ACRONYM NPT Update No. 3A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times The Speeches Begin19 April 1995 The second day of the NPT Conference was addressed by France, on behalf of the European Union, Ireland, Australia, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, Belarus, Netherlands, UK, Spain, Canada, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Japan, China, Ukraine, Belgium, Austria, Benin, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, Malta, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Most were represented by Foreign Ministers or other senior diplomats. Many spoke of history, and some of the future. Alain Juppe, Foreign Minister of France, on behalf of the EU and the countries of eastern and central Europe, hailed 'the end of the arms race' and reaffirmed 'commitment, in accordance with Article VI, to continue negotiations in good faith on effective measures pertaining to nuclear disarmament, which remains [our] ultimate goal.' This echoed the four power declaration on non-proliferation made in Geneva on April 6. German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel endorsed the EU's call for indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT, but linked this with a set of demands for nuclear disarmament and the strengthening of safeguards. In particular, Germany specified that in addition to a fissile cut-off, plutonium and highly enriched uranium from dismantled warheads 'must not be used to build new weapons'. This could potentially have a far reaching effect on the nuclear weapon programmes of EU partners France and Britain. British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd had toned down some of his earlier remarks about the NPT enshrining Britain's nuclear status. Instead, making political virtue of necessity, he announced that the UK had ceased the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. The statement that 'Britain would respond to the challenge of multilateral talks on the global reduction of nuclear arms' when the US and Russian forces 'were counted in hundreds rather than thousands' continues to send a worrying signal of reliance on nuclear weapons out of keeping with the UK's size, role and security needs. Defending export controls, Hurd said that '[T]hey bite only on countries, like Iran, about whose ultimate intentions there are widespread doubts.' This provoked a request for a right of reply by Iran under rule 19. Iran called Hurd's remarks 'irresponsible' and accused the UK of having contributed to the nuclear programmes of some countries, and of considering itself 'above the law'. Britain's near neighbour, Ireland, made a strong and pragmatic argument for indefinite extension based on the need to provide a secure regime to bring nuclear weapons down to 'the only acceptable level...zero'. In addition to the common themes of nuclear disarmament and safeguards, Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring also touched on an issue seldom raised in the NPT context: the environmental impact of nuclear weapons and power. Ireland is particularly concerned about the British reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which discharges into the Irish Sea. Foreign Minister Qian Qichen reiterated that China wanted a 'smooth' extension of the NPT, but outlined its view of the options for the first time. A finite extension 'is not desirable'; if the Treaty is extended indefinitely 'it must...in no way be interpreted as perpetuating the nuclear- weapon states' prerogative to possess nuclear weapons'; a rolling extension would be acceptable only if each fixed period were at least 25 years. In response to the urging of other states to join the moratorium and cease testing, China said that it has conducted fewer nuclear tests than any of the other nuclear weapon states, a boast which will lose validity if China tests again, thereby levelling with the UK. With the exception of Nigeria, the non-aligned states gave fairly low key statements. Indonesia argued for a rolling extension of fixed periods, very much along the lines of the South African analysis at the fourth PrepCom. Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Angel Gurria emphasised the link between non-proliferation and disarmament, and said that 'the modalities of [the] extension will emerge naturally from the balance that is achieved regarding the responsibilities of all the parties.' Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chief Tom Ikimi, congratulated South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine for demonstrating 'that it is possible to give up the possession of nuclear weapons without loss of status or diminished security', an example Nigeria hoped others would emulate. Nigeria called for deeper cuts in the existing arsenals, noting that even after START II is fully implemented enough weapons remain to 'wipe out human civilization'. Referring to Article I of the NPT, Chief Ikimi 'worried about the extent of the commitment of the nuclear weapon states parties not to transfer nuclear weapons...and related technology to other states' and the 'selective compliance which has enabled non-parties to acquire nuclear weapon capability.' Addressing the extension decision, Chief Ikimi said 'We could gloss over the failures of the Treaty and extend it indefinitely. This would be an invitation to a nuclear disorder.' Nigeria then advocated a single period, with the proviso that 'the Treaty should not lapse at the end of the fixed period.' This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|