6 September 2006
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) discussed its draft report to the General Assembly on Wednesday, 6 September. Japan, the Netherlands, the UK, Pakistan, the US, Syria, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Australia, Morocco, Algeria, France, Iran, Canada, Russia, Argentina, India, Poland and China took the floor.
The CD report to the General Assembly
As the 2006 CD comes to an end, the CD must evaluate its progress this year and determine how to build on it next year. Some states, like the Netherlands, wanted to use the CD's annual report to the General Assembly to do this. The week of August 28, the Slovakian president of the CD presented a draft of the report to the CD members, and today, even though some states thought they should not discuss it in the public plenary, governments debated the controversial parts of the report.
On August 22, the Netherlands suggested the CD use the report the General Assembly as a vehicle to endorse this year's timetable for substantive discussions and make call for a 2007 programme of work built on the timetable. Today, the Netherlands supported including the a call for concrete negotiations on a mandate for a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), a reference to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, and a plan for next year in the report. They were disappointed there were no conclusions or recommendations in the report.
Pakistan did not think the report should discuss a programme of work, and at the most it could capture the 2006 timetable. Canada said interpretation of the report opened up real complications for CD members, so they should stick to factual accounting in the draft report, however flat that might seem. Peru and Argentina found the draft report sufficient and could accept it, or at least not object to it, as is. Italy said the CD report to the General Assembly could not solve the problems of the conference, and the members of the Conference would not reach a programme of work through the report. Both Canada and Russia supported this and said it was important to wrap this up as soon as possible. The Netherlands and Australia wanted the report to at least call on the 2007 presidents to repeat the coordination and timetable initiated by the 2006 presidents.
Civil society would like to know what mechanism the CD intends to use to build on the work of this year and begin work next year. AsCanada said on August 22 and the Netherlands said on today, a repeat of this year's exercise will not be good enough. We are pleased governments are finally discussing substantive issues in a way that will build a foundation for negotiations, but we expect more.
The Details:
"Substantive Work" or Programme of Work?
The draft report discusses the Six Presidents' (P6) initiative to develop a timetable of substantive discussions during the year (paragraphs 25 and 26). Governments debated a sentence that implies the CD could begin working without a programme of work, which reads: “There was a general feeling among the Member States of the Conference that efforts should be further intensified in conducting consultations and in exploring possibilities with a view to reaching agreement on commencement of the substantive work of the Conference,” (paragraph 25, final sentence). Pakistan and China were concerned this sentence sidelined a programme of work, and India hoped the report could add the need to agree on a programme of work.
Mexico and Syria saw a contradiction between this reference to beginning substantive work in 2007 and another in the following paragraph saying that 2006's substantive work was based on the Six Presidents' timetable. Syria asked, “Has substantive work commenced or not?”, and Mexico said paragraph 25 should be more balanced.
Friends of the Presidents
There was some debate over including several paragraphs on the Friends of the Presidents, who were selected by the 2006 presidents to help them in their work. Syria, Pakistan and Morocco were all concerned about the appointment process of the Friends. The first president of the 2006 session, Ambassador Rapacki from Poland, reminded the CD that it has a history of using Friends. He recalled when a Friend was appointed to deal with expansion of membership in 1994, which was reflected in the 1994 report.
US draft FMCT and negotiating mandate
In May, the United States tabled a draft Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and draft mandate for its negotiation, and discussion over the relative weight the report should give to these documents displayed varying support for them. They are currently included in a paragraph listing all the documents of 2006 (paragraph 35), but the Netherlands, the United States and Australia all thought they deserved more attention in the report. The Netherlands asked that they be given their own paragraph, and the United States suggested putting them in the paragraph on the FMCT debates (paragraph 34). Russia was prepared to consider the US suggestion. Syria objected because the CD rules of procedure do not say that documents submitted by Assistant Secretaries (US Assistant Secretary Rademaker submitted the draft FMCT text and negotiating mandate) are more important than other documents submitted by diplomats.
The International Atomic Energy Agency presentation
After a decision made by the Conference, on August 24, Tariq Rauf from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made apresentation on Verification of an FMCT, which is mentioned in the report (paragraph 15). Pakistan wanted to add that this presentation was in a general debate, not during the focused debates on FMCT. Morocco agreed, and suggested mentioning that the CD agreed by consensus to invite the IAEA to speak.
NGO Statement
Mexico wanted to note that despite no formal objections were made to NGOs being allowed to read their own statement on March 8, the President of the Conference read it instead.
Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
The United Kingdom and France said they would not support a Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as it is currently agreed among the five Central Asian states (the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan). August 31, Kazakhstan indicated the five Central Asian states would sign the treaty in Semipalatinsk on 8 September 2006. The UK and France say they have requested consultations before the treaty is signed, as called for in the 1999 United Nations Disarmament Commission’s guidelines on Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. Though they shared their concerns with the five Central Asian states, they have not been answered. The United States said they had been in touch with the Central Asian states several times and are waiting for an invitation to consultations about the treaty. France, the UK and the US made it clear that if the Central Asian states sign the current treaty text, they will not support it.
The Four Core Issues
Japan posited that the CD cannot establish ad hoc committees on Nuclear Disarmament, Negative Security Assurances and Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, because they do not have consensus. However, they did state that “no opposition was expressed from any country, including the Nuclear Weapon States, to the establishment itself of an ad hoc committee for negotiating an FMCT in the CD”, which is a priority for Japan.
Russia, whose priority is PAROS, asked the CD to concentrate on what brings all member states together instead of pointing out what is yet not agreed.
Syria countered Japan's assertion of consensus for creating an ad hoc committee on FMCT, saying it was only partially true. According to Syria, a majority of states put the condition of a balanced and comprehensive program of work on this consensus, and suggest that an FMCT's negotiating mandate be based on the Shannon mandate.
- Jennifer Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom