Opening of the 2013 session of the UN Disarmament Commission: Time for substantive recommendations

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

On Monday, the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) opened its annual substantive session. The forum, which enjoys universal membership and is often referred to as the UN’s “disarmament think tank,” is surrounded by much anxiety about its ability to garner a consensus outcome before the end of its three-week session.
 

Direct action at First Committee

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

First Committee is set to begin once again in the midst of dynamic and dangerous times. The relevance of its mandate, disarmament and international security, is as pressing as ever. Looking around the world today one can see mounting regional and international tensions, civil wars and revolutions, increasing armed violence, and, overshadowing us all, the threat of nuclear weapons. High levels of military spending, weapons production, trade, and stockpiling, and armed conflict undermine the key objective of the United Nations: preserving international peace and security. Yet one can also see many examples of ordinary people trying to rein back the violence, overcome militarism, and achieve peace.

Reflections on the UN General Assembly general debate 2012

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held its general debate from 25 September–1 October. The theme for this year’s debate, set by UNGA President Vuk Jeremić of Serbia, was “adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations by peaceful means”. In his open remarks he specified, “A solution to an international problem can be legitimately achieved only upon renunciation of unilateralism; it can become truly sustainable only when its provisions are willingly accepted and fulfilled in good faith.” 

Women, gender, disarmament, and the arms trade

by Maria Butler, Madeleine Rees, and Ray Acheson, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
 
This year’s First Committee will once again address the issue of women and disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation through a resolution tabled by the government of Trinidad and Tobago. This resolution, first introduced and adopted by consensus as resolution 65/69 in 2010, recognizes “the valuable contribution of women to practical disarmament measures carried out at the local, national, regional and subregional levels in the prevention and reduction of armed violence and armed conflict, and in promoting disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control.”

Averting insanity on the ATT

by Daniel Mack, Instituto Sou da Paz

As First Committee gets underway, among many essential items on the docket one may receive special attention: the resolution that will define how and when Member States will attempt to fulfill their mandate in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) process.

Disarmament Commission closes without recommendations for 13th year

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

The three-week session of the 2012 Disarmament Commission (UNDC) came to a close on Friday, 20 April, marking the 13th straight year without adoption of any consensus recommendations or guidelines and continuing an alarming trend of sub-standard performance in the UN disarmament machinery. The UNDC is continuously hailed as the only deliberative body for disarmament matters as well as one that enjoys universal membership. It is meant to serve as a policy-making body insofar as member states are expected to formulate and present consensus recommendations to negotiating forums (i.e. the Conference on Disarmament) on those consensus items which should then become subject to direct negotiations and, eventually, the drafting of international legal instruments.  The UNDC is a body that is supposed to serve as an essential part of the multilateral disarmament machinery contributing to the overall goal of general and complete disarmament. The UNDC has not, however, served this function in more than a decade. The Chair, Ambassador Enrique Roman-Morey of Peru, noted in his concluding remarks that diplomats will now have to go back to their usual responsibilities with “a sense of having almost accomplished” their duty to formulate consensus recommendations, guidelines, and proposals. It is indeed frustrating and disappointing for all parties, including member states and civil society.

Chairman Ambassador Roman-Morey stated that the UNDC had achieved “the minimum necessary to consider this session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission a relative success.” The question, however, is how another three-week session of deliberations that yielded no concrete results or substantive documents can be counted as a “relative success,” particularly when the same outcome has plagued the UNDC for 13 years. The session this year should be considered a continuation of the status quo, a striking paralysis preventing concrete movement forward in disarmament matters. This paralysis is pervading many parts of the UN disarmament machinery including the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD). The stalemate in the UNDC and the CD clearly demonstrates pervasive inflexibility with the laying down of ‘red lines’ making compromise nearly impossible.

After adoption of three purely procedural reports, the Report of the Disarmament Commission on the whole and the reports of the two Working Groups (nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation [I] and confidence-building measures [CBMs] in the field of conventional weapons [II]), delegations, along with the Chair, expressed varying degrees of frustration and underscored different causes of the continued paralysis. The Chair of Working Group I, the delegate of Saudi Arabia, noted that there was no consensus on any substance or recommendations, which was due not to a lack of effort, but to a lack of time. Likewise, the delegate of Indonesia, when presenting the report from Working Group II, asserted that the lack of consensus on substantive recommendations was a function of complexity rather than energy. Ambassador Roman-Morey referred to a deep sense of mistrust that has kept parties apart and positions divided and also pointed to the “exhausting discussions” on purely procedural matters, such as symbols used for the documents, as sources of provocation that have contributed to the elusiveness consensus. The Swedish and Argentinean delegates underscored that although substantive Chair’s ‘non-papers’ were discussed, they ultimately cannot be referred to without formal adoption and, therefore, their utility is virtually lost without an official record of the discussions (Working Group I’s non-paper outlined guiding principles and recommendations for achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, while Working Group II’s non-paper explored the objective, principles, and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons). Two Working Papers on facilitating substantive discussions in the UNDC and recommendations on the function of the UNDC, from Japan and Poland respectively, were also submitted.

