Disarmament Diplomacy

The Conference on Disarmament in 2009: Could do Better

Ray Acheson

On 29 May 2009, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) succeeded in adopting a programme of work for the first time since 1998. The programme included agreement to begin negotiations on a fissile cut-off treaty on the basis of the Shannon mandate established in 1995.[1] It also included agreement to begin substantive discussions on the CD's three other core issues.[2] Regrettably, the Conference was unable to adopt a framework to implement its programme before the end of the 2009 session, primarily due to reservations by Pakistan. As a result, the CD did not actually manage to engage in substantive work, once again. The programme of work will not carry over to the 2010 session, so the CD will have to begin anew in January.

As in recent years, the CD did engage in informal debates on its agenda items during the first part of its 2009 session.[3] No governments expressed any substantial change in their positions this year, with the significant exception of the US delegation's turnaround regarding verifiability of a fissile materials treaty.[4]

A number of delegations suggested reforms to the CD's working methods, particularly regarding the Conference's relationship with civil society. For the first time in the CD's history, representatives of non-governmental organizations, including the Acronym Institute and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), were invited to address the Conference during an informal meeting.[5]

Agreeing to a Programme of Work

The 2009 programme of work, laid out in document CD/1864,[6] differs substantially from previous proposals in 2008 and 2007. CD/1864 establishes working groups rather than special coordinators on each of the four core issues. Working groups are mandated by the rules of procedure to conduct substantive work while special coordinators are not.[7] Some delegations, most notably Pakistan's, have questioned the authority of special coordinators in the past, emphasizing their informal nature. A working group is thus seen in the eyes of some as having more legitimacy to conduct substantive work in the CD. In addition, the goals and substance of each working group outlined in CD/1864 are more robust than the mandates laid out in previous proposals.

The most significant difference involves the mandate to negotiate a fissile materials treaty.[8] CD/1864 specifies working group two shall negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices on the basis of the 1995 Shannon Mandate. Since 2004, the Bush administration's policy that a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) would not be verifiable has been a major obstacle to consensus on a programme of work. Several delegations have spent the last few years arguing for a return to the Shannon Mandate, which is a consensus negotiating mandate resulting from Canadian Ambassador Gerald Shannon's 1995 consultations with member states on the most appropriate arrangement for FMCT negotiations. The Obama administration's decision to pursue a verifiable FMCT overcame that particular deadlock and CD/1864 includes direct reference to the Shannon Mandate.

There are other significant improvements between CD/1864 and previous work programme proposals. While last year's proposal called for "substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war," CD/1864 specifies that working group one will "exchange views and information on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral character."

Working group three is charged with discussing "substantively, without limitations, all issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space," adding only "without limitations" to last year's instructions.

The fourth working group also calls for substantive discussions, "without limitation," on the issue of negative security assurances "with a view to elaborating recommendations dealing with all aspects of this agenda item, not excluding those related to an international legally binding instrument." This can be favourably compared to last year's proposal, which simply called for "substantive discussions dealing with appropriate arrangements" related to this issue.

CD/1864 goes on to call for special coordinators on other items on the CD's agenda, including "new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons;" "comprehensive programme of disarmament;" and "transparency in armaments," with instructions to "seek the views of its member states on the most appropriate way to deal with the questions related to [these] items" (a qualification not provided for last year).

CD/1864's adoption on 29 May was met with applause and champagne. Ambassador Jazaïry of Algeria, who was president of the CD at the time, explained that the programme is not perfect but "is a compromise which provides a delicate balance" and "in no way establishes a hierarchy in terms of priority," but rather establishes a basis of compromise to launch negotiations.[9]

Work Programme, but no Implementation Framework

Unfortunately, the adoption of a programme of work did not lead to actual work. Immediately after CD/1864 was adopted, the six presidents of the CD's 2009 session engaged in extensive consultations with member states to determine a schedule of activities and to appoint working group chairs and special coordinators. A series of plenary meetings revealed firm positions from several delegations, including Pakistan's, which argued that since neutrality "is the key factor in reaching consensus on nomination of Chairs and Special Coordinators," the chairs "should not be from P-5, non-NPT states or countries in a military alliance or countries enjoying nuclear protection."[10] This condition, as well as the principle of equitable geographic criteria for appointing chairs of working groups and special coordinators proposed by several delegations, was incorporated into the initial proposals for implementing the programme of work.[11]

