ACRONYM NPT Update No. 4

A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times

Proposals for Indefinite, 25 Years
and No Extension At All

20 April 1995

Wednesday's plenary opened with a strong call by South Africa for stronger enforcement of the NPT, by means of indefinite extension combined with concrete improvements to make the review process more effective. In contrast with South Africa's deeply considered statement looking to the future of the NPT,US Vice President Al Gore delivered a wooden speech rooted in the Treaty's past. Several non-aligned states criticised the NPT'sshortcomings and expressed dissatisfaction with progress towards its full implementation, particularly of Article VI on nuclear disarmament. Venezuela proposed extending the NPT for 25 years, after which there would be a further extension conference, while the Syrian Arab Republic opposed any extension unless Israel acceded to the Treaty. Main Committees I (disarmament) and II (safeguards) opened in Conference Room 4, while the following states' representatives addressed the plenary: South Africa, Finland, United States, Jordan, Syria, Norway, Tanzania, Greece, Poland, Romania, Malaysia, Venezuela, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Gabon, Croatia, Cameroon.

Following a close fought internal debate, South African Foreign Minister Alfred Nzo backed indefinite extension of the NPT 'in principle' (deliberately omitting 'unconditional'), arguing that it must not be placed in jeopardy either by attaching specific conditions to its future existence or by an extension taken by a small majority. He then devoted the rest of his substantive address to concrete proposals to strengthen the review process, proposing the adoption of 'Principles for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament' and convening of a Committee tasked with addressing various aspects and making recommendations. The Committee would meet in between the five yearly reviews mandated in Article VIII.3, thus ensuring a more coherent approach to the Treaty's implementation. Though stressing that this proposal was not an amendment but 'a lodestar'; not conditions, but a 'yardstick', Nzo made it clear that the credibility of the extended Treaty would depend on a more effective review process and accountability. At the fourth PrepCom, South Africa had presented a legal interpretation of Article X.2 (covering the extension decision) which expressed interest in a long term rolling extension, to provide both pressure and durability. Some non-aligned states were disappointed by South Africa's decision to back indefinite extension, but for others it could offer a new and constructive means for non-nuclear-weapon states to maintain pressure to ensure compliance even if the treaty is made permanent. A number of Western delegates expressed relief that South Africa had chosen to support the indefinite option, but some criticised the review proposals as 'tantamount to conditions'. The United States reminded delegates of the recent arms reduction and control measures undertaken by the US and Russia. Offering nothing new to reassure non-nuclear weapon states of their future intentions, Gore endorsed the four power (April 6) statement that nuclear disarmament remained its 'ultimate goal'. The bulk of the statement aimed to contradict the main arguments against indefinite extension and to convince states that 'the US will work closely with other delegations to ensure that the review mechanism remains vital and effective.' In an overstatement that disturbed advocates of the 25 year rolling extension as a reasonable fall-back option, Gore said this would have the 'same consequences for nuclear planning as...a decision taken right now to terminate the Treaty.' The Vice President concluded by criticising the NAM's advocacy of a secret ballot on the extension decision as undemocratic, saying that states 'must expect to take responsibility for [their] actions.'

Ambassador Adolfo Taylhardat of Venezuela again proposed what has come to be called 'the Venezuelan option': to 'roll over' the treaty 'in the same terms and conditions in which it was originally concluded.' According to Venezuela's legal interpretation, this would extend the treaty for 25 years,after which an extension conference would choose one of the three options in Article X.2. Although most other legal interpretations provided so far seem to deny the validity of this option, Taylhardat argues that it would not require amendment and offers a simple and straightforward alternative to indefinite extension, capable of gathering a consensus.

Syria and Jordan raised concerns about Israel's nuclear weapon programme, with Syria opposing any extension of the NPT 'unless Israel accedes to the Treaty and subjects its nuclear installations to international inspection.' According to Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara, 'if Israel is a nuclear weapons state - which indeed it is - it must officially acknowledge that it possesses such weapons and accept the international responsibilities emanating from that fact...' Malaysia called for the nuclear weapon states to set a 'timeframe for the elimination of all nuclear weapons', and advocated extending the treaty 'for a fixed period or periods, pegged to a schedule of disarmament measures which the nuclear weapon states must take, leading ultimately to a nuclear free world.' Sri Lanka called for a 'long term extension'. The EU and Eastern European representatives all advocated indefinite extension. Norway, in addressing the problems of fissile materials went beyond support for a cut-off: 'concrete steps must be taken to establish a regime that would include declarations of stockpiles of all weapons grade materials...' Norwegian Ambassador Bjorn Tore Godal concluded by saying that 'the first and most important barrier to proliferation of nuclear weapons...is an international political order which makes these weapons meaningless...'

Note: Inevitably these short updates cannot cover everything of importance, but some statements have had to be omitted because of the impossibility of obtaining copies in time. Access to the UN in New York, areas of its buildings, the Conference delegates and proceedings has been more and more restricted with each passing day. This makes the job of gathering and providing information unnecessarily difficult. If, as US Vice President Al Gore said, we should hold our governments accountable for what they decide in the NPT Conference, then we need effective information about the debates leading up to the decisions.

This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.

Back to 1995 NPT RevCon