ACRONYM NPT Update No. 1A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times The Intersessionals: No Agreement Yet on Rule 2817 April 1995 About 60 States Parties of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) took part in intersessional negotiations in New York, April 14 and 15, to try to finalise the rules of procedure for the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, which opens April 17. After two days, the intersessional negotiations, chaired by Antti Sierla of Finland, had still failed to agree on rule 28 (3), which governs the extension decision. The meeting will reconvene at 10.00 am on Monday, with the hope of achieving consensus before the NPT Conference itself opens at 3.00 pm. The major issue of contention is whether the ballot should be open or secret. The Western and Eastern Groups proposed a roll-call vote, arguing that an open ballot is essential for accountability. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) (of whom about one third attended the intersessional meeting) want the vote to be secret, to protect states and their representatives from undue pressure. They cite the 'strong arm' tactics which, they say, representatives of the United States, France, Russia, Japan and others have been exerting on non-aligned governments to win their votes for indefinite unconditional extension of the Treaty, and say that they are afraid that pressure would intensify unless voting was confidential. A compromise suggestion, that if several ballots are required, only the final vote determining the extension would be made public, is being seriously considered by both sides. Two other issues are outstanding: the date at which voting on extension should begin; and whether to begin eliminating the proposal with fewest votes after the first or second ballots. The current proposal would have all proposals submitted by Friday May 5. If consensus has not been reached, there would be a 48 hour deferment. The Western Group wants the first vote to be taken no later than Monday May 8. The NAM wants voting to begin by Wednesday May 10. The Western Group fears that the Conference could run out of time if successive votes are to be taken, each with a period of consultation. May 9 has been suggested as a compromise! If no proposal gets an overall majority on the first vote, the NAM wants the proposal with fewest votes to be eliminated prior to the next round of voting. The Western and Eastern Groups want the first two votes to be taken with the same range of proposals. Although expressing confidence that the Treaty will be indefinitely extended by an overwhelming majority, they want to hedge their bets on an alternative, such as a rolling extension of 25 year successive periods. However, since the advocates of indefinite extension would not vote for a rolling extension on the first ballot, they want to ensure that this option is not eliminated after the first round. If the intersessional
meeting fails to agree on the procedures for taking the
extension decision, the NPT Conference has two choices:
to delay opening until the rules of procedure are agreed;
or to agree all the other rules, which were finalised at
the fourth Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) in January,
and leave the decision on rule 28 to the President to
determine with further consultations. Since Monday's
opening is due to be addressed by Warren Christopher,
Boutros Boutros Ghali, and other such luminaries, and
since the financing of the Conference depends on adoption
of the rules, it is expected that most if not all
delegations would opt for the latter. Issues The days before the opening of the NPT Conference have seen a flurry of activity on issues relating to Article VI of the NPT on ending the arms race and nuclear disarmament. The Geneva based Conference on Disarmament (CD) agreed a fissile cut-off mandate on March 23; on April 6 France, Russia, the UK and US issued a four-power statement on non-proliferation, calling for indefinite extension of the NPT, welcoming 'the fact that the nuclear arms race has ceased' and reaffirming 'commitment, as stated in Article VI, to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, which remains our ultimate goal'; the four power statement also called for a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) to be concluded 'without delay'; on April 7, the UK and France withdrew their widely condemned proposal for nuclear testing in exceptional circumstances, clearing the way for agreement on a CTBT scope. At the April 6 plenary, each of the P5 nuclear weapon states gave individual statements on negative security assurances: on April 11, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted the updated positive security assurances provided in a common statement from China, France, Russia, UK and US (SC/6013), despite strong condemnation from several non-aligned states, which complained that the assurances were not comprehensive or legally binding, and did not go far enough. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|