Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 63, March - April 2002

News Review

Progress Reported Towards Ballistic Missile Code of Conduct

Meeting in Paris on February 7-8, over 80 states met to discuss next steps in concluding a draft International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICoC). The draft text - originally drawn up by the 33-state Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) - was reportedly adopted as the basis for further consultation and elaboration. See this issue for a thorough analysis of the process by Dr. Mark Smith.

Following the conclusion of the meeting, the French Foreign Ministry issued an upbeat statement (February 8):

"The Paris meeting was a success; 86 countries took part in it. Almost all the countries with missile and space launchers attended. It was successful from the standpoint of the high level of debate. All the participants adopted a constructive approach. Action against ballistic missile proliferation is a question that touches on the security interests of states, sometime sin situations of regional tension. They also committed to a substantive discussion on the basis of the draft Code of Conduct that was presented to them. The discussion brought out the following points: everyone recognises that ballistic missile proliferation is a problem; the multilateral approach may help to find a solution to the problem. The Paris meeting demonstrated the interest of such an approach. On this basis, the Spanish presidency of the European Union announced it is ready to host a new meeting. There will be consultations to give effect to this first meeting."

Welcoming the outcome of the meeting, the US State Department set out its view that the ICoC should be seen as a supporting rather than central element in efforts to prevent and curtail missile proliferation. In a written answer issued on February 11, the Department observed:

"We are pleased that so many countries attended the meeting and provided views on this important issue. We look forward to hearing from France on its plans for taking the process forward. The draft International Code...is intended to create a widely-subscribed international predisposition against ballistic missile proliferation. It consists of a set of broad principles, general commitments, and modest building measures. It is intended to be voluntary, and will be open to all countries. The draft Code also is intended to supplement, not supplant, the important work of the Missile Technology Control Regime. The United States was one of the initiators of the draft International Code... At the September 2001 Ottawa Missile Technology Control Regime Plenary, they [MTCR states] concluded the work of the Missile Technology Control Regime per se on the draft Code. Since then, France has taken a leading role in developing the draft Code. Like the other countries that attended the Paris meeting, the United States welcomes the European Union's offer to hold a follow-up meeting on the draft Code. However, we await word from France on its plans for next steps..."

Russia's reaction, on the contrary, emphasised the need to strengthen the draft in order to maximise the impact and appeal any Code might have. According to a February 13 statement from Alexander Yakovenko, the Foreign Ministry's official spokesperson:

"We are on the whole satisfied with the results of the first multilateral meeting just held in Paris... We are grateful to the government of France, which exerted a lot of effort for its preparation and successful holding [of the meeting]... The participation in the Paris forum...has strikingly demonstrated the urgency of the task of countering missile proliferation and the readiness of the majority of countries to participate in the search of a solution to this problem on the basis of a multilateral approach. This is particularly important for the filling of an international legal vacuum that may form after the unilateral decision by the United States of America to withdraw from the cornerstone ABM Treaty for strategic stability and non-proliferation. The discussion that took place has shown a fairly broad range of options. Proposals were heard for placing the draft Code under the aegis of the United Nations or transferring it to the Conference on Disarmament. Quite a few remarks were also made on the text of the draft... The Russian delegation emphasised the support of international efforts to prevent missile proliferation. Apart from Russia's initiative for creating a Global Control System (GCS) for the non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies, important work is being conducted in the Group of Governmental Experts to assist the UN Secretary-General in preparing a report on the question of missiles in all its aspects. Taking into account the draft Code, the talk is thus about three tracks of solving the problem of missile proliferation by politico-diplomatic means. ... In the opinion of the Russia side, the text of the draft Code could be improved by including in it more detailed wordings on such issues as technological cooperation and the provision of guarantees for countries voluntarily abandoning their own missile programmes. Of great significance would be the statement in the Code of the commitment of participating countries to the purposes and principles of the UN. ... We understand that the process of achieving consensus on this document will not be simple, but the seriousness of the problem requires of everyone the exercise, on one side, of perseverance, and, on the other, tolerance for the opinions of other participants of the multilateral negotiation process that began in Paris."

Speaking on February 7, Hamid Eslami-Zad, the head of Iran's delegation to the talks, argued that the proper forum for "professional discussion" of the "issue of ballistic missiles and controlling policies to limit missile proliferation" should be the UN. Together with many other countries, Iran is keen that the issue of ballistic missile disarmament is not forgotten in the search for narrow non-proliferation measures.

From differing perspectives, a number of expert voices have been raised in doubt or opposition to the draft Code. In the view of Richard Speier (February 15), a former Pentagon official involved in the negotiations establishing the MTCR in 1987, the whole project drains resources and dilutes the purpose of the Regime: "It would be better if we pursued one set of rules - the MTCR... Non-proliferation regimes are only as good as the work put into them..." Speier further cautioned that, with a range of agreements or measures on offer, states might be tempted to go "venue shopping" to see which arrangement best kept open the possibility of developing ballistic missiles while assuming a veneer of multilateral respectability. In the view of Alex Wagner of the Arms Control Association, the danger resides in an ineffectual Code offering "unknown incentives" to a state to "get rid of its entire ballistic missile programme". Because of its overly-protective attitude toward the MTCR, Wagner argued, the US "dropped the ball" on the chance to develop a Code which "could have been a fantastic vehicle for shoring up missile non-proliferation".

Reports: Paris meeting on Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation, Statement by French Foreign Ministry spokesperson, February 8 (http://www.france.diplomatie.fr); Countries agree to missile code of conduct, Global Security Newswire, February 11; Text - US supports universal code against missile proliferation, Washington File, February 11; Remarks by Foreign Ministry official spokesman Alexander Yakovenko, February 13, 2002, Russian Foreign Ministry transcript; Code of conduct ineffective, experts say, Global Security Newswire, February 15.