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: 2005, 2004 and 2003

Third Session

14 September
12 September
7 September
6 September
31 August
24 August
23 August
22 August
17 August
15 August
10 August
3 August

Second Session

29 June
22 June
21 June
20 June
15 June
13 June
8 June
1 June
22 May
19 May
18 May
17 May
16 May

First Session

30 March
23 March
16 March
14 March
9 March
7 March
2 March
28 February
23 February
16 February
9 February
Timetable
7 February
2 February
31 January
26 January
25 January

This year the Conference on Disarmament did more substantive work than it has done in years. After encouragement from the 2005 General Assembly's First Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security, all six 2006 presidents got together and developed a coordinated timetable for debates. Next year's presidents (South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and Syria) must do more. They will have the power and the opportunity to move the disarmament agenda forward at a time when we desperately need it. We hope the CD, which has been so embarassingly deadlocked for so long, will lead the international disarmament community as it should, by showing that its members can effectively work together on the four core issues. Good faith here could generate good faith elsewhere, and vice versa.

14 September

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held its last plenary meeting of 2006 on 12 September. Outgoing president of the Conference, Slovakian Ambassador Anton Pinter, welcomed the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Japan, Mr. Yohei Kono. The new US Ambassador, Ms. Christine Rocca, and Syria also took the floor.

Report to the General Assembly

The members of the CD did not adopt the report to the General Assembly during this final formal plenary meeting. The meeting went into an informal session and continued discussing the last paragraphs of the report.

Compliance with the NPT

Mr. Yohei Kono reminded the CD that Japan is the only country which has experienced the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons, and the people of Japan know what kind of hardship people endure under a nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons must therefore be eliminated through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the main pillar of the international non-proliferation regime.

Mr. Kono was disappointed that the NPT regime has been seriously shaken by insufficient disarmament efforts by the nuclear weapon states, and by a movement towards forcing opponents into submission through threats aided by nuclear weapons. The deep-rooted disagreement on disarmament from some states using “sovereign equality” as an argument was once an issue in Japan too, and led them into World War II. Mr. Kono recalled when Japan withdrew from the international cooperative system on Pacific naval disarmament, which eventually led to its involvement in World War II and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan therefore urged non-nuclear weapon states to strictly comply with the NPT, and urged the nuclear weapon states to implement their undertakings towards nuclear disarmament.

FMCT

The new US Ambassador, Ms. Christina Rocca, reminded the CD of the strong commitment that United States made to the CD in May when it submitted the draft treaty Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). She said the CD’s work this year had built a foundation that could help in the future.

Japan also saw constructive significance in the draft treaty. Japan said differences on the current text should be resolved in negotiations. Mr. Kono hoped the CD could avoid backward looking situations through linkages and “clear the way for a future circle of positive growth in which each agenda item is advanced according to its ripeness.”

Israeli use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells

Syria announced that the Chargé d’Affaires of the Syrian Mission had sent a letter to the President of the CD to discuss the cluster bombs and phosphorous shells the Israeli military used in Lebanon. Syria recalled an Israeli newspaper's account of entire towns being covered in cluster bombs, and that the Israeli army had fired about 800 cluster bombs, containing millions of cluster bomblets. Around 500,000 unexploded munitions now littered Lebanon, and would continue to claim lives after the war. Syria said Israel also used phosphorus shells, which are forbidden under international law. A direct hit from a phosphorus shell causes severe burns and a slow and painful death, and international law forbids such unnecessary suffering. Syria proposed these items be considered under agenda item 7, Transparency in Armaments.

- Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

12 September

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a plenary meeting on September 12. Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Russian Federation, China, Syrian Arab Republic and Belarus took the floor.

Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ)

Kazakhstan reported that the five Central Asian states signed the CANWFZ treaty on Friday 8 September. The five former members of the nuclear weapons possessing Soviet Union signed the treaty in Semipalatinsk, where Kazakhstan courageously closed a nuclear test site 15 years ago.

China, the Russian Federation and Belarus supported the treaty. In contradiction to statements made by France, the United Kingdom and the United States last week, Russia said this treaty was established according to the Disarmament Commission guidelines from 1999, with help from the UN. China said they would always welcome and support any state wishing to establish a NWFZ.

Last week, the United States, United Kingdom and France declared that they would not sign the CANWFZ treaty as it is. Today, Kazakhstan said parties to the treaty would negotiate the text of its protocol with the nuclear powers in order to enable the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to enter into force. The protocol includes obligations not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the five Central Asian states.

New Issues

Although Syria opposes including new issues in the CD's agenda, if the CD is going to consider new issues then Syria had some suggestions.

These issues were:

• Vacating the Middle East from any nuclear weapons;

• Submitting Israeli nuclear establishments to the IAEA safeguards;

• Israel dumping nuclear waste in the Syrian Golan;

• Certain nuclear states providing Israel with the latest nuclear technology;

• Israel using cluster bombs and other prohibited weapons against Lebanese civilians;

• American and British forces using depleted uranium during the invasion of Iraq;

• America using phosphoric weapons during the attack on Falujah.

However, Syria preferred for the Conference to concentrate on the four core issues in order to adopt a program of work that respected the priorities of all countries.

New Ambassador from Ecuador

The new Ambassador from Ecuador, Mr. Mauricio Mantalvo Samaniego, talked about the stalemate of the CD and hoped that they could begin substantive work in 2007. Ecuador noted the progress made this year, as well as major difficulties still stalling states from reaching effective disarmament commitments. Ecuador was disappointed that more progress was made in disarmament during the cold war than is being made now. The international community should use solid and increasing multilateralism to tackle a world full of weapons not just owned and used by states anymore

Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

7 September

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a plenary meeting on Thursday 7 September, where the CD accepted Bahrain as an observer state. Ambassador Abdulla Abdullatif Abdulla from Bahrain made the only statement of the meeting on behalf of the Arab States who are member states of the CD and those who participate as observers.

Nuclear Disarmament

The Arab States reaffirmed their attachment to the General Assembly and that the basic principle of disarmament negotiations is multilateralism.

The Arab States explained that they have voluntary given up the nuclear weapons option under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urged the nuclear weapon states to provide required security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states. They also urged all nuclear weapon states to respect the 2000 NPT Review Conference where the 13 practical steps to implement Article VI were adopted.

The Arab States hoped the State Parties to the NPT would use the preparatory committee for the next review conference to review the three pillars of the NPT (nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and “peaceful use” of nuclear technology) in an objective way (quotes added).

They were disappointed the CD had not managed to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament and start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty including stockpiles.

Weapons in the Middle East

The Arab States support a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East, as discussed in the General Assembly resolutions on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (60/52 and 60/92). In the light of the latest developments in the region, the Arab States said it was more urgent than ever for Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, as called for in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (article 7, paragraph 16, item 3).

Using statistics from Amnesty International, the Arab states discussed Israel’s destruction of civilian infrastructure and the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas in Lebanon and Palestine. They said the CD should work to create an international legal system enabling security and peace in the world, and hoped it would agree on program of work related to all members' security interests.

- Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

6 September

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) discussed its draft report to the General Assembly on Wednesday, 6 September. Japan, the Netherlands, the UK, Pakistan, the US, Syria, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Australia, Morocco, Algeria, France, Iran, Canada, Russia, Argentina, India, Poland and China took the floor.

The CD report to the General Assembly

As the 2006 CD comes to an end, the CD must evaluate its progress this year and determine how to build on it next year. Some states, like the Netherlands, wanted to use the CD's annual report to the General Assembly to do this. The week of August 28, the Slovakian president of the CD presented a draft of the report to the CD members, and today, even though some states thought they should not discuss it in the public plenary, governments debated the controversial parts of the report.

On August 22, the Netherlands suggested the CD use the report the General Assembly as a vehicle to endorse this year's timetable for substantive discussions and make call for a 2007 programme of work built on the timetable. Today, the Netherlands supported including the a call for concrete negotiations on a mandate for a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), a reference to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, and a plan for next year in the report. They were disappointed there were no conclusions or recommendations in the report.

Pakistan did not think the report should discuss a programme of work, and at the most it could capture the 2006 timetable. Canada said interpretation of the report opened up real complications for CD members, so they should stick to factual accounting in the draft report, however flat that might seem. Peru and Argentina found the draft report sufficient and could accept it, or at least not object to it, as is. Italy said the CD report to the General Assembly could not solve the problems of the conference, and the members of the Conference would not reach a programme of work through the report. Both Canada and Russia supported this and said it was important to wrap this up as soon as possible. The Netherlands and Australia wanted the report to at least call on the 2007 presidents to repeat the coordination and timetable initiated by the 2006 presidents.

Civil society would like to know what mechanism the CD intends to use to build on the work of this year and begin work next year. As Canada said on August 22 and the Netherlands said on today, a repeat of this year's exercise will not be good enough. We are pleased governments are finally discussing substantive issues in a way that will build a foundation for negotiations, but we expect more.

The Details:
"Substantive Work" or Programme of Work?

The draft report discusses the Six Presidents' (P6) initiative to develop a timetable of substantive discussions during the year (paragraphs 25 and 26). Governments debated a sentence that implies the CD could begin working without a programme of work, which reads: “There was a general feeling among the Member States of the Conference that efforts should be further intensified in conducting consultations and in exploring possibilities with a view to reaching agreement on commencement of the substantive work of the Conference,” (paragraph 25, final sentence). Pakistan and China were concerned this sentence sidelined a programme of work, and India hoped the report could add the need to agree on a programme of work.

Mexico and Syria saw a contradiction between this reference to beginning substantive work in 2007 and another in the following paragraph saying that 2006's substantive work was based on the Six Presidents' timetable. Syria asked, “Has substantive work commenced or not?”, and Mexico said paragraph 25 should be more balanced.

Friends of the Presidents

There was some debate over including several paragraphs on the Friends of the Presidents, who were selected by the 2006 presidents to help them in their work. Syria, Pakistan and Morocco were all concerned about the appointment process of the Friends. The first president of the 2006 session, Ambassador Rapacki from Poland, reminded the CD that it has a history of using Friends. He recalled when a Friend was appointed to deal with expansion of membership in 1994, which was reflected in the 1994 report.

US draft FMCT and negotiating mandate

In May, the United States tabled a draft Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and draft mandate for its negotiation, and discussion over the relative weight the report should give to these documents displayed varying support for them. They are currently included in a paragraph listing all the documents of 2006 (paragraph 35), but the Netherlands, the United States and Australia all thought they deserved more attention in the report. The Netherlands asked that they be given their own paragraph, and the United States suggested putting them in the paragraph on the FMCT debates (paragraph 34). Russia was prepared to consider the US suggestion. Syria objected because the CD rules of procedure do not say that documents submitted by Assistant Secretaries (US Assistant Secretary Rademaker submitted the draft FMCT text and negotiating mandate) are more important than other documents submitted by diplomats.

The International Atomic Energy Agency presentation

After a decision made by the Conference, on August 24, Tariq Rauf from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made a presentation on Verification of an FMCT, which is mentioned in the report (paragraph 15). Pakistan wanted to add that this presentation was in a general debate, not during the focused debates on FMCT. Morocco agreed, and suggested mentioning that the CD agreed by consensus to invite the IAEA to speak.

NGO Statement

Mexico wanted to note that despite no formal objections were made to NGOs being allowed to read their own statement on March 8, the President of the Conference read it instead.

Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

The United Kingdom and France said they would not support a Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as it is currently agreed among the five Central Asian states (the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan). August 31, Kazakhstan indicated the five Central Asian states would sign the treaty in Semipalatinsk on 8 September 2006. The UK and France say they have requested consultations before the treaty is signed, as called for in the 1999 United Nations Disarmament Commission’s guidelines on Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. Though they shared their concerns with the five Central Asian states, they have not been answered. The United States said they had been in touch with the Central Asian states several times and are waiting for an invitation to consultations about the treaty. France, the UK and the US made it clear that if the Central Asian states sign the current treaty text, they will not support it.

The Four Core Issues

Japan posited that the CD cannot establish ad hoc committees on Nuclear Disarmament, Negative Security Assurances and Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, because they do not have consensus. However, they did state that “no opposition was expressed from any country, including the Nuclear Weapon States, to the establishment itself of an ad hoc committee for negotiating an FMCT in the CD”, which is a priority for Japan.

Russia, whose priority is PAROS, asked the CD to concentrate on what brings all member states together instead of pointing out what is yet not agreed.

Syria countered Japan's assertion of consensus for creating an ad hoc committee on FMCT, saying it was only partially true. According to Syria, a majority of states put the condition of a balanced and comprehensive program of work on this consensus, and suggest that an FMCT's negotiating mandate be based on the Shannon mandate.

- Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

31 August

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a general debate on Thursday 31 August. Kazakhstan, Italy and Sweden took the floor.

Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) as a part of Nuclear Disarmament

Italy said an FMCT is a means to stop the nuclear arms race and achieve nuclear disarmament, and introduced a paper explaining how this is so. "Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament. Relevance of an FMCT for Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Non-Proliferation" underlines "the intrinsic pertinence of an FMCT negotiation for item 1 [nuclear disarmament] of our agenda."

Sweden agreed, and said it was not correct to call an FMCT only a non-proliferation measure. Not only would an FMCT end the production of fissile material, said Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier, it would "close the tap of fissile materials for nuclear weapons" and over time remove an element of discrimination between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states.

Sweden also said that while an FMCT is not the only important issue in the Conference, it is the key issue if the CD wants to get back to work.

Anniversary of the Closure of a Nuclear Test Site

Kazakhstan reminded the Conference of the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, two days after the 15th anniversary of it being closed. The president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, decided to close the test site after being pressured by a "massive anti-nuclear movement" called Nevada-Semipalatinsk. The movement was a bridge between anti-nuclear movements in the US and Kazakhstan working to close both the Semipalatinsk and Nevada (US) test sites.

Unfortunately, the Nevada test site has not been closed, and on 30 August, the United States conducted a sub critical nuclear "experiment" called UNICORN.

Sub critical experiments examine the behavior of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives, in order to gather information to maintain US nuclear weapons. These "experiments" are not covered in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Kazakhstan explained there are still concerns about the consequences of the 456 nuclear tests conducted at Semipalantinsk, despite all rehabilitation efforts. The major challenge of the government of Kazakhstan is to improve health and the environment.

Sweden said the anniversary of the closing of the nuclear test site in Semipalatinsk was truly worth celebrating, and Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier wished they had more anniversaries like that to celebrate. Kazakhstan noted it gave up its full nuclear weapon cycle capabilities when it became independent and joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1993.

Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

Kazakhstan is now an active participant in ongoing negotiations among regional countries to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia. On September 8, the Foreign Ministers of the five Central Asian countries are expected to sign the treaty on the establishment of the zone.

The Plenary meeting was suspended and followed by an informal session where the draft report of the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly was presented.

The next formal plenary meeting will be held on Wednesday, 6 September at 10 am.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

24 August

In the 24 August Conference on Disarmament (CD), Dr. Tariq Rauf, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Verification and Security Policy, discussed fissile materials and verification of a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. The Conference then went into an informal meeting, where member states could ask questions and discuss the issue with the IAEA representatives. Verification is one of the contentious issues in an FMCT, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has the most technical expertise on it.

Following the informal plenary, the Conference returned to its formal plenary session, and resumed its discussion on Transparency in Armaments (TIA). Australia, United Kingdom, Turkey, Pakistan, Poland, Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Israel, Algeria and Syria made statements.

The IAEA and FMCT Verification

In 1993, the UN General Assembly requested the IAEA help examine verification arrangements for a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (resolution A/RES/48/75). The IAEA has since carried out studies of verification requirements, considered different verification options and prepared preliminary estimates of the resources needed for their implementation.

Dr Tariq Rauf explained that in the IAEA's view, verifying compliance with an FMCT would provide assurance against any new production of weapon-usable fissile material and the diversion of fissile material from the civilian nuclear fuel cycle.

The IAEA Safeguards

The IAEA already carries out comprehensive safeguards applied under a number of different agreements and arrangements. Under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA verifies that the "peaceful use" of nuclear energy commitments made under the NPT (the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement or similar agreements) are kept.

There are 183 non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT, and they have all committed to not manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. These states have also agreed to submit all nuclear material in all nuclear activities to IAEA safeguards (Article III of the NPT). This Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement (CSA) was deemed inadequate after the discovery of an extensive clandestine nuclear weapon programme in Iraq, and in order to strengthen it, an additional protocol was developed. The additional protocol extended the authority of the IAEA to require states to provide additional information, access and technology. The additional protocol has been signed by 109 States and is in force in 77 States. To ensure more effective verification, the IAEA has established a Committee on Safeguards (Committee of 25) to examine additional ways and means to strengthen the system.

The nuclear weapon states under the NPT (France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) have voluntary safeguards agreements. These voluntary agreements do not place implementation obligations on the state or the IAEA. They also allow the state to withdraw nuclear materials and facilities from the state-drawn list the IAEA can check for safeguard implementation. Today, the IAEA safeguards enrichment plants in China and the UK. All nuclear facilities in France and the UK are subject of EURATOM safeguards under the Treaty of Rome, except of course those facilities that are dedicated to nuclear weapon programmes and naval reactor programmes. All five nuclear weapon states have signed additional protocols, and China, France and the UK have brought them into force.

The three remaining non-NPT states (India, Israel and Pakistan) are also safeguarded by the IAEA. These safeguards were established prior to the NPT and only cover research and power reactors, and components like nuclear fuel or heavy water.

The IAEA has also been a part of the Trilateral Initiative with Russia and the United States. The Trilateral Initiative is intended to establish a verification system under which states possessing nuclear weapons could submit excess weapon material. The states decide what materials to submit, but once the material is submitted to IAEA verification it would be irrevocable, and inspections would be obligatory.

The IAEA and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

A treaty banning the production of fissile material would strengthen Article VI of the NPT: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." It would cap fissile materials for nuclear weapons where they are, and, depending on its provisions, could make disarmament irreversible.

According to the IAEA, in order to provide the FMCT with a high level of assurance, the verification system should apply to the entire fuel cycle and be geared to detect undeclared fissile material production facilities. Dr. Rauf said any fissile material produced after the entry into force of an FMCT would presumably be subject to safeguards during processing, use and in storage. The IAEA has been developing verification arrangements that would protect classified information, including remote sensing, environmental sampling at a site or in its vicinity, and managed access inspections.

The IAEA advised the CD weigh the costs and benefits of various levels of verification, and recommended a comprehensive system. A less resource intensive alternative would reduce non-proliferation and disarmament benefits. The more limited and less costly alternatives considered by the IAEA provided significantly lower levels of assurance. The IAEA estimated the cost for a verification system somewhere between 50-150 million Euros.

Transparency in Armaments

The structured debate on Transparency in Armaments continued after the IAEA presentation. Algeria said this item was a cornerstone of all of the items discussed this year. It was not possible to talk about nuclear disarmament, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), FMCT or Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) without having clear transparency measures to establish the necessary confidence between states.

Pakistan said although the UN Register on Conventional Arms and UN Standardized Instrument for Reporting on Military Expenditures have been successful, they have not prevented world military expenditures in 2005 from reaching 1.1 trillion dollars, or 2.5 % of the world Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Ambassador Masood Khan also said transparency could act as an early warning mechanism and referenced a SIPRI report identifying a sharp increase in defense spending in Pakistan's immediate neighborhood. "By using it (TIA) appropriately, some moral pressure can be brought to bear on states responsible for destabilizing arms transfers." Pakistan also noted that areas with the most tension have the least transparency. Yesterday, India insisted transparency measures be voluntary and with respect to states' right to self defense.

Syria expressed its readiness to adhere to a general consensus on a programme of work for the Conference on the basis of the Five Ambassadors' proposal, which would include the appointment of a Special Coordinator on TIA. Syria also said transparency in armaments had to take into account the right of states to self-defense under the United Nations Charter.

Crisis in the Middle East

Israel and Syria engaged in a debate on the current situation in the Middle East. Syria said some delegations had talked about international peace and security while they helped Israel commit war crimes by providing Israel with cluster bombs and missiles used against Lebanese civilians. According to Syria, these states also stopped the Security Council from acting, thereby allowing Israel to continue the war, and prohibited the Security Council from condemning Israel's bombing the UN site and killing UN staff. These states remind us constantly that they care for human rights but still reject the decision of the Human Rights Council when they condemned the war, Syria continued.

Israel replied that it was odd to get lectured by a state known to provide terror groups like Hizbollah with weapons. This was clearly reflected in the reports of the Security Council, including the failure to implement resolution 1559, and was now standing in the way of resolution 1701 which impeded the transfer of arms to Hizbollah.

Syria also used its right of reply, stating that if Israel was concerned about the implementation of United Nations resolutions, a large number calling on Israel had not been implemented. The country that violated international law on a daily basis had no right to lecture others. Syria also suggested Israel amend its policies.

Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)

Several states discussed MANPADS in the context of Transparency in Armaments. A number of speakers said these weapons are legitimate when used by states, but are a significant threat to global civil aviation and international peace-keeping efforts if used by non-state actors. Echoing the US National Rifle Association's mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people", Israel said, "It is not the sword that kills but rather the hand in which it is used."

