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.

WILPF Statement on the UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals

With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20–22 September to accelerate progress towards the MDGs. The 2010 MDG Report, produced by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, notes that “unmet commitments, inadequate resources, lack of focus and accountability, and insufficient dedication to sustainable development have created shortfalls in many areas.” Some of these shortfalls, the report explains, were aggravated by the global food, climate, economic, and financial crises as well as armed conflict. The report estimates that poverty rates will continue to increase throughout the world as a result of the persisting global economic crisis.

However, upon releasing its 2010 Yearbook, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted, “The financial crisis and economic recession that have affected most of the globe appeared to have little effect on levels of military expenditure, arms production or arms transfers.” In 2009, worldwide military expenditure totaled an estimated 1531 billion USD, which is an increase of 5.9% in real terms compared to 2008 and an increase of 49% since 2000. Of those countries for which data was available, 65% increased their military spending in real terms in 2009.

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom emphasizes the links between military expenditure, the arms trade, violent conflict, and the reduction of available resources for social and economic development. Governments that spend excessive financial, technological, and human resources on their militaries divert resources from economic, social, and environmental programmes. The military-industrial-academic complex—composed of a state’s armed forces, the government, suppliers of weapons systems and services (corporations), and academic institutions that conduct research on weapon systems and designs—absorbs vast amounts of funding that could otherwise be spent on human security, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Furthermore, funds reserved for development initiatives are increasingly spent on emergency relief and rehabilitation operations to clean up after violent conflict.

While military expenditures increase every year, investment in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and development lags far behind. As SIPRI notes in the release of its 2010 Yearbook, while the financial crisis did not seem to affect military spending, it “probably did undermine the willingness and ability of major governments and multilateral institutions to invest other, non-military resources to address the challenges and instabilities that threaten societies and individuals around the world.”

Since the end of the Cold War, militarism has been growing in response to an increasingly unstable world, propelling the world even further into tension and war. Armed conflict—and the constant threat of war or terrorism—has become both the cause of and response to this growing militarism. War and the threat of war destroy lives, infrastructure, and well-being, creating a culture of fear, violence, and instability. This impedes development by upsetting social programmes, education, transportation, business, and tourism, which prevents economic stability, mental well-being, and sustainable livelihoods. The manufacture and use of weapons also prevents sustainable ecological development and preservation, creating unequal access to resources and further impeding poverty reduction initiatives.

The continued investment in militarism does not make the world safer. Weapons cannot address the main threats people all over the world are facing today, such as natural disasters, increased food prices, and lack of adequate health care, education, and a clean environment. Yet these threats are aggravating arms races and weapons development. SIPRI has warned that growing competition for natural resources “may lead to increased military spending as a means of protecting resources from internal or external threats, while resource revenues are often a source of funding for arms purchases.” Therefore, in the context of the 2010 UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals, WILPF urges UN member states and civil society to consider, what would you rather pay for:

One year of the world’s military spending, or over 24 years of the additional foreign aid required to reach the MDGs by 2015?

One year of the world’s military spending, or 700 years of the UN regular budget?

One year of the world’s military spending, or 2928 years of the new UN women’s agency?

Article 26 of the UN Charter mandates the UN Security Council with formulating a plan to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources. The Security Council has entirely neglected this responsibility and its permanent members have instead engaged in weapons profiteering and arms races, resulting in crises of international, national, and human security and of sustainable development.

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom calls on all governments to:

• reduce military spending and redirect that expenditure to meet human and environmental needs, including fulfilling the MDGs;

• report on military spending and arms trade through the established UN mechanisms;

• support a robust legally-binding arms trade treaty that prevents arms transfers where there is a risk of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and that acknowledges the impact of the arms trade on socio-economic development; and

• call on the UN Security Council to report on progress made towards a plan to reduce the human and economic resources spent on armaments and indicate an intention to evaluate the Security Council’s performance and initiatives towards advancing article 26 in the next General Assembly session.

WILPF also calls on civil society to push their governments to meet these goals and to make the reduction of militarism a global norm by reframing the concept of security with a premium on universal human and ecological security, multilateralism, and a commitment to cooperative, nonviolent means of conflict resolution. We urge all governments present in New York this week to commit to making their MDG policies and strategies consistent with their obligations under Article 26 of the UN Charter and to remember that establishing peace and security for all humans is not separate from actions to fight poverty—it is central to these efforts.

Resources and further reading

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, United Nations, New York, 2010.
“Media Background—Military expenditure,” SIPRI Yearbook 2010, 2 June 2010.
“You get what you pay for!” Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2009.

Sequel?

Over-arching themes presented in Countdown to Zero bear little difference from those in the 2004 film Team America: World Police. The major difference appears to be that the producers of CTZ didn't understand the sardonic nature of Team America's presentation. Instead CTZ has run full steam ahead with an Islamophobic and reactionary film that demonizes North Korea, Iran, and others, while mostly extolling the US as a responsible nation, the fount of progress.

Check out these two clips. Note symbols and imagery used to depict Muslims and non-European peoples in each? [double click on the links to view in new window, full size.]