Disarmament Diplomacy

In the News

The Conference on Disarmament in 2008: Still in Denial

The Conference on Disarmament (CD), which opened on 21 January and met for three sessions in 2008, disappointed delegations and observers by repeating the holding pattern - or rather, stalemate - that has characterized it in recent years, despite some encouraging signs on progress in 2007. There had been hopes that a work programme could be agreed, and a draft programme CD/1840 was circulated in March. But although this generated a lot of positive support, it did not achieve consensus and so the long-standing impasse remains unbroken. By the time the CD closed on September 12, eyes were turning to the US presidential elections in the hope that a new administration with a more constructive attitude towards multilateral institutions and arms control could inject new life into this fading forum.

The CD was established in 1978 to conduct multilateral negotiations on issues relating to all aspects of disarmament. Each year it has six presidents (the P6) chosen by alphabetical rotation through the CD members: this year, these were the ambassadors from Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States and Venezuela.[1] Despite sterling efforts by these and many previous CD presidents, the Conference has now failed to commit to serious discussions on any potential treaty negotiations since it concluded the text of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which opened for signature in 1996.[2]

CD members, representing one third of UN membership and including the major military powers from every region of the world, have profound differences of view over what are seen as the CD's core issues, which are: nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; the development a multilateral treaty prohibiting the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons - i.e. a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT); the development of a treaty or other measures on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS); and whether to negotiate a binding multilateral treaty to enshrine the negative security assurances (NSA) by which the nuclear powers promise not to use their nuclear forces in any way to threaten or attack non-nuclear weapon countries.

While the vast majority of CD members would support any workable compromise, a small number have mutually exclusive positions on the overall priorities. In the CD context this often translates into linkage tactics and whether negotiations should start on an individual aspect or whether all the measures should be treated equally, implying simultaneous negotiations. There is also disagreement about the mandates for work on most of these issues, with some states imposing irreconcilable preconditions that they insist must be met before they agree to negotiations or even substantive discussions.

Such long-standing differences have inevitably led to frustrations over the inability to resolve substantive differences, which have in turn informed wider dissatisfaction with the CD's outdated procedures, including the consensus rule that must be observed before any procedural or substantive decision, however small, can be adopted. Increasingly delegations cite the CD's rules of procedure and lack of flexibility as impeding its work, but they are stuck because under the current rules they cannot change any of the rules without consensus, and those that benefit from the CD impasse are unlikely to support proposed changes that could diminish their powers of veto.

The CD met for three sessions over the course of the year, from 21 January to 28 March; 12 May to 27 June and from 28 July to 12 September. This report focusses on developments in the last two sessions,[3] including discussion over the proposed programme of work, debate on the CD's working practices and status, key substantive statements on the issues and any developments with implications for the future.

The P6 proposed programme of work, CD/1840

On 13 March 2008, President Ahmet Üzümcü (Turkey) circulated a draft programme of work - CD/1840[4] - which had been developed by the P6 following consultations with CD member states. Reaching Critical Will, which closely monitors the CD on behalf of civil society notes that CD/1840 is very similar to L.I and CRP.5,[5] two documents circulated in the CD's 2007 meetings, likewise intended to provide the basis for agreement on a programme of work.[6] One of the main features of CD/1840 is the proposal for an immediate start to negotiations on an FMCT, without the need to meet any preconditions, and the simultaneous start of substantive talks on the other three core issues.

The draft received wide support. In the first plenary of the second session (on 15 May 2008), President Yevhen Bersheda (Ukraine) said that CD/1840 "is the closest the CD has come to reaching consensus".[7] During subsequent plenaries in the second and third sessions, many delegations voiced their support for the document. These included the European Union, the Eastern Group, many non-aligned countries from the so-called G-21, but there were no formal joint statements of support from either the G-21 or Western Group, due to the opposition of one or two members of each of these groupings. The positive statements were often accompanied by rallying assertions, e.g. describing CD/1840 as "possible and practical" (South Africa),[8] "realistic and balanced" (Italy)[9] and so on.

