Reaching Critical Will

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

In the last formal plenary session of the 2007 Conference on Disarmament (CD), the annual report to the UN General Assembly was adopted by consensus. Tunisia, Canada, Iran, the EU (statement delivered by Portugal), Italy, Japan, South Africa (on behalf of the Group of 21), the Russian Federation, Brazil, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, China, and Ukraine took the floor and concluding remarks from CD President Ambassador Hamoui of Syria were presented.

The CD bid farewell to Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy and Ambassador Sayem Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour of Iran, while welcoming the new Ambassador of Ireland, Dáithí Ó Ceallaigh.

The annual CD report reflects the progress of the 2007 session towards consensus on a program of work by chronicling the development of the "Presidential Proposal", beginning with the Presidential Draft Decision (L.1) put forth by Sweden in the first session, followed by the introduction of a clarifying Complementary Presidential Statement and the Draft Decision of the Conference in the second session, which linked the three documents in a concise package.

The report does not go into detail about the substantive thematic informal discussions, but rather lists documents produced in relation to these discussions, including the Coordinator's reports.

In his statement, Ambassador Kahn of Pakistan raised the question of why a fissile materials treaty was dealt with under agenda item 2, prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters, instead of agenda item 1, cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. The report answered this question (paragraph 41) by "recognizing that the issues of the prohibition of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices is pertinent to agenda item 1, this topic was discussed under agenda item 2, for practical reasons."

The report makes note of the intensive consultations between the P6 and delegations held before, between, and throughout the 2007 sessions, as a means to reaching an agreement on the Presidential Proposal. It also outlines the P6 decision to appoint Coordinators to chair informal meetings on each of the seven agenda items. The reports of the Coordinators were transmitted to the Secretary-General of the Conference in August 2007.

In contrast, last year's report included minimal description of the process of work on the agenda items. It listed a timetable for discussion of substantive issues, based on the P6 joint proposal, which experts from capitals participated in. In September 2006, when the CD was discussing the annual report, the Netherlands suggested the report be used as a vehicle to endorse the timetable for substantive discussions that could be built upon in 2007. However, the final report did not include any conclusions or recommendations, except to request that the incoming Presidents conduct consultations during the intersessional period and to make recommendations based on all relevant proposals, views, and discussions (paragraph 25).

The 2007 annual report does note the situation that developed in the CD when certain Member States continued to block consensus on the Proposal while the majority of the Conference was ready to move forward. It quotes CD President Ambassador Hamoui's Report on the Third Session, in which he stated, "A wide range of delegations expressed their support for the Presidential Proposal. Some delegations, though they had some concerns about certain elements of in the Proposal, said that they would not oppose consensus on it. Others expressed their position that more work and consultations were needed to reach a consensus on it. The CD has achieved substantive progress by conducting important thematic debates on all agenda items and advancing considerably in its efforts but could not yet reach consensus on a program of work. A momentum was created to move the CD out of its longstanding stalemate, and the efforts to reach an agreement to start substantive work must be continued."

The annual report also documents that a statement from the NGO Working Group on Peace of the NGO Committee on the Status of Women was read by the CD President on 6 March 2007, to mark International Women's Day. The report notes, "subsequently, a number of delegations expressed the view that the statement should be delivered by one of its authors." WILPF has consistently lobbied for the statement to be read by an NGO representative, but after 24 years, it continues to watch it read from the CD gallery--the same gallery that Ambassador Trezza of Italy referred to in his farewell remarks to the CD, when he said, with a glance upwards, thanks "to those who patiently follow our work from the gallery: a needed testimony of public interest in our deliberations."

Looking ahead to continuing the progress made in the CD this year, many delegations took the floor to express their frustration and hopes for achieving a consensus on the L.1 package. It will remain a focal point of the work of the 2008 session. Other delegations highlighted the continuation of work on a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT) and Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) in next year's session.

Italy was optimistic about continuing work on an FMT. Ambassador Trezza stated that the question of verification in an FMT can be overcome, and, "it should be made clear to capitals that the main issue is not verification as such but whether verification should be a precondition for negotiations." Ambassador Trezza also reminded Members of the CD blocking consensus on the L.1 proposal over concerns about verification that "by accepting L1, delegations do not rule anything out. They do not exclude verification and there is no reason to believe that deliberations on it would be rejected in a negotiation."

Japan took the floor to say that starting negotiations on an FMT is the next logical step for the CD to take. The Conference should build on this year's discussions, where in the first session the CD "engaged in various debates without any preconditions." This year, Ambassador Tarui said, "proactive discussions were held on a verification system, with many countries stressing the importance of such a system, or deliberating on in what form verification could be introduced, while opposite positions were also provided." Ambassador Tarui added that he would like to point out that there is nothing preventing the CD from commencing negotiations without preconditions.

Portugal, on behalf of the EU, reminded the Conference that the EU attaches a "clear priority" to the negotiation of the FMT. Portugal also called attention to the issue of membership and enlarging the CD, as, while Portugal delivered the EU statement, it is not a member of the Conference itself.

Pakistan also discussed the importance it places on an FMT, reiterating its position of August 2 that Pakistan is in favor of a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states." Ambassador Masood Khan pointed out that Pakistan's positions in the CD are determined by the policies of its National Command Authority and are "anchored in its core national security interests." Referring to recent nuclear developments in South Asia and their serious implications for regional stability, Pakistan suggested that they would only be comfortable negotiating an FMT with a negotiation mandate that included verification, and that "distinctly recognize[s] the possibility of taking up the question of the scope of the treaty and the existing stocks of fissile material."

Pakistan went on to say that all four core issues should be given equal and balanced treatment, and that negotiations should be conducted by an Ad Hoc Committee.

Meanwhile, Canada introduced UNIDIR's Report on its April conference on Space Security, entitled "Celebrating the Space Age: 50 Years of Space Technology, 40 Years of the Outer Space Treaty." Russia stated that the report will be useful for the CD's work in the coming year on PAROS, and reiterated that outer space security is a priority for the Russian Federation. China stated that PAROS and space security was also a priority concern for its government.

Four of the six 2008 CD Presidents spoke during the plenary, indicating that they will continue to work together in the cooperative P6 spirit. Tunisia, the first incoming CD President for 2008, announced that it will hold consultations during the intersessional period with a view to making useful progress. Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom also took the floor, and expressed their willingness to work together and to build on the work done in 2007. The other 2008 CD Presidents will be the United States and Venezuela.

As this year's session of the Conference on Disarmament draws to a close, it is evident that there is a sense of pragmatic and cautious optimism in the Conference chamber about the coming year. While many delegations are frustrated and disappointed that the CD was unable to reach consensus on a program of work, there is a clear sense of wanting to build on what the CD was able to accomplish this year, to continue the momentum into next year's work, and to achieve concrete results.

As the Ambassador of Brazil said in his remarks, "We must not let all this work be useless. Otherwise, like in the myth of Sisyphus, the work of the CD will be like rolling the stone again and again to the top of the mountain and letting it fall down on its own weight. There can't be a more severe punishment than futile and hopeless labor. We owe it to ourselves at least to build up on the foundation layered this year and I sincerely hope that this will lead to the consolidation of the P6 platform in order to allow us to build upon the important work developed in the first part of the first session and find consensus on the start of negotiations in 2008."

There will be an informal plenary next week to discuss the draft resolution to the General Assembly.

The 2008 CD Schedule is as follows:
First Part: 21 January- 28 March
Second Part: 12 May- 27 June
Third Part: 28 July – 12 September

During today's session, CD President Ambassador Hamoui welcomed incoming Ambassador Hans Dahlgren of Sweden, who is replacing Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier.

Meanwhile, China announced that starting this year, it will report China's basic military expenditures to the UN Secretary-General annually, in accordance with UNGA Resolution 1644. In addition, China said, "in light of the fact that a certain country has stopped providing data on its illegal arms sales to the Taiwan Province of China to the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China decides to resume providing annually the data of its imports and exports of conventional arms in the seven categories to the Register from this year."

Today's plenary focused on the adoption of the annual report of the Conference on Disarmament to the UN General Assembly. Algeria, Pakistan, New Zealand, Italy, the United Kingdom, Iran, and Turkey made statements concerning the content of the draft report.

Last year, the CD had difficulty adopting its annual report to the UN General Assembly. Governments debated the content of the report and its references to a timetable of substantive discussions proposed by the 2006 P6 and the development of a program of work in 2007. Read more in-depth in last year's CD Report here.

Now, at the end of the 2007 session, the question of how to accurately represent the progress that the CD has made this year, as well as the current lack of consensus on the L.1 package, makes the adoption of this year's report a particularly sensitive issue.

Pakistan circulated its proposed amendments in the formal plenary, which it hoped would make the report more balanced. It emphasized the need for the report to "reflect equal treatment to all issues."

New Zealand commented on the Pakistani amendments, saying that one of the changes Pakistan suggested would involve the omission of one of the only references in the draft report to the future work of the CD. The reference states the Conference's belief that it should continue to build on the work of the 2007 session, harmonize views on main priorities, and keep the momentum created to move the Conference out of its present stalemate. "It would be extremely unfortunate if that sentiment was removed from the document," Ambassador Mackay said. He added that he hoped that the draft report would not be "gutted" to the point that it no longer reflected the "flavor" of the progress the CD has made this year.

The UK took the floor in support of the draft report. Ambassador Duncan expressed his concern that while there is no desire to attribute blame, those countries which have not joined consensus should not seek to hide the fact that they've exercised their legitimate and sovereign right not to join the consensus.

Hopefully, the Conference will reach consensus on the annual report in the informal discussions that followed todays plenary and have the report circulated in time for the last formal plenary session. The next formal plenary meeting will be Tuesday, September 14 at 10am.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) is preparing for the end of the 2007 session. In todays plenary, CD President Ambassador Hamoui of Syria introduced his Presidential Report which summarizes the work of the third session. He announced that a draft of the annual report from the Conference on Disarmament to the UN General Assembly has been prepared and will be circulated shortly. The Draft Report GA will be discussed informally by all CD Members next Tuesday morning before it is introduced in the next formal plenary meeting at 10 am, Tuesday, 4 September. During the plenary, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden presented her farewell remarks and Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada was welcomed to the Conference.

CD President Ambassador Hamoui reviewed his observations in his Presidential Report on the work of the CD's third session. He summarized his evaluation in three points:

1. A wide range of delegations expressed their support for the Presidential Proposal based on the three annexed documents, L.1**, CRP.5*, and CRP.6*. Some delegations, though they had some concerns and reservations about certain elements, said that they would not oppose consensus on the Proposal. Others expressed their position that more work and consultations were needed to reach consensus.

2. The CD has achieved substantive progress by conducting important thematic debates on all agenda items. But it has not yet reached consensus on a Program of Work.

3. Momentum has been created to move the Conference on Disarmament out of its longstanding stalemate, and the efforts to reach an agreement must be continued.

Concerning the annual Draft Report, CD President Ambassador Hamoui stated that the six CD Presidents had reached consensus on its content. He called on the Conference to show the necessary flexibility to facilitate the adoption of the report.

Ambassador Borsiin Bonnier, in her farewell remarks, noted the alarming new threats to global security. In the nuclear field, brinkmanship is replacing statesmanship. Military expenditures are rising and States continue to seek the illusion of an impenetrable defense. Space assets are not secure and "cyber war" is no longer a science fiction. "The overall balance between global security problems solved and those unsolved is, I believe, negative," she said.

Ambassador Bonnier said, at times, the CD has been "the anchor of sincere multilateral work" on disarmament and the "center of gravity" of the international community. It has been vibrant, energetic, and determined to make a difference. It has negotiated and defended important instruments of international law.

At other times, it has been the opposite: "an anemic stalemate with delegations resorting to recitals of ceremonious mantras, covering up the traces of their own passivity by useless finger-pointing and blame-games, hiding behind the commas of the rules of procedure and shamelessly abusing the consensus-rule to abort any attempt to seriously tackle difficult or sensitive issues—in effect taking the whole multilateral approach to disarmament and arms control hostage to their own particular perceptions, preferences or dictates," she said.

Ambassador Bonnier called on Member States to utilize the opportunity before them and the multilateral forum of the CD. "Rejecting the use of the CD is irresponsible," she said. "Those blocking the potentials of this body should understand that they are inflicting real damage not only to the security of others, to our common security, but in the long run also their own."

Reflecting on her work as one of this year's CD Presidents and her efforts to achieve consensus on the L.1 Proposal through crafting a Complementary Presidential Statement and clarifying Draft Decision to link the documents into a concise package, Ambassador Bonnier said the CD was close to a beginning. "As I am now leaving, I am sorry not to be with you when you cross the last bridge. Because crossing it you will. There is no other way," she said.

The next formal plenary meeting will take place on Tuesday, 4 September at 10 am.

Today’s formal plenary meeting marked the beginning of the Syrian Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, the last Presidency of the 2007 CD session. Ambassador Hamoui gave opening remarks commending the progress the CD has accomplished thus far, while calling on the Conference to continue to move forward. The CD heard a statement from the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Sergio Duarte. South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 21, Italy, and Peru made brief interventions. The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze also addressed the Conference emphasizing the good investment and good progress that has been made this year.

In his opening address to the Conference, CD President Ambassador Hamoui was optimistic about the coming work of the CD under the Syrian Presidency. During the last weeks of the CD session, Ambassador Hamoui stated he will continue consultations and contacts with delegations and assist the Conference in its work to prepare a comprehensive report on the 2007 session and a draft resolution to be adopted by the UN General Assembly in October.

Ambassador Hamoui also emphasized Syria’s commitment to ridding the Middle East region of nuclear weapons and continued efforts to create a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. He also extended his sincere condolences on behalf of the Conference to the family and friends of the victims of the recent earthquake in Peru.

The High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Sergio Duarte, followed with a brief observation noting the Conference “stands tantalizingly one short step away from resolving its longstanding impasse,” and, “the investment that has gone into reaching this year’s effort to find common ground deserves careful analysis.”

In his opinion, the considerable investment from this year’s Presidents, Coordinators, and every CD Member State reflects the common desire that the CD should “fulfill its mandate as a negotiating body rather than a forum for debate.” It also reveals that CD Members are prepared to work towards results on the four core issues of the Conference and can do so in “a comprehensive, calibrated timetable or schedule of activities,” which Mr. Duarte compared to a “programme of work.” He called on the Conference to accurately reflect the intensity of its work this year and its determination to demonstrate its potential as a negotiating body in its report to the General Assembly.

Mr. Duarte reminded the Conference “that the rules of procedure guarantee that each Member can protect its concerns at any decision-point along the way”. Mr. Duarte then quoted Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s address to the Conference, stating that “finding a fair accommodation now would deprive no Member of the ability to assert its national position’ in phases that follow.” He then pledged his full support to the Secretary-General of the CD, its Members, and the broader Geneva disarmament community, including civil society.

The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 21, Italy, and Peru all expressed support for Mr. Duarte’s statement.

Italy appealed to the Conference to keep its momentum at this important juncture and not lose focus in the coming recess.

Peru referred to the recent tragedy caused by a massive earthquake south of Lima which resulted in more than five hundred deaths and ‘immeasurable material loss.’ Peru stated that while this type of tragedy is an inevitable natural disaster, this event should make the Conference think of other types of tragedies that it has the power to prevent. Peru reiterated its hopes that the CD will succeed in adopting a program of work in order to avoid deaths, victims, and disasters which can be prevented by a commitment from all Members of the CD.

The next formal plenary meeting will be Thursday, August 30th at 10am. CD President Ambassador Hamoui announced that he hopes to have the CD’s draft report to the General Assembly available by that time.

Today’s plenary was one of goodbyes and reassessments. In the last plenary of the Swiss Presidency, Ambassador Streuli gave his closing remarks and assessment of the CD’s progress during the weeks of his Presidency. Ambassador Paul Meyer (Canada) took the floor to deliver his farewell remarks with his characteristic humor and frank analysis.

China and Pakistan reiterated their positions on a programme of work (L1 proposal). For China, not much appears to have changed whereas Pakistan expressed its concerns in greater detail, contextualizing them in light of recent developments affecting regional security in South Asia. New Zealand and Argentina also took the floor.

CD President Ambassador Streuli began his closing remarks saying he was hesitant to make a final statement, as each Presidency of the CD is only a stage in a process of dialogue and analysis. Ambassador Streuli announced that he had received a proposal for a slight amendment of the text of the Complementary Presidential Statement, while leaving document L1 unchanged. He stated that his consultations had revealed that these suggestions could be met with broad approval, but that acceptance of the proposed amendment on the Complementary Statement would not influence consensus on the L1 package, as it is now being considered. He said that he preferred not to introduce the proposed amendment as it would not change countries’ ability to accept L1, for the time being.

Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada followed with his own farewell remarks and assessment of the four years he spent in the CD. He reminded the CD of its essential purpose and of the expectation of the international community that the CD fulfill its goals and justify the investment made in keeping it alive. “Alas, we have to acknowledge that the return on that investment has been virtually nil. If the CD was a business, it would have been declared insolvent long ago and shut down,” he added.

Rather than dwell on the weaknesses of the Conference and “its dysfunctional consensus rule that sacrifices the commitments of the many to the preferences of the few,” Ambassador Meyer had the following message: “If States are serious about accomplishing something in the field of multilateral arms control, they will find the appropriate diplomatic vehicle for doing so.” It is not a matter of the “death” of the CD necessarily, but of finding other fora or processes to achieve results. He gave the example of the CCW (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) and the negotiation of the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines outside of the Convention, when it was unable to move forward on the issue. The CCW continued to exist, and will continue to do so, even if it is again overtaken by a new process to ban cluster munitions this year.

Continuing the spirit of reassessment, China and Pakistan requested the floor to provide the Conference with updates on their present positions. China stated that it remained willing to constructively participate in discussions, and recalled to the Conference the ideas it raised on the 21st of June on document L1 and the Complementary Presidential Statement, saying that it has room for improvement, referring to its desire for stronger wording on PAROS. Pakistan then reiterated that it continues to have “serious and substantive concerns” with the L1 proposal. “Since May this year, Pakistan has been ready to table its amendments to the PDD [Presidential Draft Decision]. We have refrained from doing so to allow for the completion of our own interdepartmental policy review and to make room for more consultation in the CD,” Ambassador Masood Khan said.

On August 2nd, Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA), the highest body responsible for the formulation and development of Pakistan’s strategic policy and systems, met and discussed, inter alia, issues being considered in the Conference on Disarmament. Ambassador Khan reported to the CD that “‘The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states.’”

Ambassador Khan then referred to “recent developments in the nuclear field” that have implications for strategic stability in South Asia—polite diplomatic code for the US-India nuclear deal. “The strategic restrain regime, which we have been seeking since 1998, will increasingly become elusive. Pakistan is therefore pursuing a brief that it firmly anchored in its core national security interests,” Ambassador Khan said. While Pakistan remains ready to work with all Members of the CD, Ambassador Khan stated that “the heart of the problems in the CD are competing security interests of the CD members.”

