|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
CD: Five-Country Initiative Seeks to Break CD Deadlock By Jim Wurst Since it completed negotiations to draft the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, the Geneva-based conference, the only permanent body with the mandate to negotiate disarmament treaties, has failed to even agree on a program of work. Some countries have placed greater emphasis on one issue over another, and some have wanted to deal with each issue in isolation while others have sought a linkage (see GSN, March 27). The new initiative seeks to overcome this problem by dealing with four issues on parallel tracks. In previous years, the CD has focused on only one issue at a time. The “five ambassadors” plan would set up ad hoc committees on nuclear disarmament; banning production of weapon-grade fissile materials; preventing an arms race in space, or PAROS; and negative security assurances, or guarantees not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Algerian Ambassador Mohamed Salah Dembri presented the plan Friday. Speaking also for Belgium, Colombia, Chile and Sweden, he said he and his colleagues feel the negative security assurances issue is “ripe for immediate agreement,” while there is “general agreement” on committees on fissile materials and nuclear disarmament. The major obstacle is over the space arms race issue, Dembri said. “We have put together something that will evolve over time and in the end will bring us to formulas that are most appropriate for all of us,” he told the conference. Belgian Ambassador Jean Lint said the “real problem” on the space issue “is public, it is not hidden.” Lint told Global Security Newswire Aug. 22 that Russia and China have circulated a paper recommending elements for a new treaty on the peaceful uses of outer space “because they find the [existing] treaty is not good enough.” On the other hand, the United States “thinks that that treaty is enough and that there is no need for negotiations on another legal instrument.” Although the 1967 Outer Space Treaty commits states “not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction,” governmental and outside supporters of an updated regime say something new is needed to block U.S. plans to place weapons in space. A statement by the Group of 21 developing countries to the conference this year called the treaty “inadequate to deter imminent attempts for the further militarization of outer space.” “Nonpaper” Sets Out Committees’ Work The ambassadors’ “nonpaper” spells out in general terms what each committee would do. For negative security assurances and fissile materials, the initiative calls for negotiations, while the nuclear disarmament committee would “exchange information and views on practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to attain this objective, and in doing so shall examine approaches towards potential future work of a multilateral character.” The PAROS paragraph is more complicated. “The ad hoc committee shall identify and examine, without limitation and without prejudice, any specific topics or proposals, which could include confidence-building or transparency measures, general principles, treaty commitments and the elaboration of a regime capable of preventing an arms race in outer space. In doing so, the ad hoc committee shall take appropriate account of the need to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race there, while also promoting international stability and respecting the principle of undiminished security for all.” “We have tried to go as far as possible on PAROS mandate with text that is good enough for the Chinese and the Russians and which is not too much for the Americans,” Lint said. After Dembri’s presentation, U.S. Ambassador Eric Javits “welcomed” the proposal, but said he was not in a position to make any commitment based on the initiative. Chinese Ambassador Hu Xiaodi, while not commenting on the “five ambassadors” plan, introduced a revised proposal for PAROS negotiations. Javits said China’s proposal was still unacceptable to the United States, saying Washington could never agree to a mandate that prejudged where PAROS discussions would lead. Austrian, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, Spanish and Swiss representatives praised the initiative at the Sept. 3 conference meeting. “Nonpaper” Strategy Lint said the ambassadors’ strategy to present the plan as a “nonpaper,” without any official status, was aimed at avoiding the conference consensus requirement. If the ambassadors had tried to get it recognized as an official document, any country could have blocked it, as the conference acts by consensus. This way, “it will not be an official document of the CD, but it will be presented officially,” he said, meaning it now goes into the conference’s annual report, and so will be covered when the General Assembly adopts a resolution on the conference this fall. “Once you have the approval of the General Assembly, that recommendation … becomes a kind of mandate,” said Lint. The next step could be that the conference could use the initiative as the basis for its work when it reconvenes in January, he added. The 2002 conference is to conclude Sept. 13. Besides the five ad hoc committees, the plan calls for three special coordinators on other areas “who are only there to seek the views of the states, to see what we can do in those fields,” rather than begin negotiations, Lint said. Topics include radiological weapons, including “dirty bombs,” and two areas involving conventional weapons — “transparency in armaments” and a “comprehensive program of disarmament.” Dembri was optimistic that these three coordinators would be approved by the conference. For further information, see: States Parties to the CTBT (Federation of American Scientists)
| ||||||||||
Back to top
