Is it possible to manage progress in Geneva at the Conference on Disarmament?
Authored by Ufuk Güneş
The Conference on Disarmament (CD), -which managed remarkable work by negotiating and approving important instruments like the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT); Biological Weapons Convention (BWC); Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and which is one of the most important and unique forums in its field- has not been able to give life to any new arrangements for over twenty years.
I think the most important reasons behind this negative trend are the overall negative developments in the field of Arms Control and Disarmament which started in the late 90’s and protracted political problems which date years back leading to conflicts of interests.
The negative approach of the Russian Federation in Disarmament field started with Mr Putin’s coming to the power and caused problems for arrangements like the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty; Open Skies Treaty (OST), Vienna Document (VD) and resulted with the loss of Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The overall negative trend since the beginning of 2000’s has also eroded other Disarmament arrangements and instruments.
After Mr Trump took over the Presidency, positive attitude of the US in the field of Disarmament completely changed and during Trump administration, US had adapted a strong position almost similar to Russian approach. The said attitude had resulted with withdrawal of US from the INF Treaty and OST. Thus, Arms Control and Disarmament activities which have great importance for either global or European security architecture have been marginalized and become even to a worse situation.
Naturally, CD has had its part from these negative developments and clashes. There are serious differences of opinions among the regional groups of the CD which has recently 65 members. Even within these Groups- which I think have lost their meanings in today’s conditions, but still being preserved- there are disagreements. Nevertheless, it would not be wrong to say that the best coherency is available among the members of the Group of G21 and they are mostly able to behave in one voice. In this context, I think these grouping structure needs to be reviewed accordingly.
Before moving to 2021, I believe it is useful to touch upon the work of the CD in 2018 and 2019 and partially to 2020 since it was interrupted due to Covid-19 epidemic.
I can say that 2018 and 2019 had been the years that were staged for more negative political approaches from the aspect of the CD Works within my five years’ tenure in Geneva. 2018 had been the year which witnessed the busiest Works in which Turkey was one of the six presidencies. Nevertheless, 2018 was staged for the increase of political struggles and mainly conflicts between the United States and Syria due to the presidency of Syria in this year. In 2018, Turkey took over the sixth and the last presidency which was one of the busiest part of the year. Turkey had performed this task intensively, during its presidency -within the search for agreement- convened many meetings almost breaking a record; gained the appreciation of member countries due to its impartial and mediatory management and efforts.
I think that 2018 and 2019 took their places in the history of the CD Works as the years whereby the US came forward as the game spoiler and interrupted the Works of the Conference because of political reasonings. Additionally, in my opinion at that time US was not in favour of nuclear disarmament and aimed to transform the CD to a forum that cannot work or achieve concrete results.
As I touched upon above, from the perspective of CD Works, 2018 might be accepted as the most intensive and effective year after 1996 in which the latest Programme of Work had been approved. I believe, establishment of five Working Groups and in spite of some disagreements- achievement of putting in positive works in this year- verifies my assumption. During this period the most important trouble was US-Syria clashes due to the Syrian presidency. US protested the Syrian presidency. As a result of this conflict, the Annual Report that CD presents to the UN General Assembly remained at the level of a technical report.
2019 had been yet another year for the CD whereby negative US attempts were increased. The US blocked possible participation of Palestine to activities of the CD as an observer. Israel and with a letter sent afterwards Canada joined US’s blockage. The told US initiative caused the change in Turkish position regarding the request of the Southern Cyprus to participate in the CD Works as an observer. In the same meeting where Palestine was blocked, Turkey registered its reserve concerning the process and in 2020 Turkey did not give its consent for the request for observer status of the Southern Cyprus.
In my opinion, the worst part of 2019, from the aspect of the CD works was the negative position including protests by the US due to Venezuela’s assumption of the presidency. The US was so much persistent on the said position that it tried someone from the Venezuelan opposition to assume the presidency. Except this, the US was persistent on reviewing the CD Rules of Procedures in order to prevent member countries which it called as malign actors to take over the presidency. The US tried to link possible review of the CD RoP with Programme of Work (PoW); thus, I believe, it paved the way for 2019 works of the CD not to be realized and CD to marginalize more. However, the US tried to put the blame on other countries including Turkey. Consequently, 2019 CD Works were conducted in a very unfruitful fashion.
In 2020, CD was only able to work by March when closure started due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Even though, CD was too close to agree on a PoW during the presidencies of Algeria and Argentina, due to the persistency of US on the review of the RoP, the referenced draft PoW- which was prepared by the joint initiative of the six presidencies of the year- could not enjoy consensus.
In 2021 CD could not start its Works in a positive atmosphere. In 2019, if I may call so, after opening of the Pandora’s Box with the refusal of Palestine’s request for observer status by the US, the silent diplomacy on this matter has been changed and Turkey did not give its consent for Southern Cyprus’s request for observer status. Iran, which was silent on this issue ever before, this time at the beginning of 2021 and shortly later on refused the requests for observer status of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrein and Yemen -claiming that these countries were using CD as a platform to accuse Iran. I think, some other countries might be expected in the future to follow this path as well.
Under the prevailing situation and except Biden administration’s coming to the power, there have been no important positive changes in the political atmosphere. Therefore, I see agreement on a PoW in the CD in 2021 as a pretty low possibility. Taking this opportunity, I find useful to voice that extension of New START Treaty might have positive reflections as well. The change in the US attitude towards linking review of the CD Rop with the CD PoW might be accepted as a sign to this. Nevertheless, I do not predict that even these positive developments could cause a PoW to be agreed upon.
The positive steps which have been reversed among the US and North Korea nowadays and tendency of North Korea to proceed its nuclear arms and missile development works are some factors leading my negative evaluation.
Consequently, my answer to the question in the heading of the article which is “could there be any progress at CD in Geneva in the near future” is as followed: Although, I see low possibility for a real PoW over five CD agenda items, I think it is possible for the CD to work as it did in 2018 with established working groups. In any case, if the direction of the negative wind in the field of Arms Control and Disarmament which started at the end of 90’s and the current political atmosphere do not change, then waiting for a reasonable change in the CD would not be meaningful.
Last but not least, unless otherwise current condition does not change, I do not think that joining of new members to the CD would be pragmatic since new members mean new and additional political problems and clashes which would lead the CD to become even more idle. Therefore, I strongly do not believe that trials in this direction could help CD to recover.