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 CDs 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 dAffaires 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 Israels 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 Commissions 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.
| Issue |
Meetings |
Statements |
Papers |
Experts |
Nuclear Disarmament |
5 |
47 |
1 |
0 |
Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty |
7 |
80 |
9 |
48 |
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space |
4 |
39 |
8 |
7 |
New WMD and Radiological Weapons |
2 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
Negative Security Assurances |
1 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament |
1 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
Transparency in Armaments |
2 or 3 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Annual Report |
1 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
-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 societys experience, he said, referring to the
NGOs not being allowed to deliver their International Womens 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
|