Ambassador Khan’s remarks are an important reminder to the CD to evaluate Pakistan’s reluctance to join consensus on a broader context, in light of recent changes in the security climate of South Asia. The US-India nuclear deal has serious implications for security in the region. Pakistan was more specific about the effects of the deal in a press release referred to by Ambassador Khan in today’s plenary. It states that “The NCA noted that the US-India Nuclear Agreement would have implications on strategic stability as it would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from un-safeguarded nuclear reactors. The objective of strategic stability in South Asia and the global non-proliferation regime would have been better served if the United States had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India, the two non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States, with a view to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region and promoting restraints while ensuring that the legitimate needs of both countries for civil nuclear power generation are met.”

The new instability created by the US-India deal is playing out in the CD— although States have been mostly silent on this critical issue. In light of these developments, an FMCT takes on added significance for Pakistan and added national security concerns. Pakistan insists that the wording of the L1 proposal be changed to included language specifying that a future FMCT will address existing stocks and verification. An FMCT without verification or existing stocks will provide no reassurance to Pakistan, as it will have little or no impact on the US or India. Such an FMCT will place the onus of the treaty’s obligations on Pakistan alone, as it possesses the least amount of fissile material of any Nuclear Weapon State. Pakistan may feel that it has little reason to trust that, unless specifically stated at the outset that an FMCT will include verification and stocks, countries who have opposed these critical requirements like the US, will allow a future instrument to include them.

Ambassador MacKay of New Zealand responded to China and Pakistan’s remarks stating that he was encouraged to hear Ambassador Khan’s statement that Pakistan was in favor of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable FMCT treaty, as this is entirely the same as the position of New Zealand. ‘The difference,’ he said, ‘is that we don’t regard it as necessary to negotiate the outcome in advance of actually beginning negotiations and we don’t consider it necessary to stipulate the parameters of the outcome of the negotiations,’ until negotiations have commenced.

Argentina also addressed the Conference, providing an update on the outcome of a regional seminar on conventional weapons held from 30-31st July. The Seminar was co-organized by the Netherlands and the UK and attended by 25 representatives from Latin America and the Caribbean, NGOs, and the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. The seminar discussed synergies between the UN Register of Conventional Arms, General Assembly resolution 61/89, on an arms trade treaty, and regional instruments. Small arms and light weapons were also considered, at both the regional and global level. In addition, the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs has just made the views of UN member states on the feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty available online, here: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/ATT/Views_Member_States.html as called for in UNGA Resolution 61/89.

The next formal plenary will take place on Tuesday, August 21st under the Presidency of Syria. The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Sergio Duarte, will be present.

- Katherine Harrison, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

In the CD plenary meeting of 7 August, discussion focused on two weapons of mass destruction—chemical and biological weapons. Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), delivered a detailed statement on the successes and challenges of the Convention on Chemical Weapons (CWC) and the OPCW. Likewise, Ambassador Masood Khan, President of the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Chairman of the 2007 Meetings of the BWC, addressed the CD on the achievements and obstacles of the BWC regime. Ambassador Pfirter and Khan's insightful analyses of two markedly different disarmament treaty regimes highlighted multiple pathways to achieving successful and concrete results in multilateral disarmament initiatives.

During the plenary, the Netherlands, in a joint statement with Poland, announced the two countries will hold a High Level Meeting commemorating the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the CWC alongside the UNGA Session in New York, on 27 September. The Meeting will focus on the importance of multilateralism and the purpose and objectives of the CWC, while supporting its universalization and implementation. Kazakhstan informed the Conference of its accession to the BWC on 28 June 2007, and of its intention to join the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Iran made a brief intervention announcing that it will organize a conference in Tehran commemorating the tenth anniversary of the CWC on 22 and 23 October, wherein participants will visit Sardasht, a city whose population still suffers from the effects of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq under Saddam Hussein's government.

Ambassador Pfirter's statement on the CWC and OPCW framed the successes and challenges of the Convention against its unique status in the field of disarmament. The CWC is a "disarmament and non-proliferation instrument that is unprecedented in the history of arms control. Never before had the international community banned so comprehensively an entire category of weapons of mass destruction together with creating the verification tools necessary to assure compliance with these prohibitions," he said.

He argued that the success of the CWC has been clearly demonstrated, despite skepticism that a "Treaty containing such sweeping provisions affecting both militaries and the industry; governments as well as the private sector may be difficult to implement." Despite containing what has been perceived as intrusive verification provisions, the CWC has one of the highest memberships and the fastest rate of accession of any disarmament treaty. Ambassador Pfirter credited the CWC and OPCW's "exemplary spirit of dialogue and a continuous search for balance," and inclusion of every party concerned as the cornerstones of the Convention's achievements.

The CWC currently has 182 members, which represent over 95% of the world's population. 24,000 metric tons of chemical materials—or 33% of the world's known stockpiles—have been certifiably destroyed in 11 destruction facilities, operating in 5 countries. 94% of the chemical weapons production facilities in 12 States Parties have been destroyed; OPCW inspection teams have made over 3,000 inspections in over 1,080 military and industrial sites in 80 countries; and 5,600 participants have been involved in OPCW led activities on international cooperation and peaceful uses of chemistry, Ambassador Pfirter declared.

A key factor of these stunning figures is the commitment of two of the world's largest possessor states to fulfilling their stockpile destruction obligations. The US and Russia have both made significant reductions in their stockpiles. Russia has destroyed 22% of its chemical weapons—a figure that is rapidly increasing, as it had only destroyed less than 10% as of last year. The US has destroyed 46% of its total stockpile, and continues to provide assistance to other possessor states attempting to destroy their own stocks. India, Libya, and others have also made significant reductions in their stockpiles.

Flexibility and balance by the OPCW in dealing with stockpile destruction obligations and deadlines has been another important component of the CWC's success. Albania became the first country to completely destroy its chemical weapons on 11 July 2007. It achieved its goal with the assistance of a number of other States Parties, despite narrowly missing its deadline requirement.

Another element contributing to the success of the CWC regime has been the emphasis placed on establishing a comprehensive regime, not only for disarmament but also for non-proliferation, Ambassador Pfirter stated. The CWC's provisions requiring national measures such as "systematic declarations, industry monitoring, controls on transfers of chemicals, and regulatory measures to identify and track chemicals of concern," along with penal legislation allowing for the detection, pursuit, and prosecution of persons committing breaches of the Convention, have been vital for the CWC's implementation and concrete results.

Lastly, the partnership that the CWC has fostered with the chemical industry and private sector has been an essential part of its development. The OPCW has designed a number of programs and courses to provide chemists and industry-related persons with training dedicated to enhancing understanding of the CWC, national implementation, and safe and peaceful uses of chemistry. As Ambassador Pfirter explained, "We are committed to seeking the continued engagement and support of industry, which, by and large understands that our intrusiveness is well justified by the benefits that the CWC brings in terms of peace, security and better conditions for a prosperous commercial activity." He also announced that the OPCW will hold a meeting in November to foster dialogue between States Parties and global chemical industry representatives on the issue of protecting critical infrastructure and facilities related to the chemical industry and States' security needs, such as protection against terrorism.

These elements—a high rate of universalization, participation by key players, emphasis on national implementation, strong verification, balance, flexibility, assistance, and a partnership and compromise between all relevant players—have been the foundations of the CWC's success. However, as Ambassador Pfirter pointed out, many challenges still threaten the CWC today.

As chemical weapons are some of the "most toxic and dangerous substances ever invented and produced," it is imperative that accession to the Treaty must be universal. Even one absence is a threat to global peace and security. Today, only 13 states are not party to the Convention. While some states, such as Iraq, Lebanon, Congo, Angola, and Guinea Bissau, have indicated their willingness to join in the near future, other states show continuing reluctance. Ambassador Pfirter highlighted two areas which represent "a serious void on our map." In the Middle East, Egypt, Israel, and Syria still refuse to join the CWC regime, while in Asia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar are not States Parties. Meanwhile, the US and Russia still have a significant portion of their stockpiles to destroy. They have already extended their deadlines until the maximum time allowed, April 2012.

Today's CD plenary also commemorated the success of an entirely different disarmament treaty model. While it was once thought that chemical and biological weapons could be treated together in one instrument, Ambassador Khan described the divergent approach to regulating biological weapons and the dissimilar shape that the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) finally took.

"The BWC is a simple instrument, only a few pages long. Its prohibitions are clear, succinct, categorical and definitive, but it is an instrument of principle rather than procedure," Ambassador Khan stated. Unlike the CWC, the BWC "contains no provision for monitoring or verification of compliance, no provision for an implementing organization, no details of how alleged breaches should be investigated, no organized means of helping States Parties meet their obligations. Many considered this a serious shortcoming. For much of the history of the BWC, States Parties and others have fretted about the effectiveness of the treaty as a practical barrier against the development of biological weapons," Ambassador Khan said.

Discussions during the Fifth Review Conference of the BWC on a verification mechanism nearly brought about a complete halt to future efforts to regulate biological weapons, Ambassador Khan related. Yet the BWC was able to overcome its difficulties by pursuing a different course of action. Unlike the CWC, the BWC did not try to negotiate binding measures, or even recommendations. Instead, experts and officials from the scientific, medical, and political communities came together to cooperate in the face of the increasing threat of bio-terrorism, which after the events of September 11th seemed increasingly dangerous and urgent to address. Their concerted efforts resulted in the successful outcomes of the Sixth Review Conference of 2006, which Ambassador Khan listed as: an intersessional work program, specific measures on universal adherence, updated confidence-building measures, the creation of a national point of contact, improvement of national implementation and coordination, and the creation of an Implementation Support Unit.

Today, with membership increasing and a new system for the electronic distribution of confidence-building measures, Ambassador Khan said, "I am pleased to report that, thanks to the creative and constructive efforts of the States Parties, the BWC is in good shape and ready to confront the challenges it faces."

Thus, the CWC and BWC provide two very different examples of legal disarmament regimes, each producing significant results. Both stem from past efforts in the Conference on Disarmament and serve as important reminders of the work the Conference is capable of, and intended, to do. Ambassador Trezza of Italy, in a brief intervention, referred to an analogy made by Ambassador Pfirter about the CWC being a baby coming back to its mother, the CD. Ambassador Trezza asked if, in view of the results of recent years, who was the mother and who the baby? The BWC and the CWC stand as examples of the successful record of the CD, but the Conference should be mindful that it has not achieved the same results in dealing with nuclear weapons. The CD should draw lessons from the successful implementation of both the BWC and CWC, but should always look to the future and continue its essential work.

The next formal plenary will not take place on the usual Tuesday, but will be held on Thursday, 16 August at 10am, in order to give the President more time for consultations.

The third session of the Conference on Disarmament opened today with a brief but succinct formal plenary meeting. As there were no speakers who wished to take the floor, CD President Ambassador Streuli made a short opening statement introducing the schedule of the third session and outlining the current situation in the Conference.

With very little time remaining in this year's sessions, the CD must accept the fact that the closer it comes to a consensus, the longer and more complex the decision making process may become, not necessarily here in Geneva, but in member states' capitals, Ambassador Streuli said.

During the month-long summer recess, some representatives were on holiday, while others held consultations in capitals and the CD presidents held consultations of their own. Ambassador Streuli explained that those consultations revealed that the positions of delegations, for the time being, have not changed, and that others are still awaiting instructions over the next few days. "I am sorry not to be able to tell you more and I can only repeat that time is short," he said.

Thus the CD will continue to wait with exhaustive patience for a decision to be made on the package of documents introduced in the previous sessions--L.1, CRP.5, and the Presidential Draft Decision--which would effectively constitute a program of work for the Conference and allow the CD to move forward out of its decade-long deadlock. Ambassador Streuli announced that these documents are being reissued by the Secretariat, with minor corrections to update language referring to the second session of the CD, to make them applicable to the third session. Ambassador Streuli carefully emphasized that no substantive changes were made to the documents. Previously, Pakistan had objected to updating the documents, as it claimed this would imply that the documents were open to amendment. Today, however, no objections were heard. The documents will now be referred to as CD/2007/L.1**, CD/2007/CRP.5*, and CD/2007/CRP.6.

With these three documents, the CD has never been so close to consensus, Ambassador Streuli stated. Now, each member of the CD must evaluate what serves its security interests better: a work program, even if imperfect (and each consensus by definition is imperfect); or a Conference which will go back into lethargy and immobility for many years.

Ambassador Streuli also announced the schedule for the remainder of the third session. For the next three weeks, the CD will work according to the flexible plan established at the beginning of the session. The week of 20 August will be spent evaluating the previous the weeks of the Conference and the following three weeks, from 27 August to 14 September, will focus on the adoption of the annual report from the CD to the General Assembly.

Ambassador Streuli also sent a message of congratulations to Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil for his appointment as the High Representative for Disarmament at the Under-Secretary-General level during the plenary meeting.

The next formal plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be Tuesday, 7 August at 10:00am. During this plenary, the Director General for the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons will make a statement to the Conference, and there will be an exhibition in front of the Council chambers commemorating the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Today’s plenary was the last meeting of the 2007 second session of the Conference on Disarmament. CD President Ambassador Jurg Streuli of Switzerland presented the Conference with the Presidential Report, summarizing the work of the Conference to date. The UK made a statement clarifying its position on nuclear disarmament in light of speculations that a recent speech by Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett represented new UK policy. Germany reiterated the importance it attaches to PAROS and the increasing need to address threats to space security. The EU, in a statement delivered by Germany, and Turkey also called upon the three remaining states to join consensus on L.1 (P6) and allow the Conference to begin substantive work.

Pakistan reiterated that it still had significant substantive concerns over the L.1 proposal and accompanying Presidential Draft Decision, which sparked a frank and pointed exchange with New Zealand and Brazil. The second session concluded with a sense of stalemate, as Pakistan is becoming increasingly adamant about its difficulties with the L.1 proposal. Pakistan concluded that it will continue to work with the Conference, but the “Presidential Draft Decision is a proposal that has yet to obtain consensus.”

The UK spoke about Margaret Beckett's June 25 speech at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference. Fiona Paterson told the Conference that “the ideas that were expressed in Mrs. Beckett’s speech are a logical progression of what the UK has been saying and practicing in different arms control bodies…These ideas do not represent a new UK policy, but they are a continuation and a deepening of our overall approach which acknowledges that there must be parallel purpose on both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” Ms. Paterson outlined the following UK nuclear disarmament policies:

The UK will also intends to participate in a new project by the International Institute of Strategic Studies to identify the practical steps required for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Germany called for increasing attention to the issue of security in outer space. It pledged that it will work to increase communication among relevant fora and provide specific input to the CD once it continues to work on the issue. Germany reminded states that space debris is increasing, and that space security must be addressed holistically by the entire international community due to the dual-use characteristics of civil and military technologies.

The European Union, in a statement delivered by Germany, and Turkey urged China, Iran, and Pakistan to join consensus on the L.1 package. The EU mentioned Ban Ki-Moon’s warning that a lack of action in the CD will have a devastating impact on multilateral and bilateral disarmament efforts. Turkey called on states to remember that by joining consensus now states will still be able to assert their positions down the line, as Ban Ki Moon noted, adding that the L.1 proposal is merely the beginning of the multilateral negotiating process.

Pakistan, however, reiterated its concerns and problems with the L.1 package. Pakistan insisted with greater forcefulness and clarity that it wanted to begin negotiations on all four core issues of the CD simultaneously. Pakistan then outlined its position on each issue and its reasons for expecting commencement of negotiations.

On FMCT, Pakistan asked, “Why is there insistence for the CD to start negotiations in one area only, in complete disregard of consensus as reflected in the Shannon Mandate—especially at a time when asymmetries are deliberately being allowed to increase?” It reiterated that an FMCT must include verification and existing stocks and asked, “If we all agree that the scope of the FMCT instrument should include stockpiles and verification, why are we unable to include them in L.1?”

Pakistan called for negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on effective nuclear arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, or NSAs. Pakistan said this would build confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear states.

On PAROS, Pakistan stated that the Conference is ready to begin negotiations. “Enough work has been done in the CD,” it stated. “We should be able to being negotiations on the legally binding basis of material provided by China and the Russian Federation for example.”

Pakistan also stressed the importance it places on nuclear disarmament and the need to start negotiations on general and complete disarmament. Pakistan claimed that the CD has an obligation to heed civil society’s demands for work on nuclear disarmament. Civil society certainly wants work on nuclear disarmament to begin, but has long been critical of states using negotiations on general and complete disarmament to stall nuclear disarmament.

Pakistan’s remarks incited replies from New Zealand and Brazil. New Zealand stated that it suspected that Pakistan’s repeated calls for the inclusion of stocks and verification in L.1’s paragraph on an FMCT may have more to do with Pakistan attempting to “gain an advance or an outcome on negotiations” before negotiations have commenced. Ambassador MacKay of New Zealand said, “We share Pakistan’s position on the substance, but we accept and I think that all colleagues accept, that when one goes into a negotiation, one doesn’t predetermine in advance what the outcome will be.”

New Zealand also bluntly stated that it is impossible, for many reasons, to begin negotiations on all four core issues at the same time. Ultimately, “there will be a balancing of issues required,” New Zealand said, “But it is simply not practical to negotiate at the same time these four issues and I think we need to be quite realistic about this and I think we need to be quite realistic about the level of resources…” available to members of the CD.

Pakistan’s remarks also sparked comments from Brazil. Ambassador Paranhos stated that Brazil had never made a statement calling for the same or equal treatment of the four core issues and has always indicated that it is flexible in the ways to handle the issues. Brazil added that perhaps stating that negotiations must commence at once or in parallel on all four issues “is really a way perhaps not to engage in any negotiations whatsoever.”

Concluding the 2007 second session, CD President Ambassador Streuli introduced the Presidential Report on Part II of the 2007 Session. The Report summarizes the history of the progress that has been made so far, providing a timeline of events from the tabling of document L.1 to the addition of the Complementary Presidential Statement and Draft Decision.

Ambassador Streuli noted that some delegations need more time to study the documents, and told the Conference he would be in touch with those delegations during the July intersession in attempt to find a way forward. Switzerland hopes to adopt L.1 “as early as possible” when the CD reconvenes in August. Ambassador Streuli reiterated that L.1 will allow delegations to pursue national interest following the adoption of the draft decision.

On behalf the Latin American and Caribbean group (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela) Ambassador Alberto J. Dumont encouraged delegations to work together to strengthen the disarmament regime, recognizing that the UN is the proper framework in which to address international peace and security. The group expressed its full support for the P6 proposal L.1 and its complimentary Presidential Statement. Ambassador Dumont pleaded for those delegations still unable to commit to have flexibility. He insisted that obstacles over procedural matters can be overcome if delegations truly want to do so.

