UNDC Day Three: Work on the draft declaration begins

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

On the third day of the UN Disarmament Commission’s 2011 session, Working Group II (the only working group with a Chair, and hence, the only working group currently able to convene), started its work on elements of a draft declaration for the fourth disarmament decade.

Armed with a compilation of a Chair’s draft from 2009 and amendments from 2010, the delegations present for the meetings today started going through the proposed elements paragraph by paragraph. The text offered options between elements proposed in 2009 and amendments proposed in 2010 and also welcomed the introduction of new text. Work advanced slowly as delegates tried to reach consensus on precise wording. While for the most part suggestions were limited to minor tweaks, there were a few substantive areas of disagreement.

Most notable was the French’s delegations efforts to eliminate specific references to nuclear disarmament from the principles and objectives portion of the declaration as well as from the section on weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

For example, in the section on principles and objectives, the French delegation argued strongly against any specific reference to nuclear disarmament (1.2a and 1.2b), while most other delegates argued that it is a not only a priority for most member states but is also timely, given the increased attention to the issue over the last few years. Further, in the section on WMD, the French delegations suggested that instead of reaffirming and mobilizing efforts to translate into reality the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and other WMD within a specified timeframe (2.1.a), the declaration should use much vaguer, non-committal language, such as, “to seek a safer world for all and to create conditions a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the NPT, in a way that promotes international stability, based on the principle of undiminished security for all....” The UK delegation supported this proposal, while most others who commented on it emphasized their preference for maintaining the language proposed in 2010 (2.1.a).

Overall, it appears there are major substantive differences over what delegations want this declaration to say. The vast majority, however, seemed to agree with Brazil’s representative, who argued that the declaration needs to be something that government’s can show their publics, to demonstrate that they are in fact discussing nuclear disarmament seriously, and that they are moving forward on the issue, without necessarily getting into detail. The Chair and several other delegations emphasized the importance of producing a concise text that conveys a general spirit of progress on disarmament issues rather than one that hashes out precise approaches or commits states to a particular path—as the Norwegian delegation reminded everyone, there are other working groups in this very Commission that are mandated to develop more specific recommendations on nuclear and conventional weapon issues.

Working Group II will resume its discussion on the draft elements on Friday. Tomorrow, Working Group I, on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, will begin its work.