ACRONYM NPT Update No. 10A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times
Visions and Divisions28 April 1995 It is reported that the NAM Foreign Ministers Meeting in Bandung has not agreed to support either a secret ballot or the recommendation of extension 'for a period of 25 years with rollover provisions'. The NAM agreed to press for the adoption of 'a genuine and comprehensive disarmament regime' and mechanisms to enhance the review process, but split over the extension decision and secret ballot. There was consensus on the need for fulfilment of the following commitments: CTBT; international legally binding and comprehensive security assurances'; a 'cut-off in the production and the elimination of stockpiling of fissile materials and other nuclear devices for weapons purposes'; 'elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction'; establishment of nuclear weapon free zones; 'unimpeded and non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes'; universality of the Treaty. The NPT Main Committees
have moved from general statements of criticism or
affirmation of compliance with the Articles or preambular
paragraphs, to discussion around text proposed by some of
the States Parties for inclusion in the documents. In
addition to meetings of the three Main Committees and the
Drafting Committee, smaller (and closed) drafting groups
are also considering text on issues such as security
assurances. Main Committee I on disarmament Committee I on disarmament
carried statements from Sweden and Ireland, two of the EU
countries which refused to endorse what had been intended
as the EU position on Article VI. Arguing that
non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament are mutually
reinforcing, Sweden proposed that in line with the NPT's
preamble, the Conference should 'reaffirm that all
nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the face of the
Earth', and back 'further disarmament negotiations' as
part of 'a specific time schedule'. Sweden called for a
CTBT 'before the end of 1995' and a cut-off treaty which
also addressed existing stockpiles. Ireland reiterated
its objectives for this NPT conference, specifically 'the
complete abolition of nuclear weapons and concrete steps
taken to this end', an end to nuclear testing, and 'an
end to the production and stockpiling of materials...for
use in...nuclear weapons.' Italy on the other hand
confirmed that it wholeheartedly supported the EU
statement and also endorsed the US draft language
welcoming 'that the nuclear arms race has ceased [and] is
being reversed'. The US statement also called on 'all
states to support [the CTBT] negotiations and their
conclusion without delay,' a position which is endorsed
by most, although for some 'without delay' means 1995,
while for others it could be 1996. Ambassador Isaac
Ayewah of Nigeria, Chair of Main Committee I, attempted
to force a debate on whether the nuclear arms race had
really ended or 'merely abated'. The position of the US,
Russia, UK and France, contained in the P4 statement of
April 6, is that the arms race has ended. Several
countries, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Egypt,
Algeria and Mexico argued against accepting this
statement in the document. Mexican Ambassador Marin Bosch
suggested that the characteristics of the nuclear arms
race, such as warhead production, be analysed: if it
could be shown that all such characteristic activities
had ceased, the appropriate conclusion could be drawn.
China reiterated its opposition to the doctrine of
nuclear deterrence and claimed that its weapons were
solely for self defence. The debate ended inconclusively. Non-Governmental activities More than 200 NGOs have been represented for all or some of the NPT Conference. In addition to attending open sessions (where possible) and lobbying delegates, the NGOs have organised several conferences, briefings, activities and demonstrations in parallel with the Conference. These have included an International Citizens' Assembly to Stop the Spread of Weapons; the World Court Project on the illegality of nuclear weapons; and a conference of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) on Beyond the NPT. A daily vigil of people committed to fasting for one day or more is taking place opposite the UN. The fasters will be joined during the NPT Conference by citizens from several countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Canada, and Mexico. Daniel Ellsberg, who intends to fast until the end of the Conference, said that his purpose was 'to express with moral urgency a demand for recommitment by NPT members, particularly the nuclear-weapon-states, to the abolition of nuclear weapons and to concrete steps toward that goal.' The need to put the abolition of nuclear weapons on the international agenda was raised in many of the NGO statements made to delegates during a special session today. Some raised the illegality of nuclear weapons, others called for a Convention to ban nuclear weapons, as biological and chemical weapons have been banned. Others addressed themselves to specific issues, such as laboratory and hydronuclear testing, the proliferation dangers of plutonium separation and trade for commercial purposes, safety of nuclear facilities, verification and confidence building. Some statements commented on opportunities or risks directly associated with the present NPT Conference, supporting calls for a timebound framework to achieve nuclear disarmament, or proposals to enhance review and implementation of the NPT in the future. While some argued for energy alternatives to nuclear power, a few NGOs supported the nuclear industry, providing safeguards were strengthened. Note: Italy confirmed today that it supported the April 26 EU statement on Article VI, although its name had been omitted. In reporting on the debate in Committee I on Article I and II (NPT Update #9) referred to the language of Article I as prohibiting the transfer of 'nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'. Ambassador Marin Bosch was not alleging that nuclear weapons as such have been transferred, but that the transfer of nuclear components and technology under the US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement amounted to indirect transfer of devices or control of such devices in breach of Article I. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|