In his farewell speech, Ambassador Macedo of Mexico warned the CD not to confuse agitation with activity. Although the Conference has been meeting regularly and has overcome some misunderstandings, it has not fulfilled its main function: negotiation. States should understand that with the adoption of a program of work, matters of substance will be taken care of as they arrive.

The final plenary meeting of the second session of the 2007 CD will be held on Thursday, June 28 at 10am.

21 June

In her last plenary as President of the Conference of Disarmament, Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden asked delegations the following question:

“Is there any delegation which is NOT, at this point in time, in a position to go along with a consensus to begin substantive work on the basis of the three documents, taken together (i.e. L.1, CRP.5 and the Draft Decision by the Conference)???”

China, Pakistan, and Iran stated they were not ready to move forward along the lines of the L.1, CRP.5 and Draft Decision at this time. President Bonnier replied that they would be given more time.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan all made statements expressing their support for the L.1 package and the dire urgency for the Conference to move forward and adopt a program of work.

In this way, a decision was not taken on the three documents today and the package presented by the P6 is still on the table. While the Conference remains in limbo, at least today’s plenary has provided some of the clarity which has been so frequently requested.

Pakistan, one of the most consistent and vocal delegations to express hesitation to join consensus on the L.1 package, concisely and definitely stated both the procedural and substantive concerns it had concerning the three documents.

When questioned about substantive concerns, Pakistan clearly laid out its substantive concerns and expectations. “We would want not substantive discussions, but negotiations, on nuclear disarmament. We would want amendments in text of L.1 that clearly state that the mandate [of Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations] should be in accordance to Shannon Mandate, and a clear reference made to an international and effectively verifiable treaty and also takes into account stocks. On PAROS [Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space], we would also want discussions, and sorry, negotiations to start, and similarly with NSA [Negative Security Assuraces], we would want negotiations to start, with a view to reaching agreement on a legally binding instrument and effective international arrangement to assure Non-Nuclear Weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons,” Pakistan explained.

Pakistan also clarified its national security concerns. In response to a comment from New Zealand that delegations must move away from focusing on national security concerns and look at the context of global security, Ms. Janjua of Pakistan replied, “I agree that we should each of us first have to look at national security interest and then place it in the global security interest of everyone. It is difficult to understand that we be talking about focusing just on narrow national security interests of a few countries here while the national security interests of other countries are being well taken care of in security arrangements and nuclear umbrellas that are provided.” In addition to calling out states that have nuclear umbrella arrangements with the US, Pakistan is likely concerned about the proposed US-India nuclear deal, which could substantially increase India's ability to make nuclear weapons.

From a procedural standpoint, Pakistan said linking the L.1 and the Complementary Presidential Statement with the Draft Decision was inadequate. “As part of these efforts you [Ambassador Bonnier] have presented a draft decision of the Conference... you had said that it could square the circle and clarify the relationship between the two documents. We consider that it could further complicate the process of consultations,” Pakistan said. “While we value your efforts, it is the collective responsibility of the Conference to work towards addressing the fundamental problems and anomalies in the Presidential Draft Decision. Instead of addressing the real substantive issues and rectifying procedural anomalies, the Draft Decision does not help us move forward. Our capital is, however, still looking and evaluating these documents.”

Pakistan concluded by saying that, “We are willing to work with the Conference to find solutions to these problems and to our concerns, and these can be addressed if we can revisit L1.”

China said it believed the L.1 package moves the Conference in the “correct direction” towards a foundation for consensus on L.1. China said simply that it will need more time to study the question posed by Ambassador Bonnier today.

“We still have some worries and concerns concerning the status and content of the Complementary Statement—rather we have some queries and concerns. We believe it would be more reasonable and clear for the Complementary Statement to be an integral part of L.1. We also believe wording of paragraph 3 of the Draft Complementary Statement leaves room for further improvement,” China stated.

China also supported India’s remarks in the last plenary meeting on June 19 on the issue of an FMCT. China added that it“advocate[s] for substantive work on agenda items of PAROS and other agenda items.”

Iran also said L.1 contains both substantive and procedural problems. “The document L.1 has fallen short of addressing our priorities, such as nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, thoroughly and comprehensively. We had expected a clear commitment in the P6 proposal to start negotiations in Conference on Disarmament,” Iran said.

Iran also reiterated its concerns with an FMCT. “My delegation has always supported international and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory FMCT. In our position, past and present stockpiles are to be covered under the scope of the treaty, and we stress the negotiation process on a possible FMCT should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate. The P6 proposal needs to be improved to cover these concerns. We are uncertain about the usefulness of an FMCT with no verification system and excluding existing stockpiles that can be used for nuclear weapons. We are of the belief that with a balanced programme of work, the Conference on Disarmament will start its substantive work and play a major role in strengthening the peace and security of the international system,” Ambassador Moaiyeri said.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia impressed on the Conference the urgency of the situation before it. The UK said the price of indecision will be a high one and that there are signs that the significance of L.1 is not fully understood in some capitals. New Zealand reminded the Conference that while no one has rejected the proposal but have only requested more time, if the Conference is unable to move forward it will face fundamental questions as to its future. Resources to support delegations are finite, New Zealand said, and while it is committed to the CD, it will have difficulty justifying its commitment if the Conference is “going through some sort of charade.” Australia echoed these remarks, saying the credibility of the Conference hangs in the balance.

The UK and New Zealand also reiterated their support for negotiations on an FMCT. New Zealand said that proceeding with an FMCT that would involve verification and existing stocks will allow the Conference to seriously engage in nuclear disarmament, but unless the Conference can agree to begin negotiations in a program of work, it will be unable to move forward.

The Netherlands suggested that text proposals might be put forward addressing the issues outlined by China, Pakistan, and Iran, as commonly done in other conference fora.

Japan and Ukraine both stated their support for the proposal as Ambassador Bonnier presented it.

As Sweden’s Presidency draws to a close, Ambassador Bonnier expressed her heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for the efforts made by delegations, the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General of the UN, her fellow P6 coordinators, and the seven Coordinators. She also had a special message for NGOs and civil society.

“At every plenary meeting the outside world have eagerly followed our attempts from the balcony,” she said. “To you, representatives from the civil society who so conscientiously work to uphold the link between the Conference itself and the societies we are meant to serve, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation. Your sense of optimism and pessimism has fluctuated with that of the delegations in the room. I have felt your support and I thank you for that. As we, the delegations need to continue our quest for consensus in a positive spirit, so do you need to continue your work in a positive spirit to support us in this quest.”

Following Ambassador Bonnier’s request for support and optimism from civil society, we will remain hopeful and endeavor to be positive as we await a decision on L.1. As she stated, “We have come a long way. We have an almost-consensus. But ‘almost’ is not enough. We need to cross the last hurdles. I believe we can do it. And that is what we now need to do. All of us. Together.”

-Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

19 June

Still nothing. Attending Conference on Disarmament (CD) sessions is comparable to watching an animal slowly bleed to death, complete with delegates' eyes rolling back in their heads. At this morning’s plenary, CD President Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden again summarized the situation before the Conference. CD Document L.1, the outcome of the lengthy process of substantive discussions during the first session, has now been on the table for three months. Most delegations are ready to proceed, but others continue to ask for “clarity, more clarity and again more clarity,” she said. Ambassador Bonnier pointed to the Complementary Presidential Statement (CRP.5) and the Draft Decision clarifying the relationship between CRP.5 and L.1 as examples of clarity given, and asked delegations with reservations to respond to this package with similar clarity. “Decision-time is upon us,” Ambassador Bonnier said.

Out of respect for delegations that still require more time, Ambassador Bonnier did not ask the Conference to take a decision today. Out of respect for delegations that are eager to move forward, however, Ambassador Bonnier will ask the Conference to take a decision on the L.1 proposal and the accompanying CRP.5 in a special plenary session, this Thursday, June 21.

India was the only delegation to speak at this morning’s plenary. While India felt that L.1, CRP.5, and the additional Draft Decision had addressed some of the concerns expressed by delegations, India stated that the “creative” way of linking the documents proposed by Ambassador Bonnier in the Draft Decision “falls somewhat short of integrating them fully.” India said it preferred a single, unitary document containing L.1, CRP.5, and the Draft Decision, “arranged logically and sequentially in a simple, neat, coherent, and integrated text, articulating a unitary and unified understanding.” This would have “the additional merit of avoiding a multiplicity of documentation and unnecessary speculation regarding the comparative import of the three elements,” India added.

India emphasized the need for clarity and for a “clear understanding of fundamentals, so as to ensure the smooth conduct of negotiation once the Conference has adopted its decision.” India stated it has sought clarification on the mandates being assigned to various coordinators, in particular with regards to an FMCT, and emphasized the need for a universal, non-discriminatory, internationally verifiable instrument.

As we wait impatiently for a decision on Thursday, we wonder if the CD will go out with a bang, a whimper, or a surprise miraculous recovery.

The next plenary meeting will be Thursday, June 21 at 10am.

-Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) continues to flounder on rocky shoals. No decision on the L.1 (P6) proposal for work or the Complementary Presidential Statement was taken at this morning’s plenary. Instead, CD President Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier submitted the Complementary Presidential Statement to the Conference but suggested that a very short third document would be needed to clarify the relationship between the Presidential Statement and L.1. These three documents present the last and final opportunity for the Conference to reach a consensus and begin substantive work. Pakistan, which has not stopped producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, continued to resist this package deal, noting that its concerns are about national security.

As time drags on and consensus on L.1 remains elusive, the situation of the Conference appears increasingly bleak. The Conference heard a message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, urging the CD to take a decision on L.1 immediately. “I cannot emphasize enough just how important it is that you overcome you differences. This is a matter that transcends concerns about the effectiveness and utility of the Conference. It goes to the very heart of the current international security environment, and for that reason, Member States of the Conference bear a heavy responsibility,” he said. He also reminded delegates that “finding a fair accommodation now would deprive no Member of the ability to assert its national position in the phases of the Conference’s work to follow the adoption of the Presidential Decision.”

The Complementary Presidential Statement (CD/2007/CRP.5) was created to clarify questions and concerns delegations had about L.1. As Ambassador Bonnier explained, certain delegations require an explicit expression of the relationship between the Presidential Statement CRP.5 and the L.1 proposal. Others have stated that it is equally important that the documents not be modified. “To square this circle,” Ambassador Bonnier said, “I am today suggesting a very short third document. It brings the two documents together in a very simple draft decision by the Conference. If accepted, it would mark the end of a decade long stalemate and the beginning of the kind of work this Conference was established to pursue.”

The Complementary Presidential Statement (CRP.5) defines the intentions and scope of the L.1 proposal. It states that the purpose of L.1 is to “provide a basis for organizing the work of the Conference. It does not prejudice any past, present or future position, proposal or priority of any delegation”. L.1 “will constitute a programme of work for the 2007 session,” but “it does not prejudge any future decision the Conference might take on this programme of work.”

It also clarifies that L.1 “sets no preconditions for the negotiations under paragraph 2” (on FMCT) and that delegations can “actively pursue their respective positions and priorities.” This implies that delegations can pursue both verification and existing stocks in an FMCT, without explicitly saying so.

CRP.5 says the L.1 document “does not prescribe or preclude any outcome(s) for the substantive discussions” on the three other core issues, leaving open the possibility that such discussions could lead to negotiations.

The CRP.5 also explains that Coordinators presiding over specific issues are comparable to a subsidiary bodies: “Coordinators appointed by the Conference will work under its guidance, be accountable to it and submit their reports to it for consideration, as would any chair-person of any subsidiary body. All work will be carried out under the Rules of Procedure of the Conference.”

Ambassador Bonnier also provided delegations with a draft decision linking the two documents. The decision states that the CD will adopt the document L.1 and “for its implementation the Conference will be guided by the Presidential Statement in CD/2007/CRP.5.” It is difficult to imagine a more unambiguous package for the L.1 proposal.

Egypt and Pakistan were the only delegations to comment on Ambassador Bonnier’s proposal.

Egypt said that the Complimentary Presidential Statement has resolved many of its concerns and called the current decision package “a good basis... for the Conference to resume its substantive work and to allow us to reach a consensus that my delegation should like to join when it is completed.” However, Egypt reiterated its desire for greater clarity and precision in the text of paragraphs 2 and 3, as “we are discussing points of paramount importance to all of us.” Paragraph 2 contains the negotiating mandate for an FMCT, and paragraph 3 contains the discussion mandate for the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Pakistan remains one of the largest obstacles to reaching consensus on the L.1 proposal. In today’s plenary, Pakistan stated that it will need time to receive new instructions from its capital. Pakistan said it believes there has been a great deal of effort by all to compromise, but accommodation has been lacking. Pakistan emphasized that “there are some very critical and crucial concerns… regarding specific issues on L.1 which are of direct relevance to [member states'] national security.” Pakistan has not yet ceased producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Observers anxiously awaited the commencement of this morning’s Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary to hear the results of CD President Ambassador Bonnier’s consultations on her complementary presidential statement to the L1 (P6) proposal for work, which were inconclusive.

Ambassador Bonnier said the CD had not yet exhausted consultations on whether the complementary presidential statement could help find a way out of the current decade of deadlock. She plans to hold another round of open-ended informal presidential consultations immediately following today’s plenary. A Thursday, June 14 formal plenary will hear the results, if any are reached.

The US and Germany were the only two speakers in today’s plenary. The US expressed its support for the L1 proposal and the CD President’s efforts to move the Conference forward. “Movement over recent months left the United States hopeful that the conference was on the brink of starting substantive work, including the drafting of an FMCT. As we have stated before, we understand that L1 is the best possible compromise and as such leaves many delegations, including ours, wishing for more. But we recognize it as the best chance to move this body forward,” Ambassador Rocca stated.

The US also reiterated the steps it is taking towards nuclear disarmament. Last week, Washington announced various US achievements in nuclear weapons dismantlement. The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has increased the rate of nuclear dismantlement by 50% over last year’s level, and increased the dismantlement rate of retired nuclear weapons by 50%. The plutonium removed from these weapons will be placed in storage, “until a facility is constructed and operating to turn the material into fuel to be burned.” In their 2000 non-proliferation agreement, the US and Russia each aimed to eliminate 68 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium by 2007.

While the US should be commended for making quantitative reductions in its nuclear weapons stocks, the significance of its reductions must be considered in relation to the qualitative improvements the US continues to make to its nuclear arsenal. Effective and meaningful nuclear disarmament depends on making quantitative reductions while stopping qualitative improvements. Current US plans for a Reliable Replacement Warhead contravene disarmament interests.

Germany discussed the non-proliferation statement adopted by the G8 last Friday, summarizing the paragraphs in the document that specifically referred to the work before the CD. The G8 supported the efforts to move the CD forward and begin negotiations on an FMCT.

The G8 also reaffirmed their commitment to the multilateral treaty system which forms the basis for all non-proliferation efforts, and encouraged strengthening and universalizing the NPT, CWC, and BTWC, along with implementing obligations at national levels.

It is encouraging to see that the G8 is again specifically addressing the issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Of the members of the G8, four are nuclear weapons states (US, France, Russia, and the UK), one has used nuclear weapons (US), and one has had nuclear weapons used against them (Japan).

Because we believe the CD and it work are important, we are sending out an civil society action alert about the CD. You can find it below.

Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) has been deadlocked for over a decade.

a) alerting the press in your country to the crisis in Geneva.
b) encouraging your Head of State to invest time, energy and political capital in making the CD work by contacting the Ambassadors and Heads of State in key countries.

PLEASE read, adapt and use the draft letter and press statement text below in communicating with your government and the parliamentarians and bureaucrats who have influence in your country.

We have provided some background information for those of you who haven’t been following the CD. As you know, you can read our short weekly summaries as well as the statements made by your government on our website here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/cdindex.html

The Conference on Disarmament negotiates treaties, most recently the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996), and prior to that the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992). Even though it has a huge agenda, and the urgent need for disarmament is more apparent than ever, this body has been blocked for over 10 years.

States have not been able to agree on how to proceed on four main issues: a) nuclear disarmament b) prevention of an arms race in outer space c) security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states and d) a treaty on fissile materials.

Confidence in the CD has suffered as a result, and so too has the perception of the usefulness or urgency of disarmament diplomacy.

During each calendar year there are 6 Presidents of the CD in total, and in recent years the P6 have come together to outline and pursue a unified strategy, as opposed to each starting a different approach to try to achieve consensus on a programme of work.

In 2006, the P6 held a series of ‘structured focused debates’. This year, the P6 have proposed a Programme of Work that would begin negotiations on a new treaty on fissile materials while discussing the other three issues.

A core group of bridge-building states have succeeded in pushing the US, UK and France to compromise to the reasonable and strongly argued positions of other states, such as China, who are very concerned about the militarisation of space, nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances. For many years, the US has been the major impediment to consensus on a compromise programme of work.

On May 22, China blocked movement forward, followed by a number of states who also joined China in asking for clarifications. Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden, the current President of the CD, on Tuesday 5 June announced a “last ditch” proposal to get the CD to start work. After consulting with all, she will produce a presidential statement that will clarify the outstanding issues, which she will put forward on Thursday 14 June. A similar presidential statement was useful in 1995 to clarify that existing stocks could be discussed in negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Hopefully this statement will also be able to bridge gaps and garner consensus on the programme of work.

Civil society does not believe this programme of work is perfect. WILPF's ideal would be to begin negotiating a nuclear weapons convention in the CD. However, this proposal is the closest thing governments can come to agree on now, and WILPF joins many NGOs in believing we should push for it because it has significant advantages for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Ambassador Bonnier of Sweden, the current President of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, announced a “last ditch” proposal to get the CD to start work after 10 years of blockage. After consulting with all, she will produce a presidential statement that will clarify the outstanding issues, with the hope that it will garner consensus on beginning negotiations. A similar presidential statement was useful in 1995 to clarify that existing stocks could be discussed in negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

China, with support from Pakistan and Iran, is blocking the negotiation of a treaty that would ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

China says it cannot agree to a proposal that would begin such negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament because: 1) the negotiating mandate does not explicitly call for the treaty to be verifiable; and 2) China wants more assurance that discussions on preventing the weaponization of outer space could lead to negotiations. Pakistan and Iran also say they want to ensure a treaty on fissile materials is verifiable.

The Conference on Disarmament, the world’s sole multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body, has not produced a new disarmament treaty since the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. States have not been able to agree on how to proceed on four main issues: a) nuclear disarmament b) prevention of an arms race in outer space c) security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states and d) a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

If China, Pakistan and Iran join the rest of the 65-member Conference and agree on the current proposal, states would begin negotiations on a treaty on fissile materials and continue discussions on the other three issues.

Because the fissile material treaty would ban the production of materials for nuclear weapons, it would constrain those states that are producing or may wish to produce more fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Thus, such a proposal would put particular constraints on India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan, all of whom are continuing to produce plutonium for military purposes.