There were also statements which, while supportive, expressed reservations about CD/1840. These focussed on one or more of: (a) the lack of balance between the four core issues (only one of which had a commitment to negotiate); (b) the omission of verification in the mandate to negotiate an FMCT; (c) the similarity between CD/1840 and L1, the product of the previous presidential attempt to formulate agreement, which failed. The Sri Lankan delegation pointed out that while they supported CD/1840, they and the other supporters needed to recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of some of the negative views.

Significantly, though hardly anyone voiced a direct rejection, Pakistan and Iran raised concerns that amounted to a blocking of consensus. Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan publicly addressed his country's concerns on 17 June 2008 and again on 29 August.[10] On both occasions he made it clear that CD/1840 was unacceptable to Pakistan, saying it is "riddled with built-in conditionalities, as it moves the goalposts of the CD 180 degrees" by ignoring "verification as a goal for an FMT [fissile materials treaty], ad hoc committees as negotiating subsidiary bodies, and balance between the four core issues". Moreover, he noted that the draft was presented again on 26 May, but appeared to be identical to the original, in spite of a lack of consensus on the original and despite "Our understanding was it not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal".[11] Less vociferously, Iran's Ambassador Ali Reza Moaiyeri also expressed reservations but said his delegation was "ready to work on the four core issues identified earlier by the CD on an equal basis".[12]

CD working methods and procedures

The difficulties in achieving consensus and perceived deficiencies of its working methods fed into and informed statements on the status and condition of the CD itself. Several statements were concerned to stress the CD's continued relevance as a multilateral negotiating forum despite its recent lack of outputs, with many warning against actions that might undermine the CD. There were several sobering statements reminding the participants of the pressing need for the CD to make progress, relating its work - or inability to engage therein - directly to problems in conflict zones around the world. Mr Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy spoke on 25 June 2008 on behalf of the Council of the European Union and reinforced this message: "Everyone knows that the CD is the only place to forge a credible plan shared by Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapons States alike".[13]

On top of these were many presentations reflecting the frustration delegations feel over the continued inability of the CD to agree a work programme. Most dramatically, Ambassador Johannes Landman of the Netherlands said that unless a programme was agreed, "I won't raise my body and my voice again in this body... you won't hear from me anymore during the remaining of this year's session".[14] As well as expressing dissatisfaction, many delegations identified aspects of the CD's working methods that were exacerbating the situation. In keeping with past analyses from within and outside the CD, both the rigidity of its rules of procedure, and the need for consensus at every stage of a negotiating process were named as problematic, though it was also recognized that political differences lay at the heart of the impasse. Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali (South Africa) suggested that "one cannot claim that the structure of the Conference does not allow negotiations to take place", otherwise there would be no way to account for the past successes of the CD. Further, she argued "it is the Member States who decide whether or not to negotiate: not the 'machinery', or the institution."[15]

Pakistan's August 19 statement[16] suggested that the CD interprets the consensus rule differently at times. New Zealand Ambassador Don Mackay responded directly[17] to the statement, pointing out the appropriateness of delegations having flexibility in the early stages of negotiations.

Substantive statements

There were a number of statements on matters of substance. In his speech on behalf of the Council of the EU, Javier Solana emphasized the importance of ensuring full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and called on all relevant states to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).[18] Australia[19] and Japan[20] made presentations on their joint initiative, the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. France highlighted its president's "ambitious disarmament plan", and invited members to "come and witness the dismantling of our facilities for the production of military fissile material at Pierrelatte and Marcoule".[21] Speaking on behalf of Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland, Swiss Ambassor Jürg Streuli announced that these countries were co-sponsoring their resolution on de-alerting of nuclear weapons to the UNGA.[22]

During the CD's first session of 2008, the Russian Federation and China had submitted a draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and of the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT).[23] Solana's presentation suggested that the time was not yet right for negotiating a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).[24] Canada gave a statement on a conference held under its auspices on "Security in Space: the Next Generation".[25] The United States did not respond directly until the third session, when it presented a statement outlining several omissions and ambiguities it had identified in the draft treaty.[26] The presentation also restated the US policy of opposing "concepts, proposals, and legal regimes" that "seek prohibitions on military or intelligence uses of space; or fail to preserve the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations in space for military, intelligence, civil, or commercial purposes", and emphasized that the draft treaty "provides no grounds" to change its policy in this area.[27]

