ACRONYM NPT Update No. 13A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times
Proposals on Extension and Nuclear Disarmament3 May 1995 More than half way through
the NPT Conference, Main Committee II has agreed '75
percent' of its report on safeguards, Main Committee III
has consensus on substantial areas of its report on the
non-military uses of nuclear energy, while Main Committee
I on disarmament is deeply divided. Mexico has now
submitted a draft resolution, based on its annex
proposal, to link the extension decision with a
strengthened review process and a programme of
disarmament measures, including a comprehensive test ban
treaty (CTBT), fissile cut-off, legally binding security
assurances and cessation of all production of nuclear
weapons. A proposal by a group of Bandung states,
including Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Myanmar
and Malaysia is being circulated with the view to gaining
wider support. This advocates a 25 year rolling
extension, with successive periods following
automatically. It is reported that the resolution
circulated by Canada, that 'the Treaty shall remain in
force indefinitely' has not yet reached its target
majority of 90 states signing on as co-sponsors. Several
delegations which have publicly supported indefinite
extension are hanging back to avoid pre-empting the
review negotiations. The Mexican Resolution The Mexican draft
(NPT/CONF.1995/L.1) contains introductory paragraphs on
nuclear weapons as 'the greatest threat to...the survival
of civilization', on the need to maintain the validity of
the NPT 'as a vital instrument', with a balance of mutual
responsibilities and obligations for nuclear-weapon and
non-nuclear-weapon states, universalisation of the Treaty and its goal of eliminating nuclear
weapons. Continuing to avoid stating its extension
preference, Mexico follows the paragraph on extending the
Treaty (left blank) with a further decision on retaining
the five-yearly reviews with a means (unspecified) of
negotiating on certain issues between the review
conferences. The resolution urges, between now and the
first review in the year 2000: that a CTBT be concluded
no later than 1996; negotiations on a fissile cut-off
'including possible consideration' of stockpiles, and on
'binding international arrangements' on security
assurances to non- nuclear-weapon states. It then 'calls
upon the nuclear-weapon states...to cease all production
of nuclear weapons and to redouble their efforts to
reduce their respective arsenals still further, with a
view to their total elimination.' The resolution is
couched in language similar to that which has been
proposed by a number of Western states as well as the
common approach outlined in the NAM document submitted to
the third PrepCom (NPT/CONF.1995/PC.III/13). It is not
clear whether Mexico intends to circulate this resolution
to gain signatures and co-sponsors in advance of
submission to the President, Ambassador Dhanapala of Sri
Lanka. The Bandung Seven Proposal A proposal circulated by
seven non-aligned states, which had attempted to get
agreement along these lines at the NAM Foreign Ministers'
Meeting in Bandung last week, is also expected to be
submitted as a resolution. This advocates extension by
'rolling fixed periods of 25 years', with one period
following the next 'unless the majority of the Parties to
the Treaty decides otherwise'. It establishes
continuation of the five yearly review conferences, which
should 'identify specific objectives to be achieved...and
make concrete recommendations...' on implementing the
purposes, obligations and commitments in the Treaty. In
an explanatory memorandum attached to the present draft,
the co-sponsors argue that neither a single fixed period
nor indefinite and unconditional extension would promote
universality or meet the dual requirements of
strengthening the Treaty and realising its 'principal
objectives [of] halting the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and advancing nuclear disarmament, leading to the
total elimination of nuclear weapons'. If a draft along
these lines, capable of unifying many non-aligned states
around a single, credible, durable alternative to
indefinite extension, had been advanced much earlier in
the process, it could potentially have shifted the
dynamic of this Conference. More equal and genuine
negotiations on implementing the Treaty would have
benefitted the non-proliferation regime and its essential
norm against the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Main Committee I on disarmament While some last minute proposals delayed finalisation of draft text options on security assurances, the hardest nut to crack is proving to be Articles I, II, and VI, and the paragraphs of the NPT preamble which enshrine the commitments to nuclear disarmament. The principal contest is between the nuclear weapon states and some of their allies, who want the report to reflect positive progress so far and then reaffirm in general terms the Treaty obligations on disarmament, and the majority of the NAM states, joined by some significant Western voices, which want a more critical appraisal of compliance so far, with more specific language on future commitments. The Chair of Committee I, Ambassador Isaac Ayewah of Nigeria, has tabled his Chair's drafts on Articles I and II and Article VI. Germany and Belgium continued to argue for deletion of any implication that there might be ambiguity or possible non- compliance with Articles I and II due to deployment of nuclear weapons among NATO countries. While the nuclear weapon states were clearly unhappy with the Chair's draft on Article VI, which included a programme of action based on a paper by Nigeria, several states wanted it to go further in certain respects. New Zealand proposed an 'effectively verifiable ban on the production of nuclear weapons'. Sweden wanted an introductory affirmation that 'all nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the face of the Earth in the spirit of the preamble of the Treaty', and reiterated its demands for a CTBT by 1995 and a fissile cut-off including stockpiles. Japan wanted the nuclear-weapon states 'to further pursue their efforts for nuclear disarmament with the ultimate objective of the elimination of nuclear weapons', a target endorsed by Austria and Ireland. China wants recognition of various measures it has taken unilaterally or with other states and affirms the NPT's 'ultimate objective of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.' It is reported that Committee I negotiations, now almost entirely in closed session, have become increasingly polarised and antagonistic. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|