“New Cooperation in the CD: Doing What Our Times Demand”
Geneva NGO Committee for Disarmament
Presented by Ms. Susi Snyder, President Geneva NGO Committee for Disarmament

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates,

First, I would like to congratulate all members of the CD for the successful adoption of the Programme of Work for 2009, on the 29th of May. In light of this adoption, the NGO Committee for Disarmament is pleased to make a contribution to the work of the CD for the first time in accordance with the decision taken during the 946th plenary on NGO Participation.  We have asked for the floor today to highlight some ways that NGOs are already contributing to the work of the CD especially in regard to the four core issues, to express our joy that the decade of deadlock finally ended and our hope that the current impasse will be overcome so the Conference can start negotiating early next year. 

I’m taking the floor as the President of the Geneva NGO Committee for Disarmament.  The Committee facilitates and supports coordination and cooperation between civil society, NGOs, and the UN on peace and disarmament initiatives. For over thirty-five years, the NGO Committee for Disarmament has played an important role in raising awareness in civil society and among NGOs worldwide on the status of negotiations, country positions, major obstacles and opportunities, and has helped NGOs to transmit their expertise and creative proposals to the appropriate decision-making fora. The committee is currently comprised of NGOs, both in Geneva and beyond who work on issues of peace and security.  We are one of the substantive committees of the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN (CONGO). 

The world reacted positively to the news of the adoption of the Programme of Work. Heads of State, major news outlets and civil society around the globe expressed the hope that soon the CD would again be what it was designed to be: the sole permanent multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. The sixty-five members of this body have been given the right to keep their national security interests paramount during disarmament negotiations.  However, as the CD is not a universal body, the members also bear the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of all member states, for the security of the world. As the Conference revitalizes its work, the interest and energy of civil society to engage will continue to increase.  

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said in Davos this year that "Our times demand a new definition of leadership - global leadership. They demand a new constellation of international cooperation - governments, civil society and the private sector, working together for a collective global good."  This presentation is meant to serve as a demonstration of ways that this new “constellation of international cooperation” can further our shared goals.  We are not starting with empty hands as the CD begins negotiations.   The foundations for this cooperation have already been laid for negotiating a fissile materials treaty and engaging in substantive discussions around negative security assurances, the prevention of an arms race in outer space and nuclear disarmament.

A Fissile Materials Treaty

A fissile materials treaty has been recognized for a long time as the next logical step. When the decade of deadlock was broken on 29 May, not a single delegation objected to this negotiation as the next step towards nuclear disarmament.

The documents that have been submitted by governments to the Conference in relation to this potential treaty have been compiled on the UNOG website.  This is an excellent resource and we’d like to thank the secretariat for putting this together.  It is unfortunate however that the civil society contributions towards this work, including model treaties submitted to the secretariat for circulation to the conference have not been included.  If they were, you would find a model treaty created by the International Panel on Fissile Materials as well as one drafted by Greenpeace International .  While these may not be agreeable to all states, and are likely not ready for adoption as they are, they are demonstrable contributions from civil society towards furthering the efforts in this chamber.

Not only has civil society contributed by submitting model treaties, but there have been a series of seminars this year on this agreed next step towards nuclear disarmament.  To briefly refresh your memory, on 25 May, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) held an intensive day long discussion on technological advances towards verifying a fissile materials treaty.  Additionally, the International Panel on Fissile Materials delivered a series of presentations in this very chamber just a few weeks ago on 7 August.

This demonstration of civil society support for the efforts that go on in this room illustrate both how much the world is relying on the Conference and how ready we are to contribute with new ideas and out of the box thinking.

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space 

While negotiations on fissile materials have been identified as the next logical step towards nuclear disarmament, the long and difficult journey toward taking this step teaches a critical lesson.  Re-capturing an old nuclear genie like fissile materials and forcing it back into its ‘bottle’ is difficult and dangerous. It is much easier, safer and wiser to prevent new nuclear genies from getting out of the bottle in the first place.  Preventing the weaponisation of space is a case in point.  Doing what needs to be done now is much smarter than letting this issue get out of control so we have to clean up another mess later.  To let space weapons develop and proliferate is to repeat the dangerous pattern of nuclear history.  As the representative from Bangladesh said on 3 February “Outer space is the common heritage of humankind. It must be used for peaceful purposes only. The CD must take on the issue of adopting an international instrument for averting the weaponisation of space.”