Although China stopped producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons by 1991, it has not declared a moratorium on fissile materials production like the other nuclear weapon states. China owns significantly less plutonium than the other nuclear weapon states, while the United States and Russia own the most by a factor of ten. Some states are suspicious of negotiating a treaty that could solidify the status quo by freezing stocks of fissile materials where they are. Moreover, China and Russia are particularly concerned that US development of missile defenses could create theoretical strategic superiority, and therefore are emphasizing working on preventing the weaponization of space in the CD. China may link freezing its current stocks of fissile materials with preventing missile defenses.

However, the current P6 proposal offers great possibilities. A verifiable FMCT that includes existing stocks would be an important disarmament measure, and the proposal as it now stands leaves the open possibility for creating such a treaty. Also, the US has been staunchly opposed to even discussing preventing an arms race in outer space, negative security assurances, and nuclear disarmament, and has changed its position, agreeing to discuss these other items. France and the UK have also reluctantly agreed. It is a win to begin formal work on these three issues in the CD; work that will hopefully move into negotiations.

Jennifer Nordstrom, who has followed the negotiations in the CD for years as manager of the Reaching Critical Will project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said, “Civil society does not believe this programme of work is perfect. WILPF's ideal would be to begin negotiating a nuclear weapons convention in the CD. However, this proposal is the closest thing governments can come to agree on now, and WILPF joins many NGOs in believing we should push for it because it has significant advantages for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

Due to inactivity for over 10 years, confidence in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva has eroded.

I am writing to you to ask you to take an active role at a critical juncture in the work of the CD, when consensus on moving forward with negotiations requires China, Pakistan, and Iran to accept the current proposal for a programme of work, called the Six Presidents, or P6 proposal. This has been circulated as a draft decision of the Conference (CD/2007/L.1).

The proposal would initiate negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and continue discussions on preventing an arms race in outer space, security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states, and nuclear disarmament.

It is important to begin work on the basis of this proposal. Nuclear weapon states are modernizing their arsenals, some non-nuclear states are considering proliferating, and non-state actors are trying to acquire nuclear materials. More than ever, the world needs a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. This treaty should cover existing stocks and have a verification mechanism, which can and should be agreed to during negotiations.

It is also necessary to continue discussions on preventing an arms race in outer space, security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states, and nuclear disarmament in the CD, where they can and should lead to negotiations.

China, Pakistan, and Iran still have concerns about the current proposal for work, and are blocking consensus on the basis of those concerns. If our government is serious about nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, and preventing non-state access to nuclear materials, we need to put high-level pressure on these three countries to join the consensus.

[insert what your government has said in support of the P6 proposal here. Find your government's statements online here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches07/index.html] Our government should visit the Chinese, Pakistani, and Iranian embassies here in [CAPITAL], and we call on you to make contact the capitals of these countries to underscore the importance of commencing work in the Conference on Disarmament.

The new Swedish President of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) announced her intention to attempt one last effort to find a way out of the delicate situation in which the CD finds itself. Following up on her announcement in last week's plenary, CD President Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden will endeavor to create a Presidential Statement complementary to the P6 (L.1) proposal. The Presidential Statement will aim to provide clarifications and alleviate concerns. "Whether such an approach would realistically open up a way out, or not, depends on the real nature of our problems," Ambassador Bonnier stated. "If there is a genuine readiness to begin serious work along the lines proposed in L.1, then a clarifying complementary Presidential Statement might very well be helpful. If, however, the heart of the problem lies in serious political or military reluctance to embark on the kind of work outlined in the L.1, then no Presidential Statement, however cleverly crafted, will take us out of our present dead-lock."

Ambassador Bonnier also provided delegates with a schedule of meetings for the week. Today and tomorrow, Ambassador Bonnier will be available for consultations with all member states. After discussions with the P6, she will circulate a draft of the Presidential Statement by Thursday morning. On Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, informal consultations with all delegates will be held to discuss reactions to the Presidential Statement. On Monday, the usual weekly P6 meetings will take place and results will be announced at the next plenary meeting on Tuesday, June 12th at 10:00am.

Iran was the only speaker at this morning's plenary. In what seemed like a move to stall for time, Iran explained that there were "numerous procedural as well as substantive problems" with the P6 (L.1) proposal. Iran reiterated that "the four core issues identified earlier by the CD have equal value and they have to be subject to an equal treatment. In [the] view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nuclear Disarmament and NSA are the highest priority to be negotiated in the CD." Iran called for the establishment of Ad Hoc Committees to begin negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a universal, unconditional, and legally-binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states. With regard to a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, Iran again called for an internationally and effectively verifiable, comprehensive and non-discriminatory Treaty that would cover existing and present stockpiles, within the framework of the Shannon mandate. "We want the P6 proposal to include these issues," Iran said.

While Iran concluded its remarks with an optimistic statement about its willingness to participate in negotiations to improve L.1, giving the appearance of seeking compromise while stalling for time does not help the CD advance. With only 11 weeks remaining, the CD must reach agreement on a plan for work for the rest of the year. The L.1 proposal is not formulated with a view to conclusions. National security concerns will still have to be addressed even if agreement is reached on the proposal and any work done in the remainder of the CD this year will have to be renewed in January 2008. Given the extremely precarious state of the CD, it is time to put aside concerns and requests for clarifications and reach a general agreement on the L.1 proposal. Hopefully, delegations will seize the opportunity provided to them by the Presidential Statement and agree to move the CD forward with the L.1 proposal and accompanying statement.

- Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

In this morning's plenary, Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier of Sweden assumed the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in an atmosphere of growing frustration and pessimism over the lack of consensus on the P6 Proposal, Decision L1.

Ambassador Bonnier delivered a frank and succinct statement to the Conference, which provided delegates with a realistic assessment of the present situation before the CD. Because the P6 proposal has now been on the table for two months with no agreement, the Conference is sliding into negativity and pessimism, with concerns that the CD will return to the deadlock which has paralyzed it for the past decade. It is imperative now that delegations be patient, she said, as the President requires more time to establish a way forward.

Ambassador Bonnier said she will need some days to ascertain potential courses of action before she can present the Conference with any proposal or conclusions. She declared that she will not schedule any informal meetings with the issue coordinators during the next week, as "the overall situation for their work is unclear, and it is not possible to pretend business as usual."

Her message to the Conference was clear, concise, and much needed: "Be patient, try to contain your frustrations and, please, refrain from accusing, blaming or lobbying against each other. We are in this situation together and if there is a way out we will have to walk it together. Do your best to rekindle the cooperative and constructive spirit that prevailed during the first part of the session."

She reminded the Conference of the purpose and limited scope of the P6 proposal. The proposal was not intended to be a grand political platform or compromise. Instead, she said, it "is a simple practical proposal for our work. It takes as its basis where we actually stand at this point in time, the fruit of our collective work so far. And it proposes a way to organize and focus our work for the remaining part of this session. Nothing more and nothing less. There are no preconditions. The results are not prescribed or assured in advance, but will have to emerge in the course of actual work. It is an inclusive and enabling proposal. No political or substantive position taken here, or elsewhere, is compromised. All delegations will be able to pursue their respective priorities in the course of the work. Furthermore, L.1 upholds the negotiating perspective that this forum is established for."

Algeria, which has indicated resistance to the proposal in the past, requested the President hold additional weekly plenary meetings to enable all states to continue dialogue. Algeria said it remains optimistic and "would like to be able to adopt our program of work during this session."

Japan reiterated its support for the P6 proposal as it stands now and said further informal consultations with countries that have voiced hesitation, along with additional clarifications from the Presidency, could be valuable.

Peru also stated its support for the proposal and appreciation for the President's insightful analysis.

As the only scheduled speaker for today's plenary, Mr. Diego Belevan of Peru provided the Conference with a summary of the outcome of the Lima Conference on Cluster Munitions, held last week in Lima from 23-25th May.

The Lima Conference was held in order to begin negotiations on a legally-binding initiative on the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions which cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It also aimed to establish a mechanism for international cooperation and assistance, assuring appropriate care and assistance to victims and their communities. Mr. Belevan was pleased to announce that the Conference had fully met the objectives set at its outset by the Foreign Minister of Peru by starting substantive analysis of elements for a future instrument.

The majority of the participants shared the view that victims are the main focus of their work, particularly taking into account the humanitarian and human rights aspects fundamental to a new and effective treaty. There was broad agreement on the need to provide adequate assistance to all victims, individuals, relatives, communities, and affected countries, as cluster munitions have far-reaching affects on socio-economic development. It was also quite clear that prevention is one of the most effective means of reducing the negative impacts of cluster munitions.

The Conference also discussed provisions for clearance operations, risk education, international cooperation and assistance, transparency, compliance, and the destruction of stockpiles, with a general sense of consensus from participants.

Discussions on defining cluster munitions for a future instrument revealed a variety of concerns and options. Some states advocated for a broad definition and a complete ban, while others wanted more specific and detailed wording which would provide exemptions for certain types of cluster munitions.

It was clear, however, that participants in the Lima Conference showed unmistakable political will to move forward in the process to conclude a new international instrument on cluster munitions. Twenty-eight new states joined in the Oslo process and the Conference successfully moved towards the fulfillment of the goals set out in Oslo.

More information on the Lima Conference can be found here: http://www.wilpf.int.ch/disarmament/ClusterMunitions/clustersubindex1.html

The next formal plenary will be held Tuesday, June 5th at 10:00 am.

- Katherine Harrison, Disarmament Intern, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Today, China blocked the best chance in years of starting substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), which has been deadlocked for a decade. Purportedly it wants a stronger mandate for discussing its priority issue, preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS). No government has publicly objected to working on any of the four core issues as they are in the proposal: a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FissBan), PAROS, nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances. All objections have either been procedural or in support of stronger mandates for certain issues. CD members know that any variety of stronger mandates will cause at least the United States and/or France to object to working on those issues. Why then let the best be the enemy of the good? As Nigeria said today, "when you cannot get what you desire, you make due with what is available- especially if what is available is not fundamentally harmful."

China said that the current compromise six Presidents (P6) proposal for work "has not fully... met [China's] concerns." China then suggested several changes to the current proposal, both substantive and procedural. Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt supported opening the proposal to amendments, even though the P6 have been consulting CD members about this proposal for months. Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group encouraged a transparent multilateral process to pursue compromise. The Netherlands expressed surprise that some still think the compromise lies elsewhere, and said the P6 proposal "is the middle." The P6 said they continue to believe their proposal is the best opportunity to begin substantive work after a decade of deadlock.

China wants a stronger PAROS mandate that spells out the possibility of negotiating a new legal instrument. It also wants the mandate for negotiating a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FissBan) to include verification. Procedurally, China continues to maintain its attachment to working in ad hoc committees, rather than under a coordinator, which it is afraid "will not ensure effective and substantive work on the relevant items."

In typical bridge-building fashion, Canada tried to open up a dialogue with China on these concerns. Ambassador Meyer, who coordinated discussions on PAROS throughout the first session and would continue to do so under the P6 proposal, particularly emphasized the utility of continuing work on PAROS. China said it wanted a more specific negotiation-oriented mandate for PAROS, because otherwise discussions might be an "unfocusing, rhetorical exercise". Meyer assured China that discussions under his coordination would have a focused and practical orientation, recalled the "strong convergence" of views around a PAROS treaty during the first session, and hoped China did not find those discussions unfocused.

While Nigeria noted that what is possible, while not perfect, is also not harmful, rejecting the package is harmful. To have the most intense build towards substantive work in years fail to initiate negotiations will undermine confidence in the CD. Procedural concerns do not stand up in this situation, nor does it make sense to hold out for more. After 10 years of waiting, it is quite clear that this is what is possible here and now.

As the Rolling Stones said so eloquently, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need." Everyone is making a compromise here, and no one will get everything they want out of the package. By accepting a less-than-ideal package, governments, and the people they represent, will build a stronger international security regime, something we all need.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) continued its disappointing delay today. The six Presidents of 2007, or P6, have brought the Conference to the brink of a programme of work, and thus the closest to negotiating a new disarmament treaty in years. However, several governments continue to insist they need more time to decide if they can begin negotiating on the basis of this compromise. The P6 proposal (decision L1) would begin negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (Fissban), and continue discussions on nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Governments that would be most affected by a Fissban have raised the most concerns about the P6 proposal, except for Israel and North Korea, which have both been quiet. Of the countries with concerns, India and Egypt seemed the most amenable to agreeing, while Pakistan seemed the least. Ireland spoke for the New Agenda Coalition, noting that the NAC, of which Egypt is a member, welcomed the P6 proposal in a statement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee.

Although the current proposal has been before the Conference for seven weeks, China still needs more time to give an answer. Hopefully, this is because China is taking a decision at the highest political levels about whether it can commit to a Treaty that will stop it from producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and this is not just a stalling tactic. Of the five recognized nuclear weapon states, China is the only one that has not declared a unilateral moratorium on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and has significantly fewer stockpiles of such material than the United States and Russia.

Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Algeria are showing various levels of resistance to the current proposal, which they are expressing in concerns about process, procedure, and substance. India, Pakistan, and Iran expressed a substantive preference for the previously consensus negotiating mandate for a Fissban, known as the Shannon Mandate. The 1995 Shannon Mandate called for “a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty”, while the P6 proposal only calls for “ a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty”. The US has indicated it does not believe a Fissban could be verified without compromising national security interests, and, while every other governmental speaker has supported a verified treaty, most believe they will negotiate with the US in Fissban negotiations. India, Pakistan, and Iran want this issue to be agreed prior to negotiations. Pakistan stated this most plainly today when it said the CD “should continue to adhere to the agreed parameters” of the Shannon Mandate. India said it was “attached” to the Shannon Mandate, and asked the P6 to clarify their proposal in light of the Shannon Mandate. Iran said negotiations should be in the framework of the Shannon Mandate.

Egypt and Algeria expressed concerns primarily about process, which Pakistan and Iran echoed. While Egypt said the P6 effort could be “the ray of light gaining visibility at the end of a long tunnel”, it asked that future formal and informal consultations be “structured, inclusive, transparent, and multilateral”. Pakistan said space should be made for “open consultations”, Iran requested an “open negotiating process in the CD”, and the Algeria called for “multilateral consultations in the CD”. Pakistan said it reserved the right to introduce amendments to the proposal, and Algeria said such amendments should be accepted. Sri Lanka indicated the P6 believed their process was both comprehensive and inclusive, and listed the extensive consultations they have had with all governments.

Perhaps some of this desire for an “open process” is the opportunity it would create to reveal other outlying states' positions on the current compromise. The US is opposed to including verification in the mandate for a Fissban. France has said it would not be able to accept the proposal if amendments were made to the mandates for discussing negative security assurances or nuclear disarmament. Concessions have been made to bring these outliers in the intractable CD deadlock on board, and they have also made concessions to agree to it. The struggle now is to ensure other outliers can also join in a consensus without breaking the delicate compromises already reached. Of course, it is also possible that some states do not want to begin work at all, but simply do not want to be blamed for it. They could thus propose amendments that would be disagreeable to the US and/or others, and then blame them for blocking movement forward.

If the delay continues much longer, discussing substantive positions will be moot. The proposal for work would only last for the 2007 CD, which now has only 12 weeks remaining for negotiations. The Conference was supposed to finally be able to take this decision today. The time for vague procedural concerns has passed, and the time for capitals to get back is now.

30 March

Last Friday, March 30, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) disappointingly and dangerously delayed its decision on a proposal for work in 2007. The proposal would initiate negotiations on a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and continue discussions on preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS), nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances (NSAs). Although the six Presidents of 2007 said they intended to take the decision by the close of the CD's First Session on Friday, some delegations insisted they need more time to decide on the proposal. After two hours of informal discussions on when they would be able to take the decision, the CD agreed to convene a special session to do so sometime in April 2007.

Only the Arab Group and China had made statements on Thursday saying they were unable to take the decision, but on Friday, India, Iran and Pakistan also made statements indicating resistance to the proposal for work. China said that the agreement to convene a special session could not be interpreted as meaning that the special session would definitely have to take a final official decision on the presidents' draft. Iran said there was not consensus on the proposal itself. Pakistan said the Presidents would have to continue to consult and find consensus to hold the special session.

These statements mean the Presidents will have to struggle to even convene a special session, and will certainly struggle to take the official decision. However, it is important that they do so. After ten years of deadlock, it is high time the CD takes an official decision on a compromise proposal for work. This will give an opportunity for those governments that do not want to begin negotiations on banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, or continue substantive discussions on PAROS, nuclear disarmament or NSAs, not only to reveal themselves, but also to explain their positions. It is important to do this during April before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee (NPT PrepCom), because the decision will significantly affect the NPT PrepCom, and vice versa. Indeed, some governments may be stalling precisely to put the decision after the NPT PrepCom, thereby adding to frustration at the PrepCom, and if that goes poorly, providing additional excuses for not moving forward in the CD.

Friday, 20 April, will mark one month since the CD member states were presented with the proposal in writing, more than three months since they agreed to evaluations that would likely contain such a proposal, more than six months since this process began, and more than ten years since the CD last negotiated a disarmament treaty. It is time for the CD to begin negotiating again, or for governments to publicly identify their reasons for not doing so. An opportunity for such a diverse group of Presidents, including three Ambassadors from the Group of 21 and three from the Western Group, three men and three women, two members of the New Agenda Coalition, one member of the Arab Group, and two members of the European Union, to work together to present a proposal will not come again anytime soon. The work done to date has also been enormous, and must not go to waste. Reaching Critical Will will cover any CD sessions held in April. The next regular plenary session is scheduled for 15 May, at 10am.

29 March

At the Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary meeting this morning, Sri Lanka announced that today it would not be possible to take the decision on the six Presidents' proposal for work, without further explanation. Ambassador Fernando's announcement immediately followed an informal session to determine if the CD was ready to take the decision, at which China and the Arab Group reportedly stated that they were not yet able to do so. The CD will hold another plenary session tomorrow morning, March 30, at 10am, and will hopefully be able to decide then. Before breaking into the informal session, Sri Lanka had clarified that after the CD adopts the decision and establishes a schedule of activities, the proposal will "for all practical purposes constitute a programme of work", and that the Coordinators' functions will be "comparable to those of a subsidiary body."

While China has been showing resistance to the proposal, the statement from the Arab Group came as a relative surprise, not least because the Arab Group does not exist as a CD group, and therefore does not traditionally make statements to the CD. Moreover, Syria, one of the six Presidents, is a member of the Arab Group. Some members of the Arab Group have been wary of the Presidents' intentions, which Romania noted today was "ominously signaled" by questioning the proposal's conformity with CD rules of procedure. Presumably these governments would trust Syria with their questions and concerns.

Some CD delegations showed frustration with the delaying the decision, which China did not appreciate. The Netherlands asked if circumstances would really change next week or next month, and said that delaying the decision would benefit no one. China responded that some governments may need a longer time to take the decision, and objected to any challenges or doubts raised on this issue.

