Apart from the ritualistic and sometimes ironic
“congratulations” that are offered each month to the incoming president of the deadlocked Conference on Disarmament, the most common expression heard in the Council
Chamber is “political will”.
Or more accurately, “the lack of political will”.
I was asked by one of this year’s UN Disarmament Fellows
what “political will” means. My
response was to duck the question by saying that what was lacking in the CD was
“compromise”, not political will.
- Compromise between those states that don’t want a ban on the production
of fissile material to cover existing stocks of such material, and those that
do
- Compromise between those that want a binding agreement to
prevent an arms race in outer space, and those that don’t
- Compromise between those that don’t want negotiations to
eliminate nuclear weapons, and those that do
- Compromise between those on the one hand that want the
nuclear weapon states to provide legally binding assurances that nuclear
weapons will not be used against non-nuclear weapon states, and on the other
hand those that believe existing assurances are sufficient
- Compromise amongst those championing negotiations on any one
or more of those activities
- Compromise between those that see the CD’s rules of
procedure as a constraint, and those that see their national sovereignty as
diminished by such constraint...
But to return to the question. “Political will” was described by the previous High
Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte as the source of energy
that allows for movement past agreed milestones. A former Director of UNIDIR
Patricia Lewis defined political will as “the sustained determination to
advance a public interest, even in the face of strong resistance”. Both recognised that the current
problem in the disarmament arena is not so much a lack of political will but a clash of political wills.
As has been apparent in the CD’s thematic debate on
revitalising the Conference, views on how to overcome this clash of wills
remain far apart. Indeed, some
doubt whether the political will to forge compromises and negotiate broadly
acceptable outcomes is even possible in a more complicated post-Cold War
security environment. If this is
so, sustaining the CD in its current mode will be harder to justify, spawning
perhaps ad hoc processes driven by
like-minded states, but open to all, where political energy is more readily harnessed to achieve a
public interest. Those states that choose to stand aside from such processes deny themselves the ability to influence the outcome, outcomes that strive for consensus but which allow recourse to voting to prevent endless deadlock.
In the meantime, it would be nice to hear and see more use of the
word “compromise” in the Conference on Disarmament in a practical effort by its members to give meaning to "political will" as the CD finalises its annual report to the UN General Assembly and completes its otherwise barren 2012 session.
This is a guest blog by Tim Caughley, Resident Senior
Fellow, UNIDIR.
For brief background material on the CD see the publication
“The Conference on Disarmament Issues and Insights”