Last year the General Assembly encouraged states to enact or improve legislation, regulations, procedures and stockpile management practices to exercise effective control over MANPADS (Resolution 60/77). The Netherlands agreed that national legislation is the best way to prevent unauthorised use of MANPADS. Australia and the UK called the 2003 Wassenaar Arrangement "Elements for Export Controls of Man-Portable Air Defense Systems" the gold standard for export controls.

France said there is serious potential to discuss MANPADS in the CD, and that the subject deserved the entire attention of the Conference. According to Switzerland, regional organizations are more appropriate to implement operational projects like the destruction of stocks, while the elaboration of norms and standards requires a universal application. Australia, whose Foreign Ministry launched a major diplomatic initiative on MANPADS last year, has proposed MANPADS for discussion in the CD for two reasons. First, they hope the CD will identify additional measures states could take to counter this threat. Second, the CD could use this as an opportunity to demonstrate it is capable of addressing the evolving global security environment and concerns of the international community.

Turkey said discussing MANPADS in the CD could prove useful, but MANPADS or any other new issues can not be a substitute for the four core issues on the CD agenda. Syria opposed included new issues like MANPADS on the agenda since the CD has not made progress on the four core issues on which it should be focusing.

The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday 31 August, and will be devoted to a general debate. The meeting will be followed by an informal meeting, where Slovakian CD President Ambassador Anton Pinter will present a draft of the CD report to the General Assembly.

Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

23 August

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) started their focused debate on Transparency in Armaments (TIA) on 23 August. Slovakia, Argentina, the United States, Japan, Italy, Russian Federation, India, Germany, the Netherlands and China made statements.

Transparency in Armaments (TIA)

The President of the CD, Slovakian Ambassador Anton Pinter, made a short introduction to the issue. TIA was originally initiated in the CD at the request of the General Assembly resolution 46/36 (December 1991) which established the UN Register of Conventional Arms and called for the CD to address transparency in armaments.

United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was created as an early warning mechanism marking trends in the war equipment of States. Several speakers said it has become an effective instrument to promote understanding between states and to prevent destabilizing surprises in international peace and security. It currently covers 97% of conventional arms trade, and averages over 100 registering countries per year. 170 countries have registered at least once.

In 2003 and 2006, Argentinean Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Roberto Garcia Moritan, chaired the Governmental Group of Experts (GGE) that reviews the Register. Ambassader Garcia-Moritan highlighted progress made during the reviews, as did the Netherlands and Japan, and called the Register one of the most important global confidence-building measures.

The Governmental Group of Experts recently recommended the Register only apply to United Nations Members (therefore excluding Taiwan and Palestine), which means China will again contribute to it. It also expanded the category of warships and submarines (category 6) to include naval vessels armed with missiles or torpedoes. They also widened the scope of the missile and missile launchers category to include Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), and agreed to a standardized form for notification of transfers of small arms and light weapons. The Netherlands will soon table their triennial UN General Assembly resolution on transparency in armaments to secure a mandate for the next Group of Experts to review and further develop the UN Register in 2009.

Argentina, Japan, Russia and the United States supported universalizing the Register to enhance its effectiveness in building confidence. China said it will contribute to the Register again once a "certain country" stops registering its arms trade to Taiwan. India said there should be adjustments to the categories of arms covered in the Register to make it more relevant to security concerns of states and would have liked greater progress in Small Arms and Light Weapons category in the Register.

Other measures: Arms Trade Treaty and Military Expenditures

Argentina and Japan also discussed the upcoming Arms Trade Treaty resolution, which they are co-sponsoring at the 2006 General Assembly's First Committee in October. Japan sees "assuring responsible transfers of arms through the ATT, and registering them in accordance with the UN Register" as mutually reinforcing measures. Argentina said the conditions are now appropriate to ensure arms transfers take place in accordance with international law.

Russia discussed an arms trade treaty in the context of Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right of self-defense, saying "we can not be guided by the criteria that could be arbitrarily constructed."

Germany highlighted the other main UN transparency instrument, the Standardised Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures, on which Germany sponsors a biennial General Assembly resolution, as an important transparency tool. To date, over 115 governments have participated in the process, but Germany appealed to them to participate consistently.

TIA in the CD

The CD appointed a Special Coordinator in 1992 to consult member states on transparency in armaments and established an Ad Hoc Committee in 1993. This Ad Hoc Committee was not reestablished in 1995 due to "the divergence of views on the duration of the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee," according to Slovakia. The United States remarked "Unfortunately, the ad hoc committee split into two camps - those who wanted to discuss transparency in conventional weapons and those who wanted to discuss transparency in weapons of mass destruction." The United States blames this split as the origin of the current CD deadlock.

The US, who sent a State Department official to address the CD on this issue, was "disappointed that TIA over the years has been moved to the proverbial back burner in discussions about the CD?s work program." Japan suggested two steps to improve the CD's work on TIA: first, to seriously study and follow the on-going activities made at the global, regional and national levels, and to identify problems which require more action; second, to establish, in the future, a feed-back mechanism on the achievements of each global, regional and national forum.

Germany and Russia again declared they would not object to consensus on a program of work on the basis of the Five Ambassadors' proposal, which would include the appointment of a Special Coordinator on Agenda item 7. Italy said simply "transparency in armaments is one of the items of the CD Agenda and the Italian Delegation is ready to address it at this stage."

Argentina also declared its flexibility on how to identify and ultimately adopt additional measures to advance the Transparency of Weapons or any other agenda item.

Italy argued that transparency is also needed for weapons of mass destruction, not only for conventional weapons. Ambassador Carlo Trezza said publications like the SIPRI Yearbook and the ITSS Military balance were invaluable for their work, but official state declarations are even more important.

China, Russia and India expressed reservations about total transparency in armaments, insisting on voluntary reporting with respect for security concerns of states. China also opposed uniform transparency levels and measures, since each country should decide on its TIA measures voluntarily in the light of its own specific situation. India said ?measures to promote transparency in armaments at the regional and sub-regional levels should take into account the specific characteristics of the region and strive to enhance the security of States and build confidence among them.

The next plenary meeting will be held Thursday 24 August, when the International Atomic Energy Agency will make a presentation on fissile materials and the debate on Transparency in Armaments will continue.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

22 August

On August 22, Slovakia took over as the final president of the 2006 Conference on Disarmament (CD). Ambassador Anton Pinter outlined the schedule for the Slovakian presidency and the remainder of the 2006 CD in his opening statement. Delegations focused on how to use their work in 2006 to get the CD back into negotiating mode in 2007. The Netherlands, Canada, France, Morocco and Germany took the floor.

Most members want to see the CD build on its successful timetable of discussions this year, and move to negotiations next year. Slovakia hopes to overcome the impasse in the CD "through discussing and preparing a meaningful report" to the General Assembly in the coming weeks. The Netherlands also suggested ways to use the report to solidify this year's timetable of discussions (the Six Presidents, or P6 initiative) and develop a programme of work for next year. Canada, however, was concerned the report would be more administrative than substantive and called for a separate informal meeting to discuss this year's timetable and how to build on it next year.

The Netherlands and Slovakia seem to think the generally administrative report to the General Assembly provides an opportunity to assess the current initiative and solidify work for next year. The Netherlands said the report "could conclude that our programme of work for 2007 must be a manifestation of this year's debates: an arrangement which reflects the spectrum of issues and gives each of them its relative weight."

The Conference could quantify the number of meetings held, statements made, working papers submitted, and experts who participated during each of the debates this year to determine how to weigh this year's issues for next year's work. Counting formal meetings only, the focused debates on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty had the most participation in each category (7 formal meetings, 80 statements, 9 working papers, and 48 experts), followed by the second highest number of papers (8) and experts (7) in the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space debates and the second highest number of meetings (5) and statements (47) in the nuclear disarmament debates. Then came the third highest number of statements (23) in the Negative Security Assurances debates and meetings (2) in new Weapons of Mass Destruction and radiological weapons debates. A comprehensive programme of disarmament had the least amount of participation, and transparency in armaments has yet to be debated. (See Reaching Critical Will's table of participation in this year's focused debates at the end of this report.)

Slovakia, who is coordinating the report, said it should "prepare the ground for positive decisions allowing further development of the productive work in the Conference on Disarmament." The 2006 CD must go much further than simply "preparing the ground" and "allowing further development" if it is going to return to its negotiating mandate through a programme of work. It would be great if the CD can do this using the report to the General Assembly, but if not, it needs to take Canada's suggestion and hold a session devoted to "plotting the future course of this Conference." Slovakia currently plans to present the first draft of the CD report on Thursday, August 31, followed by informal plenary meetings on September 6 and 7 to prepare it. The last part of the Slovakian presidency will be dedicated to finalizing the report to adopt it by September 14, at the latest.

All speakers agreed this year's Six Presidents' timetable was a step forward that should be noted in the Annual Report to the First Committee of the General Assembly. The Netherlands, Canada, France and Germany all hoped for further steps next year. "Notwithstanding the improvements the P6 brought this year, a mere repetition of this year's timetable of activity in 2007 would fall far short of expectations," Canada declared.

France suggested the debates be more effective and negotiation orientated next year and that the CD make more active use of the Friends of the Presidents. Germany said this year has prepared the Conference to make the needed qualitative jump into negotiations soon. The Netherlands said ?it should be possible by now to make the proposed draft mandate text on an FMCT our foremost focal point in view of at last restoring this body?s position as a negotiating forum again.

Timetable for the last part of 2006

Slovakia presented the schedule for the rest of the 2006 CD. The Conference will debate Transparency in Armaments on Wednesday August 23, Thursday August 24 and if necessary Friday August 25. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will make a presentation on fissile materials on Thursday August 24 followed by an informal meeting.

The next plenary meeting will be held Wednesday August 23 when the minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina will be addressing the Conference.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

17 August

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a plenary meeting on August 17, concluding the Senegalese presidency. Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands and Senegal took the floor. In his outgoing statement as President, the Senegalese Ambassador was very satisfied with the initiative to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty.

Negative Security Assurances

Japan said that although states parties to the nuclear Non-Prolifertion Treaty (NPT) have committed themselves to Negative Security Assurances, negotiators carefully phrased those commitments so the international community could clarify what it really wanted later. Japan then raised fundamental questions about Negative Security Assurances, which the Netherlands said reflected its own concerns. Japan asked if Negative Security Assurances are better than Positive Security Assurances; if a globally legally binding instrument would be more effective than regional ones, like Nuclear Weapon Free Zones; and how to choose and define non-nuclear weapon states beneficiaries of assurances. Japan's questions are more pointed when contextualized by the North Korea nuclear situation, in which North Korea wants security assurances in order to disarm, and others say they do not deserve such assurances for breaking their NPT obligations.

Japan, which just commemorated the 61st anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wants to raise awareness about the true nature of nuclear weapons. Ambassador Yoshiki Mine reiterated the importance of disarmament education, "not only education in schools but also public lectures and forums, training courses for diplomats, seminars and other endeavors help to raise the awareness of the terrible nature of nuclear weapons."
Japan advised the international community to learn from the hibakusha (survivors of nuclear weapons) before they disappear.

Programme of Work and CD progress

In his farewell statement, Ambassador Francois Roux of Belgium, one of the states to initiate the Five Ambassadors' proposal, would continue to work for reaching an agreement on a program of work in the CD. The conference has an opportunity to make real progress in negotiations for a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), and while this was a priority issue for Belgium, it did not diminish the significance of other subjects on the agenda. However, he also quoted the Secretary General's June 21 statement: "it is long overdue for this negotiating body to abandon the all-consuming linkages that have dominated our approach in recent years and get down to substantive work."

In its outgoing statement as President, Senegal said Tuesday's informal discussions about the CD report to the General Assembly had shown the importance and substance of this year's work. Ambassador Camara also hoped the close and active cooperation of the Six CD Presidents would be continued next year.

Next week, Slovakian Ambassador Anton Pinter will take over the Presidency, and discuss transparency in armaments and the annual report to the General Assembly. The CD has also invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to address the Conference on the subject of fissile materials. The presentation will be held in a formal plenary meeting on Thursday 24 August, followed by an informal meeting with an opportunity for questions and discussion.

The next plenary meeting will be held on Tuesday 22 August.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

15 August

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a short plenary meeting on August 15 devoted to general debate. Columbia and Sri Lanka made statements.

Comprehensive program of disarmament: military expenditures and small arms and light weapons

Under the comprehensive program of disarmament and transparency in armaments rubric, Colombia questioned states' increase in military expenses and large stockpiles of weapons surpassing national security requirements. According to Colombia, this creates mistrust and tensions among states and these tremendous resources should be used for development instead. Colombia prioritized controlling the arms trade, particularly small arms and light weapons (SALW). Because small arms and light weapons are responsible for most of the killings in the world, Colombia said controlling them should be recognized as one of the traditional issues on the CD agenda.

Fissile Material and Program of Work

Colombia said a 2007 programme of work should include an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT) and a parallel timetable for discussions on the other items in the Five Ambassadors' proposal, similar to this year's timetable for discussions. The Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate an FMT should have a broad mandate including current production, verification mechanisms and universalisation.

Sri Lanka said the CD should commence negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) but "this can of course only be done if we can agree to address on an equal footing the priority security concerns of all member states and if we can maintain the constructive atmosphere that has prevailed during this year."

The report to the General Assembly: assessing the CD in 2006 and looking to make progress in 2007

Colombia reflected a common ambivalence in the CD regarding its work in 2006: It has been another year without progress or program of work, but the structured debates have engaged all the members and shown political will. Sri Lanka said the CD must decide how to build on the Six Presidents' 2006 timetable for discussions, which could "form the basis for the work of the Conference for years to come." In order to make progress in the future, the CD could try to allocate more time to certain items in future years' schedules, or make adjustments in its methods of work. These suggestions, along with the more radical Blix proposal to eliminate the consensus rule, and Chile's "?small incremental steps", should provide food for thought to "embark further on what we all believe should be a new period of productivity for the CD."

Colombia also suggested that the 2006 Six Presidents (P6) and the Friends of the Presidents could continue to help the presidents for 2007.

The CD closed the plenary meeting and continued with consultations on the CD report to the General Assembly. The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, 17 August.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

10 August

At the 10 August plenary meeting, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) discussed a comprehensive programme of disarmament, item 6 on its agenda, after concluding its discussion from last week on Negative Security Assurances (NSAs). Argentina and Venezuela started the plenary meeting with statements about NSAs and then China, the United Kingdom, Canada, Senegal and the Russian Federation made statements on a comprehensive programme of disarmament. After five years at the CD, Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland gave her final address and continued the recent trend of using it to call for CD reform or restructuring.

Comprehensive programme of disarmament and an Arms Trade Treaty

Although a comprehensive programme of disarmament has been on the CD agenda since 1980, there is no agreement on its meaning, and governments have over the years debated if it should be part of the agenda at all.

Russia suggested the CD use the framework of item 6 to develop "an agenda within the agenda" and listed three issues Russia is interested in pursuing therein: banning the transfer of the most dangerous anti-personnel mines, strengthening the weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation regime, and ensuring international information security.

China said a comprehensive programme of disarmament would set out disarmament principles, objectives and direction, with a goal of adopting fair and just disarmament principles and effective disarmament measures. In listing principles for disarmament, China emphasized abiding by the UN Charter and international law several times, notably in response to non-proliferation issues, and suggested establishing a new security concept featuring mutual trusts, mutual benefit, equality and coordination.

China also called for an international legal instrument on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, pointing out that the countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals bear special and primary responsibilities for nuclear disarmament. They should earnestly comply with the treaties already concluded on the reduction of nuclear weapons and further reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner.

Senegal addressed nuclear and conventional issues in its statement. It recommended the CD re-examine the 1996 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) proposal for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2020. However, Senegal pointed out that conventional weapons, such as small arms and light weapons, are used in the majority of the world?s conflicts. Senegal prioritizes the issue, particularly since the "mixed results" of the Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference in New York in July 2006.

The United Kingdom and Canada discussed an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) under item 6. The United Kingdom spoke on behalf of the 7 co-authors of the First Committee draft resolution on an ATT (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya and the United Kingdom). There is no comprehensive international legally binding instrument to provide an agreed regulatory framework for trade in conventional weapons. The United Kingdom proposed the First Committee of the UN General Assembly establish a Group of Experts, followed by a period of wider consultation.

Canada supported a comprehensive legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that prevents the illicit flow of weapons to conflict areas. Ambassador Meyer said an ATT could provide important international and human security benefits, notably by curtailing the irresponsible trade in all types of conventional arms. According to Canada, an ATT would cover a wide variety of weapons, including small arms and light weapons, man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) and heavier conventional systems. Canada is open as to the appropriate forum for negotiation, so long as it is conducive to achieving a global Arms Trade Treaty.

CD deadlock and a Programme of Work

Ambassador Mary Whelan, who is leaving Geneva after five years, continued the tradition of discussing the CD stalemate in her final statement today. "In most areas of governmental activity or international relations, a body without any achievement for a decade would face fundamental questions about its future," said Ambassador Whelan. She questioned if reform or even a different type of organisation would be more effective: "The anachronistic procedures, including the monthly rotation of the chair, the CD's relationship to other entities and to civil society, the large meaningless group structure - a relic of the Cold War - all suggest that this body may be losing its relevance having already lost its effectiveness." Ambassador Whelan has been a champion of engaging with civil society, and though we wish her the best, she will be missed.

China reiterated its position that the CD should start substantial work with a programme of work on the four core issues: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), Negative Security Assurances (NSAs), Nuclear Disarmament, and a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

In addition to using the flexibility of the comprehensive program of disarmament agenda item to establish an "agenda within an agenda", Russia suggested appointing a Special Coordinator to help the CD address new issues under agenda item 6. "Later, in the case of consensus, we could give such elaborated issues a status of separate items on the CD Agenda," said Anton Vasiliev. Russia reminded the conference that the Five Ambassadors' programme of work would establish a Special Coordinator to deal with the comprehensive program of disarmament, and reiterated its willingness to not object to the proposal.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary General of the CD, suggested the Presidents of the CD consider rescheduling the Third Session of the CD, which is traditionally held in August, because many diplomats travel during August. Ambassador Trezza of Italy asked the Presidents to also consider that delegations need time to prepare for and attend the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October.

Negative Security Assurances

Argentina, on behalf of the Latin American member states of the CD, and Venezuela both made statements on last week's topic, Negative Security Assurances. Argentina lauded the Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) of Latin America and the Caribbean as an important guarantee of security. There are no nuclear weapons in this zone and no states with ambitions to posses such weapons, exhibiting NWFZs' significant contribution to the future. Argentina also condemned the use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks as inconsistent with international law and the UN Charter's rule on proportionality in defence.

Although NWFZs protect many countries from the threat of nuclear weapons, Venezuela said the CD should still negotiate an internationally binding treaty on NSAs in accordance with the Five Ambassadors' proposal for a programme of work.

China once again called upon the other nuclear weapon states to commit themselves to no first use of nuclear weapons and to unconditionally not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states or nuclear weapon free zones.

The next plenary meeting will be held on Tuesday 15 August, and will be devoted to general debate.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

3 August

The Conference of Disarmament (CD) opened its third session of 2006 on August 3 with the first plenary meeting of the focused debate on Negative Security Assurances (NSAs), the name for nuclear weapon states assuring non nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons will not be used or threatened against them. Twenty-one states spoke: the Russian Federation, Group of 21, Pakistan, New Agenda Coalition, Nigeria, Morocco, Kenya, India, China, Malaysia, Algeria, Senegal, Belarus, the EU, Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Myanmar and Canada.

NSAs: towards total nuclear disarmament
Many states see negative security assurances (NSAs) as a first step and necessary interim measure towards total elimination of all nuclear weapons. Algeria called NSAs a right of non nuclear weapon states, and an ethical, legal and political commitment for the nuclear weapon states in exchange for non nuclear weapon states forgoing the option indefinitely. Pakistan said the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would not have been extended indefinitely in 1995 without the agreement on NSAs, although Pakistan is not a party to the NPT.

Nigeria, Pakistan, the Group of 21, India, Myanmar, Switzerland, Germany, Malaysia, China, Belarus, Kenya and Morocco all supported a legally binding instrument for negative security assurances. The emergence of new nuclear doctrines, particularly ones that are preemptive, retaliate with nuclear weapons against biological or chemical weapons attacks, and/or target non nuclear weapon states, make negative security assurances more salient and necessary, according to China, Malaysia, Nigeria and Pakistan.

There are different views on how to pursue an international convention to prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, but the G21 noted with satisfaction that there has not been any objection in principle to the idea. States disagree over whether to pursue the issue in the CD, in the framework of the NPT, or in a nuclear disarmament convention. If they did pursue it in the CD, they still differ on how to do so.