The role of the private sector in particular needs to be thoroughly examined and an internationally legally binding instrument is the only way to guarantee the protection of both private and national space assets. 

Imagine for a moment two competing satellite companies, both having an increasing market share and seeking ways to dominate the market, to dominate space.  To do this, they realise that they can easily knock their competitors out of orbit, they can use either earth based or space based weapons to do it, and they do.  The resultant debris then pushes countless weather satellites out of orbit, as a result early warning signs for horrific weather conditions are not received and countless people lose their lives and livelihoods.  With the conclusion of a treaty preventing the weaponisation of space, this scenario can be avoided.  Only when this treaty considers the varying obligations and needs of both space-faring nations and the corporations operating in space will it truly protect space for all.

Earlier today, Ambassador Grinius introduced the report from this year’s UNIDIR Seminar.  These annual space seminars are a substantive and solid contribution towards the protection of space.  There other civil society proposals towards new space treaties that differ from the Chinese and Russian proposed PPWT.  These include, but are not limited to:

1. A Treaty Banning Space Debris-Creating Weapons.  Such a treaty, while not completely barring ASATs or space weapons, would make a very useful contribution towards addressing some of the most egregious negative repercussions of space weapons; and might open the way for the militaries of space-faring powers to pursue space control missions in a 'controlled' manner that would protect civil assets even during wartime.  This idea was put forward by Ms. Theresa Hitchens in "Safeguarding Space: Building Cooperative Norms to Dampen Negative Trends," Disarmament Diplomacy 81 (Winter 2005)

2. Treaty on Common Security in Outer Space (CSO-Treaty).  The basis for this treaty comes from the work of Dr. Detlev Wolter, and was elaborated at a joint conference held by Russia, China, UN Institute for Disarmament Research, and The Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research in March 2005.

3. Space Preservation Treaty.  The Space Preservation Treaty is a proposal developed for the international community by the Institute for Cooperation in Space. Drawing upon resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and various aspects of the Outer Space Treaty, it calls for the banning of space-based weapons in order to maintain the peaceful use of outer space for the benefit of all countries. This treaty would seem in effect to ban all weapons designed to damage orbiting satellites, not merely prohibiting the deployment of weapons in space. Also, it calls for an end to research and development of space-based weapon systems. 

The role both of NGOs and of the space industry, in the discussions of the prevention of the weaponisation of space cannot be emphasised enough.  NGOs have provided independent information, analysis and expertise on space security issues. The industry is already operating in a multilateral way, and is decreasingly attached to individual governments.  In space there are many constellations and never has it been more evident that we must develop the constellation of cooperation the Secretary General talked about.

Negative Security Assurances
The right to not be attacked by a nuclear weapon, especially if you have honestly and in good faith decided not to make such weapons, is a relatively straightforward demand.  However, the issue of legally binding negative security assurances has not been so easily dealt with.  Part of the challenge has been the reliance on nuclear weapons in national security strategies, and in the security strategies of cold war alliances, like NATO.  Another part of the challenge are the rarely discussed positive security assurances that some states are offered.

When examining this debate the framework itself should be questioned.  Dr. Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute did this most clearly in Issue #90 of Disarmament Diplomacy, published earlier this year. 

Dr. Johnson noted in her article “Towards 2010 and Beyond, Security Assurances for Everyone: A New Approach to Deterring the Use of Nuclear Weapons ” that “[t]he problem with the traditional approaches on security assurances is that they … still treat the five NPT-recognized NWS as both primary threat and primary source of assistance.” She goes on to say that the step “that should now be pursued by everyone - is to recognize in law the widely accepted fact that any use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity.”   This could be built up by unilateral declarations by courageous leaders, and then codified through possible Security Council action or modification of the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. 

The approach advocated by Dr. Johnson goes further than UNSCRs 255 and 984. This approach helps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national and regional security strategies.  If using nuclear weapons is not only morally reprehensible, but also illegal, then there is also an opportunity to hold suppliers and traffickers to account as well as governments and state and non-state leaders if they are ever used.  As the nuclear posture of the United States is currently under review, and the security strategy of NATO is also being reviewed, the time is ripe to devalue nuclear weapons in every security strategy.  Making their use illegal would have a multiplier effect in this regard. 

