Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 22, January 1998
Geneva Update
CD Adopts Agenda But Not Yet a Programme of Work
By Rebecca Johnson
Summary
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) adopted its eight-point
agenda at its first plenary of 1998, chaired by Ambassador Lars
Norberg of Sweden. Despite a flurry of proposals on nuclear
disarmament, a fissile materials production ban (fissban),
landmines, outer space and security assurances, the Conference has
not, however, managed to agree on its programme of work. (The CD
distinguishes between the 'agenda', a generally phrased shopping
list based on the 1978 decalogue, and work programme, which
identifies the committees and coordinators agreed for particular
subjects of negotiations or discussions.)
South Africa had considerable impact at the beginning of the
session with a proposal for an ad hoc Committee to address nuclear
disarmament issues but without a negotiating mandate at this stage.
This compromise proposal was immediately supported by New Zealand,
Brazil and Canada, although Canada also put in its own proposal for
a programme of work covering several issues. Other non-aligned
countries, including Myanmar, Egypt, Mexico and Bangladesh, have
expressed cautious interest in South Africa's constructive
approach, recognising that though it does not go as far as they
would like, it could provide a way to ";cut the Gordion knot";(1)
of the CD impasse. A short statement from US President Bill Clinton
was read at the first meeting, emphasising the American view that
the CD should commence work on a fissile material cut-off treaty
(FMCT) and landmines.
There appeared to be a positive mood during the first weeks,
generated by a sense that the CD might confound its critics and
start substantive work in 1998 after all. However, by mid February,
following interventions from the Russian Federation, Syria and
Iran, the mood of constructive compromise began to fade as
delegates feared that hardliners would seize hold of the debate and
bog things down again. There is growing optimism, however, that
agreement is close on appointing a special coordinator to consider
the issues pertaining to the militarisation of space, an updating
of what has previously been designated 'prevention of an arms race
in outer space' (PAROS). The CD is also close to consensus on an ad
hoc committee or special coordinator on negative security
assurances, although South Africa is holding out on the grounds
that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review process would be a
more appropriate forum for addressing this issue.
Getting Started
The Secretary-General of the CD, Mr Vladimir Petrovsky, opened
proceedings with a statement from UN General Secretary Kofi Annan.
This ";emphasized that nuclear disarmament must be pursued more
vigorously, particularly by nuclear-weapon States [NWS], with a
view to the progressive reduction and complete elimination of
nuclear weapons at the earliest date";. Annan expressed ";serious
concern at the spread of various types of conventional weapons,
especially landmines and small arms which are extensively used in
regional and sub-regional conflicts.";
Annan's statement also welcomed consensus on the reorganisation
of the Secretariat and re-establishment of the Department for
Disarmament Affairs, especially the fact that ";a distinguished and
experienced disarmament expert, Ambassador Dhanapala of Sri Lanka,
has agreed to head the Department.";
The CD Agenda
The agenda for 1998 was identical with that adopted in 1997:
"Taking into account, inter alia, the relevant
provisions of the Final Document of the First Special Session of
the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, and pending the
conclusion of its consultations on the review of its agenda, and
without prejudice to their outcome, the Conference adopts the
following agenda for its 1998 session:
1. Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear
disarmament.
2. Prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.
3. Prevention of an arms race in outer space.
4. Effective international arrangements to assure
non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons.
5. New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of
such weapons radiological weapons.
6. Comprehensive programme of disarmament.
7. Transparency in armaments.
8. Consideration and adoption of the annual report and any other
report, as appropriate, to the General Assembly of the United
Nations."; (2)
Norberg also read into the record the understanding that ";if
there is a consensus in the Conference to deal with any issues they
could be dealt with within this agenda."; This is identical with
the statement made at the time of adoption of the agenda in 1997
and is intended to cover landmines.
FMCT
President Clinton pledged ";the full support of the United
States delegation in taking the next steps in the nuclear
disarmament process..."; and emphasised that ";No issues are more
important today to [the CD's] work than a cutoff of fissile
material production for nuclear explosives and a worldwide ban on
the export of anti-personnel landmines."; (3) Ambassador Grigori
Berdennikov said that Russia was ";convinced that a FMCT is
the next step to be taken in the pursuit of systematic and
progressive efforts with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons...
ripe to be undertaken on the multilateral level..."; by the CD.(4)
Many more delegations echoed the view that the FMCT was the ";next
logical approach"; in the process of nuclear disarmament.(5)
Austria argued that the FMCT offered ";good prospects for
success"; and that the CD would be ";irresponsible"; if it passed
up the chance. Ambassador Harald Kreid proposed establishment of a
committee under agenda item 1 to negotiate a fissban on the basis
of the Shannon report, adopted by the CD in March 1995
(CD/1299).(6) Warning that ";to demand answers a priori is
only a pretext for inaction";, Canada circulated a working
paper on a FMCT suggesting ways of moving beyond the impasse,
including a presidential statement that, without prejudging the
actual negotiations, would acknowledge the importance of stocks and
the full adherence of all nuclear-capable states.(7)
Alexander Downer MP, the Australian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, devoted a major part of his statement to arguing the
necessity for a cut-off treaty. He said it would ";create a barrier
to [the] quantitative development"; of nuclear weapons, and be
";conducive to the elimination of nuclear weapons"; by adding a
coffin nail to the nuclear arms race and vertical proliferation.
Downer enumerated ways in which a cut-off would ease regional
tensions and argued that the treaty should include two basic
undertakings: ";(1) an agreement not to produce fissile material
for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or
in any way to assist, encourage or induce others to produce such
material for use in nuclear weapons and (2) an agreement by all
parties, including NWS, to accept international safeguards on all
existing and any future facilities capable of producing fissile
material that could be used in nuclear weapons.";
Downer's proposals acknowledged the need for declarations and
inspections of facilities but ";pragmatically"; considered that
";the cut-off treaty should not try comprehensively to address
existing stocks"; but that in negotiating a treaty in accordance
with the Shannon mandate, ";we will need to do so in the knowledge
that it presupposes a following step which would bring existing
stocks under strict and effective international control.";
Reminding the CD that the present support for a FMCT from the
nuclear-weapon States might not be indefinite, Downer warned
against using the proposal as a bargaining chip or allowing it to
be ";held hostage by States which have managed to avoid making any
multilateral commitments to eschew nuclear weapons.";(8)
Despite significant support for a FMCT, however, it will be
difficult to move beyond the disagreements over stockpiles and the
measure's role in promoting nuclear disarmament as well as
non-proliferation. Ambassador Mounir Zahran recalled Egypt's
proposal from 1 April, 1997 (CD/1453), which called for
simultaneous negotiations on a fissban and on the elimination of
nuclear weapons, to be conducted under the auspices of a nuclear
disarmament committee.(9) There has been some speculation that a
successful formula might be for Egypt's concept of a bifurcated
committee to be combined with the South African proposal, thereby
establishing a nuclear disarmament committee under agenda item 1,
with one working group to negotiate a fissban while another working
group deliberated on further practical steps. Although no-one
wishes to revive the 'linkage' debates, few believe that fissban
negotiations will get underway until the CD agrees to address
general issues of nuclear disarmament in some form or another.
Nuclear Disarmament
Seeking to move away from the past year's sterile debate between
doing nothing on nuclear disarmament in the CD (the preferred
position of most of the nuclear-weapon States) and negotiating a
timebound framework on eliminating nuclear weapons (the majority
view of the non-aligned States), Ambassador Jacob Selebi of
South Africa proposed setting up an ad hoc Committee on
Nuclear Disarmament ";to deliberate upon practical steps for
systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons as
well as to identify if and when one or more such steps should be
the subject of negotiations in the Conference.";(10) Characterising
the CD as having reached ";a cross-road of relevance";, Selebi
argued that ";the time has come for the States trapped between
[the] two extremes to mobilise their strength and to set an agenda
for 1998 which would allow nuclear disarmament to be substantively
considered while avoiding the security concerns which are so
closely associated"; with nuclear disarmament issues.(11)
The first paragraph of South Africa's proposal carefully
utilised language already accepted by the NWS in the programme of
action in the NPT's 1995 Principles and Objectives and Japan's
resolution to the UN General Assembly in 1997 (UNGA 52/38K).
Stating that the committee should ";take into account existing
proposals and views, as well as future initiatives on nuclear
disarmament";(12), the second paragraph makes oblique reference to
the several proposals and programmes from the G-21 or groups of
non-aligned States over the past few years.