Where to pursue NSAs
Myanmar called NSAs one of the most crucial elements of an effective, viable and sustainable NPT. Germany said security assurances have been at the heart of the NPT since the treaty's inception. Some states think negotiations on NSAs should be held in the framework of the NPT rather than the Conference on Disarmament. Italy thought the NPT was a more appropriate forum, because only non nuclear weapon states in compliance with the NPT should benefit from such assurances. However, Switzerland pointed out that some states with nuclear weapons are not members of the NPT, and the Conference on Disarmament is the only negotiating forum for disarmament with all nuclear weapons possessors as members. Russia said the CD is the most appropriate venue to work on security assurances, while both China and Canada were willing to negotiate NSAs in the CD or the NPT.

How to pursue NSAs in the CD
While India and Germany supported establishing an ad hoc committee on NSA with the negotiating mandate from the Five Ambassadors' proposal, the Republic of Korea and Italy recommended a discussion mandate as outlined in the Food for Thought Paper put forward by the Netherlands. Russia was willing to not object to a consensus on the Five Ambassadors' proposal, which would include the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on NSA, or the discussion mandate on NSAs from the food for thought paper. Canada suggested the CD launch negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) while continuing discussion on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and nuclear disarmament, including negative security assurances. Egypt delivered a statement on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition focused on nuclear disarmament, and told the CD it must work towards a nuclear weapon free world to remain relevant.

Italy, which prioritizes negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), referred to Article 23 in the CD Rules of Procedure (allowing the Conference to create subsidiary bodies, like an ad hoc committee, but also working groups, technical groups and groups of governmental experts) as a means to deal with this issue in an effective way and enable the conference to get back to work.

The current state of assurances: Security Council Resolutions and Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
Negative Security Assurances have been part of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime since the inception of the NPT, but they are conditional, varied and not necessarily legally binding. Security Council Resolutions 255 (1968) and 984 (1995) both contain security assurances. However, as China pointed out, the resolutions are not a legal instrument and their content is limited. India said the two resolutions are "overburdened with conditions and caveats" and Pakistan explained that "most of the assurances would cease to be operative in an attack on them or their allies". Nigeria said the resolutions have not fulfilled the expectations and requirements of the non-nuclear weapon states.

Legally binding Nuclear Weapon Free Zones treaties ban nuclear weapons from the territories of their states parties. Creating and implementing Nuclear Weapon Free Zones is a way of enhancing negative security assurances on regional basis. However, as Switzerland pointed out, countries outside the free zones cannot benefit from the regional security assurances and are therefore faced with unequal treatment. Italy and Germany both noted that the tensest regions most in need of negative security assurances do not have nuclear weapon free zone agreements. Pakistan said retaining the right to use nuclear weapons in NATO deterrence posture "is not consistent with the pledges on the NSAs made by its constituent nuclear weapon states."

Malaysia was concerned that not all nuclear weapon states have signed or ratified the Protocols to the Treaty of Bangkok and the Treaty of Pelindaba. China declared its support for a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Southern Hemisphere and adjacent areas, that it had reached an agreement with ASEAN on the protocol to the Southeast Asian NWFZ, and that it had no problem with the current text of the Central Asian NWFZ. Russia supported the draft treaty on a nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia and shared concern about the failure of the efforts to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. Italy supported establishing a Middle East NWFZ with a consensual UN General Assembly resolution. Algeria, the only delegation that mentioned the crisis in the Middle East, pointed out that the Israel is the sole obstacle to making the Middle East a NWFZ, and that no one is putting pressure on them when their behavior is threatening the NPT.

The next plenary meeting of the CD will be held Tuesday, 8 August at 10 am.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

29 June

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) closed its second session of 2006 at its June 29 Plenary Meeting. The meeting was also the first of the Senegalese presidency under Ambassador Ousmane Camara. This plenary meeting was devoted to general debate, but comments focused on increasing civil society participation in the CD and the upcoming final CD session, which will debate Negative Security Assurances.

Program of Work
As the CD has now begun to discuss substance, Ambassador Rivasseau of France encouraged the CD to continue this progress, and suggested the CD call its current scheduled activities a “program of work”.

Ireland agreed, ”If it feels like work and sounds like work maybe we should call it work.”

Civil Society and the Conference on Disarmament
Ireland, who introduced the 2004 decision about civil society participation in the CD, recommended increasing this participation to match that of other UN institutions. Ambassador Whelan quoted the Irish Foreign Minister's 2004 CD address: ”I find it hard to believe how a body charged with a mandate of such relevance to human kind and drawing its funding from the United Nations can continue to effectively exclude Civil Society from a meaningful role in its deliberations.”

The 2004 decision gives one informal plenary meeting per annual session to NGOs once the CD adopts a program of work. Ireland and France both noted that this has not yet been used because the CD does not have a formal program of work. However, if the Conference considers its current substantive discussions 'work', it should invite NGO participation this year. ”I don’t think the roof would fall in if it happened,” said Ambassador Whelan.

When France called NGO participation questions procedural, Ireland responded that it was more than a procedural issue, but ”an issue of a democratization of decision processes of United Nations system or those funded by that system."

Ireland questioned how the Friends of the Presidents arrived at the findings about civil society (paragraphs 15-17) involvement in the CD in their June 1 mid-term report, and encouraged them to take a more active approach. Ireland offered to meet with the friends and explore how this could be done, and Italy, one of the Friends, declared they were willing to meet with other delegations for consultations.

New Zealand agreed the CD should have similar rules for NGO participation as other international forums, and asked states with reservations to have an open exchange about it so their concerns could be addressed and the matter resolved.

The Secretary General of the CD thanked Ambassador Whelan for bringing up this important issue, and recognized there is a huge gap between the CD and other international fora in terms of civil society engagement. He asked Ireland to circulate their statement so the Conference could seriously consider the matter, to which Ireland agreed.

The Upcoming Third Session:
Negative Security Assurances and a Comprehensive Program of Disarmament
Senegal outlined the timetable for the upcoming third session of the CD in their opening statement as president of the Conference. Their presidency will include debates on an ”Effective international arrangement to assure Non-Nuclear Weapons States against the threat of use of nuclear weapons” (Negative Security Assurances), starting on August 3, and on a ”Comprehensive Program of Disarmament” starting on August 10. Senegal encouraged delegations to bring experts from capitals to enrich the debates with technical expertise. Delegations should address scope and definitions at the August 3 meeting.

Senegal supported an international legally binding instrument for Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. Argentina called the NPT the appropriate framework for creating an international legally binding instrument for NSAs.

Argentina called on nuclear weapon states to grant more effective assurances to not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.

Fissile Materials and Terrorism
In light of the threat of terrorist use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Romania called for the immediate start of negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. According to Romania, the negotiations would not be easy and would take time, but this is a part of the process and there is no need to solve everything before starting.

Russia thanked members of the Conference for their sympathy regarding the murder of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, and said the conditions in Iraq are not improving. While they too are concerned that terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction, they think it will be more effective to first talk about how to get rid of the conditions that create terrorism.

Next Session
The next plenary meeting of the conference will be held on Thursday, August 3, opening the third and final session and debate on Negative Security Assurances, addressing scope and definitions.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

22 June

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) concluded its debate on new weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons at the final plenary meeting of the Russian Presidency, June 22. The Foreign Minister of Myanmar made a statement to the Conference, as well as representatives from China, Norway, India, Switzerland, France, United States, Italy and the Russian Federation.

In its statement as outgoing president, Russia hoped the themed discussions organized by this year's presidents provide food for thought on the tabled proposals for a programme of work, and that "a sober analysis of the results of the Conference's this year's session will help us reach an agreement on the CD program of work, or at least come closer to such an agreement without breaking the balances and taking into account of the real situation, leaning on pragmatism, realistic approach and due consideration of the opinions and interests of all Member States."

Nuclear Disarmament

H.E Mr., U Nyan Win declared that Myanmar's priority in the CD was Nuclear Disarmament. "We do perceive that the continued existence of nuclear weapons poses a grave danger to mankind. Myanmar firmly believes that the only effective defense against nuclear catastrophe is the total elimination of these weapons." Myanmar, who annually introduces a resolution on nuclear disarmament in the UN General Assembly's First Committee, would like to see an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament established as the highest priority by the CD.

Radiological weapons

According to China, discussions on new weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons should include definitions and principles. States should explore a commitment to not develop, produce, stockpile and use any radiological weapons, a commitment not to attack nuclear facilities, how to prevent radiological materials from transferring and how to stop non state actors from using this radiological material. However, China also believed that it was necessary have domestic laws and regulations to strengthen the management of radiological material.

India pointed out that the CD last gave this matter serious thought in the summer of 2002, and though it was unlikely that any state would resort to developing, producing and using radiological weapons "the threat of their use by terrorist is now well recognized and we see merit in the Conference reaching an understanding on banning radiological weapons, and foreswearing the development of such weapons in the future."

The United States, the only country of 182 to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution prohibiting the development of new types of weapons of mass destruction, rejected the term "new types of weapons of mass destruction" as an entirely hypothetical concept.

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)

The Foreign Minister of Myanmar called upon all states, particularly those with major space capabilities, to contribute to the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race. Myanmar supports "elaborat[ing] a legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and on the threat or use of force against outer space objects."

Switzerland, which is working with France on civilian critical infrastructure, called the growing dependence on space assets an important part of civil infrastructure in need of protection. Switzerland recommended the CD continue to discus PAROS, and because many space applications can be used for civilian and military purposes, examine greater interaction between the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the CD.

Russia said more than 20 delegations made statements, states introduced eight working papers and experts from seven states participated in the PAROS discussions, succeeding "in modeling, in a way, the function of the future CD Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS, where political and professional elements would be intertwined." Ambassador Loshchinin warned that if the ripe PAROS "overripes", it will be too late.

Terrorism and Fissile Materials

The United States spoke about combating terrorism through the emerging international framework against terrorism, new gap-filling and in-depth measures, and recommended the CD make "a direct and meaningful contribution ... through the immediate negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty under the draft mandate" (CD/1776) they presented in May. Italy also linked the two subjects, reminding the conference of their May 16 working paper "Banning the Production of Fissile Material to Prevent Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism" (CD/1772).

As well as stopping the production of new fissile material, states can reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism minimizing the use of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in the civilian nuclear sector. Mr. Kjetil Paulsen of Norway shared highlights from an international symposium in Oslo earlier this week, where 130 experts and diplomats from 45 countries discussed minimizing the use of HEU in the civilian nuclear sector. Ambassador Paulson remarked on the business-like exchange among the experts, and noted that it greatly facilitated the policy discussions. "When experts, by and large, agree that something is doable it is difficult to ignore by diplomats and policy-makers," he said, "Though sometimes we do it anyway."

In addition to current political and legal international frameworks, like Security Council Resolutions 1540 and 1373, the Nuclear Terrorism Convention and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the United States recommended one gap-filler and one new in-depth strategy. They suggested that civil and administrative penalties, and possibly liability, could fill an existing gap in preventing and deterring unwitting facilitators in the public and private sector from engaging in high-risk activity that contributes to the proliferation of WMD to terrorists. A defense-in-depth approach to terrorism would require international cooperation across the full spectrum of partner government agencies, including Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defense, Interior, Finance, Science and Technology, Energy, Health, Environment and Commerce, as well as related regulatory, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies.

France investigated the purpose of critical civilian infrastructure further and pointed out the danger of terrorist attacks by asking what the consequences of the attacks at 9/11, Madrid and London would have been if they were done by weapons of mass destruction.

The next plenary meeting will be held next Thursday at 29 June at 10 am.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

21 June

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of United Nations, spoke to the Conference of Disarmament (CD) at the Wednesday 21 June plenary meeting. All regional groups, China, the Group of 21, the Western Group and the Eastern European Group, and the European Union took the floor and commented the Secretary General's statement.

Sleepwalking towards nuclear proliferation, or gaining momentum for disarmament?

Kofi Annan warned the international community that it seemed to be sleepwalking down a path where a growing numbers of states feel obliged to arm themselves with nuclear weapons-"not by conscious choice, but rather through miscalculation, sterile debate and paralysis of the very multilateral mechanisms created for confidence-building and conflict-resolution." After calling prioritizing either non-proliferation or disarmament over the other self-defeating, Annan said the CD "must devalue the currency of nuclear weapons".

He told the Conference on Disarmament it is the single group with the "collective power to wake the world up," and called on it to rise to the challenge by beginning work without linking issues to each other as they are in the popular Five Ambassadors' proposal. He urged the CD members to put their "differences and well-rehearsed arguments" behind them.

The Secretary General noticed that for the first time in a decade, the CD is working on an agreed schedule, with structured debates on key issue, scientific and other experts contributions, more intense and frequent meetings and that the Presidents of the Conference had made particular efforts to reflect the security concerns of all states.

"I hope that these steps represent the beginnings of a new period of productivity. It is long overdue for this negotiating body to abandon the all-consuming linkages that have dominated your approach in recent years, and get down to substantive work," he said.

Although China followed the Secretary-General's statement with reassurances that they are ready to start working, they reiterated their support for the linkages Annan just suggested abandoning when they called for a "balanced and comprehensive program of work."

The Group of 21 renewed their commitment to foster a consensus, will do their utmost to enable the Conference to start its substantive work, and called on the Conference to demonstrate flexibility in order to do so.

Although there are still important bridges to build, the Western Group said the recent progress gave the CD hope for getting back to work.

The Eastern European Group believed the signal sent by Annan's speech would "strengthen an atmosphere of constructive cooperation" so the CD could get back to work.

The EU saw the common platform created by the 6 Presidents of the Conference as a window of opportunity to move forward. "We can achieve progress with a combination of prioritizing, and at the same time allowing for a just and meaningful consideration of the concerns of all stakeholders."

All the groups thanked the Secretary General for his statement and hoped it would give impetus to the Conference.

The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday 22 June, when the focused debate on Agenda item 5 will continue. As this will be the last plenary meeting of the Russian Presidency, they are also planning a summary report.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

20 June

At the opening of its first plenary during the week of focus on new weapons of mass destruction and radiological weapons, the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Republic of Korea, Mr. Ban Ki-moon and the Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Professor Akiko Yamanaka spoke at the Conference on Disarmament (CD).
Switzerland, Belarus, Russia, France, Germany and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea also took the floor. Mr. Ban Ki-moon has been nominated by the Republic of Korea as a candidate for Secretary General of the United Nations.

Program of Work and New Issues

States discussed the elusive Program of Work in the context of today's topic, "New weapons of Mass Destruction and new systems of such weapons; Radiological Weapons" and the most popular, but not consensus supported, proposal, the Five Ambassadors' (A5) proposal.

Professor Akiko Yamanaka from Japan recommended the CD begin work by doing what can be done, implying the CD should work on the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) even if it does not work on the other core issues. She said the FMCT is considered ripe because no country has voiced objection to beginning negotiations, and criticized the Five Ambassadors' proposal. "The Five Ambassadors proposals for a program of work has produced few results, and we must break from its spell. We must review the present situation with fresh eyes while distancing ourselves from the past approaches," said Professor Yamanaka.

Although the A5 proposal focuses on four core issues, (FMCT, the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS), negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament) it also includes the appointment of a Special Coordinator to would seek the views of CD member states on the most appropriate way to deal with radiological weapons. Germany considered this proposal to constitute the lowest common denominator acceptable and called upon world community to ban radiological weapons as an act of preventive arms control. "We believe that a Radiological Weapons Convention could create an important international norm… A Radiological Weapons Convention could be an expression of the fact that the issue of protecting radioactive materials is not a national matter but a joint responsibility of the international community."

Even though Russia would not object to the appointment of a Special Coordinator as suggested in accordance with the A5 proposal, "it is obvious that a possible compromise on the Program of Work can be found on the basis of a balanced approach to the so called four "core issues", and this item is not a part of them," said Deputy Representative Anton Vasiliev. Belarus said other issues could only be dealt with once the key issues were resolved.

In a joint statement with France, Switzerland again proposed the CD address a different new issue: critical civilian infrastructure. By discussing critical civilian infrastructure, France and Switzerland are trying to address terrorism. France said protecting critical infrastructure, like nuclear power stations, ports and roads, could not be neglected, and is at the forefront of many countries' security concerns.

The Korean Peninsula

The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, spoke about the Six Party Talks, where North Korea committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs while the United States, China, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan agreed to give extend economic and energy assistance and normalize relations with North Korea. Mr Ban Ki-moon was concerned about North Korea's missile launch preparations, and the negative effect this would have on the Korean peninsula, North East Asia and international efforts against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK/North Korea) was disappointed with the statement made by the Republic of Korea (RoK/South Korea), and replied that it was only an attempt to push Mr. Ban Ki-moon's personal aim to become the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that "The statement of the Foreign Minister of South Korea, particular on the Korean issue, is surprisingly aggressive and unexpected when we see positive developments taking place between the North and South of Korea after the historic adoption of the North-South joint declaration on 15 June 2000 in, Pyongyang."

DPRK also referred to their May 19 statement, in which they said that if the US demonstrates the political will to abide by the Joint Statement (9.19 Joint Statement by the Six-party Talks) and puts it into action, they will rejoin the NPT.

The next plenary meeting will be held Wednesday 21 June at 11 am, when the Secretary General of United Nations, Kofi Annan will speak to the Conference.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

15 June

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a short plenary session about Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) on Thursday 15 June. Japan, Algeria, Canada and Kazakhstan took the floor.

NGOs engaged with members of the Conference and displayed useful material and documents outside the Council Chamber in accordance with the CD's January 2004 decision. A wide range of disarmament NGOs with participants from six countries participated in this event arranged by the NGO Committee on Disarmament. The initiative was welcomed by a number of delegations.

Following the discussions about transparency and confidence building measures (TCBMs) in Tuesday’s session, both Japan and Kazakhstan emphasized their support for these measures. Kazakhstan welcomed “the recent statements by the UK and US that they do not have plans to build and place weapons in orbit, TCBMs can not be used as a substitute for a treaty but can play an instrumental role in promoting its objective.”

Algeria was concerned about that the trend of militarization in outer space could lead to an arms race and destabilize international security, leading to strategic imbalance. Algeria identified the development of new Anti-Ballistic Missile systems as a part of this trend.

Japan said the distinction between militarization and weaponization was unclear. ”We are not sure whether such a problem actually exists or not. Some mention was made to ”new concept weapons.” But what are they, where are they? Without specific explanations I cannot help but say they are part of science fiction.” Japan calls attention to a need to give further attention and expertise to these issues, so ambiguities are not intentionally used to either falsely accuse or obscure weapons development. Clear definitions and rules would also build confidence. Due to the inherent dual use nature of satellites, Japan wants a possible legal instrument to deal only with weaponization, regardless of the lack of clarity on its difference from militarization.

Kazakhstan was also concerned by definitions, both of weapons in outer space and verification. Kazakhstan agreed with China and Russia position that negotiating a PAROS Treaty without verification would be acceptable. ”Verification is not an easy issue, especially when [what is] subject to verification is yet to be defined. The Chinese proposal to put on hold for while a verification aspect of a future treaty is a pragmatic example how to deal with the issue of PAROS,” said Ambassador Kayrat Abusseitov.

Japan, Kazakhstan and Canada reiterated the call for better cooperation with other UN bodies, like COPUOS, ITU and the First and Fourth Committee of the General Assembly. Canada referred the UNIDIR conference, “Building the Architecture for Sustainable Space Security”, to when the incoming Chair of COPUOS spoke in the CD chamber. Canada announced they had submitted the report from this conference as an official document of the CD, and commended it to the delegates.

The next plenary meeting will be held Tuesday, 20 June. On Wednesday, 21 June, the Secretary General will make a statement to the Conference on Disarmament at 11 am. Thursday 22 June, will be the final plenary meeting of the second session of the CD.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

13 June

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) continued its focused debate on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) at its June 13 plenary session, with a focus on Transparency and Confidence Building Measures (TCBMs). Presumably responding to Russia's June 8 call to states with military space technology “to refrain from any practical activities aimed to place weapon systems in outer space while the international agreement on non-weaponization of outer space is being elaborated,” the United States openly declared its right to continue to develop such weapons in the session. Pakistan, Cuba, China, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Brazil, France, Russia, United States, Argentina, Sweden and Australia also took the floor.

“Full Spectrum Dominance”

The United States sent a State Department official to the CD to make its most overt defense of its right to develop space weapons to date. ”The high value of space systems has led the United States to study the potential of space-related weapons to protect our satellites from potential future attacks, whether from the surface or from other spacecraft. As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our Government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting out assets,” said Deputy Office Director of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs Division of the Department of State John Mohanco.

Although it continues to support the negotiation of its top priority, a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, the United States was “more convinced than ever that issues relating to the supposed weaponization of space definitely do NOT have consensus” in the CD.

Cuba noted that this lack of consensus may not be terribly strong, as only the United States and Israel voted against the resolution on PAROS adopted by the First Committee of the General Assembly (A/RES/60/54) in 2005. Although it usually abstains on this annual norm-building resolution, in 2005 the US led the first ever no votes on it against 180 states in favor. The United States was the sole no vote on the new resolution about transparency and confidence building measures in outer space (A/RES/60/66), against 178 states in favor.

The US stated that their opposition to any further arms control measures in outer space is because ”there is no – repeat, no- problem in outer space for arms control to solve.” They see the inability to define space weapons as the main barrier to discussing space weapons, although that did not prevent them from telling the conference they do not have nor plan to build such weapons.

Pakistan made a clear reference to the US Space Command's Vision for 2020 when Ambassador Khan stated, ”Military doctrines that seek full spectrum dominance projected through and from space are counterproductive and jeopardize the security of all humanity. Defense capability is legitimate but aspirations for impregnable defenses tend to undermine deterrence, and lead to new instruments of war and to arms race.”

Similar to US views on other weapons systems, “threats to the peaceful use of space... come not from the existence of military hardware, but from those who would disturb the peace”. The recently released Weapons of Mass Destruction Report, chaired by Hans Blix and written by weapons experts from around the world, insists weapons themselves are dangerous, in anyone's hands.

Transparency and Confidence Building Measures

The working paper submitted by China and the Russian Federation (CD/1678) on transparency and confidence building measures (TCBMs) was the basis for much of the discussion.

Several states noted the need for a step-by-step approach to transparency and confidence building. As Sweden stated, “an important step would be the full implementation of all existing CBMs (confidence building measures), for example those included in the 1975 Registration Convention.”

Russia said, ”by its nature, confidence building is a phased process.” China agreed that ”TCBMs (transparency and confidence building measures) can serve as a starting point and supplement for negotiation and concluding an international legal instrument that prohibits the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space.”

Belarus contended that ”new CBMs in outer space, in the first place, should be aimed at further strengthening of already existing international legal tools in the field of space law.”

Ambassador Valery Loschinin from Russia explained the working paper in detail. Measures to create confidence and serve as a starting point for a future treaty include: the exchange of information about space programs; demonstrations of technologies and launch sites; notifications of launches and descents from orbit of outer space objects; consultations on research and programs; and thematic workshops on outer space research and use issues.

An expert from the Swedish Defense Research Agency made comments and further suggestions to the measures presented in the Chinese/Russian working paper. “Mechanisms for consultations would serve many essential purposes, as pointed out in the working paper. One simple measure to facilitate such consultations would be the appointment of national points of contact,” said Mr. Lars Hostbeck.

Ireland promoted the suggestions made by the recently released report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission: notice of all space launches; unilateral declarations by states of not flight-test or deploy weapons in space; declaration of moratoria on production and testing anti-satellite weapons; and establishing the observation of a minimum exclusion zone around satellites. Italy, Russia, Belarus and Cuba also urged states with extensive space capacities to officially declare they will not be the first ones to place weapons in outer space.

States also discussed the step-by-step approach for verification. Russia and China, which prioritize PAROS, admitted that verification was a complicated issue and might be postponed. China stated, ”Due to the complex nature of verification of outer space activities, which bears on the security interest of all countries, as well as to technical and financial constraints of verification, currently it is extremely difficult to negotiate a verification provision. For the time being, to put on hold the verification issue until conditions are ripe, and to negotiate a treaty without verification provisions could be a practical alternative.” Russia concurred, ”Elaborating the treaty without verification measures, which could be added at a later stage, might be a preferable option. TCBMs could, for a certain period of time, compensate for the lack of verification measures in the new treaty.”

Brazil, Argentina and Pakistan exemplified confidence building measures by sharing details of their own space programs in their statements.

Cooperation

As at the last plenary meeting, states emphasized the importance of cooperation with other UN bodies, which was echoed today. Belarus wanted work on confidence building measures to be carried out in cooperation between General Assembly’s First and Fourth Committee, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the CD. Sweden agreed that it is important to make sure the work among the CD, COPUOS and other relevant bodies will be mutually reinforcing and co-coordinated in order to avoid duplication or contradictory approaches.

”We believe that the dialogue between the various bodies with an interest in outer space should be enhanced” said Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy, and suggested inviting the Chairman of COPUOS to brief the CD on questions relevant to their work.

It would be useful if more states, particularly leaders, focused on cooperation rather than dominance. However, even with aggressive stances, there is still room for hope and some maneuvering among those working for compromise and progress in disarmament. The US indicated in its final paragraph that “delegations may continue to use this plenary to conduct in-depth reviews of all issues of interest to Member States, including outer space”.

The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday 15 June.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

8 June

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held its first structured debate on the issue of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) on 8 June. The session focused on the importance of PAROS and the scope and basic definitions of the future international legal agreement on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and the use of force against outer space objects. The first part, devoted to the importance of PAROS, compelled 17 states to take the floor.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”

Many speakers emphasized that it is in all of our interest to keep space free for peaceful purposes because we have become more dependent on space technology. Many also recognized it is easier to prevent than reduce and remove.

Canada, China, Sri Lanka, Germany, Russia and South Africa all emphasized the need to prevent the weaponization of space. Russia stated, “We deal with prevention of something which does not exist yet, with preserving the current status quo. It’s a win-win case for all.”

And as Ambassador Fernando of Sri Lanka, asked “Can we really afford an expensive competition in outer space when there remain so many other challenges before as such as poverty, hunger, disease and deprivation?”

The world will soon celebrate the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Outer Space Treaty. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission recommended a review conference of the Outer Space Treaty be held in 2007 to mark this special anniversary, noted by both Sri Lanka and Sweden. Swedish Ambassador Bonnier also brought up the possibility of an additional protocol to the Outer Space Treaty prohibiting all weapons in outer space.

Germany urged member states of the Outer Space Treaty to work towards its universalization, as there are currently only 98 states party to the Outer Space Treaty. “It should be seriously considered that States Parties assess the continued, even increased importance of that important instrument of preventive arms- limitation and space security,” said Ambassador Brasack.

Sweden also stated that “while in the CD we should aim at a mechanism or instrument for a clear-cut prohibition of weaponization of Outer Space, other concepts should also be fully explored, such as transparency and confidence building measures, codes of conduct and rules of the road.”

States also mentioned other treaties relevant to this issue, including the Moon Agreement of 1979, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Together with the Outer Space Treaty they are all international legal instruments in this field, but China pointed out, “Some focus on WMD only, some are limited to a certain celestial body or area in outer space and lack universality, and some have even been scrapped. In order to remedy the lacunae and close the loopholes of existing legal framework and fundamentally prevent the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space, a new international legal instrument is obviously needed.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned about the implications practical tests of space weapons and increasing budgets for space militarization. “The fact that the existing relevant international legal instruments lack the provisions to fully check the deployment of space weapons, as well as the abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM), the pursuit of missile defense systems, etc, give rise to the deep concern that outer space might be reduced into military monopoly.”

Indonesia, on behalf of the Group of 21, was also concerned about recent developments in space and their impact on the disarmament regime. “The Group, however, is deeply concerned over the negative implication of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic-missile defense systems and the pursuit of advanced military technologies capable of being deployed in outer space which have contributed to the further erosion of an international climate conductive to the promotion of disarmament and strengthening of international security.”

Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS

There were a number of statements that called for establishing a body for prevention of an arms race in outer space. China was of the view that the conditions are ripe for negotiating a legal instrument, and now is the time to carry out substantive work.

Belarus, Canada, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the EU, Germany, India, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, and Syria were all in favor of establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS in the Conference.

China, Germany and India also emphasized the importance of a comprehensive and balanced program of work in accordance with the Five Ambassadors' or A-5 proposal. China responded to the US rejection of linkages in support of an FMCT only by stating “Isn’t it a form of 'linkage' when some people insist on negotiating one issue, while refusing to conduct any substantive work on others? Each and every country has its own priority. To focus exclusively on one’s priority, while disregarding the priorities of others, would only lead to an unbreakable deadlock of CD.”

Although the United Kingdom agreed with the joint EU statement, it added, “As national security activities in space have grown, so have concerns by some states about the risk of an arms race in outer space. We understand that some states would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. However, we do not believe that there is an international consensus on the need for further treaties or further legal codification.”

The Netherlands suggested the CD be “imaginative and creative... bold and break new ground, even when that means taking a risk” when considering how to break the CD deadlock. Ambassador Landman said in his view and the view of his authorities, “the CD could and should start negotiating on an FMCT, while simultaneously discussions on PAROS could be started. When the time is ripe, these discussions could be followed by negotiations on the issue. In this way the CD would be able to circumvent the problems that the package approach poses.”

Importantly, Russia called on states to not deploy space based weapons while either waiting for this ripe time, or during negotiations of a treaty: "The important prerequisite for the progress towards the ultimate goal is to ensure that the States, which possess military space technologies, refrain from any practical activities aimed to place weapon systems in outer space while the international agreement on non-weaponization of outer space is being elaborated."

Cooperation with other UN bodies

There were some ideas on how to move forward with the work on PAROS. Canada suggested that the work of the international community could be optimized by enhancing dialogue between the various UN bodies with an interest in outer space, including the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the CD, and the UN General Assembly, particularly its First and Fourth Committees. Canada thought the UN Inter-Agency Meeting on Outer Space Activities would be a useful coordination forum for this. Sweden has on several occasions called for closer links between the CD and COPUOS. The EU also said interaction between the work in the CD and COPUOS was desirable.

Prevent weaponization or de-militarize outer space?

There are currently no weapons in outer space, and a PAROS treaty would legally ban that from ever happening. There are military objects in space, such as satellites, surveillance, communications and targeting tools, which are used for military purposes. While most countries aim to prevent weaponization of space, Egypt and New Zealand expressed the need to de-militarize outer space. New Zealand said the peaceful use of outer space should not be compromised by militarization and therefore there is a need for a more comprehensive legal framework for de-militarizing space. Egypt suggested including specific articles prohibiting military use of outer space in a future legal instrument.

Russia's second statement proposed three obligations for a possible treaty, none of which would cover supporting outer space military systems like communication, navigation, monitoring, early warning, meteorological and geodesic information. “These systems are not weapons as such or a source of threat or use of force. On the contrary, such military space systems are capable of playing a positive role.”

Scope and definitions

The second part of the Plenary Meeting was dedicated to scope and definitions, and Russia and Belarus took the floor. In a lengthy and detailed statement, Russia outlined its vision of the scope of a treaty and discussed the pros and cons of it containing various definitions. As contained in CD/1679, their proposed three basic treaty obligations would be to not place weapons in space, to not resort to the threat or use of force against outer space objects, and to not assist others in doing either of the former.

Russia drew a clear line between “placement” and “deployment”, as deployment is limited to placement for combat purposes, while placement includes other activities as well, such as weapons tests in outer space.

The next plenary meeting will be focused on transparency and confidence building measures. It will be held Tuesday 13 June at 10 am.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

1 June

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation took over the rotating Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) at the plenary meeting on 1 June. Ambassador Loschinin opened the general debate today, but no delegation took the floor.

In his opening statement, Ambassador Loschinin again highlighted the timetable for discussions on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space which will be the focused item during his presidency. He also noted the four Russian and Chinese working papers (CD/1778, CD/1779, CD/1780 and CD/1781), and referred to a compilation prepared by the Secretariat on the issue.

The formal plenary then closed, and delegates went into an informal session to discuss the mid-term reports of the Friends of the Presidents (the Ambassadors of Sri Lanka, Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy and Japan).

The focused debate on a future international legal agreement on prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, and threat and use of force against outer space objects will be structured as follows:

Thursday, June 8, there will be a formal plenary meeting devoted to two issues; the importance of PAROS; and the scope and basic definitions of the future international legal agreement on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and the use of force against outer space objects. This will be followed by an informal plenary on Friday, June 9th to continue discussions on these topics.

Tuesday, June 13, there will be a formal plenary meeting on the issue of transparency and confidence building measures in outer space.

Wednesday, June 14, the Russian Federation has invited delegations, observer states and UNIDIR to an open-ended informal meeting in order to discuss three issues: ways to assure safety of outer space assets; the way ahead on PAROS in the CD and elsewhere; and any other business.

Thursday, June 15, there will be an informal plenary on the issue of transparency and confidence building measures in outer space.

Tuesday, June 20, there will be a formal plenary on the issue of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons.

Thursday, June 22, will continue with another formal plenary meeting on the same issue, followed by a wrap-up by the Russian Presidency.

-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

22 May

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) closed its debate on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) on Monday, May 22. The Russian Federation, Peru, Colombia, Canada, the EU, China, Japan, Switzerland and Morocco made statements as well as outgoing President, Ambassador Costea of Romania. Most states talked about the week of FMCT discussions and agreed the talks had helped clarify positions and produced a clearer picture of issues related to a treaty. Delegations showed appreciation for the May 18 US draft negotiating mandate and treaty and hoped it would bring the conference back to work.

As the week of focused discussions comes to a close, it is time to reflect on the CD's success at working on the subject many delegations have called the most “ripe” for negotiations, as well as its prospects for beginning negotiations any time soon. Canada said the week went “as well as we could have hoped” and provided a “glimmer of hope” for the CD. Japan called the week an “outstanding success”, using the number of participating experts and introduced working papers as measuring sticks of that success. Romania told the Conference 48 experts from 18 states participated in the discussions, and 9 working papers were introduced as CD documents, evidencing “a return to the normal mixture of political and technical components the CD needs”. Romania also said the frequency of meetings and the structure and nature of debates should only be seen as the normal rhythm for a body like the CD.

Peru and Colombia commented on the specifics of the draft treaty and negotiating mandate. Peru explained, “While we appreciate the document submitted by the US, any international instrument must of necessity, have a verification instrument.” With regard to existing stocks, Colombia asked why we need existing fissile materials if the goal is to eliminate nuclear weapons completely. Peru agreed existing stocks could be negotiated in an ad hoc committee, but emphasized that “we cannot set aside tremendous quantities of materials that could be used to update existing weapons or build new ones.”

The CD now has a draft negotiating mandate and a draft text for a treaty on fissile materials, and needs to figure out how to begin work. The CD must agree by consensus on a program of work to establish the Ad Hoc Committees that negotiate treaties, and has been unable to do so for nearly ten years. Many delegations have expressed hope that the week's discussions and the draft negotiating mandate and treaty will bring the Conference closer to agreement.

Japan said US Assistant Secretary Rademaker is open to discussions on the other traditional CD issues (the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, Negative Security Assurances and nuclear disarmament) while negotiations are taking place on an FMCT. Switzerland said “the US and other delegations have shown determination to continue discussion on traditional and new subjects”. If the US is willing to engage in discussions on the other three subjects and other states are willing to begin negotiations on an FMCT, it sounds suspiciously like a compromise program of work that would enable negotiations to begin.

China said it hoped the week's debate would contribute to an early adoption of a program of work, and Russia said it is certain that the week's results will improve the problems blocking compromise and foster progress on compromise on a program of work.

The EU called for the immediate commencement of negotiations, and in its statement delivered by Austria, “encourage[d] the Presidency of the CD to consider quickly and actively how to continue our deliberations on this issue during the reminder of the 2006 session.” Switzerland said the draft negotiating mandate could be accepted immediately and suggested creativity in the path forward.

The Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) responded to the Conference's invitation to participate in its FMCT discussions in a letter President Costea shared with the Conference. The IAEA would be pleased to send a representative of the agency to discuss these issues during the 3rd part of the 2006 session, which will bring the FMCT discussions back during the 2006 CD session.

Russia and China both made statements about the upcoming focus on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). They presented a new working paper about transparency and confidence building measures in outer space activities, and also submitted three earlier working papers as official documents, concerning existing international legal instruments, verification aspects and definition issues regarding legal instruments. The CD is scheduled to discuss PAROS from June 8 to June 15. If the CD begins negotiating an FMCT this year, it will do so while discussions on the other core issues are taking place, similar to several compromise program of work proposals.

The next plenary meeting is scheduled for 10 am on Thursday 1 June.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

19 May

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a plenary discussion on compliance and verification of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) on the 19th of May, followed by two informals on the same subject. The Democratic Peoples’s Republic of Korea, Mexico, the United States, Japan, Iran, Australia and South Africa made plenary statements, primarily on verification and compliance.

Following their introduction of a draft treaty on fissile materials on Thursday, the United States introduced a white paper outlining their policy on the FMCT on Friday. US Charge d'Affairs Thomas Cynkin made it clear that the US is ready to start negotiations with an ”aim to conclude a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty as soon as possible.”

Unfortunately, the US is still at odds with nearly the entire Conference on verification and compliance, reiterating that ”so-called effective verification of an FMCT cannot be achieved.” Reportedly during the informal sessions, experts from around the world tried to convince the US otherwise. However, in its public statement, the US held that ”Even with extensive verification mechanisms and provisions – so extensive that they could compromise the core national security interests of key signatories, and so costly that many countries would be hesitant to implement them—, we still would not have high confidence in our ability to monitor compliance with an FMCT.” Later in the white paper, the US said that not only would negotiating verification provisions prolong ”a difficult enough task”, it would actually be ”dangerous” by providing ”a false sense of security”.

In the plenary session South Africa asserted verification of a treaty on fissile materials would be realistic and effective, and identified three elements of a potential verification system. These three elements would deal with 1) facilities previously used for production of fissile materials, 2) weapons grade materials that have been declared as excess, and 3) non-weapons materials, including down-blended materials and materials for non-weapons purposes.

South Africa also promoted the Internatioanl Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as the most logical entity to be entrusted with the Treaty's verification because it has expertise and experience in dealing with safeguards and verification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would also probably be more costly to create a new verification entity than to utilize the IAEA. Because the effectiveness of a treaty on fissile materials would depend on sufficient funds for verification, ”One could therefore argue that the willingness of State Parties to provide funding for the verification of an FMT will be a real test of its practical effect,” said South Africa's Mr Johann Kellerman.

Japan offered two approaches to dealing with verification, looking first at what type of verification is required, dependent on the type of fissile materials ban, and second at whether such verification is feasible. Japan also mentioned that many CD members, including Japan, would have more questions for the US experts that explained the US position on verification in the CD two years ago.

Iran's Mr Hamid Eslamizad quoted their Minister of Foreign Affairs, HE Mr. Mottaki, from his March 30 statement to the CD: ”A treaty on fissile materials should be verifiable in order to be capable of creating confidence. By the term verifiable we mean that the treaty needs to have sufficiently elaborated provisions on its verification mechanism.”

Mexico pointed out that verification is essentional in any treaty, but most important in a disarmament treaty. The sole outcome of an instrument without an effective verification mechanism is a norm that may or may not be observed. Ambassador Pablo Macedo also recalled the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference's call for the CD to initiate negotiations on this matter, meaning ”This mandate is not an option, it is an obligation.”

Australia suggested a step by step approach to the issue as a compromise. Mr. Russel Leslie said the first step is to secure the acceptance of the norm against the new production of Fissile Material for use of weapons by the recognized Nuclear Weapon States and the non members of NPT. The next step would be in the context of verification discussions.

Some of the states also commented on exsisting stocks. The US firmely stated what they made clear in their draft treaty, that ”stocks of already existing fissile material would be unaffected by the FMCT”. Mexico shared South Africa's May 18 concern that ”Even banning future production of fissile material, one could use exsisting ones to build new weapons.” Mexican Ambassador Pablo Macedo said a treaty not covering existing stocks would only be an arms control measure, not a disarmament one. Iran had ”serious doubts on how a treaty on fissile materials could serve the nuclear disarmament cause without covering the vast stocks which could easily be used for development of new and new types of nuclear weapons.”

Iran also stated that a program of work should include all four core issues (FMCT, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, nuclear disarmament, and Negative Security Assurances) and enjoy consensus.

The Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea made a statement primarily focused on their nuclear situation, not the FMCT. ”It is not that we put our fate at all on the Six-Party Talks. We defend our security ourselves. We have possesed the nuclear deterrence commensurate with the character of the threat against us.” However, the DPRK stated that if the US demonstrates the political will to abide by the Joint Statement (9.19 Joint Statement by the Six-party Talks) and puts it into action, they will rejoin the NPT. ”We withdrew from the NPT, not because there is any problem with the NPT itself, but because the US misused it as a tool to infringe upon our supreme interests.”

On the FMCT, the DPRK appropriated the May 18 US terminology accussing some CD members of taking the FMCT hostage to other issues, when it responded, ”The CD is not the forum serving unilateral interests of one country. The CD can’t be a hostage to one country.”

The conference will hold its next plenary meeting on Monday 22 May at 3 pm.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

18 May

The United States introduced a draft Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty and a draft mandate for negotiating it in this morning's May 18th discussion on existing stocks during the week of the Conference on Disarmament's focused debate on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). US Acting Assistant Secretary of International Security and Nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker traveled to the Conference to present the draft treaty. Following the introduction, the CD paused its speaking list to give delegations an opportunity to react to what Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands called “possibly the most important statement in 3/4/5/6 years.” India, United Kingdom, Iran, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, France, Pakistan, Germany, Venezuela, Chile, Belgium, China, Russia, Bulgaria, Algeria, and Canada reacted to the draft treaty, mandate and statement. All welcomed the statement and text as a sign of US engagement with the CD, even if many were not fully satisfied with its content.

