The CD Report

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

Access our archives: 2005, 2004 and 2003

Third Session

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

Second Session

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

First Session

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

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

14 September

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

Report to the General Assembly

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

Compliance with the NPT

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

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

FMCT

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

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

Israeli use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells

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

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

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

12 September

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

Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ)

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

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

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

New Issues

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

These issues were:

• Vacating the Middle East from any nuclear weapons;

• Submitting Israeli nuclear establishments to the IAEA safeguards;

• Israel dumping nuclear waste in the Syrian Golan;

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

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

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

• America using phosphoric weapons during the attack on Falujah.

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

New Ambassador from Ecuador

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

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

7 September

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

Nuclear Disarmament

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

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

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

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

Weapons in the Middle East

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

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

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

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

6 September

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

The CD report to the General Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friends of the Presidents

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

US draft FMCT and negotiating mandate

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

The International Atomic Energy Agency presentation

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

NGO Statement

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

Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

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

The Four Core Issues

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

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

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

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

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

31 August

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

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

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

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

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

Anniversary of the Closure of a Nuclear Test Site

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

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

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

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

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

Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

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

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

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

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

24 August

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

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

The IAEA and FMCT Verification

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

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

The IAEA Safeguards

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

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

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

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

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

The IAEA and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

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

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

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

Transparency in Armaments

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

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

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

Crisis in the Middle East

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

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

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

Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 August

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

Transparency in Armaments (TIA)

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

United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

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

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

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

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

Other measures: Arms Trade Treaty and Military Expenditures

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

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

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

TIA in the CD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

22 August

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timetable for the last part of 2006

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

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

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

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

17 August

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

Negative Security Assurances

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

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

Programme of Work and CD progress

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

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

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

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

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

15 August

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

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

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

Fissile Material and Program of Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 August

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

Comprehensive programme of disarmament and an Arms Trade Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CD deadlock and a Programme of Work

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

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

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

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

Negative Security Assurances

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

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

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

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

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

3 August

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29 June

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 June

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

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

Nuclear Disarmament

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

Radiological weapons

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

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

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

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)

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

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

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

Terrorism and Fissile Materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 June