New Zealand immediately welcomed the initiative as
";realistic and achievable"; and emphasised that it offered a
constructive way forward without prejudging a mandate.(13)
Ambassador Clive Pearson argued that ";it is not creditable to
repeatedly endorse the need for nuclear disarmament in United
Nations resolutions and not to pursue the objective in this
forum.";
This was the first of an ";outpouring of cascading support";
(14) for South Africa's proposal. Brazil's Ambassador Celso
Lafer called the South African proposal a ";positive and timely
initiative";.(15) Ambassador U Aye of Myanmar recalled last
year's non-aligned call for a nuclear disarmament committee with
two working groups, dealing with nuclear disarmament and fissile
materials respectively, but also said that it would show
flexibility in exploring ";various mechanisms that would command
consensus"; (16), understood to be a cautiously supportive
reference to Selebi's initiative. This was followed by statements
from Mexico, Egypt and others, which appeared to
endorse the South African proposal as a first step, while again
emphasising their overall objective of substantive negotiations on
nuclear disarmament. Iran welcomed the South African
proposal but said that its mandate should not be confined to
deliberations only.(17) Syria agreed, stating that it was
";high time"; to establish a nuclear disarmament committee.(18)
Belgium, like its western group colleagues Japan and
Ireland, emphasised the importance of commencing
negotiations on a fissban, but welcomed South Africa's initiative
on nuclear disarmament as positive and worth exploring further.
Ambassador Anne Anderson argued that it had ";the potential to
bring us to a reasonable compromise which could open the way to the
launching of negotiations on those key issues of nuclear
disarmament which might appropriately be dealt with by the
CD.";(19) Canada renewed its proposal from May 1997, for a
committee to negotiate a fissile material production ban and also a
";mechanism for the substantive discussion of nuclear disarmament
issues with a view to identifying if and when one or more issues
should be the subject of negotiation.";(20)
Berdennikov, however, expressed Russia's reservations
that the CD could address nuclear disarmament and argued that ";the
question of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons can in
practical terms only emerge after all the intermediate stages have
been passed";. Appearing to ignore the South African proposal,
Berdennikov again emphasised the importance of bilateral work on
reducing the arsenals and said that it was not ";timely or useful
in terms of the goals of nuclear disarmament that negotiations
should be started in the Conference on Disarmament on a programme
of nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework, and we among
others would not be able to support the establishment of an ad hoc
committee or a working group to conduct such
negotiations.";(21)
Landmines
The United States has continued to push for landmines to
be addressed in the CD. Clinton pledged ";the full support of the
United States delegation in... banning anti-personnel landmines
from the face of the earth";.(22) Australia's Foreign
Minister said that the CD should establish a committee to negotiate
a ban on the transfers of landmines, as ";an open and honest
attempt to complement the Ottawa Treaty and address remaining
elements of the global landmines problem at their source.";(23)
Warning against the emergence of a ";borderline"; between
countries which signed the Ottawa Treaty from those which did not,
Berdennikov said that Russia did not exclude its eventual
signing of the Ottawa Convention. Nevertheless, he supported the
re-establishment of a special coordinator on the issue and the
";beginning in the CD of a gradual process leading eventually
towards achieving a truly global ban on the production, use,
transfer etc., of anti-personnel landmines";, starting with a
global agreement prohibiting their export and import.
A number of other delegations expressed lukewarm support for
working on landmines in the CD. As informal consultations on this
issue proceed, it is understood that some States, led by
Mexico and South Africa, are considering ways to
utilise the provisions in the 1980 Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons (CCW), as an alternative way of globalising a
ban on the transfer of landmines and drawing more States towards
the objectives of the Ottawa regime. Although it is by no means
clear that the CD has enough agreement for an ad hoc committee on
landmines, a special coordinator may be agreed soon.
Outer Space
Interest is being revived in the issues presently subsumed under
the agenda item 3 of 'prevention of an arms race in outer space'.
Accepting that there is currently no arms race in outer space, but
noting that there are now 30 countries engaged in space-related
activities and that space is already ";heavily used for such
military purposes as surveillance, intelligence gathering and
communications";, Canada called for a legally binding
instrument to prevent the ";weaponization of outer space";.(24)
Russia also raised concerns that ";all has not by any means
been done to block all the paths towards the outer space becoming
the sphere of military competition"; and called for
re-establishment of the PAROS committee with the previous mandate,
or if that were not possible, the appointment of a special
coordinator to facilitate agreement on a new mandate.