There were a number of statements on the desirability of starting negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) as proposed in CD/1840. Iranian Ambassador Ali Reza Moaiyeri called for the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention as a means to ensure nuclear weapons states full their NPT disarmament obligations.[28]

Presentations were also made on conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW) and the Wellington and Dublin Conferences on cluster munitions. Later in the year, the conflict in Georgia became the subject of a number of statements and exchanges between Georgia and the Russian Federation. This provoked the CD Secretary General Sergei Ordzhonikidze to remind them that the CD was not the appropriate venue for bilateral or regional accusations and point-scoring.[29]

Prospects for 2009

Despite all the difficulties and frustrations, there were some constructive features. The Annual Report noted, "A substantial number of Members consider that the Conference on Disarmament is the closest it has been since 1998 to reaching a consensus on a programme of work".[30]

On assuming the CD presidency, US Ambassador Christina Rocca re-introduced informal discussions on the agenda items, which was widely regarded as helpful. A new administration in the United States may improve the CD's chances for success in 2009, but this needs to be set against Russia's resurgent interest in building up its nuclear and conventional forces, China's scepticism about arms control, and the continuing opposition of Pakistan, Iran and a few others to negotiations on treaties that would curb their options, especially with regard to fissile material production. The fact that the CD's meetings during 2006-8 were seen as relatively active is often attributed to the P6 cooperating with each other in each of these years. While the P6 for 2009 indicated that they intended to work together, they have not clarified how integrated an approach they intend to pursue. Canada has suggested that one way to stimulate progress might be to hold unofficial, off-the-record consultations with and between delegations.

In recent years, there have been times when it has seemed as though the CD has been edging out of its long-standing impasse.[31] It is extremely disappointing that once again, in 2008, the stage seemed set for the achievement of consensus on a work programme, only for the hopes to fade as this aspiration was thwarted once again.

The CD dates for 2009 are scheduled as:

19 January-27 March;
18 May-3 July; and
3 August-18 September.

Notes

[1] Conference on Disarmament, "Draft: Report of the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly of the United Nations", CD/WP.550, 26 August 2008.

[2] www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/ctbt/ctbtest.html

[3] For a brief report on the first session, see Disarmament Diplomacy 87 (Spring 2008), p 88.

[4] Conference on Disarmament, "Draft Decision by the Presidents of the 2008 Session of The Conference on Disarmament", CD/1840. reprinted in Disarmament Diplomacy 87 (Spring 2008) and available from www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers08/1session/CD1840.pdf.

[5] Conference on Disarmament, "Presidential Draft Decision", CD/2007/L.1, 23 March 2007, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers07/L1.pdf; Conference on Disarmament, "Presidential Draft Decision", CD/2007/L.1**, 29 June 2007, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers07/L1rev.pdf (reissued for technical reasons); Conference on Disarmament, "Complementary Presidential Statement Reflecting an Understanding of the Conference on the Implementation of CD/2007/L.1", CD/2007/CRP.5, 14 June 2007, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers07/CRP5.pdf.

[6] This is important to recognize, as L.1 was thought to be a milestone in the history of the CD's impasse, as it led to the situation whereby "The 2007 CD came closer than ever to reaching consensus. By the end of the year all but three of the 65 member states had agreed on a compromise programme [L.1] advanced by the 2007 presidents". Michael Hamel-Green, "New Impetus, Old Excuses - Report on the Conference on Disarmament in 2007", Disarmament Diplomacy 86, (Autumn 2007).

