

June 17

The incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Ambassador Wegger Strømmen of Norway, made it quite clear from the start that he does not intend to attempt to resolve “the impasse of the CD… by clever procedural drafting exercises.” His and all other statements made this week at the CD can be found here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html.

“The passivity in this chamber is nothing but a reflection of insufficient political willingness in a number of capitals to negotiate treaty law,” Ambassador Strømmen continued to assert. He urged States to adhere to a thematic basis for each of the four formal plenary meetings that will be held under his presidency: nuclear disarmament on June 23; fissile material cut-off on June 28; outer space on June 30 and security assurances on July 7.

France spoke on behalf of the European Union, and once again offered the EU Common Position in the NPT framework as a starting point for introducing new issues.

Most, including Japan, Italy, Brazil and Mexico, welcomed the approach by Ambassador Strømmen and cited the need for all delegations to remain flexible. While welcoming the President’s proposed schedule, some also reiterated their right to raise any issue they choose to raise at any point they choose to raise it, including the Netherlands, the US and Algeria.

Ireland and Brazil both reiterated their delegations' long-standing flexibility, noting that they stood ready to support a variety of proposals, including the Amorim Proposal, the A5 Agenda or the Food-For-Thought paper.

The United States, too, noted the need for flexibility on issues relating to the CD’s agenda, since most of them, the US believes, “are basically relics from the cold war.” Brazil rebutted, asserting that the real “relic is that we have to face the question of nuclear weapons and the utilization of nuclear weapons, as part of certain strategic policies.” Brazil continued to assert that, “I think we have to deal with the question of nuclear disarmament and deal with nuclear arms as relics from a past, which we should overcome”.

June 27

Under the second session of the Conference on Disarmament's (CD) rotating Presidency of Norway, 28 delegations delivered statements on the floor, including the Netherlands, Japan, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group), China, Russia, Ireland, Syrian, Ethiopia (on behalf of the Group of 21), Pakistan, Switzerland, Mexico, Italy, Canada, Sweden, Chile, Germany, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Peru, Brazil, France, Argentina, South Korea, Algeria, Cuba, United Kingdom and Malaysia. All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second.

This plenary session was the first of four planned by Ambassador Strømmen to address the main issues of the CD: 1) Nuclear Disarmament, 2) Fissile Materials, 3) Outer Space and 4) Security Assurances.

Of these 28 States, most expressed support for familiar issues, such as the commencement of negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an Ad Hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as well as one exclusively focused on security assurances. Many reiterated their commitment to already-agreed upon principles, such as irreversibility and transparency in their application to nuclear disarmament measures. Japan, China, Russia, Ireland, Syria, Mexico, the Group of 21, Canada, Germany, Cuba, South Africa, Malaysia, Chile and other countries supported establishing within the Conference an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with nuclear disarmament, as is proposed in the A5 agenda, the most widely-supported proposed agenda for the long stalemated Conference.

Some Nuclear Weapon States (NWS), including France, China, the UK and Russia, used this focused plenary to once again reiterate their commitment to nuclear disarmament, and rehash some well-rehearsed policies on the matter. (The US was the only recognized NWS that chose not to address the issue of nuclear disarmament.) China, however, recognized the growing tendency to stress non-proliferation while downplaying nuclear disarmament, an unusual perspective from a NWS. Ambassador Hu called for the implementation of appropriate intermediate measures of nuclear disarmament, maintaining that the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament was the preferable platform for such action. He also asserted that the link between preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and progress on nuclear disarmament went hand in hand.

Ambassador Skotnikov of the Russian Federation insisted that his country has no objection to the program of work proposed in the A5 agenda or in Ambassador Sanders’ Food-For-Thought paper. However, the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee with a mandate only “to deal with” PAROS is not Russia’s optimal strategy. Ambassador Skotnikov also announced that Russia is prepared to study a possible solution of security assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapon States within the framework of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament.