The majority of CD members endorsed these proposals. However, the representatives of China and Pakistan expressed reservations. China's Ambassador Wang Qun claimed the documents did not contain clear mandates for the chairs and coordinators, such as how they would take turns or the length of their terms. He also explained that his delegation believed a comprehensive package was needed that clearly outlined how each document relates to the other documents, what the process for implementing them is, and explained that the relevance of these decisions is limited to 2009 - a proposal that would make it hard for the CD to pick up where it left off next year. Wang Qun argued that if these elements were not made clear at the outset, it would be like a "time bomb integrated in the foundation of the building."[12]

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram agreed that the documents were not ready for adoption before the CD broke for its summer recess. He suggested "that the special security interests of non-nuclear-weapon states, that do not belong to a military alliance or enjoy a security umbrella, deserve special consideration-even in procedural matters, so that they are in a better place to protect their interests". He also urged for the two documents to be merged for the sake of clarity and to clearly indicate that they are relevant only for the remainder of the CD's 2009 session.[13]

Some delegations rejected Pakistan's argument, reasoning, as Mexico's Deputy Permanent Representative Mabel Gómez Oliver did, that questions on procedure are not related to security interests.[14] Ireland's Deputy Permanent Representative James O'Shea noted that in procedural matters, all members of the CD should have equal standing.[15]

When the CD's session resumed in early August, the Conference President Australian Ambassador Caroline Millar introduced an updated draft decision on the implementation of the Conference's programme of work. CD/1870/Rev.1 combined the schedule of activities and personnel appointments. The new document also specified that the programme of work would be relevant only to the CD's 2009 session. Still the framework for implementation could not be adopted.

Mid-month, the CD president revealed that Pakistan's delegation had concerns related primarily to the language of the "chapeau" in CD/1870/Rev.1. The chapeau noted that the conduct of the CD's work, decision-making, and adoption of reports will comply with the rules of procedure; that rotation and equitable geographic representation will apply to office bearers; and that the Conference will aim to ensure a general balance in the consideration of all agenda items. Pakistan's delegation requested that the chapeau: specify that the rotation and equitable geographic distribution is based on "principle"; that it include the "principle of equal and balanced allocation of time for four core issues"; and that it also state, "the Conference will ensure, without any discrimination, equal treatment and priority to all agenda items of the Conference, particularly the four core issues to achieve balanced progress in terms of substantive outcomes consistent with the principle of equal and undiminished security for all states."[16]

Pakistan's ambassador maintained that his delegation's position reflects a matter of national security interest.[17] In a press release from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the government argued Pakistan's approach in the CD is "based on principles, in particular, that security is indivisible and the legitimate security interests of all states must be promoted in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner."[18] The delegation wanted this principle, as well as equal and balanced allocation of time for all four core issues, to be specified in the preamble to the framework for implementation.

Other delegations argued that the framework for implementation is not a policy issue but a practical one that does not affect national security interests. UK Ambassador John Duncan noted that all CD member states supported the programme of work and its implications for substantive work, which was the policy issue. Now the Conference was dealing with modalities, not policies.[19] Whilst US representative Garold Larson argued that "serious national security concerns" will be addressed during the course of negotiations and substantive discussions. He also said that the "procedural faultfinding" currently going on is costing valuable time and "has thwarted the stated goals and aspirations of the international community to pursue in this multilateral forum the central questions of nuclear proliferation, arms control, and disarmament."[20]

On 27 August, the presidents circulated another revised implementation framework. CD/1870/Rev.2 did not include Pakistan's insertion of the "principle of equal and balanced allocation of time for four core issues" in the chapeau, but it did add mention of the "principle of undiminished security for all" to the chapeau's third point.[21] However, this was still unacceptable to Pakistan's delegation and on 31 August, the CD president announced that the Conference would be moving on to the drafting and consideration of its report for the year.[22]

Modernizing and democratizing the CD

Taking a broader view of the complicating factors preventing the CD achieving real progress in recent years, several delegations looked to the working methods of the Conference itself, as well as competing notions of security.

Regarding the CD's working methods, delegates urged greater and regular exchange with non-governmental actors this year. Several representatives cited the benefit of NGO involvement in other multilateral fora as reasons for the CD to utilize civil society expertise and insight.[23]

New Zealand's Ambassador Don Mackay cited the CD's "archaic and antique" working methods as one source of its growing irrelevance in the world, especially the way in which the Conference does not engage with civil society. He noted that in the CD, when a delegate made an informal proposal to allow a women's NGO to make a statement to the Conference on International Women's Day, discussion on the proposal was conducted behind closed doors and "the conclusion was reached that this would be a horrifying development and it was not proceeded with."[24]

When the CD president once again delivered the International Women's Day statement, delegates from Norway, Mexico, South Africa, and Syria lamented that a representative of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the statement's principal coordinator, was not allowed to deliver the statement.[25] A paper on Getting the CD Back to Substantive Work released by Canada and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research described the annual reading of this statement by CD presidents as "patronizing and demeaning to women and to the Conference itself."[26]

These voices were heard. During its presidency of the CD, the Algerian delegation convened an informal meeting to which NGO representatives delivered interventions. Representatives from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, the Secure World Foundation, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy addressed the Conference on 28 May.

