UNDC closes with only procedural reports

The United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC)’s 2009 session closed on 1 May after three weeks—more or less—of deliberations. Once the Commission adopted its agenda after a few days of stalemate, the working groups got started on the second week of the Commission’s three week schedule. Working Group I, on “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons,” struggled to nominate a chair for a few days. In the end, Paolo Cuculi of Italy was elected chair. Given the limited amount of time available to the group, the chair decided to hold thematic debates on the issues and to start work on the recommendations next year.

For Working Group II, on “Elements of a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade,” the chair, Johan Paschalis of South Africa, submitted a draft non-paper (pdf) for consideration. The group got through one revision process, swelling the chair’s original four page draft to 11 pages. They reportedly got about two-thirds of the way through a second revision process and plan to continue working on this draft next year. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the elements for a declaration will be ready by January 2010, as the Commission next meets in April of that year. It is unclear whether the decade will begin without the declaration, or whether the decade will begin once the General Assembly approves a declaration, presumably later in 2010.

At the final plenary meeting, the Commission as a whole adopted the reports of Working Group I, Working Group II, and a report of the Commission. There was some discussion about an amendment proposed by the Bureau, which the Commission ultimately decided not to include. The amendment was a paragraph noting that the UNDC recommends that consideration of the elements of the draft declaration be continued during its 2010 substantive session. Pakistan’s delegate felt this confused the issue and could potentially reopen the agenda for debate next year. The rapporteur, Ambassador Piet de Klerk of the Netherlands, explained that the Bureau felt this paragraph would not change anything about the UNDC’s agenda. After a brief discussion, however, the amendment was dropped at the suggestion of India.

In his closing remarks, the Chair of the UNDC, Ambassador Andrzej Towpik, argued that the Commission needs some critical self-assessment and perhaps some adjustments to its methods of work. He suggested the Commission devote one of its meetings next year to reviewing these issues. He also lamented that the UNDC was unable to agree to invite experts to deliver presentations to the Commission, and hoped this could be considered again next year. The Pakistani delegate took the floor to disagree with the Chair’s assessment that the Commission needed to reform its methods of work. He argued that it is “not always logical to apply a corporate model to intergovernmental meetings” and that instead of “dismantling” existing machinery, states should apply increased financial and human resources to what we have now. He also argued in favour of maintaining the rule of consensus, saying its rejection may give short-term benefits but not long-term solutions.

Overall, most delegates seemed revealed to get through the first year of the Commission’s new cycle without any major blockages and with the adoption of reports, however procedural they may be. Hopefully next year the UNDC can get to work on the first day, rather than the second week, and can produce substantive recommendations in the working groups.