Some countries used the opportunity to present newer ideas and proposals for moving the regime forward. In his farewell address to the CD, the Netherlands’ Ambassador Chris Sanders warned that the consensus rule in the UN system was increasingly misused by a small number of countries to veto proposals on minor issues. He also expressed concerned with the vitality of the UN disarmament machinery, which was created under very different circumstances than that of today. He suggested rethinking the mandates of the CD and the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC), and proposed that governments “settle for one single universal body… (such as) the (General Assembly) First Committee” which “seem(s) capable of negotiating treaties”.

In the same vein, Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden expressed hope that the reform of the United Nations, to be discussed at the September Millennium+5 (M+5) Summit, would be an opportunity to address the failure of existing machinery. She also proposed that the Conference take stock of what disarmament efforts had already been made or were on-going in other contexts, a proposal that Mexico's Ambassador Macedo thought was a good idea.

In an appeal for greater transparency, Ambassador Caughley of New Zealand asserted that the standing of this forum and its gravity of purpose should be conducted under the critical eye of the public. He, too, expressed hope for the M+5 Summit in New York, which can assess multilateral disarmament and arms control machinery and determine whether, and how, new parameters can be set.

Canada's Ambassador Meyer proposed that the Conference consider other issues, such as those of compliance and how best to implement principles or irreversibility and transparency and address the verification dimension. Non-strategic nuclear weapons and confidence building could also be addressed at the CD.

Ambassador Whelan of Ireland suggested that the Conference provide a forum where countries which have not ratified the NPT (Israel, India and Pakistan) could engage meaningfully in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues. These views and others were also supported by Ambassador Streuli of Switzerland.

Ambassador Mtshali of South Africa stated that any presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by the NWS was incompatible with the broader goal of the maintenance of international peace and security. He drew attention to a proposal of the 12 inter-related measures contained in its statement to the general debate of the NPT Review Conference.

Others, however, used the opportunity to reiterate long-standing positions. Ambassador Fonrouge of Argentina, for instance, used his time on the floor to reiterate its commitment to nuclear energy, the CTBT and further nuclear disarmament, which it viewed as dependent upon progress made on conventional weapons.

Syria and Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, once again condemned Israel for failing to subscribe to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to promote a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ), as called for in the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT. The Arab Group also asserted the continued validity of the 13 steps to disarmament, as agreed upon at the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, a point reiterated by Group of 21 and Peru.

Ambassadors Trezza and Rivasseau of Italy and France, respectively, referred to the EU common position established for the Review Conference. While noting the efforts made by NWS to present in a more transparent way figures on their nuclear arsenals and on their reduction, Ambassador Trezza also expressed his country's aspirations for more strengthened efforts by the NWS to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

Pakistan, like many of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) speaking that day, also expressed concern with the slow pace of disarmament, the lack of movement on the interrelated issues of test ban, fissile materials, outer space and negative assurances, and the stalled debate and dialogue on disarmament. He, too, expressed concern with the "gradual emaciation" of the existing multilateral forums, and voiced the need to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, as well as the need to fight terrorism and deny weapons of mass destruction access to terrorists. Concerning the need for his own country to disarm, Ambassador Khan noted that India and Pakistan are pursuing a "strategic restraint regime" and are making some progress.

Ambassador Prasad of India stated that as an NWS, India was conscious of its special responsibility towards nuclear disarmament. India's "defensive" security posture was marked by responsibility, restraint and predictability and was predicted on a minimum credible deterrence that precluded the doctrines of first use or pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, or the use of nuclear weapons against NNWS. India had continued to advocate legally binding international instruments to enshrine these commitments, and also to negotiate a legally binding instrument on security assurances to NNWS.

Speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, Ethiopia's Ambassador Yimer reaffirmed the Group's priority for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific framework of time, and expressed support for a Nuclear Weapon Convention.

With so many States speaking on so many issues in just one plenary, it may be difficult to separate and understand each of these nuanced positions. It is for this reason that, at the end of each session, Reaching Critical Will updates our Summary of Statements by Topic, a useful resource that helps activists understand where each country stands on each of the issues discussed at the Conference on Disarmament.