The Text
The draft treaty does not include existing stocks or provisions for verification. The draft mandate is “to negotiate a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devises,” leaving out “internationally and effectively verifiable” from the previously agreed-upon Shannon Mandate for an FMCT. The draft treaty requires the ratification of the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) to enter into force and includes a withdrawal provision. Interestingly, Assistant Secretary Rademaker proposed either an ad hoc committee, or this plenary, begin negotiations. He also suggested they aim to approve a text by the end of this 2006 CD session.

As delegations only received the text this morning, most were not able to officially comment on specifics because they must send the draft to their capitols, but were interested in further discussions. Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Russia hoped the negotiating mandate and draft treaty were a flexible starting point for negotiations that “will help us to strike a balance” among differing positions, as Algeria said. Germany was “happy about some elements of flexibility in the mandate and draft proposal.” Pakistan hoped neither the text nor the US statement were “intended to support the notion that it is a take it or leave it document” and Russian said the draft treaty was “not the final word” on such a treaty, hoping it was open for comments and ideas.

Australia, Belgium, and the Netherlands were particularly concerned about the lack of verification in the draft treaty, although all agreed with the Netherlands who said “it seems we should, can and will discuss that” in negotiations. Even Pakistan, who has long held that “the agreed upon negotiating mandate [Shannon Mandate] cannot be called preconditions”, today said that “we believe all issues can be raised once negotiations start.” Although Australia holds that an effective FMCT should contain verification measures, it believes the treaty could contain states' commitments, followed by secondary agreements on verification, similar to the process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's initial commitments followed by secondary agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Possibilities for Beginning Negotiations
As discussed yesterday, the CD must agree by consensus on a program of work to establish the Ad Hoc Committees that negotiate treaties, and has been unable to agree for ten years. Many delegations expressed hope today that the draft text and mandate would provide momentum and/or the opportunity to “bring the Conference back to negotiating mode” in the words of Italy. Some, like Spain and the UK, recommended dropping the links among the CD's four core issues in order to begin work, while others, like China, suggested the CD “speedily begin work on an FMCT, the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), nuclear disarmament, and Negative Security Assurances.” Belgium, Bulgaria and France were ready to begin negotiations “immediately”, “right away”, and “today”, respectively. Russia said the introduction of a draft FMCT text “cannot serve as an obstacle to our work on other issues”, and Venezuela said that if a program of work is to be adopted it “must address the concerns of all States Parties.”

The compromise Five Ambassadors' proposal for a program of work with Ad Hoc Committees on each of the four core CD issues has been rejected by the US, who only wants to work on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. Although all the other CD members agreed to the Five Ambassadors' compromise, Rademaker said, “a package approach will never work.” He called the linkage among the issues “unconscionable hostage-taking... by proponents of less worthy ideas”. The US saw no need for new agreements on outer space, nuclear disarmament, or security assurances.

Canada and the Netherlands both suggested a more compromising attitude. The Netherlands, reacting to the US characterization of linking issues as hostage-taking, advised that “in practice... insisting on not talking about anything but an FMCT is exactly the same approach as insisting on multiple subjects.” Canada reminded the Conference that the Five Ambassadors' proposal contains a negotiating mandate for an FMCT, but only discussion mandates for the other three subjects. “Americans do not usually shy away from a good debate,” said Canadian Ambassador Meyer. “If the US would signal a willingness to engage, secure in the knowledge they would not advance to negotiations without explicit US approval, it would make an important contribution to bringing this body back to productive channels.”

The text is indeed an opportunity. Although the Conference may not be able to agree by the end of the session, it should be able to use this text, in combination with the timetable of scheduled discussions on all the issues, to find a way to begin working.

The US and Iran
Rademaker's speech also accused Iran of having less than peaceful intentions with its nuclear program, and said “the US expects Security Council to live up to its responsibility to address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. It will be a defeat for effective multilateralism should the Council fail to live up to this responsibility.” Iran responded to Rademaker's list of reasons why Iran's nuclear program is not logically about energy independence by recalling the timeline of US accusations about weapons of mass destruction leading up to its invasion of Iraq, telling the Conference “not to take [the US's] words as real facts, and recalling that the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no diversion of nuclear materials to weapons purposes in Iran.

New US Ambassador to the CD
Assistant Secretary Rademaker announced the new US Ambassador to the CD as a sign of the US intention to begin negotiations, and followed it with the veiled threat that hopefully the former Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Christina Rocca would not “be the last US Ambassador to the CD.”

Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Speakers
Following the discussion of the draft treaty and negotiating mandate, South Africa, Brazil and Nigeria spoke. Egypt addressed the Conference at its afternoon session devoted to “any other FMCT matters”.

South Africa offered that its experience destroying its nuclear program and the following International Atomic Energy Agency investigations would give some insights for FMCT verification. Egypt said compliance must be strict and with guarantees, requiring a complete inventory of stockpiles in all states, including Nuclear Weapon States and states that are not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nigeria pointed out that “In other disarmament instruments stockpiles, verification and compliance mechanisms have been incorporated because of their importance in achieving the set of objectives of such instruments. Why should these elements not be considered in our work on fissile material?”

All four supported including existing stockpiles in an FMCT as a step towards nuclear disarmament. South Africa said because stockpiled material could be used for the production of future nuclear weapons, in order for an FMT to be truly credible, in should include stockpiles in its scope: “It is clear that a complete halt in the production of fissile material would leave enough of the material available to further increase – and not decrease – the number of nuclear weapons.” Egypt said not including existing stocks in an FMCT would not reflect the majority of states' wish to reach complete nuclear disarmament. “The fact that certain countries insist on excluding stockpiles from the scope of the treaty is not in conformity with the spirit of the NPT,” they added.

Brazil stated that the scope of an FMCT must clearly be defined in order to preserve the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Next Meeting
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held tomorrow morning, with a focused debate on compliance. The afternoon session will address verification.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

17 May

The Conference of Disarmament (CD) continued its general debate on a Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), followed by brief focus on definitions, at its May 17 plenary session. The Conference is meeting every day, twice a day, this week, during its week of focused discussion on an FMCT. President Doru Costea of Romania also announced the Conference will invite an expert from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to speak in plenary next Monday, May 22, on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

India, Algeria, Belgium, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, China and Syria made general debate statements, and Australia, the Republic of Korea and Japan made definitions-related statements in the morning plenary session before the Conference moved to informal mode. South Africa, Algeria, Australia, the Republic of Korea, Japan and Germany made statements in the afternoon plenary session devoted to scope before the Conference broke into an informal meeting.

While only about one quarter of the yesterday's general statements discussed the FMCT in the context of the Conference's program of work, seven of today's eight statements did. As CD Report readers know, the Conference needs consensus on its program of work in order to establish the ad hoc committees in which Member States negotiate treaties like the FMCT, and there has been no consensus on the topics or mandates for these committees for the past ten years. The 2001 Five Ambassadors' (A5) proposal to establish ad hoc committees on “four core issues” (FMCT, Nuclear Disarmament, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and Negative Security Assurances) simultaneously, is the most popular compromise, but does not enjoy consensus. Therefore, all the discussions about an FMCT are taking place in a forum which is unable to agree on a program which would allow it to negotiate an FMCT.

Today, Syria pointedly said it only supports establishing an ad hoc committee on an FMCT when the CD adopts a programme of work on all four issues. Yesterday, Spain said it is necessary to abandon such linkages among the issues given the impossibility of moving forward with them. Today, Algeria called the Five Ambassadors' proposal the only means to find agreement on a programme of work, while China reminded the Conference of its flexibility in finally agreeing to the Five Ambassadors' proposal in 2003. New Zealand expressed hope that the FMCT discussions this week could break the deadlock.

Today's general statements again addressed scope, stocks and verification. Member States continue to differ over including existing stocks in an FMCT, as they have since Ambassador Shannon first conducted his consultations in 1994, as South Africa noted. China is “of the view that future FMCT negotiations should not involve the issue of stockpile.” South Africa, who like Pakistan yesterday chose to use the term Fissile Material Treaty, said that “Although cognizant of the difficulties associated with the past production of fissile material, we believe that stocks should be included in the Treaty.” Australia said an FMCT should deal with the status of pre-existing fissile material stocks and be a “forward-looking” treaty. India said the Treaty should deal with future production only.

Different points of view were also made concerning verification. Although China said the Shannon Mandate was a delicate balance to be maintained, it also said all draft provisions for verification, including no verification, should be “carefully explored and prudently considered.” Algeria recommended a verification mechanism with a comprehensive safeguard regime similar to that of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's safeguards for Non-Nuclear Weapon States, thereby ending the discrimination between Nuclear Weapon States and Non Nuclear Weapon States. Belgium said that appropriate verification must be guaranteed in the outcome of the Treaty, though negotiations should begin without preconditions. India was concerned that “Absence of a verification mechanism may engender lack of confidence in compliance with the Treaty, encourage willful non-compliance, and lead to allegations and counter-allegations of non-compliance.”

Australia, the Republic of Korea and Japan had experts with working papers who gave statements at this morning's thematic discussion of definitions. Australia considered definitions of four relevant terms: fissile material, productions, stocks and non proscribed activities. “Fissile material should be only those relevant to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. The material regarded for IAEA safeguards purposes as unirradiated direct use materials could serve as a useful template,” said Australia's Mr. Russel Leslie. The Republic of Korea shared definitions of fissile material from UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents, and said that “direct use materials can be used as a reference for the considerations to define fissile material for FMCT negotiations.” Japan, who suggested the Conference use the International Atomic Energy Agency's definition of fissile material, said the inclusion of other material should be studied in detail by experts and possibly discussed in the International Atomic Energy Agency.

South Africa began the afternoon's thematic discussion on scope by emphasizing the Conference does not need consensus on the scope of an FMCT before beginning negotiations. Australia outlined the framework for the Treaty: the principle article would be the prohibition of fissile material production for nuclear weapons. It would also include definitions, entry into force provisions, mechanisms for revisions and amendments, provisions for the status of stocks and verification, and a mechanism for the declaration of non-proscribed military use of fissile materials (ie naval propulsion).

Algeria said the objective of an FMCT is to ensure fissile materials are not produced for nuclear weapons, which is therefore the same objective as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards regime, contrary to Japan's earlier assertion they were different. Therefore, fissile materials production in Nuclear Weapons States will either cease or be under safeguards. Japan said there was “no doubt” that civilian use of fissile materials should not be subject to an FMCT. The Republic of Korea said the FMCT and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should complement each other in scope and safeguards, and that it is dangerous to make distinctions between them.

The conference will hold its next plenary meeting tomorrow, Thursday 18th May at 10 am, with a thematic debate on existing stocks.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

16 May

The Conference of Disarmament (CD) opened its second session of 2006 on May 16 with the first plenary meeting of this week's focused debate on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). The President, Ambassador Doru Costea of Romania, presided as twenty delegations took the floor. Canada, Italy, Japan and Switzerland referred to Working Papers they produced on the FMCT. The Conference will meet every day this week: it will discuss definitions on the morning of Wednesday the 17th and scope in the afternoon. On Thursday the 18th it will discuss stocks and any other relevant issues, and on Friday the 19th compliance and verification. Each discussion will begin with a plenary meeting followed by an informal meeting.

France, Germany and Russia said they consider an FMCT the next logical step in nuclear arms control and disarmament. Canada, Italy, Spain, and Poland said it was a priority for their delegation, and Chile, Norway, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and Switzerland said it was particularly important in the light of terrorism.

Many of the states that spoke today referred to the FMCT's long history, including the 1993 consensus General Assembly resolution calling for the negotiation of “a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”, the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference's commitment to do so, and the 1995 Special Coordinator Report (Shannon Mandate) outlining the mandate for such negotiations.

Ten years later, the Conference on Disarmament, the body responsible for the Treaty's negotiation, is still discussing it. Although four of the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States have declared unilateral moratoria on fissile materials production, and China seems to have informally done so as well, a moratorium is not legally binding or irreversible, and therefore not enough, as Chile, one of six states to welcome the moratoria, noted. Moreover, the three states not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have declared no such moratoria and as Pakistan has indicated, may have no intention of doing so. Norway welcomed Pakistan's transparency, and called on the other States without formally declared moratoria to clarify their positions (China, India and Israel).

Technically, an FMCT would only create new obligations for the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States and the three states not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. All other states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapon States are already prohibited from producing materials intended for nuclear weapons, which is verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Germany and the Republic of Korea emphasized the importance of including the three states not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in an FMCT, bringing them under international supervision for the first time. 

Definitions, scope, existing stocks and verification, all of which will be discussed in more detail later this week, constituted the specifics of the first plenary's general FMCT discussion. Germany said both the relevant fissile materials and the term “production” need to be defined. Delegations used International Atomic Energy Agency definitions as a common starting point, and both the Japanese and the Swiss Working Papers discuss definitions. The Republic of Korea said “How we define fissile materials is important as it has direct implications for the scope of the treaty. In this regard, my delegation is of the opinion that the criteria of 'direct use material' employed by the IAEA provides a good reference point for further elaboration.”

Member States' approach to the issue of scope varied. There was a broad consensus on banning the of production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, but there were some differences on how to deal with civilian use, use in naval reactors and existing stocks. France said the point of the treaty is to ban future production, and should not cover existing stocks, peaceful uses or non-explosive military use. The Russian Federation agreed an FMCT should not include existing stocks, nor prohibit fissile materials use for naval propulsion. Japan's Working Paper does not support including fissile materials for civilian use, but, like Germany, does support banning conversion of civilian fissile materials to military use, and transferring fissile materials to another state for military use. Concerns over terrorism led Sweden to reconsider its position on what materials to include in an FMCT and Poland to support the inclusion of fissile materials for peaceful purposes.

Pakistan stated that they would not like to call the treaty a fissile material cut-off treaty, since this would imply only a halt in production. “A cut-off in future production alone would simply finalize and formalize the status quo.” Instead, Pakistan used the term FMT (fissile material treaty). Pakistan ended its statement with “an FMT sans verification, sans stocks, will be sans treaty.” Argentina said the inclusion or exclusion of existing stocks will determine whether the treaty is a non-proliferation or a disarmament measure. Germany listed several advantages to including existing stocks, while Norway suggested including them in future negotiations. Canada updated its 1999 Working Paper on existing stocks, now CD/1770.

Almost every state spoke in favor of verification, while still holding to the line of beginning negotiations “without preconditions”, meaning without the provision from the Shannon mandate for “an effectively verifiable” treaty. However, Canada, an obvious FMCT leader, said that a Treaty that is “merely a vague declaratory statement of good intentions about future production does the international community a disservice and would be an indication that we are not serious about arms control and disarmament.”

Norway stated “At this stage we do not know how much can be achieved as regards verifiability of future FMCT-provisions. Only negotiations and expert studies can enlighten us on this point. Some studies have already been made, and they suggest that a reasonable high degree of verifiability is possible, at a financial price that the international community can afford.” Japan's and Switzerland's Working Papers both address verification. Japan's Working Paper details four verification methods and also recommends more study.

In that regard, the Netherlands invited the newly formed International Panel on Fissile Materials to a discussion with the Conference the afternoon of May 16. The very well-attended participatory discussion addressed current stocks of fissile materials, which are predominantly Russian and American, the relationship between an FMCT and nuclear disarmament, existing stocks, safeguards, and verification. The panel was of the opinion that an FMCT is verifiable, and that further discussions between technical experts and governments will aid in ironing out problematic technical and national security issues.

The Republic of Korea and Sweden also expressed concern about developing better provisions for the entry-into-force of the treaty, particularly in light of experiences from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and Italy developed a Working Paper on the issue. “We should also consider more flexible and evolutionary provisions for the entry into force of the treaty. We should try to avoid encountering the same difficulties we have faced with the CTBT, which unfortunately has yet to be brought into force,” said the Republic of Korea.

The plenary meeting was adjourned at 13.00 by the president Ambassador Doru Costea of Romania before the entire list of speakers was finished, and the remaining four will open the plenary tomorrow. Pakistan, United Kingdom, France, Austria on behalf of the EU, Switzerland, Chile, Spain, Sri Lanka, Norway, Canada, Germany, Poland, Japan, Russian Federation, Sweden, Turkey, Netherlands, The Republic of Korea, Argentina and Italy made statements today. The statements were mostly related to FMCT but some celebrated the entry into force of the Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War of The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons as a result of last Friday's ratifications by Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

-Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament and Economic Justice Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

30 March

The 30 March Conference on Disarmament's public gallery - ordinarily seating only a handful of committed NGOs - was filled to the brim with reporters, cameras, camcorders and microphones. In the spotlight was Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki. Pakistan, Austria on behalf of the European Union, Italy and Romania also delivered statements.

In addition to CD issues, Minister Mottaki discussed yesterday's Presidential Statement of the Security Council. He called the decision to involve the Security Council in the Iranian case "yet another indication of the political maneuvering by some Western countries", undermining the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has sufficient tools to handle the job, but unilateralist states, themselves possessing a "capacity [that] goes far beyond eradicating all human civilizations" are too "intolerant [.] to let the agency to function smoothly," he said.

The Security Council statement, held Minister Mottaki, "is nothing short of injustice, double standards and power politics". As an alternative solution, he suggested the establishment of a regional consortium on fuel cycle development placed under IAEA safeguards with the participation of countries that already have a fuel cycle. Such a regional initiative would involve Israel, and could - if utilized optimally - promote the Middle East peace process.

The Iranian Minister regretted that the CD still lacks consensus on a programme of work. Ambassador Mashood Khan of Pakistan supported the four ad hoc committees approach to a programme of work: "Linkages are the staple of multilateral diplomacy. We should know how to handle them."

Austria, Iran, Italy and Pakistan all addressed aspects of a treaty on fissile materials. Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy recalled that no delegation has expressed disagreement on starting negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off
Treaty (FMCT). A statement by the European Union, delivered by Austria, called for the immediate commencement of FMCT negotiations without preconditions but bearing in mind the Shannon Mandate, as well as for a moratorium on fissile materials production pending the entry into force of such a treaty. Both Italy's and the European Union's statements favored the participation of the IAEA in the Conference's FMCT discussions in congruence with paragraph 41 of the Rules of Precedure.

Pakistan and Iran both addressed the issue of existing stocks of fissile materials in relation to a fissile material treaty. Iran had "serious doubts on how a treaty on fissile material could serve the nuclear disarmament cause
without covering the vast stocks that could easily be used for development of new and new types of nuclear weapons." Pakistan was concerned that a fissile materials treaty which does not address existing stocks could freeze or accentuate existing asymmetries, with deleterious effects on nonproliferation. Ambassador Yoshiki Mine of Japan announced that his delegation will arrange an informal open-ended meeting on FMCT before the Eastern break, to review the history of fissile material debates in the CD and to share views on the meaning of an FMCT for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

The first session of the 2006 CD came to a close with today's plenary, as did John Freeman's duties as Ambassador of the Mission of the United Kingdom. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom joins CD President Doru Costea of Romania in his wishes for future success and happiness for the outgoing Ambassador.

The Conference will resume 16 May, continuing its focused debates on Agenda Items 1 and 2 with focus on an FMCT with three days of structured debate during the first week. The President stated that "a little bit of openness and mutual confidence" has been brought forward during the first ten weeks of this year and encouraged , and we can only hope for this progress to continue throughout 2006.

Alex Sundberg
Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

23 March

Ambassador Doru Costea of Romania took over the rotating Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) at the plenary meeting 23 March. In line with the timetable introduced earlier this year, debates will continue on Agenda Items 1 and 2 with special focus on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The United Kingdom, Romania, Netherlands and Canada made statements, largely related to the upcoming discussion on an FMCT. The Secretariat distributed a paper compiling documents relevant to the issue of Fissile Materials.

An indicative calendar outlining the issues to be discussed during the Romanian Presidency has been given to delegations through the Regional Groups, but was not announced in today's plenary. During the week of focused debate on an FMCT (15-19 May), five main issues will be examined: definitions; scope; stocks; verification; and compliance. It is currently unclear as to whether these debates will take place in formal or informal settings. Ambassador Costea again encouraged delegations to bring experts from capitals and to "propose side-events, eventually in joint cooperation with the non-governmental organizations."

Dr. Kim Howells, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, spoke about proliferation, underscoring the need his government sees for strong and comprehensive export controls of nuclear supplies and technology. "In cases where illicit transport of such goods is already in progress, we believe that interdiction under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) will continue to have an important role to play", he stated.

In relation to the "prospect and growing threat of nuclear terrorism" the Minister expressed his government's active work to insure the renewal of the mandate for the Security Council Resolution 1540 Committee, maintaining the UK continues "to stand ready to the obligations contained within the resolution and to help others to do so". Paul Meyer, Ambassador of Canada, also remarked on progress in disarmament and non-proliferation taking place outside the CD, but focused on treaty mechanisms, pointing out Vietnam's recent ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

On 22 March, the UK published a historical accounting report on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in the UK defense nuclear programs. In 2000, a similar report on Plutonium holdings was published. Reports like these are welcome contributions to increase transparency and confidence among States.

