At the end of an item posted on this site on 30 May this
year, the comment was made that the adoption by the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) of a schedule of activities was a step in the right
direction. It would have been more
momentous if this schedule had been recognised for what it is, in practice –
the essence of the elusive “programme of work” required by the rules of
procedure. With its priorities adequately reflected in the schedule of
activities, the CD could then have turned its energies to negotiating the
necessary mandates for dealing with the chosen subjects.
Such a return to keeping mandates separate from the
programme of work might have been viewed by the UN General Assembly during its
scrutiny of the CD later this year as a positive sign that the Conference was
capable of responding to deep concerns about its effectiveness. The Gordian knot tying the main
priorities inextricably together would have been cut. But, on the contrary, it was made clear by some CD members
that the schedule of activities was not to be a Trojan horse for the
programme of work. The schedule,
they stated, was to be no more than a timetable for the formal thematic debates
that followed.
So, can signs of progress be gleaned from the debates
themselves? Possibly. Lines perhaps have become a little more
clearly drawn on the ranking of the four core issues. A fissile material ban
and nuclear disarmament are neck-and-neck, with negative security assurances
and preventing an arms race in outer space both following behind – running
strongly in the race though not in first or second place but seen by some as
possible compromise candidates for future focus if the deadlock on fissile
material and nuclear disarmament persists.
This state of affairs had been recognised in the work programme proposed by the President (Egypt) on 14 March, albeit in a document
including both a schedule of activities and mandates for working groups and
special coordinators. The mandates
for the working groups on nuclear disarmament and fissile material would require
the latter to “deal with elements” of
a treaty banning fissile material production for use in weapons (FMT) while the
former would simply “deal with nuclear
disarmament”. This distinction softened the earlier disparity between
“negotiate” a FMT and “exchange views and
information on practical steps for" nuclear disarmament (see CD/1864).
The divergence of views over which of these two topics is
the “riper” for treatment continues, but it sounds increasingly
ritualistic. The respective
champions of these subjects know that the endgame entails either broadening out
the mandate on a FMT to cover existing fissile material thereby expanding the
nuclear disarmament value of the exercise, or launching parallel working groups
dealing separately with a FMT and nuclear disarmament either contemporaneously
or (more workably) in sequence.
Are the signs of entering the endgame sufficient to warrant
a sympathetic consideration by members of the UNGA when they “review progress
made in the implementation of [last year’s resolution A/66/420] and, if
necessary, to further explore options for taking forward multilateral
disarmament negotiations”?
Many members made it clear during the thematic debate on
revitalising the CD that their patience is wearing very thin. The debate was
marked by urgings for members to show more “political will”, a thoroughly hollow
imprecation as pointed out by the US Disarmament Ambassador who noted that the
problem was not an absence, but a clash, of political will. As an aside, perhaps it will be a
measure of progress of sorts when members, instead of lamenting the lack of
political will, spell it out more clearly in terms of an absence of willingness
to compromise.
After its current recess the CD will have seven weeks in
which to satisfy the doubters that it is responsive to concerns about its
viability. It may choose to do so either by seeking the solution for the disagreement over its priorities by developing a less complicated programme of
work shorn of its linkages. Or it may take some overt step such as appointing a
friend of the President to explore the scope for compromise on the mandates for
nuclear disarmament and a FMT without discounting the validity of other core
issues.
Whether such steps would be sufficient to re-engage disaffected
members remains to be seen. But in light of the current impasse it is
unsurprising that alternatives to the CD are being voiced in the margins of the
Conference, albeit without any option emerging yet as the most favoured.
Meanwhile to help breathe life into these issues Germany and the Netherlands
have initiated meetings of scientific experts on fissile material, and, on
nuclear disarmament, Norway will host a meeting in Oslo early next year on the
humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.
This is a guest post by Tim Caughley. Tim is a Resident
Senior Fellow at UNIDIR – for other comments on the CD see also here.