Tomorrow, the CD will meet to discuss issues relating to Fissile Materials. On Thursday, it will look at the ongoing struggle to prevent the weaponization of outer space.

June 29

At the second “focused” plenary session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), 20 delegations spoke on the issue of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), including Pakistan, France, South Africa, China, Peru (on behalf of Latin American countries), Germany, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Egypt, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Republic of Korea, the United States and Malaysia. All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second.

Most of these 20 delegations elaborated their positions on the most controversial aspects of a proposed Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), namely its scope (whether or not to include existing stocks in the production cap), verification mechanisms and the mandate for the negotiations.

The Republic of Korea “see(s) merit in the South African Proposal (CD/1671)” which calls for the inclusion of existing stocks “already declared in excess”. South Korea supports addressing the issue of verification “through ‘cost-effective’ measures.” Ambassador Park also warned against particular entry-into-force requirements, recalling the grueling experience of “the ratification process of the (Comprehensive nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, or) CTBT”.

Italy maintained its position on an FMCT in direct accordance with the EU Common Position at the NPT Review Conference, which supports negotiations “without preconditions”- the new diplomatic code phrase that indicates a preference for discussing verification during the negotiations, rather than before they even start. Ambassador Trezza also underlined that an FMCT “would ‘cut off’ the production of the most dangerous nuclear fissile materials”- language which implies that Italy does not support including existing stocks- while maintaining that “(s)cope and verification of this treaty would be among the matters to be addressed in the negotiations, without,” he concluded, “pre-conditions.”

Russia, too, advocates for a scope to be limited to a ban only on “future production”, rather than the stocks already in existence. To do otherwise, Russia maintains, “would entail… establishing a cumbersome verification mechanism, and, accordingly, unacceptably high costs of its maintenance.” Russia also insisted that an FMCT should only ban production of materials specifically designed for weapons purposes- which would exclude fissile materials needed for nuclear submarines.

New Zealand’s Ambassador Tim Caughley wondered aloud if, given that the Shannon mandate “was so painstakingly and cleverly developed and accepted by this Conference” and that “stocks of fissile materials…have grown, perhaps significantly…can we afford to entertain the possibility that the mandate covering negotiations of an FMCT may exclude existing stocks as well as being devoid of specificity of verification?” He continued to assert that New Zealand “profoundly regrets this erosion of ambition” and “urge(d) the Nuclear Weapon States to reflect very carefully indeed on the vast, unreciprocated ground that we have already ceded in this drawn out and increasingly untenable dynamic in the Conference on Disarmament.”

South Africa’s Ambassador Mtshali called the United States’ position on an FMCT verification as “a unilateral conclusion (which is) a major setback and stumbling block in resuming negotiations” and opposed their position “being used as a precondition for negotiations.” South Africa also supports the inclusion of existing stocks, which would ensure that the negotiations do not “plac(e) emphasis on the non-proliferation objectives” but would rather lead it to “be a non-discriminatory disarmament measure as called for in (General Assembly) resolution 48/75L."

The United States, on the other hand, blamed the CD itself, rather than on its own seemingly isolated position against verification, for the lack of progress on this issue. It was the CD, asserted Thomas Cynkin, that must move beyond the Cold War era in order to live up to its potential "to be part of the action" in strengthening international peace and security.

China rejected the “view that the failure of an FMCT negotiation” is caused by their linkage of the issue to that of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). Ambassador Hu expressed his country’s support for the Shannon mandate while rejecting the issue of existing stockpiles. He did not state whether or not China believes in an FMCT’s verifiability.

Pakistan expressed the position of the Group of 21 (G21) given in March, which states that “a verifiable treaty on fissile materials is a sine qua non for the effective cessation of a nuclear arms race.” Pakistan also supports the inclusion of existing stocks, based on the belief that, “overtime, large fissile material stocks would be transformed into nuclear weapons, thus accentuating asymmetries…accelerat(ing), not arrest(ing) nuclear weapons proliferation.” Pakistan rejects “a moratorium on the production of fissile materials, before the conclusion of a treaty,” which most other countries very much support. Furthermore, Ambassador Khan emphasized that “a credible verification regime will be necessary to guarantee successful implementation.”

