New Structures Required to Move

Disarmament Forward
By Ms. Keiko Ono
Published: October 14, 2013

Imagine a large convoy trying to navigate with a
compass but no map. Somewhere along the
way, it hits what appears to be a dead end. The
convoy grinds to a halt and the drivers get out
in hopes of reaching a unanimous decision on
which route to take. No ones worried at this
point. They have made it this far after all. How
hard could it be to find consensus on a way
forward?

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the
real-world embodiment of this hypothetical
convoy. Its 65 drivers simply cannot find
consensus on a way forward. And, as a
consequence, the CD is now at a standstill
following decades of collective progress on
disarmament.

So, how did we get to this point? Part of the
blame rests with the self-imposed structural
constraints within the CD. While the universal
and democratic nature of the CDs rules of
procedure is not without merit, it simply is not
working.

Take the alphabetical rotation of the presidency
and the rule of consensus as examples. While
these have been two of the CDs most lauded
features, the rotation of over ninety presidents
(the preceding being Iran, which, was not
without its problems) and the CDs failure to
reach consensus since 1996 have produced
little more than a broken record of rhetoric,
whose raison dtre rests solely on moratorium.

The CDs lack of progress has fueled lots of
criticism. To many, certain CD members have
failed to demonstrate a substantive commitment
to working in good faith to move the
organization forward. This has resulted in the
CD becoming an oblivious island of inactivity.
United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon summed up this criticism in his 2010
address to the UNGA when he bemoaned the
fact that the CD was now at a critical juncture
and risked being doomed to irrelevance without
a general revitalization.

In response to this criticism, the organization
has arguably re-focused on transparency and
confidence building measures among members
over the last three years. Unfortunately, this has
come at the expense of making substantive
progress on universal disarmament. It is no
wonder then that the CDs longstanding
reputation as the single forum of multilateral
negotiations towards disarmament has been
challenged by alternative international forums
that have sprung-up in response to the CDs
well-publicized shortcomings.




Keiko Ono is a 2013 2014 Pacific Young
Leader on Disarmament. She hails from Japan
and is of Papua New Guinean descent.


Horizons
Insights and Analysis from Next
Generation Leaders
Pacific Islands Society | Horizons | October 14, 2013
Pacific Islands Society
PO Box 632 | Ebensburg, PA 15931 | USA
843.271.6891 ph pacificislandssociety.org web
Domestic Non-Profit Organization
The Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) and
the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons are but two examples of how
the international movement for disarmament has
moved beyond the CD. While representatives in
these forums are not mandated to negotiate
treaties, their discussions are fed back into the
CD and other international governmental
organizations. These organizations have proven
more effective and innovative because their
different codes of conduct have allowed for
more open and inclusive discussions.

Granted, there are qualms in not having all
nuclear-armed states always present in these
discussions. However, one should not
understate the impact that these forums could
make in the field of disarmament. As outlined in
one of the papers presented by the New
Agenda Coalition (NAC) to the OEWG, non-
armed states can be authoritative voices on
disarmament. After all, some of these are states
still dealing with the entrenchment of nuclear
arms in non-armed states from wartime
alliances such as NATO. Papers presented to
the OEWG called on these states to lead by
example, by rejecting nuclear weapons from
being stationed on their territories. Civil society
groups have also been adding their voice to the
global disarmament discourse, providing policy
alternatives such as divestment and the
possibility to incorporate greater involvement
from corporate groups through domestic legal
frameworks.

What makes these forums significant is that they
have been borne from a clear commitment to
engage in seeking reforms within an
environment conducive to such discussion that
is not currently offered under the CD.
Furthermore, the wide array of attendees who
actively participated in its actualization is
remarkable. Pacific Island countries (PICs)
need to recognize this, and recognize that our
own vulnerability warrants greater reason to
voice concern and to actively engage in these
discussions as well. Breaking down the CDs
state-centric discourse and its exclusive and
subjective terms of membership to civil states,
is not only necessary, but well overdue.

This is not, of course, to dismiss the CDs past
accomplishments. But one cannot live in the
past. Articulating the CDs many milestones
only illustrates the long lull of inertia that has
characterized the CD since 1996. And, it brings
into question the CDs continued relevance.

To be clear, acknowledging the increasing
irrelevance of the CD does not mean we have
surrendered to the status quo. The CD has not
so much become irrelevant as it has a
reference point, a stepping-stone in our
collective journey towards disarmament.
Political will remains all but latent within the
confines of the CD and the mournful lament
over its absence is a disservice to its growing
persistence elsewhere. Its time to move on and
find new pathways to disarmament. We cannot
afford to rely on the CD as the sole medium of
mobilizing change.

If we are to achieve disarmament in our lifetime,
we must continue to enforce the need to
disarm. We must acknowledge that the will to
do so and the conditions under which it can
happen vary. States and other stakeholders
committed to reaching disarmament must then
be encouraged to create new structures
through which this can be achieved.


The views expressed are those of the author.