ACRONYM NPT Update No. 6A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times The First Week in Review24 April 1995 As the first week of the NPT Conference ended, at least 82 representatives of States Parties had addressed the plenary and work in the three Main Committees had begun. Several distinct proposals have been advanced for extension of the Treaty and for strengthening the process for its review and implementation. Speeches on April 21 The plenary of Friday April 21 was addressed by: Namibia, Slovenia, Morocco, Iran, Honduras, Liberia, Jamaica, Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Yemen, Bangladesh, Senegal, Mali, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Papua New Guinea, and Suriname. In a more muted speech than expected, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati identified three obstacles: 'preventing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy'; the 'increased' nuclear programmes of the nuclear weapon states; and 'the intransigent refusal of Israel' to join the NPT. Iran condemned violations of Article I by nuclear weapon states providing 'direct and indirect assistance' in the development of nuclear weapon capabilities and called for 'secretive' export control regimes such as the London Club to be replaced by a body representing all states parties. Rejecting 'strictly limited extension', which would lead to the Treaty's termination, Velayati argued that 'the NPT should eventually be extended indefinitely', while making it clear that until the Treaty is fully implemented it would be premature to make it permanent. Papua New Guinea called for an end to nuclear testing and nuclear waste shipments in the Pacific region 'now, not tomorrow or in the next 25 years', issues also raised strongly by the Marshall Islands. Endorsing Indonesia's arguments against indefinite extension, Ambassador Utula U Samana backed extension by 'a series of fixed periods'. Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Uzbekistan referred to the 'security vacuum' in Central and Eastern Europe and gave support for the NPT's indefinite and unconditional extension. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and others expressed support for the NPT but criticized attempts to link indefinite with 'unconditional' extension, and did not specify their preference. Proposals on Extension The following extension options have now been put forward. This does not necessarily mean that all of these will appear on a ballot paper. Many states continue to want the decision to be taken or endorsed by consensus, and many have stated that their decisions will depend on the outcome of the review debates. Several statements, including Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Tanzania and Iran, indicated opposition to indefinite extension, without specifying an alternative preference.
Proposals on Review and Implementation Proposals on strengthening the review and implementation procedures have come both from advocates and opponents of indefinite extension. While some have been satisfied with references to nuclear disarmament as an 'ultimate goal', others want to ensure that a time-bound framework or programme is put in place, for, as Ambassador Reaz Rahman of Bangladesh succinctly states 'a goal without a plan for its attainment can only remain a dream'. While some proposals concentrate on identifying the measures which must be achieved, such as a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), fissile cut-off (with or without inclusion of stockpiles), enhanced or legally binding security assurances, wider access to nuclear technology for non-military purposes, universality and so on, others have made practical suggestions for how the procedures and accountability could be improved. Most proposals are not mutually exclusive, and in fact there are considerable areas of overlap. The summary below is intended to show the primary positions and their key advocates, and is not exhaustive. Time-bound framework: Document NPT/Conf.1995/PC.III/13 submitted to the third PrepCom on behalf of all the non- aligned states calls for a 'time-bound framework and a target date for the total elimination' of nuclear weapons. This has been referred to again in many non-aligned States' speeches. Sweden and Switzerland also supported a time-bound framework or schedule for nuclear disarmament measures. Steps: Mexico and Egypt have suggested linking extension with specific steps and a 'reinforced review mechanism'. This echoes the 'step by step' resolution to the UNGA in December 1994. This is opposed by the nuclear weapon states and their allies, who argue that the imposition of conditions could raise doubts about the Treaty's continued validity if the conditions are not met. Principles for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Put forward by South Africa, some view this as little more than the 'reaffirmation of commitment to Article VI' called for by many Western states and given by France, Russia, UK and US in the four power statement on April 6. However, in the context of South Africa's overall proposal, it appears to intend a more concrete framework of measures which must be undertaken. Procedures for Evaluation and Implementation By Article VIII.3, the NPT would continue to have five yearly review conferences, but many states have criticised their effectiveness. South Africa proposed setting up an intersessional Committee, which could be open to all States Parties or chosen representatives. The Committee would be charged with constant review and evaluation of the Treaty and would make concrete recommendations on implementation. Similar proposals were put forward by Sri Lanka, Mexico and others. While the US and many Western and Eastern European states have responded with positive interest, Russia has reportedly condemned South Africa's proposals as 'tantamount to conditions', while France and the UK are reportedly concerned that it would set up another disarmament committee that could duplicate and potentially confuse the work of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD). China was non- committal, while several non-aligned states think it doesn't go far enough. Concerns have been raised about financing such an intersessional body. South Africa wants the NPT Conference to set up a working group to consider the ideas in greater detail. Correction: In NPT Update # 5 Kuwait was included among the Middle Eastern states which refused to endorse indefinite extension unless Israel joined the NPT. This was incorrect. Kuwait raised concerns about Israel's nuclear weapons but did not state any preference whatsoever with regard to NPT extension. I apologise for the error, and reiterate my appeal for better access and distribution of the speeches to NGOs. This update was written by Rebecca Johnson.
|