An urgent decade

by Dr. Robert Zuber, Global Action to Prevent War

The opening sessions of the UN Disarmament Commission were punctuated by procedural issues, a few misplaced comments from 2010, and many expressions of urgency that the DC conduct its work more effectively and build, as France's delegation noted, “a safer world for all.”

Many delegations raised the urgency issue in the early days of the DC: in the context of addressing nuclear weapons; of revitalizing disarmament structure; and of fulfilling commitments on disarmament to an anxious world.

In English, when we think of ‘urgency’ two things come to mind. The first usually occurs in relation to some situation in the world requiring immediate attention. With relevance to the DC we can cite the multi-lateral bodies which, as India noted, are running out of time; to the elimination of weapons that continue to threaten populations, drain resources, and exacerbate development crises; to the energies and resources of UN officials and member states which are being deployed in challenging and sometimes frustrating circumstances.

The second and related sense of ‘urgent’ has to do less with objective circumstances and more with our own responsibilities. The ‘facts’ of a militarized world, including unregulated transfers, unmanaged stockpiles and unbridled spending, create objective conditions for urgency. But so do the expectations of families, friends, neighbors, constituents and more. The public sense that it is high time – even past time – to move together resolutely towards general and complete disarmament weighs heavily on many in the diplomatic community.

There is urgency from within as well as from without that motivates the language that we use to define our most challenging disarmament tasks.

To many observers, the ‘decade’ question in the DC might appear to be a classic example of ‘low-hanging fruit.’ Absent concrete benchmarks on negative security assurances, WMD-free zones, the regulation of arms transfers, or key provisions of the PoA, the ‘decade’ would seem (especially to those who have lived through previous iterations) to be as much a substitute for movement on weapons as an inspiration for that movement. This characterization may not be fair, but it is relevant to how the DC is perceived, and it is something that we all have power to change.

Of the many synonyms conjured up for the English term ‘urgency,’ the two that seem most relevant are ‘compelling’ and ‘burning.’ The compelling part is related to the millions of weapons – so many of them unregulated -- that threaten our security and even our very existence. The burning part is related more to us – the sense that we have the skill and the will to do more in the name of that ‘safer world’ that so many people in our countries and communities clamor for. This is the urgency of responsibility which diplomats – and those of us who seek to support their disarmament work – must be more mindful of.

Urgency is an important dimension of disarmament efforts and the diplomats were wise to raise it. The reminder is that it is public expectation and not only objective circumstance that drives these challenging efforts. Whatever number and title we eventually give to a resolution on this ‘decade,’ it is most assuredly an urgent one.

The next open meeting of the UNDC will be on Friday, 22 April and a final post will be published then to report on the Commission's work this year.

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.

UNDC Day Two: Laying the groundwork for consensus

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

The second day of General Debate at the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) was characterized by another broad discussion on the three agenda items for the 2011 session—nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, the draft elements for the fourth disarmament decade, and confidence-building measures in the field conventional weapons—with heavy emphasis, once again, on the nuclear issue. The delegations of Egypt, Nepal, Indonesia, Switzerland, India, France, Cuba, Russia, Liechtenstein, and Mexico offered statements.

In terms of nuclear weapons, Egypt’s delegation expressed concern over the lack of progress on disarmament made by the five nuclear weapon states. The Egyptian delegate called for a greater synergy between the twin pillars of non-proliferation and disarmament. Nepal’s delegation addressed the lack of economic and social progress, notably the failure to abate extreme poverty, as the context for its own call for disarmament. Likewise, the Cuban delegation underscored the annual accelerated growth of military expenditures, which compromise economic and social development. Liechtenstein’s representative highlighted the connection between disarmament, non-proliferation, international human rights, and humanitarian law, declaring that the ultimate goal of disarmament is to ‘prevent human suffering.’

The adoption of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals was also praised by several delegations, including Indonesia. Russia, however, made it known that it and the US should not shoulder all the burden of nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, Russia’s delegation argued that in order to discuss further nuclear reductions, there must be a ‘favorable international environment’ for such negotiations.

Emphasis on the nuclear issue was shared by India whose delegate declared that nuclear disarmament remains the highest priority for the Non-Aligned Movement as well as for its own national policy. The Indian delegate lamented that the international community is nowhere near achieving the goal of nuclear disarmament and no closer than it was in 1988 when the then-Indian Prime Minister presented an Action Plan for a Nuclear Weapon-Free and Non-Violent World Order.

Comments on the draft elements for a fourth disarmament decade (the 2010s) were varied and included calls for convening the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-IV) as well as calls to emphasize the priority of nuclear disarmament and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, there was general consensus that there should be substantive discussions on the revised draft from the previous year and renewed efforts to reach consensus on elements that provide elusive in 2010. Other delegations gave cursory reference to the disarmament decade, such as Cuba’s, which called for a declaration that mobilizes general efforts to face current disarmament challenges.