On behalf of Reaching Critical Will of WILPF, Susi Snyder urged creative approaches to the stalemate in the CD, suggesting that delegates focus on interests rather than positions; employ cross-regional groups to develop cooperative approaches and broker compromises among the key players; and setting objectives and concrete indicators of success.[27] Ben Basely-Walker of the Secure World Foundation focused on space security issues, encouraging international discussions on space activities, traffic, and debris; interaction between the international technical community and international policymakers; and building alliances between civil and military thinking, and between science and policy.[28]

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy's Director Dr Rebecca Johnson drew lessons from past negotiations and highlighted the need for reform to allow the CD to fulfil its role more relevantly. Noting that there was now a worldwide groundswell of support for security in a world free of nuclear weapons, she argued that the time had come for governments to look seriously at what this will entail, including negotiations on some form of nuclear weapon convention. Emphasizing the importance of developing rules of procedure and working methods that facilitate the process of negotiations, she noted that the role of civil society has been historically important in helping governments to reframe their nationally security interests and reach outcomes that enhance international security as well as meeting national concerns.[29]

An informative, interactive discussion followed each presentation with a large number of delegates participating. While the current CD president Ambassador Jazaïry noted that this would not constitute a precedent, some of the attending delegations said they hoped it would.

Many delegations pointed to the CD's other working methods as problematic for progress. The rule of consensus, upheld by some delegations as the "cornerstone" of the CD's working methods, particularly came under scrutiny. Chile's Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Alberto van Klaveren argued that the nuclear powers' interests seem to be protected by the rule of consensus, which acts as "a kind of veto" that paralyses the Conference. He argued that it is one thing to "safeguard privileged security interests requiring consensus in order to enter into the final stage of a disarmament negotiation, but something quite different to block the initiation of any negotiation or the mere establishment of a subsidiary organ to set the stage for such negotiation."[30]

Pakistan's delegation expressed "alarm" that "some delegations have proposed that the rule of consensus may have to be reconsidered if they don't get their way." This comment caused many a back to go up in the Council Chamber, given that Pakistan's delegation had just prevented the CD from implementing its first programme of work in ten years because it didn't get its way. UK Ambassador Duncan pointed out that it is "standard diplomatic practice" that if a country actually seeks progress, "that it should take responsibility for that act and itself should seek to reformulate consensus, to persuade others that the changes they seek are acceptable."[31] Instead, the Pakistan delegation only got a few other delegations to note that its concerns were worth considering, so that it would not appear to be alone in blocking progress.

Disarmament and Security

Pakistan and other delegations rejected the argument that the CD's rules of procedure, working methods, or lack of engagement with NGOs are to blame for the ongoing stalemate. Many of them argued instead that the CD needs to do more to protect the "national security interests" of member states, without acknowledging that one delegation's "national security interest" is often in direct opposition to another's.

During the session, the Pakistani and Russian delegations argued that the need for indivisible or equal security among states should be the guiding principle for the CD.[32] However, Brazilian Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares disagreed, arguing this "principle" is at the heart of the concept of mutually assured destruction. While noting that the right not be threatened or subjected to aggression belonged to all states, he emphasized that "the sense of insecurity is a fertile soil not only for the reluctance to disarm but also for the ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. The malaise of insecurity can be remedied by weapons in the way that vitamins are supposed to strengthen ones resistance to disease. Taking further that image, nuclear weapons are like anabolic androgenic steroids which are outlawed in the world of sports."[33] Pakistan's Ambassador Akram opposed this reasoning, asserting, "It is an accepted fact that states represented here will only participate in negotiations that will promote and protect their national security. It follows that we must pursue objectives that ensure equal security for all."[34]

Bridging these two positions, Costa Rica's representative Carlos Garbanzo outlined a different conception of equal security for all. He reminded the Conference that his country is the only state to achieve the ultimate objective of the CD: total disarmament. He explained that the money the country has saved by not having a military has been used to enhance political and social stability. The problem with the CD, he noted, is that states are approaching disarmament from an armament or military perspective rather than a humanist one. He concluded that only a comprehensive point of view centred on the humanitarian side will move the Conference forward.[35]

Towards the 2010 Session

Despite the breakthrough on a programme of work in May, the 2009 CD session ended in stalemate over its implementation.