A colleague recently said “it’s time to close up the nuclear umbrella and let the sun shine in”.  Making the use of nuclear weapons illegal reduces their credibility as a deterrent and goes a long way to assure states that do not have these weapons that they will be safe from a nuclear nightmare. 

Nuclear Disarmament

NGOs and other members of civil society have been advocating for nuclear disarmament ever since the first nuclear weapon was exploded over Alamogordo, New Mexico in July 1945.   Countless presentations, seminars and side events are organised in the margins of each NPT Preparatory Committee and Review Conference Meeting.  Dozens of seminars and discussions at different levels on ways to engage both governments and other actors, including the media,  with a view to creating a world free of nuclear weapons take place every year.   

One of the most substantive contributions from the civil society sector on this issue in recent years has been the release of “Securing our Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention”.  In his five point plan for nuclear disarmament, the UN Secretary General recognized that nuclear weapons states could pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament “by agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments.  Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear-weapons convention”.  This is not a new idea in this Chamber.  On 12 February of this year Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21 said the G21 “reaffirms its readiness to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention.”  On 8 May 2009, a reference to such a convention made an appearance in Chairman Chidyausiku’s masterful first draft of the NPT Preparatory Committee’s final document. It did not survive the weekend but few will forget it was there.  On 29 May, after the adoption of the programme of work, India noted that on “26 September 2008, our Prime Minister reiterated India’s proposal for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for banning the production, development, stock piling and use of nuclear weapons and to provide for their complete elimination within a specified time frame.”

The NGO and academic communities are ready, willing and eager to support these negotiations and indeed all disarmament negotiations.  We recognize that the CD has finally managed to dig itself out of a deep rut.  We applaud the fact that it is back on firm ground again.  But, like a car negotiating a rough road, it’s easy for the CD to slip back into the rut again.   This year, after many years, you have managed to climb out. We implore you to stick to solid ground and get on with the work.  Cooperation is solid ground.  Cooperation is where you can avoid bargaining over positions, as positions are not negotiable, but rather focus on interests, which define the problem.  Progress there is possible, even normal.  As the Secretary General urged us, "Our times demand…a new constellation of cooperation – between governments, civil society and the private sector.”  We urge you to move swiftly to adopt a programme of work in 2010 so that negotiations in this chamber can begin in earnest.  Let’s let a year of cooperation reverse a decade of deadlock.

Thank you.

The NGO Committee for Disarmament (Geneva)
and its member organisations.

The NGO Committee for Disarmament facilitates and supports coordination and cooperation between civil society, NGOs, and the UN on peace and disarmament initiatives. For over thirty-five years, the NGO Committee for Disarmament has played a crucial and expanding role in raising awareness in civil society and among NGOs worldwide on the status of negotiations, country positions, major obstacles and opportunities, and has helped NGOs transmit their expertise and creative proposals to appropriate decision-making fora. The committee is currently comprised of fifteen dues paying NGOs, both in Geneva and not in Geneva who work on issues of peace and security.  We are one of the substantive committees of the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO).  The majority of dues paying committee members are ECOSOC accredited organisations, but the committee is open to all organisations who wish to further the cause disarmament.

Currently, the committee consists of the following dues paying members:

Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organisation (AAPsO)
Website: http://www.aapsorg.org/site/docs/index.htm

Fondation GIPRI
Website: http://www.gipri.ch/spip/

International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR)
Website: http://www.ifor.org

International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
Website: http://www.inesglobal.com/ines-home.phtml

International Youth and Student Movement for the UN
Website: http://www.ismun.net/

International Peace Bureau (IPB)
Website: http://ipb.org/i/index.html

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Website: http://www.ippnw.org/

IPPNW Switzerland
Website: http://www.ippnw.ch/

Physicians for Social Responsibility PSR/IPPNW
Website: http://www.psr.org/

Quaker United Nations Office
Website: http://www.quno.org/

Rissho Kosei-kai
Website: http://www.rk-world.org/

Servas International
Website: http://joomla.servas.org/

Soka Gakkai International
Website: http://www.sgi.org/

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
Website:  http://www.WILPF.ch

World Council of Churches
Website: http://www.oikoumene.org/

World Veterans Federation
Website: http://www.wvf-fmac.org/