In his statement as incoming President, Ambassador Costea acknowledged that the plenary meeting of 23 March took place on the 11th Anniversary of the Shannon Report. The Shannon Mandate, establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on an FMCT, was agreed by consensus a decade ago. Unfortunately, the late Ambassador Shannon of Canada never had the chance to see his mandate and report bear fruit in the form of a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" in the CD.

Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands pointed out readiness in the CD to commence negotiations on an FMCT, and held that solutions to different views should be found in the course of negotiations. The main purpose of an FMCT, he said, is "that no Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium is being produced anymore for use in nuclear weapons", implying the end of "all military enrichments, processing and production activities". The Netherlands sees safe storage and solid accounting of fissile materials to prevent proliferation of nuclear material as a second goal of an FMCT.

Ambassador Costea drew attention to a fragment of Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Alice, at the crossroads, asks the Cheshire Cat, "Where do I go from here?" to which the feline replies, "Well, it all depends where you are trying to get! Do you know where you want to go?". Alice answers, "I guess I don't really care." The cat then replies, "Well, if you don't really care, it doesn't really matter which way you go."

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom welcome Ambassador Costea and his delegation to the Presidency, and join the Ambassador as he wishes he was "not the Cheshire Cat in as much as I wish the members of the Conference were not Alice."

Alex Sundberg,
Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

16 March

The 16 March plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament marked the end of the Presidency of the Republic of Korea. Member States discussed the compilation non-paper, the Republic of Korea Presidency and P6 initiative, and welcomed the new Ambassador of New Zealand Don MacKay to his post. Statements were delivered by Brazil, Iraq on behalf of the Group of 21, Mexico on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden and Mexico, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Pakistan, Peru, Algeria and the Republic of Korea.

Delegations gave their appreciation to outgoing President Ambassador Park of the Republic of Korea for chairing the focused debates on agenda items 1 and 2, as well as for his non-paper compiling proposals and observations based on debates on nuclear disarmament under his Presidency. Ambassador Macedo of Mexico called the non-paper a "useful step", and Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands concluded that while it "may not reflect everything every delegation has said, ... it surely is a very useful tool to recall and to understand the gist of our debate."

Statements by Syrian Arab Republic, Malaysia, Pakistan and Algeria brought up shortcomings of the compilation. Dr. Hussein Ali of Syrian Arab Republic wished the non-paper would follow the two tracks of assessment of nuclear reductions, and proposals for future nuclear disarmament measures. Supported by Malaysian Ambassador Yusri, he further noted that nuclear disarmament, the main issue, was not being addressed directly and extensively. Deputy Permanent Representative Tehmina Janjua of Pakistan saw a tendency to shift focus from nuclear disarmament to non-proliferation in the compilation. Syria and Pakistan both called for delegations' widely expressed support for the A5 proposal to be reflected. Pakistan regretted the selectiveness of the compilation, holding that it therefore "can only be a non-paper that has no status at all" and requested the Secretariat of the Conference to rather publish the Verbatim Records "the soonest" for the best overview of States' positions. Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands agreed, recalling that "in every decent conference [he] attended [one would] get these records within a week". The Verbatim Records of the CD are normally available about ten weeks after the plenary, which indeed may be considered on the slow side. The Netherlands proposed that delegations who felt inadequately represented in the paper submit to the President a short text to be circulated to delegations as an addendum.

Delegations also commented on the evolving role of the Presidents in the P6 initiative. On behalf of the G21, Iraq made a statement recalling the Group's support for a "representative for Women's League for Peace" to deliver the International Women's Day statement. G21 called for future Presidencies to make further effort to redress the situation. Mexico requested future Presidents continue the work started by Poland and Republic of Korea in order to make the P6 initiative really meaningful. Ambassador Medeiros of Brazil called for strengthening the role of the Friends of Presidents by including them in weekly presidential consultations and assigning them specific tasks.

In his statement as outgoing President, Ambassador Park noted that delegations had made more than 90 interventions in the nine plenary meetings under his Presidency. He held that the increased level of engagement "sheds light on the future of the CD whose continued existence has recently hung precariously in the balance." Assessing the debates in terms of "interactiveness and inclusiveness", the President "hesitantly conclude[d]" that new ground has been broken while the atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion has been improved.

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom thanks Ambassador Park and his delegation for all their efforts during the Republic of Korea's Presidency. We certainly join him in his hope that "the CD will be able to sustain this momentum and come to a meaningful conclusion at the end of this year in the form of an agreeable programme of work."

Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

14 March

The Conference on Disarmament convened for a short plenary meeting on 14 March, with statements by rotating President Republic of Korea, Chile, China, the Russian Federation and Algeria.

The Russian Federation and China commended the recent UNIDIR publication “Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space”. It was timely and would, together with the working paper introduced 16 February by Russia and China, serve a good basis for upcoming PAROS deliberations in the CD. Ambassador Lochshinin of the Russian Federation noted the upcoming conference on space security 30-31 March 2006, and hoped for a PAROS committee to be set up in the CD shortly as part of a balanced programme of work.

Ambassador Martabit of Chile spoke on the Anti-Personnel Mine Convention and underscored that the CD should learn important lessons from the close cooperation between governments and civil society in the work against land mines. The Conference has the right to draw from the input of civil society’s experience, he said, referring to the NGOs not being allowed to deliver their International Women’s Day statement to the CD.

Ambassador Park of the Republic of Korea introduced the much awaited non-paper: “Compilation of proposals and observations on Agenda Items 1 and 2”, based on the focused debate on nuclear disarmament under his Presidency. The non-paper compiles quotes from delegations on six topics commonly addressed by delegations: general observations; current status of nuclear weapons reductions by nuclear weapon states; transparency, irreversibility, and verification; military doctrines; nuclear terrorism; and a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT). Russia called the non-paper “a bold step” and hoped it would set an example to be followed during sessions on other agenda items.

Ambassador Park pointed out that the compilation is subject to corrections, and received comments from Hamza Khelif of Algeria. Secrétaire diplomatique Khelif stated that the debate focused on nuclear weapon states’ arsenal reductions and future work towards disarmament, which he wished would have been reflected in the document. He requested the compilation include the Group of 21 proposal for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on disarmament. The non-paper is a substantive outcome from the first of the P6 Presidencies’ focused debates, and will be useful to governments and NGOs throughout the year.

While giving a general overview of what has been stated during the past weeks, some specific and interesting proposals were not included in the compilation. We hope a review process will be developed for including them, adding another constructive mechanism to this new tool.

Alexandra Sundberg & Jennifer Nordstrom
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Reaching Critical Will project

9 March

Fittingly, the March 9 Conference on Disarmament session focused on International Women's Day and the anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention's entry into force. Several delegations made the link between the crucial role Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) played in establishing the Mine Ban outside the CD and their continued lack of access inside the CD. States also discussed the Programme of Work, a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT), and a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. The Conference said "goodbye and see you soon" to Ambassador Tim Caughley on his last day as New Zealand's Ambassador before he returns as Under-Secretary General of the CD.

NGO Engagement

"[D]espite all the support we have heard over the past several weeks, apparently it is not yet possible to have a female civil society leader address you from the floor in a statement delivered once a year on the occasion of International Women's Day," the President read from the NGO statement. "Although we are disappointed that we are unable to read our own statement, we see this as a testimony to the power of civil society and women’s NGOs in particular."

South Africa recalled Security Council resolution 1325's mandate to include women in peace and security decision making, and the important role women play therein. "NGOs have long been called the conscience of the international community, but we also serve practical functions," explained the NGOs. "We offer numerous resources to you, we act as a liaison to the public, as a source for technical expertise, and as archives and institutional memory." Italy recognized the role NGOs play in disarmament and Sweden actually commented on the content of the NGO statement, which it found "useful and thought-provoking".

Ireland, who introduced the proposal to have the women's NGOs read their own statement, thought it inappropriate to celebrate International Women's Day by having the women in the gallery "seen but not heard." Norway called this "bizarre practice [...] as embarrassing as the general impasse is embarrassing"; Algeria said it was "not mature"; and Kenya called it "deplorable". In total, 11 delegations spoke in favor of the NGOs reading their own statement. Irish Representative Declan Smyth noted that no delegation had spoken against the proposal and, after thanking the US for distributing Secretary Rice's comments saluting International Women's Day, asked the US delegation for its views on the proposal.

In her distributed statement, US Secretary Rice said, "In countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, and throughout the broader Middle East, women are contributing to and leading democratic change that cannot be stopped."

Syria bemusedly observed that "the states that objected to such participation [in the CD] are the same states that daily call on us to step up participation of NGOs in matters related to democracy, human rights, peace and security. These states seem to wish NGOs to be tools of their own policy."

Ireland questioned the process by which the decision was made and Sweden attributed the situation to "intransparent decision-making procedures and dysfunctional consultations through regional groups." The Republic of Korea said that despite the large number of delegations in favor of the Irish proposal, his Presidential consultations were "inconclusive". Several states suggested the situation change next year and Kenya advised the CD to "revisit the rules of procedure if it is to remain credible."

In that regard, the Republic of Korea asked the Friends of the President to find the best applicable practice for more constructive engagement of civil society, taking into account the practices in other fora, and report on their findings at the end of the year. This is the Friends' first assignment following their initial mandate to work on a programme of work and working methods.

Programme of Work

In his farewell address, Ambassador Tim Caughley gave a useful and succinct analysis of the state of play in the CD with regard to its procedures, programme of work and mood. He listed evidence that the CD is making some modest progress and said he is "more hopeful than at any time during the past four years that our rhetoric is giving way to pragmatism." He was encouraged by the year's timetable for substantive discussions, the increased level and cooperative tone of engagement, and the focus on results over process.

Ambassador Caughley also suggested a new programme of work formula with two activities: the negotiation of a fissile materials treaty (FMT), and the discussion of mandates for nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS), and negative security assurances. New Zealand "would like to hear a contrary view [to this proposal] if there is one."

The women's NGO statement also invited transparency on positions on a programme of work, having heard no public objections to the Five Ambassadors' proposal: "The world would like to know who opposes the A5 proposal, and why, and what alternative suggestions will be made to achieve consensus on a Programme of Work."

Algeria and Syria advised the CD treat all four core issues (FMT, nuclear disarmament, PAROS and negative security assurances) equally, reminding the conference that while delegations say the FMT is ripe for negotiations, nuclear disarmament has been on the agenda for over fifty years, since the first UN General Assembly resolution.

Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT)

Japan, a leader on a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT), discussed it in-depth, giving an overview of its utility, and highlights from the coming Japanese working paper, including the physical protection of fissile materials, different types of FMT verification, and different types of existing stocks of fissile materials. With regard to verification, he noted "even if one category is difficult, others may still work." The women's NGO statement maintained that "[a]n FMT is verifiable, and verification is absolutely crucial to any effective disarmament and nonproliferation regime." 

Importantly, Japan outlined that scope of existing stocks, verification, and the definition of fissile materials would need to be addressed with a minimum of two sessions each for the first two and one focused session for the third, as well as one session for other issues when the CD discusses an FMT in May. Japan will be bringing experts in from capital, and expects other delegations to do so. "The seriousness of this [FMT] exercise will have a significant influence on the outside world's opinion of the CD's ability to work without help from other fora" advised the NGO statement.

Syria, while agreeing that an FMT is a nuclear disarmament measure, argued that a negotiating mandate "without preconditions" was itself conditional. Existing stocks has long been a contentious issue, which the Shannon mandate solved by excluding it from the mandate without prejudice to any delegation raising the issue in negotiations. Now it looks as though the same may be done for verification if the US does not agree to a mandate including verification before the negotiations begin. This is "another way of supporting the preconditions of no present stocks, no material other than that used for NW, and no verification" said Syria.

Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East

Israel took the floor to explain how its view of nuclear disarmament was linked to both a global and regional perspective. Israel, a non-state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reiterated its position that it will participate in disarmament and a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East after peace is established in the region. The Iranian President's comments about wiping Israel off the map were “not contributing to achieving that goal”, and calls for disarmament amidst violence in the region "ill-timed". Syria responded that Israel is responsible for regional tensions through its occupation of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, and if Israel followed international law "there would be no problem with peaceful relations.” Iran used its right of reply to say that as a non-state party to the NPT, Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, Israel was least authorized to talk about compliance issues, including Iran". 

Mine Ban Treaty

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Egypt, Malaysia, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland made statements supporting the Mine Ban Treaty on the seventh anniversary of its entry into force (March 1), several recognizing the contribution of NGOs. Croatia, who hosted the 6th meeting of States Parties at the end of 2005, told the conference that 149 states, ¾ of the world, were now party to the treaty. Argentina noted that Latin America has the highest membership, and the Western Hemisphere contains only two non-States Parties. South Africa told the CD that Africa has suffered greatly from anti-personnel landmines and "believes that the Mine Ban Treaty has irreversibly established itself as the international norm in banning anti-personnel mines." Canada cited the Landmine Monitor’s evidence that only four governments are currently laying new anti-personnel mines.

With the Mine Ban Treaty as an inspiration for creative collaboration between NGOs and governments, we turn to the different situation of nuclear disarmament. To increase transparency similar to the work of the Landmines Monitor, Reaching Critical Will publishes a Model Nuclear Inventory of all nuclear materials, both civilian and military, in the nuclear weapon and nuclear capable states. It is available online and in hard copy.

South Africa does not see a call to general and complete disarmament as sheer idealism or an excuse to never move on nuclear disarmament. Rather "nuclear disarmament is but a milestone to be reached on the way to the real objective of the disarmament process, namely general and complete disarmament." Nuclear disarmament followed by general and complete disarmament and thus the least diversion of the world's resources to armaments (Article 26 of the UN Charter) would free future generations from the scourge of war.

Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

7 March

Continuing the Conference on Disarmament (CD) debate on agenda items one and two, Member States discussed nuclear disarmament, indicating their positions on the role of nuclear weapons in security policies; ways to strengthen transparency; the principle of irreversibility; and a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). These four issues, which Ambassador Park of the Republic of Korea extrapolated from last week's debate, are in the context of verification and compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the NPT 2000 Review Conference's 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament, and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty). There was some discussion of the CD's procedures.

The debate was also relatively interactive, with almost twice as many government responses to their colleagues' statements as statements themselves. Germany, the Republic of Korea, Venezuela and the Netherlands made statements, and Japan, Italy, Canada, Ireland, the Republic of Korea and the Secretary-General of the CD participated in interactive debate.

Delegations noted last week's interventions by the Russian Federation and the United States and acknowledged reductions under the Moscow Treaty, but also called these reductions insufficient. The Netherlands and Canada found the US and Russian statements helpful for transparency. Germany, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada and Ireland expressed support for increased transparency in nuclear disarmament. Building on Ireland's in-depth statement on transparency from March 2, Canada and the Republic of Korea both supported specific nuclear disarmament transparency measures.

The Republic of Korea suggested the nuclear weapon states "jointly work out a practical formula to be implemented in a systematic way and on a regular basis." Canada went further and asked the US and Russia if they could give an annual indication of the reductions achieved since the SORT (Moscow Treaty) came into effect and an indicative timetable projecting further reductions over the next five years. Ambassador Meyer also suggested the two states go beyond transparency and build confidence by agreeing on a final, preferably lower number, which is now set between 1700-2200 strategic systems. Ireland offered to work with other delegations interested in increasing transparency.

The Republic of Korea and Venezuela expressed concern over the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and their effect on trust and confidence between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. Venezuela expressed deep concerns over military doctrines that increase the possibility for nuclear weapons' use, the development of more and better nuclear weapons, and security policies that allow the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. The Republic of Korea suggested that some nuclear weapon state transparency on their military doctrines would "contribute towards dispelling unnecessary misgivings about their intentions." Submitting their positions as official documents to the CD would be appreciated.

Germany said the principle of irreversibility (Step 5 of the 13 steps) "should guide all matters in the field of nuclear disarmament and arms control." The Republic of Korea said it expected the "full implementation of the Trilateral Initiative and its expansion to other NW states". The 1996 Trilateral Initiative is an agreement among the Russian Federation, the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor fissile materials released from military programs, and is the eighth step of the 13 steps. Although all the technical and legal details have been hammered out, the Initiative has never been implemented.

The Netherlands was "pleased to note that a cross regional understanding emerged about negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty being the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament". An FMCT is Step Three of the 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament, and one of the four core issues of the CD. Germany and the Republic of Korea also prioritized beginning negotiations "without preconditions". Japan asked the Republic of Korea's Dr. Kang Kyung-wha, visiting from capital, what she thought of the "unfortunate package" of the Five Ambassadors' proposal for a programme of work, seemingly in reference to linking an FMCT to the other three core issues.

The Republic of Korea suggested the focused debates on an FMCT in May "be organized along the normal structure of arms control treaties, so that they may serve as a springboard for progress in the future."

States also supported other steps from the 13 practical steps, which Germany called "the performance benchmark for the disarmament process." Germany and Venezuela reiterated the importance of the earliest possible entry-into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Step 1), Venezuela supported establishing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament in the CD (Step 4), and Germany and Canada discussed reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons (Step 9). Germany recalled the step-by-step approach from its 2005 NPT Review Conference working paper endorsed by the European Union. This approach begins with confidence building measures that Canada noted should not give rise to security concerns when the information exchange is only on total numbers and is not site specific.

Although the Republic of Korea again acknowledged the right of any delegation to raise any issue at any time, we hope the CD will focus on agenda items one and two for the rest of the Republic of Korea's presidency. Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland "would like to pusue the question of how we can give more depth to our deliberations [on nuclear disarmament items 1 and 2] over the next few weeks." We join her in looking forward to the President's compilation document of proposals from these discussions.

Canada proposed a further measure to increase the efficiency and efficacy of the CD's work, and suggested the President assign each of the major emergent themes from the nuclear disarmament discussion (the role of nuclear weapons in security policies; ways to strengthen transparency; the principle of irreversibility; and an FMCT) to a Friend of the President. The Friends could then work informally to identify practical measures relating to those themes. CD Secretary General Sergei Ordzhonikidze advised governments to seriously consider this proposal and that of Ireland, as they might change the CD's atmosphere.

Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

2 March

The Conference of Disarmament saw another set of lively plenary meetings of structured debate with special focus on nuclear disarmament under the sub-item ‘Future nuclear disarmament measures’. Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Algeria, China, Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Nigeria, Morocco, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Sri Lanka, Italy and Brazil delivered statements in the morning; and Cuba, UK, Chile and Sweden in the afternoon.

Several delegations, including Algeria, DPRK, Nigeria, and Ireland pointed out that quantitative reduction of nuclear arsenals seem to be accompanied by qualitative improvements of the same. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan noted the disturbing fact that “Development and actual battlefield use of mini-nukes have been theorised”.

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation stated that new challenges in proliferation need to be dealt with within the NPT regime especially by the IAEA, regarding Iran and DPRK. He expressed the importance of Iran renewing the moratoria on uranium enrichment. Ambassador Loshchinin, supported by delegations of China, Morocco and the DPRK, also pointed out the need for nuclear weapon states to withdraw and bring home all nuclear weapons outside their own territory.

The issue of transparency gained attention in the plenary. Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland spoke on the important role of increased transparency for creating a favorable climate to progress nuclear disarmament. States possessing nuclear weapons should develop an understanding among themselves about the level of detail required to build confidence in the disarmament process. She suggested plurilateral scientific consultations among states possessing nuclear weapons on the “verification requirements for the implementation of effective and irreversible disarmament measures”, as well as regular progress reports to the CD.

“Transparency can also help confirm that nuclear material in weapons removed from deployment… is not being recycled into new warheads.”, stated Ambassador Whelan. Annika Thunborg of Sweden echoed the same, in relation to the Moscow Treaty between Russia and the US: as the destruction of warheads is not required by the treaty, these could easily be fitted to new weapons. Sweden asked the nuclear weapons states to provide concrete reports and plans to the CD for the destruction of weapons Thunborg further looked forward to specific and detailed information on arsenal reductions in written form, as well as answers to the questions posed by her delegation 28 February. Statements by Switzerland, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria and Canada all called for greater transparency, pointing it out as one link between nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In this regard, Fiona Paterson informed the CD that the explosive power of the UK nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 70 % since the end of the Cold War.

The plenary heard a number of delegations present concrete proposals for next steps on nuclear disarmament in the CD- the theme of the day’s plenary session.  Malaysia noted the importance of considering “the requirements for a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime in order to develop an international understanding of the final destination” and provided seven suggestions toward that end.  Algeria suggested that efforts on nuclear disarmament could continue either globally- all at once, or gradually- in a step-wise process. While the global approach could learn lessons from the demonstrated effectiveness of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Ambassador Jazairy noted that gradual steps would find favor with more delegations.  Certain measures were suggested to build confidence between nuclear and non nuclear weapons states including the reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, and the removal of nuclear weapons from alert status.  Other delegations also noted the importance of removing nuclear weapons from alert status- including India, Algeria, and Sweden.