Venezuela, Belarus, and the Ukraine went on record this morning supporting the proposal, bringing the total number of CD member states that have now said publicly that they would support, or not oppose, the proposal, to 28, not including the six Presidents that put it forward. Venezuela said it thought the proposal would make it possible to take a number of steps towards disarmament and non-proliferation.

We expect the CD will be able to take this decision tomorrow. The basic elements of this proposal have been on the table for years, the CD has been working towards this goal for months, and governments should have a good idea of their positions on these issues. We also hope, as Romania said today, "that the states that are not ready to compromise today [or tomorrow] will take the full responsibility for their actions".

27 March

On behalf of the 2007 six Presidents (P6), Ambassador Fernando of Sri Lanka announced today that they intend for the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to take a decision on their draft proposal for work (L.1) on Thursday, March 29. The P6 formally presented this proposal, which would enable the CD to begin negotiating a new disarmament treaty for the first time in 10 years, last Friday. About eighty percent of governments that spoke said then that they would be able to agree to the proposal, but some, while supporting the process, showed resistance to the proposal. Today, the P6 responded to concerns raised by delegations on Friday. France and Iran shared their positions for the first time, Algeria and China elaborated some of their concerns, and Egypt appreciated the P6 response to concerns, which it said would allow its delegation to take the decision.

As we reported last week, this package proposal's extremely careful language derives from extensive consultations with all CD members, and the P6 assessment of the work done during the CD's First Session. It designates a Coordinator to preside over negotiations on a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (FissBan or FM[C]T). It also appoints Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; issues related to the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS); and appropriate international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the threat or use of nuclear weapons (NSAs). The P6 statement today stressed that the proposal "reflects the views" of CD members, and is a "compromise between different views, priorities and interests". The P6 also stressed that the proposal is in conformity with the Rules of Procedure, which exist to enable the CD's work. Thus, the proposal will last for the 2007 session, and the Coordinators will report to the CD.

France shared its position on the proposal today, and the European Union was simultaneously able to present its joint position. Both the European Union and France said they would not object to the proposal as it now stands. However, although France said it would not block consensus "in the spirit of compromise", it also warned that "any amendment which would end up strengthening [the mandates for work on] nuclear disarmament or negative security assurances...would definitely spoil any chances for consensus." Immediately following the French statement, Algeria said it believed the mandates for nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances could be improved, and Iran agreed.

China gave an extensive list of questions about which it hopes "clarifications can be made". The first questions were primarily procedural and nominal: why not name the proposal a programme of work? Why not name the Coordinators "Special Coordinators"? Why not have ad hoc committees? A couple questions pertained to the process, both of which were answered in the P6 opening statement: Did the Coordinators Reports represent the views of the CD? What is the time frame for/duration of the decision (L.1)? Finally, on substance, China asked if the "other issues" included in the substantive discussions on PAROS referred to a treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in space, and if so, why that was not explicitly stated.

Algeria was also concerned about the length of time the Coordinators would be appointed, and, hearing from the Presidents that the decision would only last for the year because the CD must renew its mandate every year, said it would be important to make that explicit.

Algeria, Iran, Egypt all said they needed more time for the capitals to get back to them with a position on the new proposal. China also said it needed time to study the proposal seriously. As we said last week, although delegations will certainly need to check with capital on such an important decision, states must not stall to postpone the decision indefinitely. Italy reasoned that this proposal "cannot come as a surprise to the delegations that have followed our deliberations and to capitals that have been briefed."

Iran also recalled its previously stated position that it would only support negotiations on banning the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes if it was based on the Shannon Mandate. Because the current proposal does not include verification, it is not the Shannon Mandate.

The vast majority of governments that have spoken have said they can agree to the proposal, including four of the five nuclear weapon states: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France. The sole nuclear weapon state that has not declared a moratorium on producing fissile materials, China, has been resisting the proposal. None of the four states currently producing fissile materials for military purposes-India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan-have supported the proposal. Israel and North Korea have not yet spoken in plenary about the proposal .

The US, Australia, the UK, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile, Germany, Argentina, Turkey, Ireland, Japan, and Mexico indicated on Friday that they are ready to move forward. Austria, the European Union, France, Slovakia, Poland, South Korea, and Bulgaria joined them today. The world is waiting to hear decisions from Algeria, Iran, Egypt, China, Cuba, India, and Pakistan, and to hear statements from Israel and North Korea.

We agree with Slovakia that CD members should pay more respect to representatives of the international community and ordinary people, the vast majority of whom want total and universal disarmament. We are are ready for our governments to stop making and start dismantling these weapons, and want to know if our governments are ready to represent us.

23 March

On behalf of the six Presidents (P6), Sri Lanka presented a proposal for work, and a draft decision (CD/2007/L.1) for the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to endorse that proposal, on Friday, March 23. The draft decision appoints a Coordinator to preside over negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FissBan or FM[C]T). It also appoints Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war, issues related to the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), and appropriate international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the threat or use of nuclear weapons (NSAs). The P6 intend for the CD to take this decision next week, and if it is adopted, the CD will begin negotiating a new disarmament treaty for the first time in 10 years.
This package represents a compromise among competing priorities, and the extremely careful language derives from extensive consultations with all CD members. The United States, which has adamantly opposed a package approach in the past, said on Friday that it would not block consensus on this proposal. Russia also said it would not object. The United Kingdom said it would support the proposal. China, India and Pakistan all said they had to check with capital first, but showed resistance to the proposal by indicating intentions to make changes that would disrupt the current delicate balance. France, Israel and North Korea did not speak at the formal session on Friday. Interestingly, Egypt and Algeria also indicated resistance to the proposal.

A FissBan treaty would constrain those states that have fewer fissile materials stocks and either are producing or may wish to produce more fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Thus, such a proposal would put particular constraints on India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan, all of whom are continuing to produce plutonium for military purposes. Also, although China stopped producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons by 1991, it has not declared a moratorium on fissile materials production like the other nuclear weapon states. China owns significantly less plutonium than the other nuclear weapon states.

In the past, these states could all safely say they agreed to negotiating a FissBan treaty because the United States was blocking consensus in the CD due to its opposition to other issues in the package. Now that the US has agreed to the package that these states claim they require to move forward, we will see whether links to other issues were created out of priority for other issues, or opposition to a FissBan. In 2003, China made a significant concession when it dropped its requirement for negotiations and agreed instead to "substantive discussions" on PAROS, its priority issue, in the "Five Ambassadors" package proposal, which also included negotiations on a FissBan. However, the US opposed any links at all, and in 2004 even changed its position on the FissBan. Now that the US is willing to hold these "substantive discussions" on PAROS, and China has conducted an anti-satellite test, it will be interesting to see where China stands on the package. The CD also briefly agreed to negotiate a FissBan in 1998, when, following their nuclear tests, India and Pakistan were cowed into agreeing to it without links to nuclear disarmament. This agreement did not hold into the following year, when China insisted PAROS be linked to negotiations on a FissBan.

In the next week, we will see whether governments are prepared to negotiate a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and turn off the taps for the bombs. As Ireland said on Friday, delegations must stop using procedural questions to mask substantive concerns, because "the moment deserves better than that." Also, although delegations will certainly need to check with capital on such an important decision, this basic package has been on the table for years and states must not stall to postpone the decision indefinitely. Although Pakistan made some attempts to cloak its position in procedural concerns, it did admit that it needed the proposal, which "reflected ingenuity," to reflect national security interests as well. India said it needed verification to be included in the parameters of negotiating a FissBan, which it is not currently. Egypt, Algeria and China all implied they might make amendments to the proposal, which would kill it.

Either states are ready to negotiate this treaty, and continue discussing nuclear disarmament, PAROS, and NSAs in the CD, or they are not. As the Netherlands said, diplomats know that although the negotiating mandate for a treaty is important, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", which should allay concerns about surprises during the negotiations. The US, Australia, the UK, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile, Germany, Argentina, Turkey, Ireland, Japan, and Mexico indicated on Friday that they are ready to move forward. We expect to hear back from Egypt, India, Pakistan, Cuba, Algeria, and China next week.

The next formal plenary CD session will be held Tuesday, March 27, at 10am. We hope the CD will be able to approve this proposal then, and begin negotiating an new disarmament treaty for the first time in a decade.

20 March

On March 20, Conference on Disarmament (CD) heard statements from Canada, the Ukraine, Switzerland and Nigeria as well as an opening statement from Sri Lanka at the beginning of its presidency. Ambassador Fernando conveyed a message from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka, Rohitha Bogollagama, urging governments to "work with renewed commitment and a sense of urgency." In that connection, the CD's Six Presidents will present a proposal for work for the rest of the year informally at 3pm on March 23, and formally following the informal session (probably around 5pm). The CD will likely take a formal decision on this proposal, which means governments that wish to block progress in the CD this year will have to publicly object and identify themselves and their reasoning. Canada also introduced its new working paper on possible verification measures for a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

FMCT
Premised on the position that verification builds confidence and encourages compliance, the new Canadian working paper examines the connection between verification and scope in a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The paper suggests an FMCT use the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) system of verifying compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for non-nuclear weapon states. The paper proposed that a comprehensive safeguards agreement plus an Additional Protocol be the verification standard for an FMCT, at least for non-nuclear weapon states. Nuclear weapon states and non-parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would have the same verification goal, but "while the application of relevant IAEA safeguards measures in such states would be preferred, alternative verification measures could be considered". The working paper also suggests that governments use the IAEA's definition of "unirradiated direct use material" for materials that will be covered under an FMCT, which will also enable an FMCT to use IAEA safeguards for verification. If an FMCT is truly going to equally serve both non-proliferation and disarmament concerns, then the application of an Additional Protocol, an important verification of non-proliferation, should be balanced by applying the same strict international verification standards to the nuclear weapon states and non-NPT states.

While the working paper presumes stockpiles of fissile materials "may not" be subject to the provisions of an FMCT, it posits that they should be addressed because they represent a diversion risk for both non-proliferation and disarmament. It therefore suggests that nuclear weapon states and non-NPT states "undertake a process that would complement a ban on production" by declaring their materials, accepting verification, subjecting excess material to international control, and reducing overall stockpiles, all to the greatest degree possible.

The working paper would not ban the production of fissile materials for non-explosive military purposes (ie, naval propulsion) or specific civilian uses (radioactive isotopes). It suggests using a mechanism similar to that used in the comprehensive safeguards agreements, which would allow states to make special verification arrangements for these types of production (see the IAEA's INFCIRC/153).

Nigeria affirmed that "a negotiation on FMCT that addresses the issues of existing stocks and future productions is not only necessary for confidence building, but also for erecting the building-blocks to drive our collective efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament."

Nuclear Disarmament
Nigeria and Sri Lanka both highlighted the urgency of nuclear disarmament. Sri Lanka reminded the CD that "while progress has been made on important reduction in the nuclear arms stockpiles following the end of the Cold War, we cannot forget that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons still remain in arsenals around the world." Nigeria called on states to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, "which would have put a stop to the quantitative and qualitative research and development of nuclear weapons", into force. It also noted that "non-proliferation will remain a mirage unless there is total commitment towards nuclear disarmament."

Conventional Weapons: ATT, SALW, and Cluster Munitions
The Ukraine, Switzerland and Nigeria discussed small arms and light weapons, supporting an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Nigeria invited the CD to "recognize the grave danger posed by SALWs, and to drive the on-going UN process to negotiate a Global Arms Trade Treaty." The Ukraine also believes the CD should "move without further delay to commence negotiation on ATT." Switzerland invited states to respond to the UN Secretary-General's inquiries about an ATT, in accord with the UN General Assembly's resolution (61/89) on the subject.

Switzerland supported the recent 42-state Oslo declaration on a new international legally-binding treaty on cluster munitions, and said that in order for such a treaty to be effective, it should be as universally recognized as possible.

The next formal plenary meeting will be held on 23 March at 5pm, after the 3pm informal meeting.

16 March

On March 16, the last day of series of special formal plenary sessions, Juan Manuel Gomez-Robledo, the Secretary for Human Rights and Multilateral Affairs of Mexico and Miguel Angel Moratinos Cuyaube, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, addressed the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Spain explained how the world could use a fraction of the resources it spends on destructive capacity to improve life around the globe, while Mexico noted its willingness to consider alternatives to the CD if governments do not begin negotiating. Spain concludes its CD presidency this week, handing if off to Sweden.

Creating Human Security
Spain noted that effective disarmament would allow governments and civil society to finance programs to eradicate poverty. Spain referenced studies by the UN Development Fund and the World Bank that showed that extreme poverty and its effects, such as disease and illiteracy, could be solved with modest investments. Spain explained that with only $40,000 million the entire world could resolve issues of health, water supply and sanitation, and education, which is merely 5% of global annual military expenditures.

Mexico recalled its 2005 cooperation with five other CD members to introduce an alternative to the deadlocked CD. At that time, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Kenya, New Zealand, and Sweden brought a resolution to the First Committee that would have created a group of ad hoc committees to begin negotiating the CD's four core issues. They did not introduce it at the time in order to give the 2006 Presidents a chance to get the CD working, but today Mexico said they needed to consider the appropriateness of re-launching the initiative. If the CD does not begin negotiating this year, it is [far past] time to look for alternatives. Governments must either find a way to negotiate within the CD, or they must find another way to negotiate.

FMCT
Mexico noted that negotiation of a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) would be a step forward, and was willing to begin negotiating without preconditions, but also said the treaty must contain verification and address existing arsenals. Spain also attributed "great importance" to an FMCT.

NPT
Both Mexico and Spain discussed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Mexico said the challenge for the upcoming 2007 Preparatory Committee, the first in the 2010 review cycle of the Treaty, would be to propose specific measures. Spain said the NPT would be more effective if countries would subscribe to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol.

Mexico also dared to allude the proposed US-India nuclear cooperation deal, saying that it is concerned that "a state depository of the NPT has judged it appropriate to conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement with a state not party to the NPT," which in their view, "is against the spirit and purpose of the treaty, is undermining of its fundamental objective and undermines its content."

Nuclear Disarmament
Mexico, for which nuclear disarmament continues to be the priority, chastised those continuing to use nuclear deterrence in military doctrines, including those non-nuclear weapon states that rely on the nuclear umbrella, saying, "maintaining the use of nuclear option as a means of military deterrence is simply not acceptable."

NWFZ
As a member of a nuclear weapon-free zone (NWFZ), Mexico called on nuclear weapon states to give full security assurances to states in NWFZ. Spain congratulated parties to the Tlatelolco treaty on that NWFZ's 40th anniversary and hoped that will encourage the establishment of a NWFZ in the tense Middle East.

Conventional Weapons
Spain said that the commitments made by governments at the recent conference on cluster munitions in Oslo should be used as a reference. The Foreign Minister called on other governments to join the effort, saying it was the "responsibility of our times". Spain also said that the government-civil society collaborative process of the Mine Ban Treaty should be converted into a model that can be used for cluster munitions.

The CD applauded Spain's speech, which is very unusual. Sweden, Venezuela and Tunisia also expressed their appreciation for the statement. Sweden said it "listened very carefully" to Spain's connections between peace, security and development in the twenty-first century. Venezuela commended Spain's withdrawal of troops from Iraq as a sign of Spain's commitment to peace, while Tunisia called on Spain to continue its efforts towards peace in the Middle East.

Evaluation Consultations
Spain's Ambassador March announced that the P6 has concluded the first round of consultations for the 10th week (evaluation week) of the CD. On Monday, the P6 will share information with the regional coordinators.

The next plenary meeting will be held on 20 March at 10 am.

14 March

On March 14, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) heard statements from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, Ms. U. Joy Ogwu, and the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Republic of Korea (South Korea), Mr. Cho Jung-Pyo. Morocco and Pakistan on behalf of some members of the Group of 21, namely Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, DPR Congo, DPRK, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe and observer states of the G-21, namely Costa Rica, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Oman, Philippines, Thailand, Uruguay, Brunei Darussalam, and Singapore, also made statements. Spain announced schedule changes for this week, which are listed below.

The Big Picture
Nigeria said that "as a developing country, it recognizes the casual relationship between disarmament and arms control and the attainment of sustainable development, including the Millennium Development Goals." It also said that non-proliferation and disarmament are central to conflict prevention. Nigeria advised that the CD pursue a security order "constructed through compromise, rather than through a zero-sum approach in which the winner takes all", and encouraged delegates to see themselves as "partners in global security building efforts."

Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT)
Nigeria said negotiating an FMCT is the "first logical and sensible step in addressing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation", but believes that "negotiating an FMCT that excludes existing stocks is defective and unhelpful, as it merely legitimizes that status-quo, without addressing the fundamental fears of many." However, an FMCT including stocks and a verification mechanism would strengthen the disarmament regime. South Korea also supported beginning to negotiate an FMCT, and hoped the US draft mandate and treaty would "provide a good basis for starting negotiations."

Nuclear Disarmament
South Korea said that the structured debates on nuclear disarmament have revealed that transparency, irreversibility, and verification should be nuclear disarmament's guiding principles, which the Group of 21 said should be applied to all nuclear disarmament measures. South Korea also said the CD needs to discuss nuclear doctrine and policy, operational status, reduction and verification. The Group of 21 agreed, and there was a genuine need to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and security policies, in order to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination. The Group of 21 also reiterated the need to refrain from any act that might lead to a new type of nuclear arms race, including the development of nuclear weapons, and new types or modernization of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Nigeria called on the nuclear weapon states to lower the threshold of use of nuclear weapons.

Negative Security Assurances (NSAs)
Nigeria and South Korea both supported negative security assurances (NSAs). Nigeria not only said that non-nuclear weapon states upholding the non-proliferation regime deserve to be rewarded with NSAs, they also said that denying NSAs encourages proliferation and amounts to a "betrayal". "Experience has shown that when we fail to focus on what others perceive as a threat or danger, we not only create division and mistrust," said Minister Ogwu, "but also create conditions that encourage the quest for alternative options for self preservation." South Korea also saw NSAs as a way to reduce the sense of insecurity among non-nuclear weapons states, and said they should be provided to those that "faithfully meet their NPT and safeguards obligations."

Outer Space Security
South Korea affirmed the importance of space security, including "the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and the intentional targeting of space objects", and hoped that formal and informal intensive consultations would deepen the understanding and elaborate aspects of the issue. "PAROS" refers to a treaty to prevent the weaponization of space, promoted by Russia and China, and "the intentional targeting of space objects" alludes to China's recent anti-satellite test, so perhaps South Korea is trying to bring both China and the US together under a broader heading of dicussions of "space security".

As the current President of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, Morocco noted that the Code included transparency measures like annual declarations on ballistic and space programs and prior notice for missile and space launches. The Code will make another presentation during an international workshop on the use of outer space technology for sustainable development in Rabat, April 25-27, organized by the UN Bureau for Space Affairs, the European Space Agency and the Royal Centre for Remote Sensing.

