ACRONYM NPT Update No. 15A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times
Deadlines for Decisions5 May 1995 There is a palpable buzz as the NPT Conference nears the end of its third week. Two deadlines come up on Friday: all proposals on extending the Treaty must be submitted to the President of the Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, by 6.00 pm; and the three Main Committees are expected to give their bracketed text to the Drafting Committee, chaired by Ambassador Tadeusz Strulak of Poland. The Drafting Committee will then have to work through the weekend in an attempt to pull together a coherent draft review document, with brackets around the key areas of disagreement. At present only two extension proposals are circulating: for indefinite; and for rolling fixed periods of 25 years. Meanwhile the Presidential Consultations have continued on the 'Principles for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament' proposed by South Africa. It is understood that the Presidential Consultations comprise representation from the Western Group, the Group of Eastern European States and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), including all five nuclear weapon states, South Africa, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Germany, Japan, Algeria, Malaysia, Venezuela, Australia, Canada. It is understood that there is broad agreement on a more rigorous review process, with greater accountability. The 1995 Conference will definitely recommend continuing the five yearly Review Conferences already provided in Article VIII, but will also push for a more substantive preparatory process, with probably three Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings to assess progress and implementation. Although it appears unlikely that the PrepComs will have a negotiating capability as such, they are expected to make recommendations for action at the subsequent Review Conferences. While key NAM states have been involved in the discussions on the South African proposal, some are still worried that if the Treaty is extended indefinitely there will be little drive and even less incentive to ensure it is fully implemented, no matter how many PrepComs are established. The 'Bandung' proposal for a 25 year rolling extension has gathered about thirteen supporters so far. Egypt and Nigeria were mistakenly included as co-sponsors in NPT Update #14, but are in fact still considering their position. At this late stage, the 25 year rolling extension option does not have enough support to become a fall-back that the nuclear weapon states will feel under pressure to consider. Therefore, the real question for many NAM states will be whether they can drive a bargain on consensus. Knowing that they have the votes for a majority, the US and many other advocates of indefinite extension are now placing a high value on an outcome decided by consensus. That and the genuine desire by many middle-ground states to maintain pressure on the nuclear-weapon powers to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations now constitute the only constructive leverage left to the NAM. With the question of a secret or open ballot still standing in the way of taking a vote, the last thing the nuclear-weapon states and their allies want is bitter confrontation in the final few days of the Conference. This would be likely if UN rules of procedure have to be imposed in order to push through a decision on the ballot. While most would assume the majority would choose an open ballot at this point, forcing it through could polarise the conference, making the adoption by consensus of a final declaration an impossibility. A proposal for a 'written ballot' has been circulated, but does not seem to resolve the essential difficulty. A written ballot would enable the moment of voting to be private and not susceptible to influence by the voting behaviour of others, but presumably the results would be open. The desire by the majority to avoid confrontation over voting now augments the general preference for consensus as a means of securing the Treaty's future credibility. With this in mind the Presidential Consultations on the South African Principles have become the most crucial arena for determining the political effectiveness of this Conference. The present draft of 23
Principles is rather broad and moderate, covering
non-proliferation, universality, safeguards, peaceful
uses, nuclear disarmament and nuclear- weapon-free zones.
But the devil is in the detail! While clearly intended to
be connected to the extension decision, South Africa
reiterates that the Principles are not conditions, but a
yardstick. The trick will be to make the yardstick sturdy
enough to use as a lever if necessary, but not so pointed
that the nuclear-weapon states will refuse to go near it. Deciding on extension: the next phase Proposals on extension must be submitted by Friday May 5. If by Monday May 8 there is no consensus on one of the proposals, then the President will call a breathing space of 48 hours for more consultations, with the hope of bringing about consensus. If that fails, voting could begin on Wednesday May 10. Before voting can begin, rule 28 (3)f will have to be agreed, deciding on a secret, roll-call or written ballot. If there is no consensus, the President will probably have to take a vote on this using the UN rules of procedure. And so to the final week... Note to delegates: Many delegations have requested back copies of the NPT Updates which we are very happy to supply. I am very pleased that so many negotiators have found them useful, when their primary purpose was to inform NPT watchers in other countries of the progress at this Conference. However, while I aim to be as accurate as possible, this objective is undermined by the closure of Committees every time the debate addresses interesting questions of text. The exclusion of NGOs is usually initiated by one of the EU delegations, despite their public commitment to democracy and accountability. In the absence of access to the proceedings, I am immensely grateful to those members of delegations from all Groups who have taken the trouble to provide my colleagues and me with information and, where possible, papers. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|