The extent to which political will was a source of the UNDC’s failure also came to light in concluding remarks. The Swedish delegation stated that it was not a lack of political will that caused another year without consensus. Contrastingly, Ambassador Roman-Morey had the opposite view: there is definitive political will not to pursue themes of universal disarmament. The Cuban delegation agreed that the failure was indeed a function of the lack of constructive political will that was manifest in the unwillingness of some states to disarm and renounce their nuclear weapons. More positive analysis of this year’s session came from the Japanese delegation that asserted that the DC had “laid solid groundwork.” Similarly, the Indonesian delegation, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), reaffirmed the role of the UNDC. The Mexican delegation also sounded hopeful in stating that although the results did not meet expectations, there were enriching discussions held. The Russian Federation also agreed that there were many candid discussions illustrating that all member states are ultimately in favor of nuclear disarmament.

Ambassador Roman-Morey stated that in “matters of disarmament one must be realistic while remaining positive.” How can those that work on the UNDC remain positive and realistic after such a prolonged stalemate? It is time to make serious commitments to break the status quo, formulate alternative and realistic pathways to consensus, and implement them as quickly as possible. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane called on the member states to “adjust their sails” as the best course for meeting new challenges. To further this, the Chair suggested reformation of the procedural arrangements of the UNDC. Three continuous weeks of meetings have not helped achieve positive results in 13 years. Thus, Ambassador Roman-Morey suggested dividing the UNDC into two parts—two weeks in the spring, and one week in the fall when the First Committee begins its work. A suggestion offered in the past has also been opening all deliberations to civil society and academic experts to further enrich debate over recommendations.

Ultimately, employing the same methods and the same attitudes towards compromise will not suffice. The UN disarmament machinery is seriously faltering in its responsibilities and needs to explore new pathways for deliberation and trust.  As noted by the Austrian delegate, the General Assembly should take more leadership for exploring options for facilitating deliberations that seek to revitalize how the UNDC does its work. Member states must also explore new avenues of engagement and trust building so that successful disarmament outcomes become the norm rather than rare breakthroughs amidst many disappointments.

UNDC finally adopts agenda … but struggles to adopt programme of work

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

After several hours of consultations on Thursday morning, the Chair reconvened the plenary meeting just before the lunch break to take stock of group positions on his proposed agenda. The Non-Aligned Movement indicated that it had not reached agreement on the compromise language on the nuclear item on the agenda and insisted on returning to the language from 2011: “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”.

The Chair, preparing to postpone the rest of the Commission’s session until agreement could be reached on the agenda, appealed one last time for flexibility. However, as he emphasized, flexibility must actually allow member states to make progress toward the same goal—if flexibility means one party goes right and the other left, they will never meet again. The Chair indicated he would not continue with consultations but that is proposal remained on the table for delegations to consult upon with their capitals.

The Norwegian delegate took the floor to highlight once again the illogical nature of arguing over the precise language of the nuclear agenda item. Most of the arguments had reportedly centered on the difference between a “nuclear weapon free world” or a “world without nuclear weapons” or “elimination of nuclear weapons”. Mr. Langeland from Norway pointed out that just last year the General Assembly had adopted the New Agenda Coalition’s resolution “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world” and Japan’s resolution “United action towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons”. Between these two resolutions, he argued, all states have signed up to some of this language.

After this intervention, the US delegation, with what it described as extreme reluctance, agreed to the NAM’s request for a return to the 2011 language on the nuclear agenda item. The NAM thanked the US for its flexibility and indicated its agreement, after which the Chair swiftly gavelled the adoption of the agenda.

Yet in the afternoon, discussion faltered over the programme of work. Some delegations, foremost Cuba, requested a different ordering of topics, moving the informal discussions on working methods and the disarmament decade declaration to the end of the two weeks. Others, including Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States, preferred the Chair’s draft. There was also debate whether to deal with the agenda items in an alternating format or in blocs. Norway’s delegation pointed out that this debate is really one for the discussions on working methods, suggesting this discussion should therefore indeed be held first so that the Commission could determine how to move forward from there.

By the end of the day, the Commission did manage to adopt a revised programme of work. However, the struggle this week to adopt an agenda and then to agree on how to carry out this agenda suggests a troubled road ahead for the Disarmament Commission. With a precedent of failure following it from the last several cycles, coupled with the continued problems over getting down to work this year, optimism for success is at an all time low. The Commission, like the Conference on Disarmament, has failed to fulfill its mandated responsibilities for some time now and is actively creating the conditions for its own demise. If member states want to preserve the Commission, they must not just talk about flexibility but actually demonstrate it by beginning work and deliberating seriously on the key challenges facing the international community. How to best coordinate the meeting schedule for the UNDC is not one of those key challenges.