The new Netherlands Ambassador van Rhijn bemoaned the fact that, “We have already spent far too much time negotiating on the way we should negotiate.” He announced that the Netherlands might be organizing an informal meeting in September to discuss verifiability of an FMCT. Ireland’s Ambassador Whelan voiced her support for such “seminars and workshops organized outside this forum” which, she believes “have been very useful and very well attended.”

Canada’s Ambassador Meyer also finds them useful. He reiterated Canada's suggestion to “establish an FMCT Experts Group (to bring) together experts” to consider scope and verification, such as was established in the lead-up to negotiations on the Comprehensive nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Seminars, workshops and experts' groups are the types of fora which have contributed to the “vast pool of knowledge and documentation” which Sweden's Minister Hellgen reminded is at the CD's disposal. For their part, Sweden “strongly believe(s) that verification is technically feasible and politically desirable” and that “the scope of the Treaty should certainly include all weapons-grade materials.” Minister Hellgen also asserted that “solutions to the issue of nuclear submarine fuel,” which is often used by opponents of a comprehensive FMT, “can be found.”

This "vast pool of knowledge and documentation" includes, as the Conference was reminded by Japan's Ambassador Mine, informal draft treaties, such as the one submitted by Japan in 2003 (CD/1714). Japan, he declared, supports any mandate that allows for negotiations to be “conducted without preconditions.” While “Japan opposes any mandate that precludes the possibility of the inclusion of verification in the final outcome,” Ambassador Mine believes that “issues on verification should be resolved through negotiation, not necessarily before.”

It was Malaysia that had to remind the Conference of the real purpose of their work, drawing attention to the fact that “(t)he accumulation of weapons, in particular nuclear weapons, constitutes much more a threat than a protection for the future of the human race”. For this reason, they view the negotiation of an FMCT as “one of the next essential steps in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the break out of nuclear war.”

While the vast majority of governments and peoples share this view of Malaysia, it sure is taking the delegates a long time to take this next "essential" step.

June 30

Today, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) focused its plenary session on the issue of Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), with 21 States delivering interventions, including Germany, France, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Canada, Ethiopia (on behalf of the G21), the United Kingdom, China, Brazil, Russia, Pakistan, Sweden, Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, Mexico, Syria, Malaysia, South Korea and Cuba. All statements can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second.

As pointed out by Germany, the inadequacy of the existing legal framework regarding weapons in space, coupled with the growing "importance of the civil and commercial use of outer space... especially in the spheres of communication, navigation, environmental protection, weather forecast and monitoring," have contributed to the increasing attention to the need for steps to prevent an arms race in outer space. The most recent General Assembly (GA) resolution on the issue, 59/65, has received more votes than ever before, without "a single country object(ing) to it," as noted by Malaysia.

However, as the United Kingdom pointed out, "there is no international consensus on the need for further treaties". In addition, asserted Ambassador Freeman,"further legal codification of the use of space would be difficult both to agree and verify." He suggested instead to "think about adopting 'rules of the road' in space, similar to those that already exist at sea."

Most countries, including South Africa, Germany, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Canada and Brazil welcomed the efforts of Russia and China, which have submitted three thematic non-papers on the issue, including working paper CD/1679, on "Possible Elements for a Future International Legal Agreement on the Prevention of the Deployment of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects." Sri Lanka viewed this initiative as "an important step which we hope would contribute positively to the efforts to agree on a mandate for an Ad Hoc Committee to address this issue in the CD."

Russia maintained a conciliatory, if firm posture. Of all the proposals they have put forward, "nothing is carved in stone," assured Ambassador Skotnikov, who acknowledged the challenge of "convinc(ing) those who still express doubts about necessity of a new agreement on PAROS," and affirmed that Russia is "prepared to engage in such an effort."