The new US administration's change of position on verification of a fissile material cut-off treaty and its support for further progress on disarmament created new pressure and momentum to end the stalemate in the CD. It has also exposed opponents of the treaty that had previously remained hidden behind the Bush administration's position.

Whilst the arguments put forward by China and Pakistan are procedural in nature, they have the effect of delaying further a Treaty that many believe would put significant constraints on the nuclear weapons programmes of those countries (and potentially other states that have yet to articulate publicly their objections).

The Pakistan delegation did not explicitly outline how their country's national security interests are threatened by the implementation framework. However, when the US-India nuclear cooperation deal was announced, Pakistan's National Command Authority expressed "firm resolve" that its "credible minimum deterrence requirements will be met," suggesting an expansion of its fissile materials stockpile.[36] Pakistan's representatives have previously stated in other fora that they do not want an FMCT to freeze asymmetries between India and Pakistan's stockpiles.[37]

Given its overarching concerns about strategic (military) parity with India, Pakistan's government has hinted that it would like a nuclear materials deal similar to the one the United States has granted India. However, political observers consider this highly unlikely in the current conditions.

With four months until the start of the 2010 session, CD member states have some intense intersessional consultations ahead of them to bridge the gaps between positions, or more importantly, resolve underlying concerns. It remains to be seen if this year's progress on the work programme can be quickly reinstated early next year, and developed into progress on substance.

To overcome the difficulties faced this year in the CD, 2010's session will require some truly "outside the box" thinking. Some delegations have suggested that other venues could be more appropriate. Another suggestion could be to work within the CD in new, innovative ways, using informal meetings, cross-regional groups, and new approaches for discussing and coordinating interests. However, as the CD moves into its thirteenth year without substantive work, it is clearly imperative that delegations find a way to end the procedural stalemate once and for all and begin their real work towards disarmament.

Notes

[1] See the Shannon Report and Mandate, March 1995, available at www.acronym.org.uk/fissban.

[2] The other three "core" issues are nuclear disarmament; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances. The other agenda items are new types of weapons, including radiological weapons; a comprehensive programme for disarmament; and transparency in armaments.

[3] The six presidents appointed the following to coordinate informal discussions on each substantive agenda item: Ambassador Portales of Chile for agenda items 1 (cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament) and 2 (prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters), with a general focus on nuclear disarmament; Ambassador Manfredi of Italy for agenda items 1 and 2, with a general focus on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices; Ambassador Grinius of Canada for agenda item 3 (prevention of an arms race in outer space); Ambassador Mbaye of Senegal for agenda item 4 (effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons); Ambassador Draganov of Bulgaria for agenda item 5 (new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons); Ambassador Jayatilleka of Sri Lanka for agenda item 6 (comprehensive programme of disarmament); and Ambassador Puja of Indonesia for agenda item 7 (transparency in armaments).

[4] A summary of government statements by topic can be found at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches09/topics.html.

[5] See Statements to the CD 2009, NGO Statements to the Informal Plenary Session, 28 May 2009, www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

[6] Reproduced below.

[7] Rules of Procedure of the Conference on Disarmament, CD/8/Rev.9, 19 December 2003.

[8] Working Group 2 of CD/1864.

[9] Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 29 May 2009.

[10] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 11 June 2009.

[11] This initial proposal consisted of CD/1866 and CD/1867**, circulated on 25 June. The first laid out a schedule of activities, which allowed for four meetings for each of the working groups and one meeting for each of the special coordinatorships. The second appointed working group chairs and special coordinators, which included representatives from Brazil, Finland, Indonesia, Mexico, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.

[12] Ambassador Wang Qun, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, 26 June 2009.

[13] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 2 July 2009.

[14] Deputy Permanent Representative Mabel Gómez Oliver, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 2 July 2009.

[15] Deputy Permanent Representative James O'Shea, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 2 July 2009.

[16] Letter dated 21 August 2009 from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan addressed to the President of the Conference on Disarmament transmitting Pakistan's position on the implementation of the programme of work (CD/1864) for the 2009 session of the Conference, CD/1873, 24 August 2009.

[17] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 10 August 2009.

[18] Letter dated 12 August 2009 from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan addressed to the President of the Conference on Disarmament transmitting the text of the press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan entitled "Pakistan subscribes to the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation," CD/1871, 13 August 2009.

[19] Ambassador John Duncan, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 10 August 2009.

[20] Garold Larson, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 20 August 2009.