The implementation of the UN Programme of Action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (UNPoA) also received attention by several delegations. There were several calls for using this existing UN framework more robustly to deal with illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons. Switzerland made particular reference to the link between illegal and uncontrolled trafficking in conventional arms and armed conflict, which in turn leads to a lack of human security and peace. The Swiss delegate explained that the existing disarmament bodies do not seem to be able to find answers to these challenges. According to the Swiss delegation, such ‘deadlocks’ must be addressed, perhaps through a revitalization and re-organization of the UNDC or of the disarmament machinery as a whole.

Despite Switzerland’s disappointment with the current disarmament machinery, there were some positive assessments of the potential of existing UN disarmament structure. The French delegate expressed support for the upcoming Meeting of Governmental Experts in May 2011 on the themes of marking, tracking, and registering of small arms and light weapons as part of implementation of the UNPoA. Russia also declared support for the UN Register of Conventional Arms as the ‘only global instrument of transparency to keep close watch on destabilizing accumulations of conventional arms.’ Liechtenstein identified transparency as one of the most important confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. In this light, reporting to the UN Register was strongly encouraged by Liechtenstein.

The last two days have offered a glimpse into the wide variety of perspectives on disarmament among delegations. Member states are using the opportunity provided by the UNDC to underscore the areas of disarmament they feel most committed to and outline their vision of what the UNDC could and should accomplish. However, as the General Debate comes to a close, the real work begins towards consensus on recommendations to be sent in advance to the First Committee. The three Working Groups must take seriously their deliberations with a view towards clear, practical, and concrete recommendations relevant to the three agenda items, rather than engaging in repetitive musings on general issues of peace and security.

UNDC: The state of deliberate deliberations

Written by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

On April 4, the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) opened its 2011 session under the leadership of Ambassador Hamid al-Bayati of Iraq. The Chairman of the UNDC and the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte offered opening statements for the 2011 session, which is the final session of its three-year issue cycle. High Representative Duarte noted that the UNDC must be utilized as an opportunity to open new possibilitiesfor addressing threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and from conventional weapons rather than merely devolve into a ‘desperate pursuit of security through self-help.’

The programme of work will span three weeks and will be composed of three working groups to deliberate on three specific agenda items: recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, elements on a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade, and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. The General Debate will last through Tuesday evening at which point the item-specific working groups will convene. Discussions today were wide in breadth as delegations covered nuclear and conventional weapons on the whole with references to landmines and cluster munitions, an arms trade treaty, negative security assurances (NSAs), the Fissile Cut-Off Material Treaty (FMCT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs), and small arms and light weapons (SALWs)—among other more general disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control concerns.

Several r egional blocs delivered statements during the first morning session including the European Union (Hungary), the Rio Group (Chile), the Non-Aligned Movement, (Indonesia) and the African Group (Nigeria). In addition, Australia, Senegal, Japan, Brazil, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Algeria, Sweden, Republic of Korea, United States, Montenegro, The Democratic Republic of Korea, Lichtenstein, Russia, China, and Bangladesh offered opinions during the first General Debate of the plenary.

Each delegation, in some capacity, highlighted the nuclear issue and the importance of reaching agreement on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament whether through a focus on strengthening the NPT regime, providing NSAs for non-nuclear states, supporting entry-into-force of the CTBT, or negotiation of an FMCT. Several states, including Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, Tanzania, and Australia explicitly committed themselves to a world free of nuclear weapons. The representative of Kazakhstan underscored the significance of FMCT negotiations and a commitment to NWFZs. The United States also expressed concern over the failure of the FMCT negotiations. China highlighted the special responsibility of states with the largest nuclear arsenals to contribute to nuclear disarmament through reductions. Pakistan, which focused almost exclusively on the nuclear agenda item, expressed concern over what it considers ‘recent negative developments' in the movement towards nuclear disarmament. The Pakistani representative declared that nuclear weapon states do not appear ready to give up nuclear weapons or even take up the issue in multilateral fora. The Pakistani delegation also reiterated that the Conference on Disarmament (CD) is a consensus-based body that provides for the ‘equal security of all states’ and, thus, the right to dissent. The Republic of Korea also focused exclusively on the nuclear agenda item and encouraged the entry-into-force of the CTBT.

Conventional weapons also received attention, albeit less attention than the nuclear issue. Australia commented on the current opportunity to create a legally-binding arms trade treaty (ATT) as well as support for the full implementation of the UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on SALWs. Nigeria, representing the African Group, focused on regulating the illicit movement of arms. Kenya also expressed support for the 2012 Conference on an ATT as well as the negotiations for a NWFZ in the Middle East. The EU gave a detailed statement on the importance of the UNDC in providing adequate attention to conventional weapons through regulation of weapons transfers, the formulation and adoption of an ATT, the full implementation of the UNPoA via support for the upcoming Open-ended Meeting of Governmental Experts (MGE) in May 2011, and the 2012 Review Conference of the UNPoA. Montenegro also expressed strong support for an ATT and next month's MGE.