While staunchly committed to not being the first to deploy weapons in space, Russia warned that, "if someone starts to place weapons in outer space we will have to react accordingly." Russia also announced that the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization- Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan- have also pledged a no-first deployment commitment.

The CD has done much work in advancing the PAROS campaign, as reminded by Sri Lanka. Through the previous Ad Hoc Committee, which last met in 1994, great progress had been made on the issue of PAROS, including France's call for confidence-building measures "to enhance the existing treaty regime and prevent the aggressive use of space." The Ad Hoc Committee first broached the issue of space debris, "which is now being taken to its necessary conclusion in the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS)", located in Vienna.

Italy briefly discussed the ways in which "space security is closely linked to a discipline of ballistic missiles launching," noting that, "(u)nannounced launches of missiles, as we have seen in recent years, can provoke major concerns for the international and regional security." Ambassador Trezza offered the Hague Code of Conduct on Ballistic Missile Proliferation as a step in the right direction.

Ireland recommended that the CD "should now take (past initiatives) more firmly into account and seek to advance them by marshalling the relevant technical expertise while building up the necessary confidence for political consensus." Sri Lanka suggested redefining "weapons of mass destruction"- which current legal frameworks effectively ban from outer space- so as to "cover even conventional weapons or new types of weapon systems that can be used for the purpose of mass destruction."

Most, including Pakistan, favor starting discussions in an Ad Hoc Committee based on the A5 proposal, which Germany believes "takes into account the security issues of all member countries."

Canada, whose position on a comprehensive space-based weapons ban "has not changed for over two decades", suggested "scheduling...a series of single topic plenary discussions in the absence of a Program of Work, or through a similar focused discussion in a Group of Experts... (to) address such specific and detailed topics as definitions, scope, transparency and verification, all aspects necessary to conclude an eventual legally binding instrument."

Sweden's Ambassador Bonnier warned, however, that "informal technical meetings...involving a wider range of actors in the space field... are not enough. Forward looking deliberations have to aim at a mechanism or instrument for a clear-cut prohibition of the weaponization of outer space." She also warned that any work on the issue "must not complicate in any way the important work of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space." She recalled Sweden's suggestion that the Secretriat of the Office on Outer Space Affairs brief the GA First Committee on COPOUS work.

And while States like South Africa expressed appreciation for these structured informal plenaries, the "primary aim is to encourage the CD to adopt a Programme of Work." To forget this aim, said Ambassador Mtshali, is to "attend to what now appears to be customary 'business as usual',...run(ning) the risk of turning this body from a negotiating forum into a deliberative body on disarmament."

July 8

Yesterday, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) held the last of its four thematic plenary sessions under the rotating presidency of Norway. 18 States addressed the issue of security assurances, including South Africa, Peru, China, Colombia, Canada, Syria, Malaysia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Algeria, Iran and Argentina. Australia also made a statement unrelated to negative security assurances (mainly on the merits of the Proliferation Security Initiative and their other favorite non-proliferation projects), and Norway's Ambassador Wegger Strømmen delivered his closing statement as President.

All statements are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second.

Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) have been seeking legally-binding negative security assurances (NSAs) for years. The NNWS are, according to China, "fully justified and reasonable to demand not to be threatened by nuclear weapons and to insist that this form of security assurance be made legally binding." This demand has been pursued with greater urgency in recent years since, as Pakistan's Ambassador Khan noted, "most Nuclear Weapon States presume that they have the right to retain nuclear weapons while nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT remains open-ended. The geographical scope for the use of nuclear weapons has increased with the expansion of nuclear alliances... New security doctrines expound possible use of nuclear weapons...(and) the development of new types of nuclear weapons is being considered."

The Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) argue that the assurances that have already been given are sufficient, such as Security Council resolution 984 and those provided in the Protocols to Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) treaties. These agreements, according to the United Kingdom, "provide, on a credible, regional basis, the internationally binding legal instruments on NSAs that many are looking for." France, too, cited these existing assurances as well as the EU's call for the NWS to reaffirm resolution 984 and to ratify the Protocols to NWFZs.

