Robert in den Bosch has been the Kingdom of the Netherlands’ Disarmament Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament since 1 September 2022. He also heads the Dutch delegation to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in New York and represents Dutch interests with respect to various arms treaties, in Geneva and elsewhere.

What are your responsibilities as Disarmament Ambassador?
‘My team and I make up the Netherlands’ disarmament delegation in Geneva. I am responsible for our efforts on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation in a range of forums around the world.’

How is the disarmament community organised?
‘Our work has two facets. For one thing, we represent the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference consists of 65 UN member states: the five nuclear weapons states and 60 other states of military significance. The Conference on Disarmament was recognised by the Tenth Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. It and its predecessors have negotiated major arms limitation and disarmament agreements. You might have heard of some of them: the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We should now be conducting negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, but for the past 30 years the parties involved have failed to reach agreement on starting these negotiations. The current geopolitical climate isn’t making things any easier. Even so, the Conference on Disarmament still has an important role regarding arms control issues, as a deliberative body of 65 militarily significant states.

‘Besides this, we also represent the Netherlands at many other disarmament gatherings such as with regard to landmines and cluster munitions, which cause many (and mainly civilian) casualties. I’m head of the Dutch delegation to meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We also discuss issues related to small arms and light weapons, which certainly shouldn’t be underestimated.
The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, has said on many occasions that small arms and light weapons are in fact weapons of mass destruction, and she’s right, since they cause untold casualties year in and year out. In addition to these topics, we also work on relatively new areas of arms control such as how to deal with threats and challenges in cyberspace, how to reduce space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviour, and the issue of regulating lethal autonomous weapons.
Last but not least, the Disarmament Ambassador also heads the Dutch delegation to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in New York. The First Committee deals with disarmament and global challenges and threats to peace. In contrast to the Conference on Disarmament, the First Committee brings together all UN member states to discuss and ultimately vote on 60 to 70 resolutions every year. All in all, it’s a broad field of responsibility.’

What made you want to be Disarmament Ambassador?
‘It’s a great new challenge following my previous work as the Dutch Defence Counsellor at NATO and as head of NATO affairs at the Ministry of Defence. Both of those jobs focused on deterrence and defence, whereas now I’m working from a different perspective, namely diplomatic negotiations as a way of achieving peace, security and stability. Arms control doesn’t exactly have the wind in its sails at the moment, but that just makes our work all the more urgent. As NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said recently: ‘Arms control agreements are not made between friends. They are made between adversaries.’ And that’s what we work on every day here in Geneva. We do work with good friends, but also with representatives of countries that we find it harder to agree with.’

What is a typical day like? 
‘No two days are alike here. The disarmament team has only limited influence on its schedule. The Conference on Disarmament meets for 24 weeks each year, which means that part of our work is planned in advance for the period from January to September. Work relating to all of the arms control treaties is planned around that, and various informal consultations go on all the time. It can be quite hard to organise our schedules so that we can attend meetings on priority topics. But things always come together in the end, thanks to our fantastic management assistant, and we’re lucky to regularly have a trainee or intern on hand.’

‘But if I had to describe a typical day, I’d say I generally arrive at the office around 8.00 to read documents, emails and other messages. At 9.00 there’s usually a preliminary discussion in the context of the EU or the broader Western Group before the day’s meetings get started. Meetings are from 10.00 to 13.00 and 15.00 to 18.00, often with a working lunch in between, and they’re regularly followed by formal and informal engagements in the evening. Days are often even busier and longer during the UN General Assembly in New York in September, when we carry on into the weekend so we can keep up with developments in Geneva. The work couldn’t be more interesting or useful, but it does take a lot of time and energy. When someone in my team recently became a father, there were five weeks during the First Committee in of the UN General Assembly when he only got to see his daughter during video calls.’ 

Does the Dutch representation carry enough weight to exert influence?
‘Yes, absolutely. You might not think so, since our team is relatively small. But the Netherlands is one of the 12 countries with a dedicated Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament/Disarmament Ambassador. My other counterparts do double duty by also serving as Permanent Representatives to the UN institutions and other international bodies in Geneva. Plenty of countries look to me and my 11 fellow Disarmament Ambassadors to get things done, for example when we need to organise meetings or chair committees. Our position also affords us opportunities to put new topics on the agenda, such as autonomous weapons systems, cyber threats, drones and security in outer space. I was recently asked to chair the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems for the coming years. This is a top-priority topic for the Netherlands, and it’s a big honour for me.’

Do discussions ever get heated?
‘We talk about issues that concern peace and security, and about international humanitarian law, which applies to conflict situations, for instance. And when you’re working hard to get results, people do take a stand to defend their views. So yes, things certainly get heated from time to time. But we don’t give in easily, either. Recently, we continued our negotiations well beyond regular hours that the sound system stopped working because the sound technician had gone home, the lights in the rest of the building were switched off and the presentation screen automatically started to retract. We quickly took pictures of the screen with our phones so we could continue our negotiations on a proposal and approve next year’s mandate for the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. 

What does the Netherlands want to achieve in terms of disarmament?
‘The Netherlands has traditionally pressed for multilateral cooperation and the promotion of the rules based international order. Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. It poses a serious threat to global security and the rules-based international order. In addressing Russia’s invasion, we must also reflect on the broader implications for international cooperation. It’s imperative that we find ways to continue to discuss arms control measures, ensure strategic stability and address new challenges, like those arising from artificial intelligence.

‘The Netherlands is also committed to upholding humanitarian treaties like the Ottawa Treaty, or Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which prohibits the production, sale, storage and use of anti-personnel mines anywhere in the world. And the Convention on Cluster Munitions, of course. Unfortunately, many key countries have not yet become party to these treaties. And as a result, these weapons are still being deployed in armed conflicts, like in the war in Ukraine, for example, and causing significant casualties, mainly among civilians.’

Tell us about a recent result that you and your team were happy about.
‘The Netherlands and France are working to develop international agreements that promote a free, open and accessible internet. This has resulted in broad support in the First Committee in New York for a resolution on a Programme of Action to advance responsible state behaviour in the use of information and communications technologies in the context of international security. And the Netherlands and Canada issued a proposal last year for a working group to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention. In times of rapid scientific and technological advances in the life sciences, it’s important to strengthen the Convention and its implementation, including by developing measures on compliance and verification. The Netherlands and Mexico are currently facilitating talks on this very complex subject. This is exactly where attempts to establish an organisation for the prohibition of biological weapons (similar to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) broke down 20 years ago.’

What major challenges do we face today regarding disarmament?
‘Geopolitical relations are at an all-time low. That’s very evident during meetings, for example the recent meeting of the First Committee in New York. And it’s concerning. But we must find a way to work things out together. My team and I always look for any opening to get the Netherlands’ position across, and to work with partners on peace and security in a world where security and stability are under pressure. Finally, we are committed to involving representatives from civil society in our discussions. And that’s not always easy, since not all delegations agree on the need for this.’