ACRONYM NPT Update No. 17A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times
Working Towards Agreement9 May 1995 Plenary Ambassador Jayantha
Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, President of the NPT Conference,
formally announced that three extension proposals had
been received: from Mexico for indefinite extension with
recommendations; from Canada on behalf of 103 states
parties (now 107), for indefinite; and from Indonesia on
behalf of 11 states parties for 25 year rolling fixed
periods. As there was no consensus on any of these
proposals, decision would be deferred for 48 hours for
consultations. He also reported that as yet there was no
decision on rule 28 (3)f on the mode of voting (secret,
open or written), and that consultations would also
continue on this, until the next plenary which would be
held at 3.00pm on Wednesday 10 May. Ambassador Isaac
Ayewah of Nigeria also presented the report of Main
Committee I, which he had chaired through stormy debates
which had continued over the weekend in order to provide
a text to the Drafting Committee. Drafting Committee While the committees on
safeguards and the non-military uses of nuclear energy
had substantially agreed their text, leaving only key
questions such as export controls and Israel in brackets
(denoting lack of consensus), Main Committee I's text
seemed to be almost entirely bracketed. Grouping the
contentious issues, the Drafting Committee appointed
Friends of the Chair to try to mould agreement. Taking on
the hottest issue, Article VI, Ambassador Tadeusz
Strulak, Chair of the Drafting Committee, is understood
to be trying to work out a more generalised compromise on
the nuclear arms race and disarmament. Ambassador Pasi
Patokallio of Finland has taken responsibility for
Articles I and II, covering transfer of nuclear weapons
and nuclear explosive devices; Enrique de la Torre of
Argentina on nuclear weapon free zones; and Ambassador
Richard Starr of Australia, already appointed, on
security assurances. In addition, Philip MacKinnon of
Canada will work to get agreement on another contentious
issue, export controls. It is too early to say how the
Drafting Committee deliberations on the review document
will shape up. While there has been a tendency during the
past week to prioritise the negotiations on the South
African principles, Ambassador Dhanapala has today
re-emphasised the importance of the review process. Presidential Consultations Meanwhile Presidential
Consultations on the principles and on strengthening the
five yearly review process after this Conference have
continued. In the latest draft, dated 8 May, some
paragraphs have been rationalised, made more coherent or
strengthened, while others look as if they have been
weakened. A paragraph that 'nuclear materials transferred
from military use to peaceful nuclear activities should
be placed under IAEA safeguards', which is itself a
watered down version of a German proposal that nuclear
materials from dismantled warheads should be placed under
safeguards, was first transferred from the section headed
'nuclear disarmament' to the section on 'safeguards' and
has now been removed altogether, pending further
discussion. South Africa had put forward a compromise to
bridge the NAM position calling for a timebound
framework, vociferously opposed by the nuclear weapon
states, referring to a 'programme of action' to move
towards nuclear disarmament. Under pressure from some of
the nuclear weapon states this is now reduced to
'systematic and progressive efforts', which many of the
NAM consider too weak. Although still referred to as the
'South African principles', after their originator, the
principles are now firmly in the hands of Ambassador
Dhanapala, with continuing discussions to find an
acceptable form that will enhance the authority of the
extension decision. Discussion has also re-opened on the
mechanisms for strengthening review and implementation,
with additional proposals now made by Indonesia, but no
clear details are yet available. Consensus on Majority Throughout this
Conference, Ambassador Dhanapala has made clear his
desire to see decisions taken by consensus. With the
Middle Eastern States still reluctant to make the NPT
permanent without Israel's accession, and other
non-nuclear- weapon states concerned that agreeing on
indefinite extension will appear to legitimise the
possession of nuclear weapons by a few states, a
consensus decision on indefinite extension as such may
not be achievable. Wishing to avoid a divisive vote
(particularly since the procedure for taking the ballot
remains unresolved), Dhanapala may now seek a consensus
on the fact that a majority of States Parties have
endorsed indefinite extension. However, this would still
depend to some extent on the strength and content of the
'package' of principles and enhanced review mechanisms
being offered. Wild Cards With discussions now almost entirely behind closed doors, the outcome is still far from certain. While few now doubt that the Treaty will be indefinitely extended, much will depend on whether the proposal for consensus accepting the majority decision, will be viewed as a face-saving compromise or as a means to by-pass a vote. If they do not consider the principles package strong enough, some NAM states may press for a vote. Though this would almost certainly result in their being outvoted by advocates of indefinite extension, the Mexican resolution remains a wild card. If the principles don't work out effectively, Mexico's resolution, linking indefinite extension with a set of recommendations, might become more attractive to states which support indefinite but not unconditional extension. An unlikely scenario, but in these fluid last days, a wild card that should not be completely ignored. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|