Russia announced that it "would be ready to move towards the elaboration of a global negative assurances agreement, provided, obviously, that it would take into consideration out military doctrine and the national security concept."

But for the NNWS, including Mexico, Algeria, Argentina, Peru and Syria, the existing assurances remain insufficient. As Italy succinctly pointed out, "NSAs given under resolution 984 are not considered legally binding...(and) NSAs given within the NWFZs provisions, although legally binding, do not cover the whole world...(nor even) the most sensitive regions in the world." New Zealand noted that NWFZ agreements "are regional rather than universal and their negative assurance prtocols have been subjected to interpretive statements and reservations." These inadequacies are, to China, "a far cry from the objective of concluding an international legal instrument on security assurances."

While most States are in agreement over the need to negotiate a legally binding NSA, there remains a dispute over the appropriate forum. Most support discussions taking place in an Ad Hoc Committee of the CD, such as Pakistan, while others, such as Canada, prefer the NPT context, "given that we consider such assurances as one of the benefits of adherence to the NPT," said Ambassador Meyer. Italy, South Korea and France voiced tepid support for the CD to deal with NSAs, whereas South Africa adamantly maintained that, "security assurances rightfully belong to those States that have foresworn the nuclear weapons option, as opposed to those who still prefer to keep their options open." South Africa also suggested that "an internationally legally binding instrument...could either be in the format of a separate agreement reached in the context of the NPT, or as a protocol to that Treaty."

In the meanwhile, Italy encouraged "more thought to the option of granting NSAs on a unilateral, plurilateral or regional basis... (or) on a bilateral basis." China suggested that all NWS, in the absence of a negotiated, legally-binding mechanism, refraim from "list(ing) any States as nuclear strike targets and (to) not make any nuclear strike plans against any (NNWS, which) will facilitate progress in the area of security assurance for (NNWS)." Pakistan, which noted that "(p)roposals, including drafts of an international convention, have (already) been submitted under the relevant item in the CD," further suggested that "(u)nilateral declarations made by (NWS) can be expanded."

However and wherever a new instrument on NSAs is negotiated, it remains indisputable that, as China's Ambassador Hu pointed out, "without the commitment on no-first-use of nuclear weapons and security assurance for (NNWS), the objective of nuclear disarmament cannot be truly served, nor will the world be freed from nuclear weapons in the true sense."

In his final statement as president of the CD, Ambassador Strømmen lamented that he "has received no indications from any delegation that we are closer to a resolution with regard to a programme of work for the conference." He made a point to "encourage civil society and academia to analyze the records (of these recent plenary meetings) from their particular perspective and assist all of us in identifying prospects and opportunities".

And with that, Ambassador Strømmen passed the presidency of the CD on to Pakistan.

July 15

The final plenary of the Conference on Disarmament's (CD) second session was quite low-key, especially in comparison to the vivacious and numerous interventions that had been given in recent sessions. Led by the new Conference President, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan, the CD observed a minute of silence in honor of the victims of last week's terrorist attack in London. They also heard statements by Bulgaria, Peru, the Russian Federation, China and the United Kingdom, which are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches05/index.html#second. In addition, Brazil gave a very brief statement and Hungarian Ambassador Tibor Tóth offered a brief farewell statement as well.

Ambassador Khan suggested three methods to break the deadlock: 1) initiatives undertaken by CD Presidents; 2) suggestions from regional groups; 3) flexible proposals from individal countries. He concluded, however, that "the impasse in the CD is political, not procedural", not to be remedied by "ingenious procedural movements". He maintained that, "(c)oncerns about security interests cannot be addressed by means of imaginative work programs." Nevertheless, his procedural strategy for Pakistan's presidency was four-fold: 1) to encourage States to give input on the program of work; 2) to consult with representatives of regional groups; 3) to hold bilateral consultations with as many delegations as possible; 4) to consult with past and future CD Presidents on how to proceed. He was also encouraged to continue holding thematic debates, such as those initiated under Ambassador Strømmen (see CD Report June 27, June 29, June 30 and July 8, above), though there is no consensus on even this minor procdedural strucutre.