[21] Draft decision on the implementation of CD/1864 for the 2009 session of the Conference on Disarmament, CD/1870/Rev.2, 27 August 2009.

[22] Ambassador Christian Strohal, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 31 August 2009.

[23] Ambassador Christian Strohal, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 22 January 2009; Ambassador Datuk Othman Hashim, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 5 February 2009; Deputy Defence Minister Bath Eide, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 17 February 2009; Ambassador Don Mackay, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 22 January 2009.

[24] Ambassador Don Mackay, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 22 January 2009.

[25] "International Women's Day Statement to the CD," Reaching Critical Will's CD Report, 5 March 2009.

[26] Getting the Conference on Disarmament Back to Substantive Work: Food for Thought, UNIDIR background paper, Geneva, March 2009.

[27] Susi Snyder, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 28 May 2009.

[28] Ben Baseley-Walker, Secure World Foundation, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 28 May 2009.

[29] Transcripts were only available for the presentations from Susi Snyder and Ben Basely-Walker (see www.reachingcriticalwill.org). Rebecca Johnson has incorporated some of her remarks into her article "Unfinished Business" in this issue of Disarmament Diplomacy 91.

[30] Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Alberto van Klaveren, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 3 March 2009.

[31] Ambassador John Duncan, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 27 August 2009.

[32] Letter dated 12 August 2009 from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan..., CD/1871, 13 August 2009; Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 7 March 2009.

[33] Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 12 February 2009.

[34] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 12 February 2009.

[35] Counsellor Carlos Garbanzo, Statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 12 February 2009.

[36] Zia Mian, A.H. Nayyar, R. Rajaraman, and M.V. Ramana, Fissile Materials in South Asia: The Implications of the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, September 2006.

[37] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Statement to the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, New York, 7 October 2008.

Ray Acheson is project director of the Reaching Critical Will project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. The review also drew upon Reaching Critical Will's CD Report, which regularly monitors CD plenary meetings and developments. For further reports and access to the CD documents and statements, see www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

Decision on the Establishment of a Programme of Work for the 2009 session (CD/1864)

CD/1864, adopted at the 1139th plenary meeting of the CD on 29 May 2009.

The Conference on Disarmament,

In order to provide a programme of work for the Conference which does not prejudice any past, present or future position, proposal or priority of any delegation, nor any commitment undertaken in any other multilateral fora related to disarmament,

In pursuance of its agenda and taking into account the several proposals tabled since 1999 for the programme of work of the Conference on Disarmament,

Without prescribing or precluding any outcome(s) for discussions under paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 below, with a view to enabling future compromise(s) and including the possibility of future negotiations under any agenda item, thus upholding the nature of this forum,

Takes the following decision for the establishment of a Programme of Work for the current session:

1. To establish a Working Group under agenda item 1 entitled "Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament" to exchange views and information on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of their elimination, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral character.

Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Working Group shall present a report on the progress of its work before the end of the current session.

2. To establish a Working Group under agenda item 1 entitled "Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament" which shall negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, on the basis of the document CD/1299 of 24 March 1995 and the mandate contained therein.

Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Working Group shall present a report to the Conference on Disarmament on the progress of its work before the conclusion of the current session.

3. To establish a Working Group under agenda item 3 entitled "Prevention of an arms race in outer space" to discuss substantively, without limitation, all issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Working Group shall present a report to the Conference on Disarmament on the progress of its work before the conclusion of the current session.

4. To establish a Working Group under agenda item 4 entitled "Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons", to discuss substantively, without limitation, with a view to elaborating recommendations dealing with all aspects of this agenda item, not excluding those related to an internationally legally binding instrument.

Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Working Group shall present a report to the Conference on Disarmament on the progress of its work before the conclusion of the current session.

5. To appoint a Special Coordinator under agenda item 5 entitled "New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons" to seek the views of its Members on the most appropriate way to deal with this issue.

The Special Coordinator shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Conference requests the Special Coordinator to present a report before the end of the current session.

6. To appoint a Special Coordinator under agenda item 6 entitled "Comprehensive programme of Disarmament" to seek the views of its Members on the most appropriate way to deal with this issue.

The Special Coordinator shall take into consideration all relevant views and proposals past, present and future.

The Conference requests the Special Coordinator to present a report before the end of the current session.

7. To appoint a Special Coordinator under agenda item 7 entitled "Transparency in armaments" to seek the views of its members on the most appropriate way to deal with the questions related to this item.

The Special Coordinator shall take into consideration all relevant view and proposals past, present and future.

The Conference requests the Special Coordinator to present a report before the end of the current session.

Back to the top of page

© 2009 The Acronym Institute.