Ambassador François Rivasseau of France spoke on the scope of a future FMCT. He suggested that solution to the verification aspect has to be found in the course of negotiations. Chile’s Ambassador Juan Martabit proposed that the CD consider incremental negotiations on an FMCT that would tackle the verification issue in the near future. Canada listed issues with potential for the CD to engage in, e.g. the role of nuclear weapons in national security doctrines; confidence building measures; non-strategic nuclear weapons and dismantlement disposition.

The issue of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) were mentioned by some delegations. Chile stated that his delegation does not accept that nuclear weapon states not Parties to the NPT are not legally bound to grant NSAs to non nuclear weapon states.

Rotating CD President In-kook Park of the Republic of Korea summed up the debate held on nuclear disarmament this week, commending the more than 40 Member States that took the floor and contributed useful ideas and suggestions. In order to stimulate and structure the upcoming general debate on agenda items 1 and 2, the President extricated four commonly brought up issues from previous statements: the role of nuclear weapons in security policies; ways to strengthen transparency; the principle of irreversibility, and FMCT, each of which will be the sub-theme of upcoming plenary sessions. We look forward to further substantive debate, eventually leading to negotiations towards the ultimate goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In the words of Nigerian Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu – “nobody can proliferate what does not exist while those determined will proliferate what exists no matter what control measures put in place”.

Alexandra Sundberg
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

28 February

As requested by the Group of 21, the Conference on Disarmament held two open plenary meetings on 28 February, with structured debate on the sub-item 'assessment on implementation of nuclear disarmament'. Rotating President Ambassador In-kook Park of Republic of Korea had a list of 12 speakers in the morning session (Syrian Arab Republic, Italy, Egypt, Russian Federation, Argentina, Iraq on behalf of G21, Brazil, France, Australia, Japan, Myanmar and US), and five in the afternoon (Sweden, Netherlands, Mexico, Norway and New Zealand).

As has been frequently stated by delegations in previous sessions, commencing negotiations on an FMCT is considered the next logical step for the CD to take. Italian Ambassador Carlo Trezza reminded the CD that the 13 Practical Steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed upon by the 2000 NPT Review Conference, included the commencement of negotiations on an FMCT (a priority for his delegation). Statements by Argentina, France, Australia, Japan, Egypt and New Zealand all pointed to the negotiations of an FMCT as the best step forward for disarmament. Ambassador Johannes Landman of the Netherlands stated: "After all, already a decade ago all of us agreed on the principle of starting these negotiations."

Several delegations noted the lack of a global inventory on fissile material holdings. Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden referred to the problem with existing arsenals and stocks of fissile materials, as there is no global inventory of existing fissile materials, she asked "How would we even know if some amount "disappeared"?" We share this question from the Swedish delegation, and in order to promote transparency and discussions on fissile materials, publish an annual Model Nuclear Inventory. We encourage delegations to review this information and look forward to responses regarding its accuracy.

The establishment of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ) gained attention from several delegations, especially a NWFZ in the Middle East. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari of the Syrian Arab Republic expressed his government's commitment - together with other Arab States - to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. He pointed out Israel's refusal to heed to the will of the international community and international laws, and claimed that not only does Israel maintain nuclear facilities with the "unambiguous support from major nuclear-weapon states… [but also] dumps its nuclear waste in the Syrian Golan Heights." The statement of Ambassador Ja'afari sparked an argument with Israeli Ambassador Itzhak Levanon, who replied that the Syrian speech was filled with "repetitive inaccurate information". He clarified Israel's position on a Middle East zone free from weapons of mass destruction, referring to certain conditions or circumstances his government requires for the establishment of such zone. The Ambassador, however, did not comment on the nuclear waste dumping in the Golan Heights. In reply, the Syrian Ambassador maintained that these conditions are unacceptable - Israel cannot protect their nuclear weapons while refusing other states the peaceful use of nuclear power. He brought up the Beirut Conference 2002 on the Middle East peace process, and the Israeli massacre in Palestinian Jenin. Ambassador Levanon replied by requesting Syria not bring up political issues not related to arms control in the CD.

The Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), or the Moscow Treaty, between the Russian Federation and the US gained attention in Tuesday's CD. Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation and Interim Charge d'Affaires Thomas Cynkin of the US both shared information specific figures related to reductions in line with the Moscow Treaty and Article VI of the NPT. New Zealand stated that while the Moscow Treaty was a welcome beginning, a renewal of the Treaty provides Russia and the US with "the opportunity to make an effective concrete contribution to nuclear disarmament, by agreeing to destroy rather than merely stockpile the weapons covered by the Treaty."

While welcoming the information given by Russia and the US, many delegations including Australia, Japan, Norway, Argentina and Brazil pointed out the need for increased verification and transparency measures. Mexico stated that if the CD wants to do an "exhaustive evaluation" and objective assessment of nuclear disarmament up to date, a greater degree of transparency is needed. Information on disarmament efforts undertaken by the nuclear weapon states, he said, is the right of his delegation as a Party in compliance with the NPT.

Ambassador François Rivasseau of France held that the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament is no longer relevant if negotiations on an FMCT are started. A cut-off treaty, he said, today seems like a nuclear disarmament effort in itself. Mexican Ambassador Macedo found this unacceptable, seeing an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament as a necessity whether or not an FMCT is negotiated, as these would complement each other. Syria, Italy, Egypt, Iraq (on behalf of the G21) and Argentina all made statements similar to the Netherlands' Ambassador Landman who reiterated his government's active support for a subsidiary body "to deal nuclear disarmament in further detail and as a gradual process."

An issue touched upon by some delegations was the changed national security doctrines of some states. Swedish Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier stated that for decades, the threshold for use of nuclear weapons has been kept very high, and the use of nuclear weapons in tactical missions "has been considered a taboo". She inquired whether this is still the case, referring to the plans to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons with low-yield characteristics. Borsiin Bonnier expressed the importance of hearing from all states that possess nuclear weapons on these issues. Ambassador Caughley of New Zealand underscored that "mutual understanding of security doctrines" is valuable for finding ways to reconfigure states' doctrines without compromising security. Not only national doctrines, but also regional strategic alliances, should be examined. Ambassador Caughley questioned the justification of nuclear deterrence within NATO, "given the overwhelming collective conventional force power held between its members". Brazil also pointed to the problem with weapons research programs as well as new security doctrines.

Many delegations included calls for the ratification of the CTBT as a contribution to nuclear disarmament. While welcome, the test moratorium cannot substitute the entry into force of the treaty. New Zealand "urge[d] China and the United States, through an exercise of leadership, to become party to the Treaty". In this year of the 10th anniversary of the historic ICJ advisory opinion "The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", a number of delegations including Syrian Arab Republic, Argentina, the G21 and Myanmar noted its relevance.

The important notion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation as mutually reinforcing was repeated by several speakers. As the Ambassador of Iraq, on behalf of the G21 put it: "the mere existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use or the threat of their use represents a continuous threat to humanity. As long as nuclear weapons exist the possibility of their proliferation will remain". The words of New Zealand's Tim Caughley captured the feeling many have "Unfortunately, nuclear disarmament proceeds much too slowly for my delegation."

Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Susi Snyder
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

23 February

Today's Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary meeting marked the beginning of the Republic of Korea's Presidency. According to the timetable announced 9 February, this Presidential period will deal with agenda items 1 and 2 with a general focus on nuclear disarmament. Last week, Ambassador In-kook Park of the Republic of Korea outlined a more detailed indicative timetable for the sessions during his Presidency, which he further specified today. He suggested delegations make interventions under the sub-item 'Assessment on implementation of nuclear disarmament' at the 28 February session and on under the sub-item 'Future nuclear disarmament measures' at the 2 March session. The Ambassador again encouraged delegations to invite experts from capitals and reminded them of the importance if the high-level segment.

The Netherlands and Canada raised concerns about the indicated schedule. Daniel Prins of the Netherlands asked the chair whether two half-day sessions for the nuclear disarmament cluster would suffice. Rather, he found it the task of the President to allow for full-day sessions on every sub-item, "which to our opinion is still very minimal". Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer was also concerned about "commenc[ing] our intensified programme of work by already eliminating the possibility of having a full-day session on [nuclear disarmament]". They both supported holding a full day plenary on 28 February even though delegations had been informed the Council Chamber would be unavailable for a morning session. Secretary-General of the CD Sergei Ordzhonikidze assured them another venue can be found, should the CD decide to have a full-day session. However, the public meeting was closed before announcing when and where the next public plenary will be held.

Prins also suggested the Friends of the President "focus on how to better make use of the sessions that you label as general debate sessions" and provide leadership "to somehow go further on certain Agenda Items" to make the debates more fruitful.

Ambassador John Freeman of the United Kingdom stated that his delegation continues to prioritize commencing negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) without pre-conditions. He pointed out that no delegation disagrees about the need to start these negotiations, which could break the impasse of the CD. "Given contemporary challenges, can we any longer afford not to start FMCT negotiations; and will civil society in our countries any longer accept a disabling linkage preventing us responding by beginning such negotiations?" asked the Ambassador. In the 2005 session of the General Assembly First Committee, US Assistant Secretary Stephen Rademaker expressed support for commencing negotiations on a FMCT with a mandate that does not include verification, in "a clean negotiating mandate? unencumbered by linkages to unrelated proposals."

Most other delegations, while supporting immediately commencing FMCT negotiations, also support a programme of work based on some linkage among the issues. Because the entire conference must agree on a programme of work in order to establish the ad hoc committee necessary to begin negotiations, members have been struggling to balance differing arms control and disarmament priorities. The FMCT is a priority for many CD members, but not all, and a programme of work with a negotiating mandate for the FMCT and discussion mandates for the others issues has been a compromise designed to facilitate consensus.

Members of the Conference continue to examine the methods of work, including the consensus rule. The Republic of Korea encouraged the Conference to take this work seriously "especially in the consensus and grouping system" as "[t]he original intention to ensure inclusiveness in the decision-making process has arguably made the CD inert and has compounded the problem of the lack of political will." According to Ambassador François Rivasseau's statement, France continues to support international efforts promoting general and complete disarmament, particularly the negotiation of an FMCT - a priority for his delegation. Referring to the programme of work, Rivasseau pointed out that none of the proposals so far enjoys consensus, and that all new ideas must be studied with an open mind. The "rule of the game this year consists of building confidence amongst us", held the Ambassador, with "some important preparatory work which needs to be done".

The UK opened its February 23, 2006 statement noting that in addition to multilateralism, wider disarmament objectives can also be pursued in "different and complementary ways" whether unilaterally, bilaterally, through like-minded groups or regional groupings on the same day it conducted a joint subcritical test with the United States at the Nevada Test Site. The Krakatau Subcritical Experiment was conducted "to help maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile," according to the US National Nuclear Security Administration.

The Republic of Korea, who will be President during the session at which the International Women's Day statement is delivered, expressed support for "broader engagement of civil society and the global community in the CD". Ambassador Park did not specify whether that includes Ireland's proposal to finally allow the authors of the International Women's Day statement to read it themselves.

Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

16 February

The 16 February Conference on Disarmament (CD) session of marked the end of the Polish Presidency. In addition to the changing of the guard, the CD session focused on increasing civil society’s engagement with the CD and updates to the China Russia working paper on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) (CD/1679). Morocco, Russian Federation, China, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Netherlands, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico and Algeria delivered statements.

Although he was delivering his outgoing statement, President Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland anticipated the process initiated by the Polish delegation to continue throughout the 2006 session: “It is, therefore, no time to sum up the co-operation of the 6 CD Presidents (the P6), consultations conducted by the Friends of Presidents, nor the activities envisaged in the time-table announced last week.”

Incoming President Ambassador In-kook Park of the Republic of Korea laid out some basic principles to guide the deliberations during his Presidency. Ambassador Park expects all delegations to have the chance to share their updated national position during the general debate session, suggesting interventions concentrate on Agenda Item I and II in accordance with the timetable. For the focused discussion on nuclear disarmament, he recommended delegations “make their interventions under relevant sub-items if applicable”. Finally, he suggested delegations invite experts from capitals and submit positions, ideas and proposals in writing to facilitate interactive discussions. Ambassador Park hoped that announcing an indicative timetable in advance would avoid “wasting precious time for discussion on what to discuss and [help delegations] be prepared for the constructive participation.”

Civil society’s involvement in the CD and the presentation of the International Women’s Day NGO statement drew attention in today’s plenary meeting. Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland recalled that for many years, International Women’s Day statements drafted by NGOs have been read to the CD by a member of the Secretariat. “To many of us it is inexplicable, and indeed highly offensive, that those women’s NGOs who draft the statement have not been permitted to deliver it themselves”, she stated. Ambassador Whelan has never heard any CD statement supporting the current practice, and has not been able to find any rule in the Rules of Procedure prohibiting the International Women’s Day statement from being delivered by its authors. Sarala Fernando, Ambassador of Sri Lanka, supported Ireland’s position, urging Ambassador Park and the P6 to attend to the issue. Delegations of Sweden, Netherlands, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico and Algeria all echoed this support.

China and the Russian Federation circulated a second, updated and revised version of the “Compilation of Comments and Suggestions to the CD PAROS Working Paper CD/1679”. Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of Russia stated that the compilation would facilitate in-depth discussions; identify clusters of issues upon which Member States agree and disagree; help formulate and fine-tune positions of Capitals; and streamline the PAROS deliberations in the CD for 2006. Chinese Ambassador Cheng Jingye underscored that “extensive and in-depth discussions and our compilation will surely help to lay a good basis for negotiating and the concluding of a new legal instrument on outer space”, hoping the CD would re-establish the Ad Hoc Committee on outer space.

The Chinese and Russian compilation was commended by Sweden and Brazil for its timeliness, allowing for delegations to prepare and consult with capitals and experts before PAROS is scheduled to be discussed during the Russian Presidency in June. Ambassadors Paul Meyer of Canada and Tim Caughley of New Zealand both welcomed the initiative as a means of moving beyond general debates. Ambassador Meyer also underlined that CD membership entails obligations as well as rights, and called for those delegations which have not shared their national positions for years to do so. Enrique Ochoa of Mexico encouraged delegations to repeat this type of update in other subjects, and Canada recommended replicating the strategy of specificity and synthesizing various views.

Newly assigned Ambassador of Morocco, Mohammed Lorichki, urged the CD to demonstrate it can accomplish what it is mandated to do, with multilateralism as “the fundamental principle which must govern negotiations conducted…particularly in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation”. He expressed Morocco’s support for the outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences, as well as for negotiations on a treaty on fissile materials, Negative Security Assurances and a convention on nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Rapacki, in his statement as outgoing President of the CD, drew attention to today’s opening of the Winter Olympic Games in Turin and the ideals of unity, co-operation and peace symbolized in the five rings joined together in the Olympic flag. While some may say those ideals are fading, the Ambassador held, “both in Geneva and in Turin, they are very much alive”. We thank Ambassador Rapacki and the Polish delegation for their effort to not let these ideals fade during their CD Presidency.

-Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

9 February

Timetable

As planned, on Thursday February 9, 2006 the current Polish President announced the timetable for "focused structured debates" for the 2006 Conference on Disarmament (CD). In the current timetable, which Poland emphasized was "without prejudice to any future decisions of the Conference", each President will hold focused debate on two of the eight agreed 2006 agenda items. Each agenda item has been allotted one week of discussion, with agenda items one and two (1: Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, and 2: prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters) combined across two presidencies. For the full schedule, see the table at the end of this report.

This will leave two weeks for general debate during each four week Presidency, except the first two Presidencies of the Republic of Korea and Romania, which will have three weeks of general debate. When many had high hopes for a timetable where each President would take one of the four core topics and discuss it for the full Presidency, allowing deep and specific explorations of the topics, this timetable seemed to fall short of the objective of "coherent, sustained structured discussion and a far better use of ... time" in the words of Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer.

However, Canada also recognized the tireless work Poland and the other 2006 Presidents (P6) have put in to developing the timetable. The P6 have been cooperating closely since August of 2005 "seeking possibilities for.progress" in the 2006 CD, according to Poland. This work has been difficult, and while many of the statements to date have supported them, the P6 have encountered resistance from various quarters.

Similar to his statement last year following Norway's announced timetable of structured discussions in the CD, US Deputy Permanent Representative Thomas Cynkin reiterated "that any delegation may raise any issue at any plenary at any time". China explained its understanding of that "in terms of time, allocation and approaches, [the P6] will handle every single item on this year's agenda in a balanced and comprehensive manner."

There is also room to elaborate this timetable, as Poland explained to Canada that "incoming Presidents will give [delegations] more details [about] their plans and expectations" for their tenure. The substance is to be determined by Member States, and "readiness of delegations to participate and contribute to debates will determine the length and intensity of debates", said Poland. Allowing States to extend their debate on subjects has the advantage of flexibility, but as Canada stated also has the disadvantage of not identifying topics "ahead of time, so that delegations in consultations with their capitals can prepare themselves adequately."

In order to support the work of the P6 and move forward, governments could build detail into the current timetable. Knowing what topics are delegated to which Presidency, States can take it upon themselves to arrange for specific debates, consultations and experts. Japan, for instance, clarified a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), on which it plans to introduce a working paper, would be dealt with under agenda items 1 and 2. By working with the Presidents, other States and civil society, States can make arrangements ahead of time and inform the CD of those arrangements so all delegations can properly prepare.

Programme of Work

Cuba, Pakistan and Brazil all made general statements to the Conference. Pakistan, who supports the A5 proposal for a programme of work, suggested that the P6, Friends of the President, three regional coordinators and China "be used to persuade the few countries that have reservations on A-5 to come on board." Brazil noted that although it supports the 2000 programme of work proposal, CD/1624, in the spirit of flexibility it supports the A5 proposal despite its weaker mandate for Nuclear Disarmament, Brazil's priority. Brazil said the Food for Thought non-paper, submitted to the conference by the Netherlands' Chris Sanders last year, was also acceptable. Cuba expressed support for negotiating mandates on all four core issues.

On the agenda and additional issues, Pakistan advised the conference handle the issue carefully "so that we do not either clutter the agenda or create new linkages...us[ing] the criteria of consensus, relevance to the mandate and non-duplication to consider new items". Brazil addressed the two additional issues directly, and said that it did not see Civilian Critical Infrastructure as having "any direct linkage to this conference" and that MANPADS (Man-Portable Air Defense Systems) is being dealt with in the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, and therefore addressing it in the CD would be a duplication of efforts.

Pakistan and Brazil also commented on the negotiating mandate for a fissile materials treaty (FMT), which many delegations have called "ripe" for negotiations. Pakistan supports negotiating an FMT "in accordance with the Shannon Mandate and Report (CD/1299) and the A-5 proposal for a universal, non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty." In reference to States consenting to remove verification from the mandate and deal with it once negotiations begin because of the US's stated opposition to including it in the mandate, Pakistan said "[t]he agreed basis for negotiating the Treaty cannot be called 'preconditions'." On the other hand, although Brazil supports verification, it warned that an "all or nothing approach" could delay negotiations.

Cuba reminded the Conference why they are all struggling to find a way forward: "More money is spent on producing to kill rather than to save lives. According to UN estimates, 10 percent of the current global military expenditure would be enough to achieve the Millennium Development Goals." The world is counting on the CD to make this happen.

Timetable

Member State
Presidential Term
Debate on Agenda Items
Term of Debate

Republic of Korea
Feb 20 to March 17
1 & 2 focused on Nuclear Disarm
Feb 27 to March 3

Romania
March 20 to May 26 (CD Break: April 1 to May 14)
1 & 2 focused on FMCT
May 15 to May 19

Russian Federation
May 29 to June 23
3: PAROS
June 8 to June 15
Russian Federation
May 29 to June 23
5: new WMD and radiological weapons
June 19 to June 23

Senegal
June 26 to Aug 18 (CD Break: July 1 to July 30)
4: Negative Security Assurances
July 31 to Aug 4
Senegal
June 26 to Aug 18
6: Comp. program of disarmament
Aug 7 to Aug 11

Slovakia
Aug 21 to Sept 15 (end of 2006 CD)
7: Transparency in Armaments
Aug 21 to Aug 25
Slovakia
Aug 21 to Sept 15
8: Annual Report Sept 4 to Sept 15

Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

7 February

Tuesday 7 February's CD session heard statements from eight delegations and the Secretary General to the Conference. Member States continued to explore Programme of Work possibilities, issues and priorities for this year, France defended its new deterrence doctrine, Ireland suggested a modest increase in civil society engagement with the conference, and the CD Secretary General announced the new CD Deputy Secretary General: Ambassador Tim Caughley. France, Nigeria, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Syrian Arab Republic, Egypt and the CD Secretary General delivered statements.

Nigeria, Germany and Ireland expressed support for the A5 proposal. The A5 has the most support in the CD, although, as Germany's Ambassador Brasack sadly noted, "being near to consensus by no means is an equivalent to having reached consensus. Nigeria's Joseph Ayalogu suggested re-formulating the "not cast in stone" A5 proposal in order to accommodate the concerns of those unable to join the consensus.