As the UNDC begins its 2011 substantive session, it is important to understand how it fits into the context of the wider UN system. Due to the complexities of global disarmament, there are multiple tools in the UN disarmament toolbox—the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the First Committee of the General Assembly, Special Sessions on disarmament issues such as Arms Trade, and the Disarmament Commission. The UNDC is part of the disarmament machinery that seeks to address impediments to achieving adequate and practical global disarmament that can provide security assurances to states at the least possible level of armament. However, like the CD in Geneva that has failed to agree on an agenda of work for more than a decade, the UNDC has not been able to provide substantial recommendations on its agenda items since 2000 when it began its work.

Nonetheless, as was pointed out by several delegations, the UNDC is considered the most ‘specialized, deliberative body for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues.’ The United States referred to the UNDC as the ‘deliberative think tank on arms control.’ However, no matter how ‘deliberate’ the discussions on very specific disarmament-related issues, concrete recommendations must be formulated and submitted to the General Assembly for consideration prior to the First Committee in order to make the ‘deliberate’ nature of such negotiations manifest in policy. As the Swedish delegate stated, ‘If the negotiations are not moving us forward through concrete recommendation, they fail to add much value to discussion elsewhere, such as those that take place in the First Committee.’ The Kenya delegate poignantly remarked that the lack of consensus on recommendations at the conclusion of the 2010 UNDC session should not lead to despair, but rather, delegations should take the time and space provided by the UNDC to move forward towards substantive recommendations. With its deliberative nature and universal membership, the DC is an ideal vehicle to formulate recommendations for movement forward on issues of global disarmament.

Follow our updates on Twitter @DisarmDialogues.

Disarmament Commission urged to complete declaration for disarmament decade

Written by Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation and Executive Advisor, Mayors for Peace

Two years into the fourth United Nations Disarmament Decade, 2010–2020, there is still no Declaration for the Decade. At the 2006 session of the UN General Assembly, a resolution entitled, “Declaration of a fourth disarmament decade,” introduced by Sierra Leone, was overwhelmingly adopted by a vote of 123 to one, with 52 abstentions. Only the United States voted no. The resolution recognized “the role that a fourth disarmament decade could play in the mobilization of… global efforts to meet current and emerging challenges in the area of arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation and international security,” and directed the Disarmament Commission at its 2009 session to prepare elements of a draft “Declaration of the 2010s as the Fourth Disarmament Decade” for consideration by the General Assembly later that year.

Following the new US President Barak Obama’s Prague speech, hope was in the air when the Disarmament Commission met in 2009 and the US did not block adoption of its agenda.

Mayors for Peace sent an Open Letter from Capital Cities to the UN Disarmament Commission, signed by the mayors of Amsterdam, Budapest, Berlin, Dar es Salaam, Freetown, Kathmandu, La Paz, London, Luxembourg, Montevideo, Rome, Roseau, and Sarajevo. In their letter, the mayors declared: “In terms of progress on disarmament, the first decade of the new millennium has been a serious disappointment; the world must resolve to do much better in the coming decade. We, therefore, take heart from the United Nation’s plans for an International Decade for Disarmament.”

The mayors requested that, “as you prepare the elements of the Declaration of the Decade… you include the role cities can play in promoting disarmament…. it is our sincere hope that the engagement of local authorities will contribute to the success of this new Decade.”

However, even in the new environment the UNDC was unable to make progress on a Declaration, and the item was carried over to its 2010 session, where agreement could not be reached on a very long draft declaration infested with brackets. It would appear that, frustrated by the lack of progress in other fora, the non-nuclear weapon states attempted to use the drafting process for the Declaration as a substitute mechanism for extracting substantive timebound disarmament commitments from the nuclear weapon states. And, true to form, the nuclear weapon states are not biting.

The 2011 session of the Disarmament Commission—the final session in this three-year cycle—will be the make-or-break point for the fourth United Nations Decade for Disarmament. In the wake of what is widely considered to be a successful 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and under the leadership of a skilled and determined new President, Ambassador Hamid Al Bayati of Iraq, the onus is on the UNDC participants to fulfil in good faith the mandate of the 2006 General Assembly. As the Mayors’ 2009 letter urgently concluded: “[P]lease, take up the task assigned to you by the UN General Assembly in a spirit of unity and with determination to set the world on course for a productive International Decade for Disarmament.”

Mayors worldwide are campaigning for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. What more fitting climax could there be to the fourth Decade for Disarmament?