Small arms and light weapons
Nigeria also discussed small arms and light weapons, which it said are "wreaking havoc" on the region. Minister Ogwu called on the international community to respect and emulate the landmark ECOWAS Convention, adopted in June 2006, which bans arms transfers into, from or through West Africa. Nigeria also said it was prepared to work with other governments to "ensure the speedy negotiation of a legally-binding Global Arms Trade Treaty" (ATT), saying that although Nigeria was pleased with UN General Assembly resolution on an ATT (61/89) it was time initiate the necessary processes and administrative mechanisms to facilitate negotiation.

North Korean Nuclear Issue
South Korea discussed the North Korean nuclear issue, outlining the merits of the current agreement of the Six Party Talks. First, greater formality and binding power was achieved by multilateral talks, second, the agreement laid the foundation for halting additional production of nuclear materials by North Korea, and third, it would expedite the denuclearization. South Korea plans to use the resolution to reinforce inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation, and vice-versa.

Next Plenary Meeting (schedule changes)
Contrary to our last report, the next formal plenary meeting will be held on March 16 from 11:30 after the informal meeting on Agenda Item 5. The CD will welcome the Secretary for Human Rights and Multilateral Affairs of Mexico and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain.

13 March

Seven high-level officials gave general statements to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) today, including dignitaries from Colombia, Latvia, Iran, Japan, Poland, Viet Nam, and Italy. Japan's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs said the CD should be ready to begin negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in this years second session, with which Latvia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Italy's Under-Secretary of State, and Poland's Minister for Foreign Affairs largely agreed. Colombia's Vice-President said it was time for the CD to turn "from rhetoric to action" to keep weapons of mass destruction from terrorists. Viet Nam's Assistant Foreign Minister delved into disarmament discussions and Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs discussed the future of the NPT and negotiations on its own nuclear program.

Austria also delivered a statement, primarily on cluster munitions, which it concluded by expressing its hope that "the CD will be able to allow for the meaningful participation of civil society in its work and as a minimum that the traditional address of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom be delivered by a representative of this organization in person."

Beginning Negotiations in 2007
Poland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Anna Fotyga, called for the CD to consider ideas which could bring them closer to negotiations, as they are approaching the critical phase of evaluating the progress of work in the CD. The CD will be evaluating its work at the end of March, and the six Presidents are beginning consultations now. Japan's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Masayoshi Hamada, said it hopes that the discussions of the first part of this year's CD session can be used to launch negotiations in the second. It that it was time to begin negotiations on an FMCT and continue deepening its deliberation on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances. Latvia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Artis Pabriks, also believed that the work done last year, and a "much more engaging approach" this year, should generate sufficient momentum to start negotiations. Italy's Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Vittorio Craxi, agreed that due to the progress from last year and this year, the CD should enter a new phase-the phase of negotiations-on themes that were identified as ripe. Colombia's Vice-President, Francisco Santos Calderón, said that because they suffered from illegal armed groups, for them it is "imperative that the Conference on Disarmament turn from rhetoric to action" to establishment legally-binding instruments to prevent weapons of mass destruction or radiological material from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT)
In the light of the rise of extremism and terrorism, Latvia saw discussions within the Conference on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) as of paramount importance. Japan said that the US proposed mandate and draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) has shown potential. Poland, which wants an FMCT considered first, said that without an FMCT, the international non-proliferation and disarmament architecture remains incomplete and therefore can not be fully operable or effective. Poland hoped the Conference could soon reach agreement on the start of negotiations, without setting any preliminary parameters, conditions or restraints. Italy felt that the non-nuclear weapon states had to take the initiative to elaborate a process for proceeding on an FMCT. While Italy acknowledged that an FMCT would not resolve all nuclear problems, it said it would limit stocks of fissile materials and thus prevent a new nuclear spiral.

Prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS)
Italy recognized that some CD members had other priorities, such as the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). While waiting for more concrete projects on PAROS, Italy supported the idea of discussing a code of conduct for outer space. Poland said the CD must address PAROS, and "spare no effort" to make peaceful activities in space safe. Latvia said the CD should "make all efforts to explore, in a substantial manner, further possibilities for preventing an arms race in space." Presumably alluding to China's recent anti-satellite test, Japan asked that transparent explanations be provided on activities that can adversely impact the safe operation of space objects, including satellites.

Nuclear disarmament
On nuclear disarmament, Viet Nam and Japan discussed the current situation and encouraged further reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles, while Iran looked to the future and called for negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Viet Nam's Assistant Foreign Minister, Pham Binh Minh, was concerned that the modernization of nuclear arsenals, the lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapon, and the increased readiness to use force in international relations partly lead to the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. It therefore called on countries with nuclear weapons to assume their responsibilities for international peace and security, and redouble their efforts to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Japan commended the US and Russia's nuclear reductions based on their steady implementation of the Moscow Treaty, but encouraged both countries to "make further reductions beyond those provided for in that Treaty." Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manouchehr Mottaki, agreed with the Non-Aligned Movement's recent Summit when it said that an ad hoc com on nuke disarmament was its highest priority for the CD. It also emphasized the necessity of starting negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, within a specific framework of time. Iran also called for the discussion of negative security assurances to be reinvigorated at the CD.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
With the first Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of the new review cycle of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) less than two months away, several of the high-level officials addressed it. Japan, which will be chairing the PrepCom, said it intends to "energetically carry out its role as president in order to accomplish constructive discussions for the maintenance and strengthening of the NPT." Poland said the NPT's credibility and strength strongly depend on its full globalization and enhanced implementation and integrity. Poland said the upcoming review process should address "the question of full recognition of the States' right to the use of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, while diminishing the acute proliferation risks." Iran, which played a major role in the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, placed the blame for that failure on the United States, which also played an extremely destructive role. It said that despite this total failure, it hopes the PrepCom for the next NPT Review Conference will "take practical steps for paving the way for a successful Review Conference."

Without naming names, Iran referred to US policies that it said either contravene or undermine the NPT. Iran said the "deployment of hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons...in several European countries and the construction of new facilities for the production of new nuclear warheads, in particular easy-to-use nuclear weapons (Mini Nukes), are in clear contravention of the provisions of the NPT. Moreover, transferring nuclear technology and materials to the non-members of the NPT, whose nuclear facilities are operating outside [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA full scope safeguards monitoring contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This would certainly weaken and undermine the credibility and integrity of the non-proliferation regime."

Arms Trade Treaty
Colombia and Latvia supported a potential Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Latvia said "establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons through an ATT is a necessary step towards curbing the proliferation of conventional weapons." Colombia said the UN General Assembly's resolution (61/89) opens up a space for borad reflection, consultation, and decision-making, making it possible to harmonize legislation on sales and transport and without impacting legitimate security needs. It said it was necessary to clearly establish the role of state and non-state players in global trade in such a treaty.

Mines and Cluster Munitions
Austria discussed its progressive, far-reaching efforts to regulate cluster munitions, but Latvia and Poland, while wishing to regulate cluster munitions, preferred to confine such discussions to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). Norway recently initiated a process to address cluster munitions with a conference in Oslo, at which 46 of the 49 states present pledged to conclude a legally binding instrument by 2008 to "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians." Austria told the CD that at that meeting it had announced a national moratorium on the use of cluster bombs and cluster munitions until the elaboration of an adequate international regulation, and declared its intention to organize a follow-up conference, likely in Vienna in early December 2007. Austria intends to uphold this comprehensive moratorium even if a future international convention fails.

Latvia regretted the unsuccessful attempt to conclude an agreement on mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM) during the Third Review Conference of the CCW, and even acknowledged the potential positive effect of the Norwegian initiative on cluster munitions, but still considered the CCW to be the most appropriate forum for addressing the issue. It hopes the CCW will start negotiations on a legally-binding instrument to regulate the technical design and characteristics of cluster munitions with a view to minimizing their humanitarian impact. Poland also said the CCW failed to sufficiently address MOTAPM and cluster munitions and sees that "cluster munitions cause unacceptable harm to civilians." However, Poland believes that "the problem can be addressed sufficiently only by means of effective multilateralism. The entire effort will serve its primary task only when we ensure that the instrument is agreed on a global level and all parties, particularly those of critical importance, participate in it." Poland hopes that "the discussions on this issue planned in future will offer an opportunity to strengthen the existing, well established, international mechanisms."

When considering the possibilities for actually making progress in disarmament, it is important to look at past successes and failures. Austria, which presided over the First Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, noted that "one of the most successful processes in international disarmament" was unique in two ways. First, it was unique because of the close involvement of civil society in the negotiations, and second, because it was the first disarmament treaty to recognize the needs of survivors, to which Austria attaches great importance.

Regional Issues
Iran, which is facing a second round of sanctions from the Security Council as a result of concerns over its nuclear program, discussed its position in the CD. It also said that "the misuse of the non-proliferation principle as a political tool could in no way lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons," and called the US war against Iraq "clear evidence of the failure of such a policy." When Iran called on the international community to address Israel's nuclear weapons as the real threat to international peace and security, Israel and the US walked out of the CD. Iran said the issue could be resolved through negotiations "without preconditions" [meaning without them suspending uranium enrichment]. It then said that if the Permanent Five members of the Security Council and Germany "refer back Iran's nuclear issue from the Security Council to the IAEA," Iran would "be prepared to offer the necessary guarantees in order to create confidence regarding the non-diversion of its nuclear programme."

Japan reiterated its condemnation of the nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and said that a nuclear-armed Democratic People's Republic of Korea could not be tolerated. North Korea responded the policy of the present Japanese government, which "scattered dark clouds over the promising vision of peace and security of Northeast Asia", could never be tolerated. While Japan noted that progress was being made in the Six Party Talks, it called for continued efforts to fully implement the Joint Statement of September 2005. North Korea said that implementing the Six Party Talks was everyone's responsibility, and that one party pursuing "its own egocentric path for its own purpose" would jeopardize the negotiations.

Schedule for the CD
14 March (Wednesday) 3 pm
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria
    Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Korea
15 March (Thursday) 3 pm
    Secretary for the Human Right and multilateral affairs Mexico
16 March (Friday) 12:20
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain

12 March

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a plenary meeting on Monday March 12, to hear speeches of from two ministers of foreign affairs: Maria Fernanda, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Ecuador, and Jorge Valero, Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela.

Nuclear Disarmament
Ecuador called for the CD to prohibit nuclear weapons in a convention on nuclear weapons with the goal of the total destruction of nuclear arsenals. Venezuela prioritized the elimination of nuclear weapons, the "unavoidable objective of today's world" and called on states with nuclear weapons to comply with the 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament (from 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty), particularly the call for good faith disarmament negotiations. It also called on the CD to establish a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament (step 4). Venezuela said nuclear weapon states bear the most responsibility in this respect. However, it regretted that "the negative attitude of a small number of countries continues to block the practical implementation of nuclear disarmament."

FissBan
Venezuela called for transparent negotiations leading to a convention to ban the production of fissile materials for weapons (FissBan), which it said should include existing stockpiles and a verification mechanism. Contradicting Western support for beginning negotiations a FissBan "without preconditions", meaning without stipulating that the ban be verified, Venezuela said that leaving verification to the "second phase" of negotiations contradicts the 1978 Special Session on Disarmament. It also reminded the CD of the "negative experience" of the Biological Weapons Convention, which was negotiated without a verification mechanism. States planned to elaborate such a mechanism later, but the United States subsequently blocked this.

Negative Security Assurances
Both Ecuador and Venezuela called for a legally-binding universal and unconditional instrument to assure non nuclear states that nuclear weapons will not be used against them. Venezuela explained that "deterrence doctrines do not dismiss or remove the possibility of use" of nuclear weapons, making security assurances necessary.

Speakers for March 13
The CD will hear the following speakers tomorrow, March 13, at 10am:
Vice President of Columbia;
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia;
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran;
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affair of Japan;
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;
Assistant Foreign Minister of Viet Nam; and
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Italy.

6 March

The March 6 Conference on Disarmament (CD) plenary meeting heard the annual International Women's Day statement from women's Non-Governmental Organizations and debated how to schedule the CD's important Second Session. In addition to discussing a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty and the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, which are being discussed in informals this week, governments also discussed nuclear disarmament. Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 21, Norway, Ukraine, Cuba, Colombia, Switzerland, Peru, Syria, Algeria, China and the United Kingdom made statements.

NGO statement to the CD on International Women's Day
Women's Non-Governmental Organizations had their opinions about nuclear disarmament heard in the CD, commemorating International Women's Day. However, despite years of broad cross-regional governmental support for the women reading their own statement, and over 20 years of NGO interaction with the CD, the CD President still read the statement on behalf of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom while the women looked down from the gallery. Although Spain and the 2007 CD Presidents could have allowed the NGOs to read their own statement to the CD this year, Spain instead handed the controversial issue off to next year's Presidents, suggesting that next year's 25th anniversary of NGO engagement with the Conference could compel the CD to invite NGOs to read their own statement. The Group of 21, Norway, Switzerland, Peru, Algeria and Syria expressed support for civil society's direct engagement with the CD. The Group of 21, Norway, Algeria and Syria affirmed that NGOs should deliver their own statement, and Norway suggested de-linking the statement from International Women's Day to normalize interactions. Switzerland noted NGO's "useful contributions to the CD." The NGO statement noted that "while governments remain the ultimate decision-makers, it is NGOs that allow citizens across the globe to partake in the political process and make their voices heard. The role of women's organisations, in particular, has been recognized as a building block to sustainable security- especially in UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000)."

Moving toward a productive Second Session
As the CD approaches the end of the First Session, the Presidents and Coordinators are consulting with member states and preparing to organize the Second Session, which is currently open. The governments understand that the Second Session holds the opportunity for real in-depth work on priority issues, so they are particularly concerned about how the session will be organized. Spain announced that the Presidents are developing a 'questionnaire' in order to hold the consultations, and a couple of governments requested that this be circulated in advance so they could consult with capitals and prepare. Although Spain tried to allay concerns by explaining that this was just an internal process to ensure all the consultations were addressing the same issues, some states were still skittish. Canada relieved the tension by making a joke comparing these concerns to students worrying about the questions on a quiz, but these sorts of suspicions belie the continuing need to build confidence in the CD. Governments must generate trust in order to begin negotiations. The NGOs suggested that governments use the CD to build confidence by submitting substantive reports detailing "measurable steps taken to implement their disarmament obligations." They also advised the governments to prepare the legal and technical framework for the moment negotiations are ready to begin, and suggested that governments might agree on more than they think they do.

Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)
Ukraine and Colombia both made statements mainly on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), reiterating importance of beginning negotiations. The Ukraine saw the FMCT as a building block towards other issues, and supported the US draft treaty text as a "good basis for negotiations". Columbia said an FMCT should address stocks, include effective verification measures, and be negotiated without preconditions or linkages to other negotiations (ie any of the other core issues). Thus, although Colombia supports effective verification in an FMCT, it does not believe effective verification should be a "precondition" of negotiations. Peru also noted its willingness to begin negotiating an FMCT without preconditions. The NGOs noted the International Panel on Fissile Materials' suggestions for moving these discussions into negotiations, including that nuclear weapon states should declare their total fissile-material stockpiles.

Nuclear Disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Cuba, Peru and Switzerland discussed nuclear disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Cuba considered "that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever." The NGOs agreed, and suggested states unilaterally follow up on Security Council Resolution 1540, which calls on all states to criminalize WMD activities by non-state actors, by adopting national laws prohibiting all forms of nuclear weapons activities, including by state actors. Cuba also called for a universal, unconditional and legally-binding instrument on security assurance to non-nuclear weapon states, while NGOs asked CD members to re-evaluate their nuclear-sharing agreements. Peru emphasized the urgency of nuclear disarmament by noting that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock, which has only been moved closer to midnight 4 times in 15 years, was recently moved two minutes closer to the metaphorical end of civilization. Switzerland said certain nuclear weapon states' decisions to develop or replace their nuclear weapons ran counter to the spirit of Article VI of the NPT (requiring nuclear disarmament), because it reduced the likelihood of nuclear disarmament, and in fact increased the importance of nuclear weapons.

Space Security
Switzerland was the only state to discuss space security in the plenary. Switzerland emphasized the utility of confidence-building measures in space, including a code of conduct for space activities and provisions to prevent space debris and noted that this will be taken up during the 2007 UN General Assembly. It said a code of conduct could include measures to regulate space traffic, and prevent or prohibit dangerous actions or actions of those with questionable objectives. Switzerland also recommended greater interaction between the CD and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

High-level Schedule
Spain announced that 11 high-level delegations will address the CD next week. See the following schedule:
March 12 at 3 pm: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
March 13 at 10 am: Vice-President of Colombia
    Representative of Mine Action of Australia
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia
    Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran
    Political representative of Viet Nam
March 14 at 3 pm: Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria
    Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Korea
March 16 at noon: Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain

The next plenary meeting will be held on March 12 at 3pm.

27 February

At its February 27 public meeting, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) discussed "transparency in armaments" (agenda item 7). Several states noted transparency's utility in building confidence among states. The EU and Turkey discussed controlling Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). Many governments also showed their admiration for the successful Mine Ban Treaty on its 10th anniversary. Australia; Germany on behalf of the EU; Turkey; Japan; Argentina on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru; Canada; Indonesia; Algeria; Venezuela; and Jordan took the floor.

Mine Ban Treaty
Australia, Turkey, Canada, Indonesia, Algeria and Jordan made statements celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty. Canada called it "one of the most successful disarmament treaties in history," noting that many states not even party to the Convention had "effectively adopted its norms." Australia, Turkey and Jordan noted Indonesia's February 20th ratification, bringing the number of states parties to 153, or, as Canada noted, 80 percent of the world. Indonesia hoped their ratification would be followed by others outside the Convention, "most particularly in the Southeast Asia region, which is considered one of the most mine-affected regions of the world." Jordan, which will be the first Arab State to host a Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention when it hosts the 8th such meeting next November, hopes the meeting will look at challenges ahead and how to overcome them.

As we continue to struggle with deadlock in the traditional disarmament machinery, we should note that this recent incredible success story bent traditional ways of working. Australia said the Treaty "marked a fundamental shift in the international community's approach to arms control. Governments worked side-by-side with civil society, outside traditional fora, and agreed a ban on an entire class of weapon-anti-personnel landmines." Algeria called the Treaty a "framework for partnership between states and intergovernmental organizations as well as regional organization and civil society."

Transparency in Armaments
The EU and Japan agreed that transparency in armaments could build confidence among states, while Argentina, speaking on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru, gave a successful example of a transparency instrument designed to do so. The EU said transparency in armaments could also strengthen regional and international peace and security and contribute to more responsible arms transfers, while Japan said it could prevent arms build-ups and arms races. Argentina said the Inter-American Convention for Transparency in the Acquisition of Conventional Arms built confidence among the states of the region that went beyond weapons issues, and called on the CD to discuss such bilateral and regional instruments, and identify areas for further confidence-building in armaments.