[7] Reaching Critical Will, CD Report 15 May 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/reports.html#15may

[8] Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali, Statement by South Africa at the Conference on Disarmament, 24 June 2007, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24SouthAfrica.pdf

[9] Ambassador Lucia Fiori (Italy), Farewell Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, 14 August 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
3session/August14_Italy.pdf

[10] Ambassador Masood Khan, Statement by Pakistan at the Conference on Disarmament, 17 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June17Pakistan.pdf; Ambassador Masood Khan, Statement by Pakistan at the Conference on Disarmament, 26 August 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
3session/August26_Pakistan.pdf

[11] Ambassador Masood Khan, Statement by Pakistan at the Conference on Disarmament, 17 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June17Pakistan.pdf

[12] Ambassador Ali Reza Moaiyeri, Statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Conference on Disarmament, 26 May 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/2session/May26Iran.pdf

[13] Javier Solana, Statement on behalf of the Council of the European Union before the Conference on Disarmament, 25 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June25Solana_council%20of%20EU.pdf

[14] Ambassador Johannes Landman, Statement by the Netherlands to the Conference on Disarmament (unofficial transcript), 3 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June3Netherlands.html

[15] Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali, Statement by South Africa, 24 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24SouthAfrica.pdf

[16] Ambassador Masood Khan, Statement by Pakistan at the Conference on Disarmament, 19 August 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
3session/August19_Pakistan.pdf

[17] Ambassador Don Mackay, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament (unofficial transcript), 19 August 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
3session/August19NewZealand.html

[18] Javier Solana, Statement on behalf of the Council of the European Union before the Conference on Disarmament, 25 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June25Solana_council%20of%20EU.pdf

[19] Ambassador Caroline Millar, Statement by Australia at the Conference on Disarmament, 24 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24Australia.pdf

[20] Ambassador Sumio Tarui, Statement by Japan at the Conference on Disarmament, 24 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24Japan.pdf

[21] Ambassador Jean-François Dobelle, Statement by France at the Conference on Disarmament (unofficial transcript), 24 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24France_english.html

[22] Ambassador Jürg Streuli, Statement by Switzerland at the Conference on Disarmament, 31 July 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
3session/31julySwitzerland.pdf

[23] Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers08/
1session/Feb12%20Draft%20PPWT.pdf

[24] Javier Solana, Statement on behalf of the Council of the European Union before the Conference on Disarmament, 25 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June25Solana_council%20of%20EU.pdf

[25] Ambassador Marius Grinius, Statement by Canada at the Conference on Disarmament, 24 June 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/June24Canada.pdf

[26] Ambassador Christina Rocca, "Letter dated 19 August from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America Addressed to the Secretary-General of the Conference Transmitting Comments on the Draft 'Treat on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT)' as contained in Document CD/1839 of 29 February 2008", CD/1847, 26 August 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/papers08/
3session/CD1847.pdf. The CD Report includes an analysis of the US response, available at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/
speeches08/reports.html#2sept

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ambassador Ali Reza Moaiyeri, Statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran at the Conference on Disarmament, 26 May 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/
2session/May26Iran.pdf

[29] Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament (unofficial transcript), 2 September 2008, available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/3session/
Sept02_Secretary%20General%20of%20CD.html

[30] Conference on Disarmament, "Draft: Report of the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly of the United Nations", CD/WP.550, 26 August 2008. Although this document was draft, it is understood to have been accepted with minor changes.

[31] See previous Disarmament Diplomacy reports, including: Michael Hamel-Green, "New Impetus, Old Excuses - Report on the Conference on Disarmament in 2007", Disarmament Diplomacy 86 (Autumn 2007), available at www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd86/86cd.htm; "In the News: CD ends 2007 session with no work programme", Disarmament Diplomacy 85 (Summer 2007), available at www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd85/85news03.htm; "In the News: CD edges closer to a Work Programme", Disarmament Diplomacy 84 (Spring 2007), available at www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/84news04.htm.

This summary report was researched and written by Henrietta Wilson and contains contributions from Rebecca Johnson. It was based on Reaching Critical Will's weekly reports of the CD plenary meetings, with much appreciation of the hard work that goes into producing them. Reaching Critical Will is a project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and their excellent CD Reports and most of the 2008 CD plenary statements and documents are available at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches08/reports.html.

Back to the top of page

© 2008 The Acronym Institute.