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?

The UN Disarmament Commission 2011

Reaching Critical Will and Global Action to Prevent War are monitoring the UNDC this session.

As the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) heads into the final session of its three year cycle, one can’t help but remember the finale to its previous cycle, in 2008. At that time, the UNDC was considering two of the very same agenda items it has been considering in this cycle: recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. It failed to reach agreement on recommendations for either item.

In fact, the UNDC has essentially been considering these two agenda items for the past 11 years—from 2000–2003, the Commission’s agenda was: ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament; and practical confidence-building measures in conventional weapons. In 2004 and 2005, the UNDC was unable to agree on an agenda and did not hold any substantive sessions. But then it resumed considering of these issues in the 2006–2008 cycle and the 2009–2011 cycle, the last of which added a third agenda item, preparing elements for a draft declaration for a Fourth Disarmament Decade.

Why hasn’t the UNDC, after more than a decade of work, been able to produce anything substantial on these items?

Is it related to the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), where delegations have also not engaged in substantive work in more than a decade? It is often said that the CD has de facto replaced the functions of the Disarmament Commission; the CD is now a talk shop rather than a negotiating body, leaving very little for the UNDC to do.

Is it because the agenda items are not specific enough? They are indeed broad enough to incorporate discussion on an infinite range of issues—which often means that everything and nothing is discussed.

Is it the working methods of the Commission? For the last decade the UN disarmament machinery has been criticized for having failed to adapt to the 21st century. Indeed, the Chair of the 2008 session, Ambassador Piet de Klerk of the Netherlands, tried to urge reform of the working methods of the Commission. He suggested inviting experts from specialized agencies, intergovernmental organizations, research institutes, and think-tanks to participate in the UNDC. This plan was rejected then and has still not gained traction throughout the latest cycle.

It is probably a combination of the above three issues that have hampered productive work at the UNDC over the past decade. But it is also due to a reluctance of governments, especially those of the nuclear weapon states, to commit. We saw this at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May 2010, when the nuclear weapon states forcefully excised any timebound commitments to nuclear disarmament from the outcome document. Of course, it should be noted that nothing is binding at the Disarmament Commission. It simply adopts recommendations that are forward to the UN General Assembly, which itself produces non-legally-binding resolutions. Yet some governments don’t seem to like things being put in ink, especially if it suggests that others expect them to do something in the future.

This fear of commitment is a problem not just at the Disarmament Commission—it is even more apparent at the CD, where governments have fought since 1998 to even commit to a programme of work. But it is definitely something that needs to be overcome, and fast. This is the last year in the cycle, the year that the Commission needs to produce something, on paper, that can be delivered to the General Assembly. Failure to do so does not just mark the end of another wasted three years. It marks a failure of good faith and of multilateral diplomacy.

New START: Arms Affirmation Treaty

http://www.fpif.org/articles/start_arms_affirmation_treaty

The New START treaty should at best be called an “arms affirmation treaty,” confirming that expensive weapons systems, which include the nation's nuclear arsenal, remain a national priority. Like the earlier Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, New START insulates nuclear weapons spending, as well as large budgets for other weapons systems.


Thus far, the ratification debate in the U.S. Senate has assured funding for multi-billion-dollar missile defense and prompt global strike weapons systems, and has undermined the possibility of political opposition. Campaign contribution and lobbying disclosure data help explain why corporate contractors, with vested interests, have been able to influence both Republican and Democratic Senators throughout the ratification debate.