Japan and the EU both supported the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and Venezuela reiterated its call for the Register to include weapons of mass destruction. The EU emphasized the importance of transparency in relation to Small Arms and Light Weapons, a new category for the Register. Japan called the Register "closely connected" to creating an Arms Trade Treaty, in light of their mutual confidence-building functions, and urged governments to submit their views on an Arms Trade Treaty to the Secretary-General. While Venezuela noted that the Register built confidence in conventional arms, it called the Register discriminatory for not including information on weapons of mass destruction, on which the international community does not have information on existing stocks. For the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review process, Reaching Critical Will creates a Model Nuclear Inventory as an example of how such stock-taking could be done, on the premise that identifying the location of the weapons is the first step towards disarmament. The 2005 Inventory is available here, and we will be producing a 2007 version for the upcoming Preparatory Committee.

Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS)
The EU and Turkey agreed that the unauthorized use of Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) by terrorists and other non-state actors was a threat to civil aviation. The EU supported work to prevent the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of MANPADS, while Turkey advocated stricter export controls, improved stockpile security, and the collection and destruction of old and surplus MANPADS. Turkey added that "as a main co-sponsor of the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Prevention of the Illicit Transfer and Unauthorised Access to and Use of MANPADS, Turkey believes that discussing this issue at the CD may indeed prove useful and fruitful."

The CD also decided to accept Jordan as observer state. The next formal plenary meeting will be held on March 6, at 10 am.

On February 22, Dr. Kim Howells, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, spoke to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), focusing on the UK's recently published government White Paper on renewing its Trident nuclear submarines. Without a decision to renew, the weapons will essentially expire, and the UK would become the first nuclear weapon state to disarm. Minister Howells repeatedly stated that the UK still needs nuclear arms as a deterrent, explaining that because nuclear weapons are "uniquely dangerous", it is clear that "only the threat of retaliation in kind can deter attempts to blackmail us with nuclear weapons." In a world without unconditional and legally-binding assurances to non-nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons will not be used against them, this kind of logic sends a clear message to those that feel threatened by nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Deterrent
Minister Howells qualified the UK's expressed desire to maintain a nuclear deterrent, saying, "This does not mean that we are taking an irreversible decision that commits us irrevocably to possessing nuclear weapons in 40 or 50 years' time... It does mean, however, that the UK needs to ensure that we have the capability in 17 years' time to retain an submarine based deterrent; and that, on present evidence, we have to assume that we will need to do so." Minister Howells explained that the current international environment is not safe enough for the UK to unilaterally renounce their nuclear weapons, even though South Africa courageously and safely decided to abandon producing and stocking nuclear weapons in 1994, and 183 countries world-wide have been living without nuclear weapons, many even without a nuclear umbrella.

Nuclear Disarmament Contributions
Minister Howells also reported the UK's nuclear disarmament contributions. He said that "since the end of the Cold War, the explosive power of UK nuclear weapons will now have been reduced by 75%. UK nuclear weapons account for less than 1 % of the global inventory." The UK has also decided to reduce its stockpile of available warheads by a further 20 %, to less than 160, to meet their duty under Article VI of the NPT. In terms of the effect the UK's potential renewal of its nuclear weapons system will have on the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, Minister Howells hid behind the states with the most nuclear weapons. He said that it was clear to the UK that "considerable bilateral progress would have to be made in reducing the large nuclear arsenals before it will be helpful and useful to include the small fraction of the global stockpile that belongs to us." On the contrary, the UK could make history by being the first nuclear weapon state to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, and considerably bolster the world's confidence in the the nuclear weapon states' Article VI promise to disarm.

The UK government expressed its intention to renew its Trident nuclear submarine system in a White Paper published in December, 2006, even though 59 % of people in UK oppose renewing the system (according to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) because it means developing more nuclear weapons. There is even a year-long campaign of sustained civil resistence to the weapons.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Dr. Howells said the UK would be working towards an atmosphere of "positive engagement and tolerance" for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee in Vienna, saying governments should be "inclusive of others' views, discussing [their] differences openly and trying to find ways to resolve them-not using them as an excuse for progress."

Arms Trade Treaty
The Minister also urged governments to respond to the Secretary-General's request for views on an Arms Trade Treaty by the April deadline, so that the Treaty would be "truly representative of the needs of all countries" and therefore be broadly supported and properly implemented.

The next formal plenary meeting will be held on 27th of February, at 10:00.

20 February

Ambassador Juan Antonio March (Spain) presided over the first plenary session of his presidency of the the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on 20 February 2007. The CD discussed "new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons" (Agenda item 5) and a "comprehensive program of disarmament" (Agenda Item 6). Germany took the floor twice on behalf of the EU, addressing each agenda item. In summarizing its positions, Turkey gave information on the informal discussions, including information on Norway's nuclear disarmament compilation paper of issues that require more attention during the CD's second session. In his opening statement, Ambassador March outlined the schedule for upcoming informal sessions under his presidency, which have not changed and are still available here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers07/schedule_of_agenda_items2.html.

New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons
The EU's statement on this agenda item focused on "dirty bombs", which they called "weapons of mass disruption," as opposed to weapons of mass destruction, because these weapons are more likely to cause havoc in populations than they are to cause mass casualties. The EU noted that an integral part of its security strategy is to "enhance the security of proliferation-sensitive materials, equipment and expertise in the European Union against unauthorized access and risks of diversion through-among others-improving the control of high activity radioactive sources." The EU recommended various measures to control such such materials, as dirty bombs might be the "weapon of choice for terrorists".

Turkey said that the debate on preventing non-state actors from acquiring WMD should be conducted "in line with the letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1540", and should avoid "granting any sort of recognition to terrorist organizations."

Comprehensive Program of Disarmament
The EU explained how it understood the "Comprehensive Program of Disarmament", an agenda item that many have seen as vague or unclear. The EU noted that the 2001 Special Coordinator for the review of the agenda said this agenda item was flexible, leading to a general understanding in the CD that any disarmament issue could be addressed under this item. The EU noted that in 1997 the Conference used this item to consider a new issue-a comprehensive global ban on anti-personnel landmines-and then elaborated the successes of, and the EU's support for, the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. The Mine Ban Treaty was spurred by civil society cooperating with like-minded governments, and negotiated outside the CD because of the blocks in the CD.

The EU then went on to discuss its support for another new issue, the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, which is also a product of civil society collaborating with like-minded governments. The EU co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution on an Arms Trade Treaty, and will "positively respond" to the Secretary-General's inquiries on the potential Treaty, as directed by the resolution.

Summary of recent proceedings
Turkey gave an overview of its positions on each of the agenda items, in some cases usefully illuminating the informal discussions, stating that Turkey's delegation "feels the need to highlight some of the key points of our contributions for the benefit of those Delegations who were not able to follow all of the meetings, as well as for the wider audience." This sort of public discussion of the closed informals is very helpful for civil society.

In particular, Turkey highlighted the work of Norway, the Coordinator for the nuclear disarmament agenda item (1), in putting together a compilation paper on the informal discussions called "Clustering of the concrete proposals for substantive issues that require more focused attention during the second part of the annual session, with a view to commencing negotiations." This compilation paper contains four sub-sections: Convention prohibiting nuclear weapons; Other legal instruments; Ad hoc committee-phased programme nuclear disarmament; and Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures. Civil society should examine this paper in-depth, as it will direct the discussions of the second session. The second session, which is yet to be scheduled in detail, will ideally allow more in-depth discussion of the most important issues.

With regard to the nuclear disarmament compilation paper, Turkey advised a realistic assessment which would lead to "an incremental approach starting from the least common denominator." Thus, he added, "a good starting block would seem to be confidence building through increased information sharing and transparency".

Future CD Plenary Sessions
The CD will hold its next public plenary session on Thursday 22 February at 10am, when the Dr. Kim Howells MP, UK Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will speak. Spain noted that it is likely that there will be high level speakers addressing the CD the week of 12 March, because the high-level segment of the Human Rights Council will be taking place then.

13 February

On Tuesday, February 13th, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a formal plenary session focusing on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs). The United States (US) delivered one of its most extensive explanations of its position on PAROS. Russia recommended the CD focus on elaborating elements of a new treaty. South Korea suggested governments explore strengthening the Outer Space Treaty and extending its scope. Several states recommended immediate confidence-building measures in outer space activities. Germany on behalf of the European Union (EU), South Korea, Russia, Israel, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Myanmar, Syria, the US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Mexico on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela made statements. China, Iran, Egypt, the US and Japan also used their rights of reply.

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
China and Russia continue to promote a new international agreement preventing the placement of weapons in space, which the US continues to oppose. The US did, however, state that its space policy “does not advocate, nor direct the development or deployment of weapons in space,” which China questioned, citing military doctrines like Star Wars, in a right of reply. Russia proposed that in the forthcoming PAROS discussions, the CD “concentrate on... working out a new Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT)”. Russia suggested the CD discuss “PPW issues” following the draft elements paper circulated by China and Russia in 2002. Accordingly, Russia and China presented an updated version of their Compilation paper (CD/1679). The US reiterated and elaborated its opposition to a new PAROS treaty based on its claims that there is no arms race in space and that the existing legal regime is sufficient to control arms in space. New Zealand countered that such arguments “ignore the preventative benefits that adopting a precautionary approach might provide.”

The US and Japan raised concerns about definitions in a PAROS treaty, while Russia suggested that particular definitions merit separate consideration. South Korea recommended that due to the difficulties in definitions and the fact that “many concepts have already been in use in other international instruments governing outer space,” the CD should be cautious about adopting new definitions. Japan faulted the “vague and obscure” nature of the core concepts of PAROS for the previous CD PAROS ad hoc committee's failure to produce substantive results, and said that as the definitions remain vague, negotiating a new treaty would be “considerably difficult”. In explaining the difficulty in defining “space weapon” and “anti-satellite weapon” (ASAT), the US went into detail on its previous failed ASAT arms control negotiations with the Russia.

The EU, while advising against being “overambitious” on PAROS in the short term, also counseled that it would be “irresponsible to block the further discussion on this agenda item for fear of too ambitious goals to be pursued.” Presumably, this refers to the US blocking an ad hoc committee on PAROS with a discussion mandate due to its opposition to negotiating a new PAROS treaty.

South Korea noted that the Outer Space Treaty will celebrate its 40th anniversary this year, and said that “in addition to renewing efforts towards universality and more effective implementation of the Treaty, as the WMD Commission recommended in its report, we may need to consider the possibility of strengthening the treaty and extending its scope.”

Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs)
Several states recommended that CBMs in space be used to immediately reduce tensions among states. Canada, the Coordinator for PAROS, gave regulations for Space Traffic Management and Guidelines on reducing the production of space debris as examples of helpful CBMs. The EU suggested that CBMs could “be based on the principle of non-interference with non-aggressive activities in space and drawing up a 'code of conduct' and 'rules of behavior' or 'rules of the road' in space.” One would hope that such a formulation would appeal to the anti-PAROS US, which noted “the importance of [the Outer Space Treaty's] non-interference provision” in its statement. However, the US was the only state to vote against a Russian resolution on transparency and CBMs in space at the 2006 UN General Assembly's First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS)
The EU, South Korea, Russia, the US, Japan and Canada mentioned the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS). The EU said that because COPUOS dealt with space debris, a risk for all space activities, “some form of interaction between the work in the CD and COPUOS would... be desirable”, and suggested the Conference invite the Committee's Chair to brief the CD. Canada said it “will be working to ensure the adoption” of the COPUOS's Guidelines on reducing the production of space debris (Space Debris Mitigation) at the COPUOS Plenary in June and the 62nd UN General Assembly in the fall. South Korea also hoped the Guidelines would be adopted.

China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test
Australia, the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand expressed concern about China's recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test. Australia invited China to explain how they thought their test would affect other nations' space assets during the upcoming CD informals on PAROS. Japan also requested that China “display greater transparency in its outer space activities, as well as its military activities as a whole.” In a right of reply, China asked Japan if they had expressed their concerns about space debris when the US tested ASATs, noting that the US is responsible for 41.6% of the over 10,000 pieces of space debris over 10cm.

Negative Security Assurances (NSAs)
Egypt, Myanmar, Syria and Mexico on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, agreed that the best assurance against the non-use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination, but that in the meantime, nuclear weapon states should provide NSAs to non-nuclear weapon states. After listing how various international fora have supported NSAs, Egypt welcomed “unilateral declarations made by some nuclear weapon states that provide [NSAs].” However, it said these declarations “fall short of our security requirements and do not deal adequately with the issue.” It then explained that effective NSAs “must be unconditional, comprehensive, legally binding and negotiated multilaterally.” The EU, on the other hand, called on the nuclear weapon states to reaffirm their (non-binding and conditional) security assurances in UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), and ratify protocols to Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs). Mexico was particularly interested in discussing NSAs in the CD in light of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean's resolution 477, which declares that responding to a conventional weapons attack with nuclear weapons is not sanctioned by international law, because it is disproportionate.

Regional issues
Intractable regional conflicts again came up in the CD. Israel reminded the CD that it agreed to adopt the CD agenda in parallel with a presidential declaration reserving the right to bring up any issue at any time, and then took that liberty. Israel stated that “two fundamental threats to global peace and security... deserve to be placed as the highest priorities of the CD: the threat of terrorism in all its dimensions, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.” Ambassador Levanon then named Syria as an arms supplier to Hizbullah and Iran as “source of proliferation for sensitive components of conventional and WMD programs”, sparking rights of reply statements from Syria and Iran. Syria called Israel the terrorist of the region, having dropped 4 million cluster bombs on Lebanon over the summer, the equivalent of one bomb per person. Iran asked whether the admitted nuclear weapons of Israel or the peaceful nuclear energy program in Iran was the greater threat.

South Korea noted that the outcomes of recent talks with the North Korea were positive and would soon be transmitted to the CD.

The next formal plenary meeting will be held on February 20, at 10 am, when Ambassador Juan Antonio March of Spain will assume the rotating presidency.

On Tuesday, February 6th, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) held its first public session focused on a single agenda item: Agenda Item 1, cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

The following countries made statements on this agenda item: the European Union (EU) in a statement delivered by Germany, the United States (US), Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Peru, and Japan, followed by remarks from Russia and North Korea. The CD also agreed to invite Madagascar to participate as an observer.

Governments mainly discussed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), negotiation of a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Most governments expressed their support and hope for improving these important disarmament mechanisms. Syria also proposed the CD negotiate a new disarmament mechanism: an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Many countries made statements reaffirming the importance of the NPT as the cornerstone of disarmament. Most cited the need for the achievement of meaningful results to strengthen the treaty at the upcoming review cycle, beginning in Vienna this spring.

The EU, Egypt, Pakistan, the US and Japan reaffirmed the importance of Article VI of the NPT, which calls on states parties to the NPT to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Egypt recalled the importance of the 13 practical steps outlined at the 2000 NPT Review Conference as "an internationally endorsed roadmap to fulfill the obligation of nuclear disarmament." The EU stressed the need for an overall reduction of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons in accordance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly by those with the largest arsenals. While welcoming US and Russian reductions under the START and Moscow Treaties, the European Union also noted the approaching expiration of those treaties and called for further reductions under follow-on processes. Japan urged Russia and the US to fully implement the Moscow Treaty, and to begin irreversible and verifiable reductions beyond those provided for in the Treaty. The US cataloged its reductions and said that complete nuclear disarmament was contingent upon improvement in the international security environment, for which all states parties to the NPT are responsible.

Interestingly, Russia delivered a statement in which it affirmed its commitments to the NPT and its bilateral commitments with the US, and declared the arms race “effectively over.” It also declared that it was prepared to negotiate an FMCT without preconditions. However, Ambassador Loshchinin qualified, things could be impacted by events, such as the growth in financing for military preparations or the appearance of new military weapons. Russia then gave the example of the deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space as something that would have a very negative effect on nuclear disarmament negotiations. Switching to English, he quoted US Ambassador Rocca’s statement that, “the objective of all states should be to create an environment in which it is no longer necessary for anyone to rely on nuclear weapons for security.”

The US mused about what kind of world would allow the elimination of nuclear weapons, and, although Ambassador Rocca said that governments would have to not harbor terrorists and there would have to be some non-nuclear military means of ensuring security, she essentially concluded it would have to be an environment of equal security for all. “Fundamentally,” said the US, “we are talking about a world in which the lessening of international tension and the strengthening of international trust make it possible for us all to transcend the competitive military dynamics and concerns that have helped encourage reliance upon nuclear weapons to date.”

The EU, the US, Japan and Peru also noted the importance of beginning negotiation of an FMCT. Peru and Japan said negotiations should begin without preconditions, while Russia was willing to begin negotiations without preconditions. The EU held that a FMCT would be beneficial to both nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Its negotiation would also have a ‘positive impact’ on the upcoming NPT Preparatory Committee, the EU added.

Many countries also noted the importance of early entry into force of the CTBT as a step forwards for disarmament and towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Japan, Egypt, Pakistan and Syria expressed concern about the prominent role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, and Japan called for a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security doctrines.

In a statement delivered by Ambassador Christina Rocca, the US addressed its security doctrine and nuclear policy and their relationship to nuclear disarmament. The US outlined the new (2002) strategic triad, which includes nuclear weapons but no longer exclusively relies on them. According to the US, by increasing information, options and decision-making time, this new triad will raise the decision threshold for use of nuclear weapons and permit greater reductions in nuclear weapons stocks. The statement characterized the US nuclear umbrella as a tool to prevent nuclear proliferation, explaining that “continuation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella is necessary under current circumstances in order to help lay the foundation for further progress in disarmament.” “Nuclear weapons continue to have relevance in today’s world, but that relevance is clearly not incompatible with the NPT,” the US concluded.

Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East
Syria and Egypt both cited the importance of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East as mandated by the consensus Middle East Resolution from the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. Israel is the only state in the region who is not party to the NPT, and Syria reminded the CD that Arab states not party to the NPT acceded to it between the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. Both Syria and Egypt held Israel responsible for the failure to create a nuclear-free Middle East. Syria stated that, "Recently, the Israeli Prime Minister admitted that Israel possesses nuclear weapons," referring to remarks made by Prime Minister Olmert in December 2006 during an interview in Germany. Syria called on CD member states to stop supplying Israel with nuclear technology and to pressure Israel to join the NPT and allow the IAEA access to all its facilities. If Israel refuses to comply, Syria recommended the international community impose sanctions.

North Korean Nuclear Test
Japan again condemned the October North Korean nuclear tests, and North Korea again responded that its nuclear weapons were not intended to threaten neighbor countries, including Japan, but are a deterrent against nuclear countries who continually threaten to launch preemptive attacks against North Korea.