Ireland, Germany and New Zealand also prioritized the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), though all still supported the other three core issues (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, Nuclear Disarmament and Negative Security Assurances). While supporting all the issues, in order to be realistic regarding simultaneous negotiations Ireland "attach[es] particular priority to commencing negotiations on a fissile material treaty while establishing subsidiary bodies to consider other areas." Germany called negotiations on a non-discriminatory, universally applicable and verifiable FMCT "the next logical and essential step in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation."

While the CD is struggling to agree on a Programme of Work, several delegations have introduced 'additional issues' for the CD to consider. Some delegations have argued that focus on the core issues does not exclude the consideration of new issues. Others, including Germany, Ireland and New Zealand, have cautioned against further complicating finding consensus on a Programme of Work. Germany said that although it remains "open, undogmatic and flexible to explore" new issues, it also "is crucial that additional issues are not misused for adding to the unfortunate list of linkages that is blocking the CD already."

Last week Australia introduced the issue of MANPADS to the CD. Norway took the floor specifically to express support for this proposal. Although some of the cautious, like Ireland, have said they "would not seek to oppose the consideration of any item likely to command a consensus", the Syrian Arab Republic took the floor to say "no consensus exists in the CD for these new topics," which require reflections from capitals and regional consultations before being discussed.

Understanding the conference is looking for something to do while waiting for the political will to begin negotiations on the core issues, New Zealand suggested that instead of dealing with other issues, they find a less frustrating way to discuss and secure a work programme. Ambassador Tim Caughley recommended the conference hold debate on the international security environment and how the Conference can improve Member States' collective security "to demonstrate what the four core issues remain pre-eminent in this regard, as well as to translate the respective priorities contained in existing proposals into a sequence or timetable for taking them up."

Nigerian Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu joined others in commending the P6 initiative, which he hoped would increase the Presidency's continuity. While Nigeria supports the Friends of the Presidents, Ambassador Ayalogu proposed the Friends focus on the programme of work rather than the agenda which was "already adopted" and the working methods that had been "looked into in the past".

Ambassador François Rivasseau of France submitted a 19 January 2006 speech by President Jacques Chirac regarding the new French Deterrence Doctrine as an official CD document. Presumably in response to international concern over France's announced willingness to use nuclear weapons against a state that might "resort to terrorist means" to attack France with weapons of mass destruction, Rivasseau recalled France's nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) security guarantees to non nuclear weapon states. While the NPT security guarantees are not legally binding, France "has provided legally binding negative security guarantees to more than 100 countries, by ratifying the protocols of Treaties creating nuclear weapon free zones". Germany strongly called upon the CD "to agree on a work programme that seriously pursues the issue of negative security assurances", recalling the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its recognition of security assurances as a means to forego the acquisition of WMD and as a deterrent.

Ireland, who submitted the 2004 proposal to increase civil society's access to the CD, made another modest proposal for increasing our engagement with the CD. Ambassador Mary Whelan stated "At minimum my delegation wishes to have the annual statement of NGOs on International Women's Day delivered by its authors." New Zealand joined her saying "It will be another demonstration of the sense of purpose and relevance of this Conference, if...the CD can take a more enlightened approach to the delivery of the annual Women's Day statement next month in the manner [Ambassador Whelan] proposed." CD Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze announced the CD's new Deputy Secretary-General, current New Zealand Ambassador Tim Caughley, who will be commencing on his duties shortly. We congratulate Ambassador Caughley on his new position, and are sure he will bring the sound values he has shown as the Ambassador of his delegation to his new job.

Alex Sundberg
Disarmament Intern

Jennifer Nordstrom
Reaching Critical Will

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

2 February

Rotating President Ambassador Rapacki of Poland opened the CD plenary of 2 February by announcing the results of bilateral consultations held with all delegations. Unfortunately, yet not surprisingly, Member States still have no consensus on a programme of work, the establishment of ad hoc committees, or appointing Special Coordinators. Romanian Ambassador Doru Costea had not hoped for the "miracle" of agreement on a programme of work, but had at least expected States to have offered alternative proposals or concrete suggestions as how to move forward, to show they are still interested in doing so.

The President also announced the Friends of the Presidents, the Ambassadors of Sri Lanka, Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy and Japan, tasked with reviewing the agenda and working on the effectiveness of methods of work. The agenda refers to the Decalogue, the 10 item permanent CD agenda that most member states consider sufficiently flexible to cover threats to international peace and security. France, however, expressed "national reservations" about the Decalogue's inclusiveness.

One of the Friends and one of this year's six collaborating Presidents (P6) commented on the CD's methods of work. Sri Lanka's Ambassador Sarala Fernando suggested "wider and more frequent use of informal and open-ended consultations" to substantively deal with issues "pending agreement on establishment of any subsidiary body to commence negotiations". She also reminded that the CD rules of procedure permits inviting the specialized agencies, IAEA or any UN organ to assist advancing the work. Romania asked the CD to consider if "consensus in the CD mean(s) no vote, or vote no?"

The P6 are still working on the details of a timetable, which will be introduced February 9. There are disagreements as to whether the timetable should include issues in addition to the four recognized 'core' issues: Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) and Nuclear Disarmament. In regards to the timeline and issues on it, Algeria asked the chair if delegations are supposed to wait for the Presidents to publish a list of issues to be dealt with and then react on it, or if silence at this stage will be interpreted as consent. Having waited for so long to begin substantive work, we certainly hope the CD does not find an excuse to reject a timetable for discussions. As Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia pointed out: if no substantial work takes place soon, the CD might "become just another deliberative forum or, even worse, will soon be considered as no more than a talk show."

Many of today's 14 statements claimed willingness to consider any suggestion in order to break the CD deadlock, with the A5 proposal still enjoying the strongest support. Ambassador Valery Loshchinin pointed out the difficult but important compromises his country had made for the "evolving" A5 proposal, to which Russia "is prepared not to object", expecting reciprocal steps from other delegations. Russia, like China, came a long way to agree to a PAROS ad hoc committee with a discussion rather than negotiating mandate. India noted its own compromise, coming from supporting CD 1570 to support the A5 which has a weaker nuclear disarmament mandate. Chile said the A5 could be improved upon in order to increase support for it.

Again, many statements identified negotiating an FMCT as the priority issue, and Japan announced its intention to issue a working paper on the subject. Australian Ambassador Michael Smith maintained that although the most effective FMCT would include appropriate verification measures, the priority should be to start negotiations. Japan and Italy supported this position. India, though acknowledging "recent developments", referring to the US rejection of verifiability in an FMCT, still believes the Shannon Mandate should be the basis for beginning negotiations. The Shannon Mandate, which had consensus support before the US pulled back due to objections over verifiability, details the mandate for negotiations of an FMCT.

Russia reiterated that Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) is their main priority. According to Ambassdor Loshchinin this should be dealt with because there are no weapons in outer space yet and "prevention is always easier than prohibition and reduction."

India cited nuclear disarmament as "a core concern of India's foreign policy." Ambassador Jayad Prasad said India, a nuclear weapon state, is "committed to a nuclear-weapon free world."

Russia said it would not object to an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. It simultaneously said such a committee would be "incomplete and one-sided" without addressing the issue of non-proliferation. Because both issues, together with peaceful uses of atomic energy, are "thoroughly and comprehensively considered within the NPT review process", thought should be given as to how to avoid duplication. Russia also prided itself that "due to joint and concerted efforts of Russia and the United States we have less and less nuclear weapons remaining on Earth." Nevertheless, were it not for Russia and the United States, there would certainly be less nuclear weapons on Earth altogether.

There were two proposals from the floor to consider issues in addition to the four core issues. Based on informal consultations initiated by France and Switzerland on Civil Critical Infrastructure, French Ambassador François Rivasseau introduced a working paper with a draft mandate for the issue. Switzerland then said they would like to create an open-ended group of governmental experts. According to the working paper, this group would compile best practices ensuring safety and security for civil critical infrastructure, and present a report to the CD this year.

Australia distributed a letter requesting the inclusion of Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) in the 2006 work of the CD. Ambassador Smith said UN General Assembly resolution 60/77, adopted by consensus this year, illustrated that an "international consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of MANPADS already exists." Chile and Turkey supported the proposal, Ambassador Türkekul Kurttekin noting that new items still do not exclude previously recognized core issues.

As the CD feels more pressure from the outside world for its lengthy impasse, Sri Lanka asked the Conference to "be mindful of management reforms in New York, which will bring further pressure here and decrease resources" due to the deadlock. Even though rumors circulate about suspending the CD or allocating its work to other venues, Indonesia explained that "the presence of weapons of mass destruction poses a serious threat and a great danger not only to countries that own them, but to all countries, to all human beings. Addressing such a problem certainly does not belong to a handful of countries; instead, a multilateral approach should be the best way to proceed."

Ambassador Costea used the word 'frustration' in order to describe the current atmosphere in the CD, while Indonesia reminded the meeting of Robert Cecil's words written on the wall outside the Council Chamber. "Here is a great work for peace in which we can all participate. The nations must disarm or perish".

Alex Sundberg
Disarmament Intern

Jennifer Nordstrom
Reaching Critical Will

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

31 January

The January 31 third Conference on Disarmament plenary session of 2006 also marked the 1000th plenary meeting of the Conference, and nine delegations used the opportunity to assess the CD’s history and current state. While delegations acknowledged the important contributions the CD has made to disarmament throughout its history, including the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996), as Chinese Ambassador Zukang Sha put it, “The glory of the CD’s past cannot cover up its present difficulty.” The President of the Conference, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, the Russian Federation, China, the Netherlands, Colombia, Sweden, the Secretary-General of the CD, and the Ukraine delivered statements.

Once again, Member States underscored that the reason for the almost decade-long deadlock is not the CD as an institution. They instead recognized the CD as a means to an end, and commonly identified that end as increased common security. Italy, Switzerland and the Secretary General of the Conference also noted that a working CD would increase common security through disarmament-funded development.

As Ambassador Jürg Streuli of Switzerland stated, the problem derives from “the lack of political will of the States to engage in new negotiations.” Many statements today encouraged creativity, flexibility and initiative in positions, not procedure. In his capacity as President, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki of Poland likened the CD of recent years to Sleeping Beauty dreaming of her brave programme of work Prince to come and kiss her out of her sleep, when what it really needs is creativity “to get ourselves out of this hibernating state!” When the Netherlands encouraged imagination, Ambassador Landman specified that the CD must come up with a security analysis as broadly shared as possible.

Italian Ambassador Carlo Trezza encouraged effective multilateralism where “delegations not … simply express their national postures but also take into account the priorities of others.” Former US President John F. Kennedy was quoted several times at the 1000th CD plenary session when he said “What is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.”

This stubborn self-interest is particularly evident because states do not have a shared security analysis. Norway suggested the CD’s successful negotiations all came at moments when states shared perceptions of self interest, and that negotiations would not come again until those perceptions of self interest aligned. Sweden, on the other hand, encouraged states to reexamine their positions from a position of self interest. The consequence of states’ unyielding positions “is doing damage not only to our common security,” said Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier, “but to their own.” By getting caught in the false dichotomy between old and new dangers, they are failing to address either one.

The Ukraine encouraged the CD to maintain the crucial balance between non-proliferation and disarmament, negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and the establishment of a Nuclear Disarmament subsidiary body in the context of the CD. Sweden, repeating a commonly shared perception among delegations, expressed the need for the CD to begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) without delay. Ambassador Kjetil Paulsen of Norway was not convinced that states were ready to negotiate an FMCT. He suggested the nuclear weapon states get together – far away from the CD – with the biggest consumers of fissile material for peaceful purposes to consider negotiations. “Then we will see if time is ripe.”

Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation also put forward a proposal on fissile materials, by referencing President Putin’s initiative of 25 January 2006, on the “creation of a prototype of a global infrastructure which will assure all interested countries equal access to the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear power.” This ‘infrastructure’ would establish international centers for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel “under strict compliance with all norms of nuclear non-proliferation regime” and functioning “on a non-discriminatory basis under the IAEA control.”

While the Russian Federation claims such an initiative would work to ensure global energy security, it fails to mention the environmental and humanitarian implications of encouraging increased global reliance on nuclear energy. Gigantic facilities for radioactive waste will contaminate its surroundings for centuries to come; highly dangerous nuclear waste will be transported across the world, threatening everything on its way; and hundreds of thousands of lives world-wide will be set at risk everyday as more nuclear power plants are established.

Non-proliferation concerns, characterized in the current situation with Iran, are presumably a motivator for this proposal and others for internationalizing the fuel cycle. However, the Ukraine proposed a much fairer fix that is not a toxic terrorist target: strengthening the non-proliferation regime through legally binding negative security assurances, thus “eliminating plausible incentives for pursuing nuclear weapon programmes.”

Member States discussed civil society’s absence from and potential utility to the CD once again. The Netherlands’ Ambassador Johannes Landman bemoaned, “NGOs are only allowed to communicate with this body in writing, as well as through a once-a-year joint statement to be read by the Secretary General. It would be a good laugh if it weren’t so sad”. Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros of Colombia similarly called for finding ways and means for NGOs to participate, recalling the Irish proposal from 2004, which CD Secretary-General Ordzhonikidze recommended civil society use more fully. Reaching Critical Will strongly encourages NGOs to submit substantive papers to the CD Secretariat, and to contact us if you are interested in collaboration this year.

Many delegations again supported the P6 (six rotating Presidents for 2006) initiative, whose timetable for substantive debate we can expect no later than February 9th. With this timetable, NGOs and governments can both begin preparing for substantive input on the four core issues in order to submit working papers, participate in discussions, and organize side events. The Netherlands commended the Presidents’ prerogative to identify ‘Friends of the President’ to help in the preparation, moderation and follow-up of consultations, and although the Friends will not be formally announced until the timetable is released, the Ukraine was “pleased to be invited to be one of the group of Friends.”

Although there are these glimmering possibilities, Ambassador Landman likened the Council Chamber to a dim “Pharaonic Tomb that lost its golden brightness long ago” and with Goethe’s death bed plea for “Mehr Licht!” called for the CD to draw the curtains metaphorically as well as literally. Let us hope the Conference moves on not through the “slippery slope towards anarchy and use of force” as warned by the Swedish Ambassador, but rather towards the rule of law, global security, disarmament and non-proliferation the world is expecting.

-Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
and
Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

26 January

The Conference on Disarmament showed some life at its second plenary session of 2006, with spirited responses to prodding questions in the Netherlands’ statement in addition to regularly planned general statements from Algeria, Japan, Germany, China and France. Norway, France and the Secretary-General of the CD responded to the Netherlands.

Although some delegations have suggested the Conference look at alternative proposals, three of the statements made today expressed continued support for the A5 (Five Ambassadors') agenda as contained in CD/1693Rev1. Algeria called the A5 agenda the most “objective and realistic basis” for a Programme of Work, China called it “balanced in relative terms” and Germany said it enjoys the widest cross-group support. China reminded the conference that it had made “significant concessions” in order to support the A5 as a Programme of Work, and said it would not be in a position to support Peru’s proposal (CD 1757) because of its weakened Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) mandate.

Japan urged the conference to begin substantive discussions with or without a programme of work, and the Secretary General of the Conference, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, scolded, “you are not supposed to deal with procedure, you are supposed to deal with substance.” In this regard, Japan expressed appreciation for the initiative of the six 2006 CD Presidents, or the P6. This initiative is getting some attention from the CD members as a “new element…that can offer some prospect of progress in the Conference” in the words of French Ambassador Rivasseau. Japan encouraged the P6 to present the Conference with a timeline for substantial discussions as soon as possible to give delegations the opportunity to prepare for deeper discussion of issues.

Seemingly in a reference to Iran, Algeria noted that diversion of nuclear technology to military use is the true cause for concern, not its use for peaceful purposes. It also said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the appropriate mechanism for ensuring transparency regarding fissile materials. The IAEA has called an emergency meeting of the Board of Governors on February 2nd, where the European Union and the United States are likely to push for a Security Council referral. In this context, Algeria reiterated its support for a multilateral and legally binding fissile materials treaty, and for the regional denuclearization of the Middle East through a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, as supported in the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty resolution and Security Council resolution 687 (1991). Read more about this situation on RCW’s Nuclear Iran? page, including civil society talking points and letters to the IAEA Board.

The CD’s frustration rippled through an exchange prompted by Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands’ response to Secretary General (SG) Kofi Annan’s suggestion that CD members invite their Foreign Ministers to address the Conference. Landman asked when the UN SG last addressed the conference, why the CD SG was absent from its opening session without explanation, and when a new deputy CD SG would be appointed. In answering these questions, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the CD, told the Conference that Annan did not attend the CD because it is “not producing political decisions.” He also rebutted that the CD’s problem was not his or the UN SG’s attendance, but rather the positions of the Member States. The deputy CD SG is in the process of being selected, as is the Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs in New York. Norway suggested the UN SG visit the Conference when they justified their financial expenditure of the UN’s money by delivering negotiations.

Once again, the seemingly isolated CD recognized its connection to the outside world. CD Secretary General Ordzhonikidze acknowledged the CD “can save the world billions of dollars for development, the environment, health, education and so on” if it would only get to work on disarmament. Algeria cited SIPRI’s 2005 military expenditures report, which found that $975 billion USD was spent globally on the military in 2004 when hundreds of millions of people live below the poverty line. Japan opened its first statement of the 2006 CD session by recognizing that the outside world’s view of the CD “has reached the point of no tolerance.” Algeria even suggested the CD open its doors to civil society in order to not “remain on the margins of what is happening elsewhere”.

***************
Jennifer Nordstrom
Project Associate

25 January 2006

On 24 January, the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the world's sole multilateral body devoted to negotiating arms control and disarmament treaties, opened its first session of 2006 under the Presidency of Poland. With 65 delegations present, only 6 were represented by women. In his opening statement, Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki brought up the disappointments of last year: the failure to adequately reflect arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation in the final document of the September UN Summit, as well as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference not living up to the expectations of the international community. He emphasized the importance of breaking the stalemate in the CD by the delegations showing “creativity, flexibility and, above all, political will to make this Conference live up to the challenges outside this room”. In a remark supported by both Netherlands and South Africa, Ambassador Rapacki concluded that “the world outside will not wait until the CD adopts its program of work”. And the world outside was indeed listening, with more than 40 civil society representatives present in the gallery of the Council Chamber.

This year the rotating Presidents of the CD, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Senegal and Slovakia, intend to cooperate closely in order to assure continuity by consecutive Presidents. They have named themselves the “P6”. Moreover, a group of states will be appointed as Friends of Presidents to assist the P6 throughout the 2006 CD in informal consultations on gaining consensus on a programme of work and on improving the CD’s methods of work. As a means of creating a framework for a substantive session, the Polish Ambassador encouraged the submission of working papers, proposals and ideas from delegations and NGOs alike. Organizing side-events on topics of particular interest, he added, will provide “a good opportunity for academic and civil society engagement in our deliberations on the substance of the CD”.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan drew attention to the inadequacy of using procedural means or fine-tuning already existing proposals to break the impasse of the CD. He called on capitals to “thoroughly reassess attitudes towards the Conference, and develop a new political consensus on priorities in arms control and disarmament”, in a message distributed to the delegates. 

The Ambassador of the Netherlands, Johannes Landman, urged the P6 to immediately propose a timetable for the discussion of the four issues that have emerged in each of the recent proposals for a programme of work: a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), Nuclear Disarmament, and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs), allowing for an early start for discussions. This, held the Ambassador, “would create the conditions for a much-needed momentum in the CD that could indeed pave the way for a common understanding as to what issues are ripe for immediate negotiations and which ones deserves further study and reflection”.

Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali of South Africa expressed her delegation’s support for the efforts of the P6 “to steer us towards consensual work programme for this year that will break the deadlock that has now plagued the CD for almost a decade.” Ambassador Mtshali concluded by stating that the agenda adopted by the CD in 1979 – the Decalogue – remains applicable in today’s international environment and contains sufficient flexibility to allow for varied discussions, and consequently should be adopted by the Conference. The draft agenda contained in CD/WP/540 was indeed adopted at the resumption of the formal plenary after a short informal discussion in closed chambers.

At the resumption of the plenary, Turkey and Cyprus both took the floor to rehash an old argument after agreement was reached on allowing observer states to participate in the CD according to the rules of procedure. Turkey referenced CD/1438 and CD/1738 – letters submitted by their government in past years questioning the legal status of Cyprus.  The Ambassador from Cyprus reiterated that these matters had been dealt with in their response documents – CD/1439 and CD/1740. This argument between Turkey and Cyprus has plagued the CD for a number of years and is considered one of the reasons the CD has not formally expanded its membership.

Concluding the first plenary of the 2006 CD, Peru, the outgoing President, congratulated the cooperation among the P6 and wished the best of luck to the upcoming year of the Conference. And good luck with resuming substantive work is needed, since, borrowing the words of the Netherlands’ Ambassador Landman: “Frankly speaking; in a world that is becoming ever more dangerous, there is no place for a CD that lounges about.”

The next meeting of the CD will be held Thursday 26 January at 10 am.

- Alex Sundberg, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008