ACRONYM NPT Update No. 12A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times
Nuclear Power, Access and Limits2 May 1995 As the Main Committees and working groups focus on specific options put forward by states or groups of states party to the NPT, it is anticipated that a draft review document may be available by the end of the week. This is expected to bring together similar or widely agreed proposals within a coherent text and provide bracketed options where there is significant disagreement. Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the NPT Conference, has also reminded delegations that any proposals on extension under Article X.2 should be submitted no later than 6 p.m. on Friday, 5 May 1995. By the end of the General Debate, over 100 states had supported indefinite extension (not necessarily unconditionally), with 22 explicitly against: of these, seven (Kenya, Indonesia, Myanmar, Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, Thailand and Iran) advocated some form of rolling or 'rollover' extension; Nigeria backed a single extension but wanted to keep open the option of a further renewal, and is now understood to support a rolling extension; Syria suggested that the Conference be recessed to achieve certain goals, including accession by Israel, before the Treaty is made permanent; Egypt also indicated interest in suspending the Conference, but is now backing a rolling extension. Up to 40 states parties remain undecided. Ambassador Dhanapala has
continued to argue for a consensus decision as the
preferred outcome. With continued deadlock between
non-aligned (NAM) states and Western/Eastern European
states over whether the ballot should be secret or open,
which has prevented adoption of rules on the order and
procedure for voting on proposals, his desire for
consensus is reinforced as a way of circumventing a
forced decision on the ballot. Main Committee III (non-military uses) Committee III, covering Article IV's commitment on cooperation for 'peaceful uses of nuclear energy', has been the preferred forum for the raising of objections by Iran and others against export control regimes, such as the Zangger Committee and London Club. The Western and Eastern states, however, have succeeded in having export controls addressed primarily in Committee II, which deals with safeguards. While Committees II and III inevitably cover some of the same ground, there are moves to deal with the crossover issues on a more coherent basis to minimise duplication when drafting text. Committee III, chaired by Ambassador Jaap Ramaker of The Netherlands, has been addressing safety issues; questions of nuclear waste and transport, raised particularly by Pacific nations concerned about radioactive contamination and waste left by nuclear testing, as well as nuclear waste and plutonium shipments between Japan and Europe; technical cooperation and assistance (in relation to the IAEA's programmes as well as between states); constraints and restrictions on technical cooperation and supply. Indonesia, on behalf of the NAM, submitted a working paper on Article IV, referring to 'the significance of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for economic development and its important role in accelerating the growth of developing countries.' The statement argues that the transfer of nuclear technology should not be hindered, and that each country's choices should be respected 'without jeopardizing its policies of international cooperation agreements and contracts for peaceful uses of nuclear energy.' This thinly veiled reference to US pressure on Russia and others to thwart Iran's attempts to expand its nuclear infrastructure was followed by criticism that while some NPT members have been constrained, 'some States Parties to the Treaty continue to co-operate and give assistance in the nuclear field to States not Party to the Treaty, which are known to have acquired the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons.' The NAM statement called for the removal of 'unilaterally enforced restrictive measures, beyond safeguards required under the Treaty', but fell short of endorsing Iran's proposal for a multilateral agency or body of states parties to replace the existing export control regime based on nuclear suppliers (around 30 states). Calling for better assurances of supply, the NAM statement also referred to the 'responsibility' of supplier states 'to promote the legitimate needs of nuclear energy of the States Parties...with preferential treatment rendered to developing ones...' This last interpretation of the Treaty commitments was strongly challenged by the US: while underlining its support for Article IV as a 'central element', the US said that 'states who make the binding non-proliferation commitments in the NPT and provide convincing evidence...should be able to choose their own path for peaceful nuclear development, political structure or political relationships.' However, the US continued, 'Nations which choose to develop nuclear energy...must do so on the basis of sound economics, as well as sound technical and non- proliferation grounds...Parties who decide to get into the business [of nuclear power] must be prepared to bear the very large financial burden...Article IV does not alter the economic or commercial realities of nuclear power.' Several countries, including France, UK and China, have emphasised their wide involvement in nuclear trade and cooperation, while a few states have raised concerns about the proliferation aspects of certain technologies. The trade and stockpiling of plutonium and highly enriched uranium as part of commercial programmes, which had been recently raised in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) by some, including Egypt, Indonesia and Mexico, has barely become an issue. The G11 encouraged states 'not to stockpile such material in excess of normal civil operational requirements for nuclear energy programmes.' Author's Note: The UN Security Council resolution on security assurances (April 11) is of course UNSC 984, not 987 as mysteriously found its way into NPT Update # 11. Sorry. While the author(s) take full responsibility for the writing (and any mistakes therein), the ACRONYM Consortium would like to take this mid-Conference opportunity to thank Nicola Calvert for all her work on producing and distributing the NPT Updates. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|