Several other delegations supported CD work on this issue and
Austria gave strong backing to establishment of a committee,
arguing that ";We should close the door to using or even testing
weapons systems in outer space before such programmes have reached
a stage where it gets politically difficult to stop them."; The
United States continues to take the view that the issue is
academic and redundant, but if the growing number of States backing
CD work on preventing the militarisation of space continues to
exert pressure, it is unlikely that Washington will expend its
political capital on a veto.
Security Assurances
Once again, many States have mentioned security assurances as an
issue that could be addressed in the CD, although some doubt
whether the Conference would be able to do more than discuss the
different aspects of the relationship between the nuclear-weapon
States, non-nuclear-weapon States, security assurances and no-use
guarantees. The CD appears to be close to achieving a lukewarm
consensus, although South Africa is still holding out, preferring
the issue to be dealt with under NPT auspices.
Conclusion
Despite a positive start to 1998 there is still entrenched
opposition to the major proposals for substantive work. A
constructive route to achieve negotiations on a FMCT within a broad
context of nuclear disarmament deliberations has been opened up,
bringing the prospect of progress closer than at any time in 1997.
Building on the proposals of South Africa and Egypt would provide a
procedural mechanism for moving forwards that could be interpreted
by both the protagonists of the two main roadblocks as a partial
victory - but this will happen only if there is genuine political
will to address these issues in the CD.
The existence of that political will, despite protestations and
rhetoric to the contrary, is not yet being demonstrated by the
delegations at the extremes of this debate. At present they appear
content to sit back and hope that someone else will stymie the
emerging consensus. While these two important issues hang in the
balance, there is a growing likelihood of agreement to establish
committees, or more likely special coordinators, to consider the
militarisation of outer space and security assurances. Though
transparency-in-armaments (TIA) got little coverage at the
beginning, it nows looks likely that the Western Group will press
for a special coordinator on this issue.
Dates of the 1998 CD Session
The first part of the CD's 1998 Session runs from 19 January to
27 March the second part from 11 May to 26 June and the final part
from 27 July to 9 September.
Notes and References
1. Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, Ambassador of Bangladesh, 27
January, 1998, CD/PV.781
2. CD/1484, adopted at the 779th Plenary, 20 January, 1998.
3. Statement by Bill Clinton, read by Robert T, Grey, United
States representative to the CD, 20 January, 1998, CD/PV.779
4. Grigori Berdennikov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation, 3
February, 1998, CD/PV.782
5. As expressed by Pavel Grecu, Ambassador of Romania, 5 February,
1998, CD/PV.783
6. Harald Kreid, Ambassador of Austria, 3 February, 1998,
CD/PV.782
7. Mark Moher, Ambassador of Canada, 22 January, 1998,
CD/PV.780
8. Alexander Downer MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia,
3 February, 1998, CD/PV.782
9. Mounir Zahran, Ambassador of Egypt, 22 January, 1998, CD/PV.780
10. CD/1483
11. J.S.Selebi, Ambassador of South Africa, 20 January, 1998,
CD/PV.779 12. CD/1483
13. Clive Pearson, Ambassador of New Zealand, 20 January, 1998,
CD/PV.779 14. Chowdhury, op.cit.
15. Celso Lafer, Ambassador of Brazil, 20 January, 1998,
CD/PV.779
16. U Aye, Ambassador of Myanmar, 20 January, 1998, CD/PV.779
17. Ali Khorram, Ambassador of Iran, 5 February, 1998, from CD
Press Release DCF/323.
18. Taher Al-Hussami, Ambassador of Syria, 5 February, 1998, from
CD Press Release DCF/323.
19. Anne Anderson, Ambassador of Ireland, 22 January, 1998,
CD/PV.780 20. CD/1456
21. Berdennikov, op.cit.
22. Statement by Bill Clinton, op.cit.
23. Downer, op.cit.
24. Moher, op.cit.
© 1998 The Acronym Institute.
Return to top of page
Return to List of Contents
Return to Acronym Main Page
|