NGO Participation
As NGOs wait to see if they will be heard as well as seen in 2007 by reading their own statement on International Women's Day, Syria voiced support for NGO participation in the CD saying, “The NGOs, active in the field of disarmament, should be able to address the CD directly. As a first step, we look forward to honoring the consensus reached in the 2006 session about allowing an NGOs representative to address the CD directly on the occasion of the International Women’s Day.” We have yet to hear any delegation speak in opposition to the NGOs reading their own statement on International Women's Day.

Continued work of the Conference
President Mtshali announced that Dr. Kim Howells, UK Foreign Office Minister in charge of disarmament and arms control, will participate in a CD plenary meeting on February 22 at 10am.

The first informal meeting on Agenda Item 1 will be held in the afternoon on February 6, under the chair of Ambassador Wegger Strømmen of Norway. The CD will hold informal meetings on Agenda Items 1 and 2 this week.

The next public plenary meeting will be on Tuesday, February 13, at 10am.

-Yuki Otsuji and Katherine Harrison, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

1 February

As members of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) prepare to participate in seven sessions per week, the final session before beginning the issue-based discussions within the agreed Organizational Framework was understandably brief. On Thursday, February 1, Switzerland made the single general statement. The CD decided to admit Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines and Zambia as observers before adjourning.

Switzerland emphasized the growing importance of space security, and, presumably referring to China's recent anti-satellite test, noted that "the first test in more than 20 years of an anti-satellite weapon is an outstanding event, it is by no means the only cause for concern." Switzerland insisted that the CD develop approaches to strengthen the security of space and address concerns about the vulnerability of space systems at more depth within the framework of a structured and substantive dialogue this year.

Switzerland posited that a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) is the only issue ripe for negotiation in the CD, and recommended "a pragmatic approach to the critical aspects of an FMCT, including concerns about the verification procedures of such a treaty," as the only path towards a consensus. Switzerland called on the Conference to begin negotiations on an FMCT "without preconditions", meaning they are prepared to drop verification from the negotiating mandate because the US opposes including it, with the understanding it could be brought up in negotiations.

As the CD moves into discussions that will be primarily nuclear-focused, Switzerland underscored the priority its government attaches to disarming conventional weapons. It reiterated the Swiss position on submunitions (cluster munitions) expressed at the 3rd Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in November 2006. There, Switzerland called for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument with rules regulating and limiting the use of submunitions. In his statement to the CD, Ambassador Streuli discussed the efforts made at the CCW to pursue a new international agreement aiming to ameliorate the effects of cluster munitions. At the CCW, Norway announced that it intends to launch the negotiation of a freestanding treaty to ban cluster munitions. A preparatory conference, the Civil Society Forum on Cluster Munitions, will be held in Oslo, February 22-34, 2007. The aim of the conference is to create a platform to further work towards a convention or an agreement banning the use of cluster munitions.

Switzerland also reminded the CD of its Geneva Summit on Armed Violence and Development, which produced a Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. They are coordinating with other states to develop a plan of action to follow up on the Declaration, and will review progress in 2008.

The next public plenary meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 6, at 10am.

-Yuki Otsuji and Katherine Harrison, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

30 January

In a brief formal plenary on Tuesday, January 30th, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) heard general statements from Cuba and Turkey. CD President Mtshali then concluded the plenary and opened an informal meeting to discuss the Coordinators' work plans for the rest of the session. The CD exhibited a remarkably open and engaged mood and readily agreed to the detailed work plans. Member states appear to be willing to work this year, building on and moving forward from the substantive discussions from last year with significantly more hope for progress.

The work plans are informal documents, but represent a substantive agreement in the CD. They outline how the Conference will address each of the seven agenda items in informal sessions. In addition to the informal working sessions, the Conference will hold one public plenary session per week, from 10-1 on Tuesdays. The informals are described below, and listed with their exact dates in this comprehensive calendar, and in each of the Coordinators' work plans.

Detailed Schedule for the rest of the session
Norway, the Coordinator for "cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament" (agenda item 1), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 3 (Feb 5-9) and 6 (Feb 26- March 2). According to Norway's work plan, in Week 3, they will identify issues "that can benefit from future discussion, with a view to future negotiations." In Week 6, they will address the current status of nuclear weapons reductions.

Italy, the Coordinator for "prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters" (agenda item 2), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 3 (Feb 5-9) and 7 (March 5-9), primarily to discuss a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). In Week 3, the CD will discuss production of fissile material for non-explosive purposes, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the purposes, definitions, and scope of an FMCT. In Week 7, the CD will discuss transparency, stocks, compliance and verification, settlement of disputes, entry into force, ratification and depositories, duration and withdrawal. On March 7, they will assess their work in the first session, and plan for the second session. Italy included a list of all the CD documents relevant to these discussion items in its work plan.

Canada, the Coordinator for "prevention of an arms race in outer space" (agenda item 3), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 4 (Feb 12-16) and 7 (March 5-9). According to Canada's work plan, in Week 3, the CD will discuss the adequacy of the existing regime, and means of its enhancement. In both Weeks 3 and 7, they will discuss transparency and confidence building measures, and elements of a treaty on the non-weaponization of outer space. On March 9, they will assess their work and consider next steps.

Brazil, the Coordinator for "effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (NSAs)" (agenda item 4) will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 4 (Feb 12-16) and 8 (March 12-16). In Week 4, the CD will address the nature and scope of existing NSAs, their common and distinctive elements, needed clarifications, and new developments. In Week 8, member states are "invited to present proposals or to indicate elements that might be included in any new international arrangement(s) on NSAs, with an indication of format and of forum in which the security assurances would be provided." On March 14, they will assess their work and consider next steps. Brazil included a list of relevant documents in its work plan.

Bulgaria, the Coordinator for "new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, including radiological weapons" (agenda item 5), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 5 (Feb 19-23) and 8 (March 12-16). According to its work plan, in Week 5, Bulgaria will outline the historical background and recent developments, and the CD will take stock of the issues. In Week 8, Bulgaria will facilitate discussion to identify issues that can advance.

Indonesia, the Coordinator for "comprehensive programme of disarmament" (agenda item 6), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 5 (Feb 19-23) and 9 (March 19-23). In Week 5, the CD will take stock of the issues. In Week 9, they will list all the issues from Week 5 and identify those that might move forward. In its work plan, Indonesia noted that "some issues could possibly be raised under other agenda item[s], and it will be discussed among the Coordinators". Because many have questions about the meaning and purpose of this agenda item, and its difference from nuclear disarmament, this may indicate that these issues could be addressed in agenda items 1 and 2. The work plan also notes that from consultations in 2001, the Special Coordinator on the Review of the Agenda noted that "any disarmament issues could be dealt with within" agenda item 6.

The United Kingdom, the Coordinator for "transparency in armaments" (agenda item 7), will hold three informal sessions in Weeks 6 and 9. During Week 6, the CD will review existing issues and raise any additional issues, and during Week 9, it will identify issues for further discussion and any action that might be taken. The UK's work plan lists issues that have previously been raised under this agenda item, including Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) and the UN Register of Conventional Arms in August of 2006.

The Public Plenary
In the public plenary, both Cuba and Turkey discussed the four core issues before the Conference and expressed hope that progress would be made in each area.

In order to overcome the past deadlock in the Conference, Cuba called for better organization of debates and real political will. "I am not referring to a commitment in which some put the priorities of others before their own without a guarantee that their priorities will also be addressed," said Cuban Ambassador Fernandez Palacios, "but to a commitment that takes into account the legitimate security concerns of all countries."

Cuba circulated the "Disarmament and International Security" chapter of the Final Document of the September 2006 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit, which reaffirmed the NAM's commitment to the CD and their call on the Conference to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament "as the highest priority."

Both Cuba and Turkey emphasized the importance of negative security assurances (NSAs). Cuba affirmed that they should be formalized as a "universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument." Turkey supported "the views and proposals of establishing political mechanisms, followed by legally binding instruments".

Cuba supported beginning negotiations in the CD on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons "which responds to the objectives of nonproliferation and disarmament", implying that such negotiations should include existing stockpiles of fissile materials. Turkey said that a ban on the production of fissile materials would strengthen both nonproliferation and disarmament, but added that "a more comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach should include existing stockpiles and effective verification."

Cuba reminded the CD of the real-world relevance of its work, highlighting that "world military expenditure exceeds 1 billion US dollars and it continues to rise. More money is being wasted on producing to kill than on saving lives. According to UN estimates, approximately 10% of global military expenditure would be enough to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It seems a modest and affordable amount, considering what could be achieved. Millions of lives could be saved every day. Millions of people.could escape poverty. It would be possible to educate every child in the Third World. The terrible pandemic of AIDS could be most effectively addressed." Let us hope that finally, this year's positive moves will enable the Conference on Disarmament to again contribute to this noble aspiration.

The next public plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, February 1, at 10am.

At its second plenary meeting on Wednesday, January 24, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) agreed to an Organizational Framework for the year prepared by the six presidents of 2007 (South Africa, Sri Lanka, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Syria, or the P6). This Framework sets up a schedule of activities for the year and designates Coordinators to chair work on each of the seven agenda items. The Conference adopted the agenda in the same session. Japan, the European Union (EU) in a statement delivered by Germany, France, Kenya, Italy, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Egypt, Australia, China, South Africa, Syria, India, and Morocco delivered general statements, and Iran, North Korea, and the EU (delivered by Germany) exercised their right of reply.

The Organizational Framework: the 2007 CD's schedule of activities
Building on the 2006 timetable of substantive work created by the 2006 P6, the CD agreed to the Organizational Framework put forward by the 2007 P6. This Framework sets out a general schedule for the CD's discussions, and appoints a Coordinator to each of the seven CD agenda items. During the first ten week session of the CD, governments will cover each agenda item twice by repeating the following process: in numeric order, they will debate two agenda items per week, with three informal sessions and one formal session devoted to each agenda item. In the last week of the first session, they will evaluate this process in order to construct their second session according to progress in the first set of debates. The first six weeks of the seven week second session are open to work on any issues on which the Conference agrees it can make progress. The CD will again evaluate its work in the last week of the second session in order to prepare a schedule of work for the third session. The first three weeks of the third session are again open, followed by one week of evaluation and three weeks for final statements and preparation of the report to the General Assembly.

In addition to leaving more space for focused work, the Organizational Framework also builds on last year's “Friends of the Presidents” by designating Coordinators for each of the seven agenda items. According to South Africa, the Coordinators “will arrange and chair deliberations dealing with the agenda items in a comprehensive manner without preconditions, bearing in mind all relevant views and proposals, past, present and future.” These Coordinators will report to the P6, who appointed them. They are as follows:

Because the CD has appointed Special Coordinators in the past to chair deliberations and negotiations, governments sometimes get nervous that using the term “Coordinator” denotes some sort of endorsement or work mandate. Italy reminded the CD that it is allowed to create ad hoc subcommittees, working groups, technical groups or groups of governmental experts, and that the CD presidents have a wide range of discretion in the matter. Algeria, India, Morocco and Iran clarified that they understood that the P6, and not the CD as a whole, had appointed these Coordinators, which South Africa confirmed. Other delegations commended the Coordinators' appointment, including Egypt, which welcomed their appointment and offered its full assistance and support.

This Framework is the compromise between those that prefer to pay equal attention to all agenda items and those that prefer to focus on agenda items they see as moving more quickly than others. Ambassador Mshtali of South Africa eked out this is a delicate balance through months of intensive consultations, and deserved all the praise paid to her in the session. The EU, in a statement delivered by Germany's Deputy Commissioner for Arms Control and Disarmament, Ambassador Rudiger Ludeking, “particularly commend[ed] the meticulous way in which [Ambassador Mshtali] gathered the view of every single CD-member state and managed to merge all these views into a coherent Organizational Framework”. Governments also praised the Organizational Framework's balance and openness. Japan was convinced that if Member States worked actively, the Organizational Framework could facilitate the CD forming international disarmament and non-proliferation norms this year.

The Coordinators will be chairing the deliberations on each subject, and will hopefully give more detailed schedules to the CD next week. In looking forward, the Republic of Korea encouraged the Coordinators to circulate these as soon as possible, and to include indicative lists of sub-topics so that member states could prepare for interactive, focused discussions and potentially invite experts from capital.

The Agenda
The CD also adopted its annual agenda, called the decalogue, with the same Presidential statement as in 2006, “that if there is a consensus in the Conference to deal with any issues, they could be dealt with within this agenda.” Similar to Monday's session, most CD members supported the agenda, calling it “flexible”, “inclusive” and broad enough to encompass all of today's security concerns. France reiterated its reservations that the agenda was outdated but agreed to join the consensus to facilitate agreement on the “excellent” Organizational Framework. Neither Israel nor Syria, both of whom purportedly toyed with the possibility of adding countering-balancing items to the current agenda (arms transfers to terrorists and arms transfers to state terrorists, respectively), objected to keeping the agenda as is.

Acknowledging the work of NGOs
Although the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has been delivering a statement to the CD on International Women's Day on behalf of NGOs for over 20 years, we have yet to be able to deliver the statement ourselves. Last year, the president of the Conference read the NGO statement, and 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. At this session, Italy, one of the Friends, said, “we also believe that some steps forward could be made to acknowledge the attention and contribution that NGOs present in Geneva contribute to our deliberations.” In reminding the CD of its responsibility to eliminate nuclear weapons, Egypt insisted the CD “listen to the majority of states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and civil society which warn of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to international peace and security.”

Other Issues
The lengthy EU statement delivered by a high-ranking member German official elicited several responses from other CD members. Although the statement did not express any new EU positions, Iran, North Korea and China all responded to portions of the statement. Responding to the EU's stated concerns over Iran's nuclear program and promise to ensure implementation of Security Council Resolution 1737, Iran replied that due to the technicalities of the case, the CD was an inappropriate venue in which to address the issue. North Korea responded to the EU's condemnation of its missile tests and nuclear test by reiterating its rejection of Security Council resolutions and characterizing itself as a victim of US aggression in a environment ruled by the law of the jungle. Germany, on behalf of the EU, used its right of reply to respond to these replies, saying it was concerned about the integrity of the NPT and scolding North Korea that upholding international law was a better way to combat the law of the jungle. China then also responded to the EU statement's criticism of China's recent anti-satellite test, quoting its initial position that the test was not aimed at, nor posed a threat to, any country, and reiterated its commitment to work in the CD to prevent an arms race in outer space. At this point, the Secretary-General of the Conference intervened and implored those involved in rights of reply to focus on issues the CD could solve and maintain a positive atmosphere for CD negotiations. Although North Korea was still compelled to reply “against [its] will”, Iran truncated a longer response by asking the CD “who started it”. When Germany used another right of reply to say these issues were relevant to the CD and of international concern, Iran read out its longer right of reply, reminding the Conference that Iran's position should be seen in a larger historic context of Western and Security Council discrimination against, restrictions on, and interference in Iran.

In a more positive detour, Indonesia announced that it recently approved its ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty, and would soon be joining the over 150 States Parties to that Treaty. Australia, as President of the Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty, warmly welcomed this announcement.

22 January

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) began its 2007 session on Monday, January 22, with a public plenary session. South Africa opened the session as the incoming President of the Conference, followed by a message from Ban Ki-moon, the new Secretary-General of the United Nations (read by Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament), and general statements from Poland, Slovakia, the United States, the Netherlands, and Russia.

Incoming President Glaudine Mtshali of South Africa promised to spare no effort to wake the deadlocked chamber from its slumber this year. The Conference has not negotiated a treaty since the 1996 completion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it has been unable to agree by consensus on a programme of work. Last year, however, the six rotating presidents of the Conference worked together to create a timetable of substantive discussions for the 2006 session. Although the Conference has been adopting an annual agenda that lists topics to be addressed during the year, last year's timetable was the first year-long schedule for substantive discussions since the deadlock began.

Even though he is currently considering downgrading the status of disarmament within UN bureaucracy, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon reiterated that invigorating disarmament and non-proliferation is one of his priorities, and said he will ensure the UN is up to the task. He called on the Conference to "rise to the challenge". He reminded the Conference that the stakes are high, with world military spending at over 1.2 trillion dollars per year, or 2.5% of global GDP. "Even if one percent of it were redirected towards development," said the SG, "the world would be much closer to achieving the Millennium Development Goals."

The Conference indeed must rise to the challenge of generating an effective, comprehensive and in-depth programme of work, and much of this rests on the shoulders of the first 2007 President, South Africa. All six of the 2007 CD presidents (South Africa, Sri Lanka, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Syria, or the S6) have agreed to work together to guide the CD, but South Africa is responsible for conducting the negotiations on proposals for a schedule of activities and for presenting the proposal to the Conference. In her opening speech, Ambassador Mtshali said she had been consulting in bi-lateral meetings, with the regional groups, and at an informal meeting last week. We hope South Africa will be able to present a proposal that includes, in the words of Poland, "more refined, more focused and more in-depth discussions on the substantive issues". Last year, Poland presented the 2006 timetable with only one week dedicated to each of the seven substantive issues on the CD's agenda. The four core issues (Fissile Materials Treaty, Negative Security Assurances, nuclear disarmament, and Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) of the Conference all need much more time allocated to them.

Although South Africa has yet to formally present an S6 schedule of activities, members of the Conference apparently discussed a proposal for a schedule at the informal meeting last week. This proposal included designating seven Coordinators to coordinate work on each of the seven agenda items, building on last year's "Friends of the Presidents". Russia said that it saw the proposals so far as important, constructive and most promising. The United States commended the S6 "effort to craft an organization plan that was intensive, yet flexible", and said the S6 "may have found a way to break the deadlock that had stymied action in the Conference for over a decade." The Netherlands reiterated that it was "ready to start negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices, while being flexible on the further makeup of the programme of work."

As always, the CD must first adopt its annual agenda, a traditionally unchanging list of topics to be addressed during the year. The Netherlands called this agenda "all-inclusive", and, remembering that the Conference adopted it in one week last year, hoped it would be adopted just as smoothly this year. Slovakia strongly discouraged any attempts to change the agenda. Russia agreed, and advised that they could change it later if necessary.

Some states are hoping the Conference will begin negotiating a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons, or a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT), this year. Such a treaty has been on the international community's agenda for many years, and the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 NPT Review Conference called on the CD to begin negotiating it. The CD has been unable to begin negotiations, however, due to deadlock on a programme of work and continued disagreement over a negotiating mandate. Nevertheless, the United States introduced a draft text and draft negotiating mandate for such a treaty last May. The United States urged others to use their draft text as a basis for finally beginning substantive work on the issue. Today, the Netherlands suggested that negotiations start without preconditions but with the understanding that nothing was excluded from the negotiations. These catch-phrases mean that the mandate need not take a position on verification of the treaty or existing stockpiles of fissile materials, but delegations could still address those contentious issues during negotiations. Slovakia said it would be appropriate for the Conference to "upgrade the level of its engagement" on an FMT.

- Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will