Ambassador Khan also noted that "the rule of consensus in the CD is meant to promote universality. It is not a tool to veto a program of work," reflecting the assertion of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who wrote in his report, In Larger Freedom, that "unfortunately, consensus (often interpreted as requiring unanimity) has become an end in itself...prompt(ing a) retreat into generalities, abandoning any serious effort to take action."

Ambassador Khan rejected any suggestions that the CD disband, noting that other international fora has faced periods of paralysis before, and that "it is difficult to revive a forum after it has been suspended." After all, he contended, "One does not demolish an institution in order to re-energize it."

China spoke on the issue of Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), bringing attention to the outcome document of a conference they held on "Safeguarding Space Security" in Geneva this March. Ambassador Hu hoped that this report "will help deepen our understanding on the issue of (PAROS), enhance our awareness of preserving outer space security and preventing an arms race in outer sapce through political and legal means (and)... also be conducive to facilitating our consideration on how to furhter advance our work to prevent an arms race in outer space."

Russian Ambassador Anton Vasiliev thanked the delegations which appreciated the Russian-Chinese proposals put forward on PAROS, and announced a meeting on the subject to be held on Tuesday, August 16, to which all delegations and UNIDIR (but not NGOs, unfortunately enough) are invited. The purpose of this meeting will be to: 1) review existing international space law and its loopholes; 2) discuss issues relating to verification; 3) discuss key terms and definitions, as they were put forth by the Russian-Chinese paper on the subject.

In his farewell statement to the CD, Bulgarian Ambassador Dimiter Tzantchev reiterated Bulgaria's position on the program of work, stressing that Bulgaria would support any initiative that might become a basis for consensus.

In her farewell statement, Peruvian Ambassador Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez noted that while her time at the Conference had been brief and at times frustrating, she had been able to perceive the major importance of the role that the Conference had played in the past and the enormous potential that it still had. Still, she couldn't help but note "with concern" some recent developments concerning the multilateral disarmament process, which she identified as "a combination of inertia, resentment and obstacle-placing strategies" which was blocking multilateral disarmament agreements and jeopardizing all the inhabitants of the planet.

The UK's Fiona Paterson briefly discussed the terrorism attack on London on July 7, which had coincided with the opening of the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, where leaders had been meeting to address some of the most urgent and difficult international problems, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. She noted the G8 leaders' joint statement on non-proliferation and thanked her colleagues who had expressed their condolences personally or in writing concerning the tragic events which took place in London last week.

The third and last part of the 2005 session of the Conference will be held from August 8- September 23. The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 11 August.

Third Session

August 11
The Conference on Disarmament (CD), the world’s lone body for negotiating disarmament treaties, opened its third and final session of 2005 in Geneva on August 11 under the Presidency of Pakistan with statements from Germany, Bulgaria, Norway, Ecuador, Slovakia, Italy, Switzerland, the United States and Russia. All statements from this session are available on our website at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/cdindex.html.

Several Member States once again deplored the impasse in the CD and recommended strategies for overcoming it. Italy emphasized that “the lack of substantive results of the 7th NPT Review Conference makes it even more imperative to make progress at the C.D. especially in the nuclear field.”

In his first statement as the new German representative to the CD, Ambassador Bernhard Brasack reiterated Germany’s support for the A5 proposal, which they “consider …an acceptable comprehensive compromise proposal taking into account the differing priorities and security concerns.” Ambassador Brasack also maintained that “a broader involvement of the civil society” would help the CD deal with the “fundamental (issues) on the international agenda.”

Taking the floor for the first time since 2000, newly re-posted Ambassador Petko Dragonov of Bulgaria urged that he and his fellow diplomats ““…should not just be mere representatives of our respective Governments here; we should also try harder to be contributors to the formulation of our Governments’ policies.”

In his farewell statement to the CD, Slovakian Ambassador Kálmán Petocz reiterated that Slovakia would like to see negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) commence soon, though he did not specify if he supported starting the negotiations with a ma