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 comple