ACRONYM NPT Update No. 8A service during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference of the ACRONYM Consortium and Disarmament Times European Special25 April 1995 NPT Renewal has been
actively pursued by the 15 nations of the European Union
(EU) as a joint action under their Common Foreign and
Security Policy(CFSP). The EU has worked hard, and with
some success, to encourage more nations to join the
Treaty, and also encouraged support for indefinite and
unconditional extension. Until the Review Conference the
EU by and large presented a united front, but this facade
is now cracking. The 1990 Review Conference saw the
then-European Community divided between its nuclear
weapon and non-nuclear weapon states and unable to agree
a common policy. This division has clearly re-emerged in
1995. While France (currently holding the EU Presidency)
made a speech agreed by all 15 member states (and 6
associated central and eastern European nations), each of
the states also made individual speeches which mostly go
beyond the EU consensus. Diplomatic sources had
previously indicated these speeches should be accorded
much more weight than the joint declaration read by
France. The U.K. and France are clearly unready at
present to offer concessions, while the other EU members
have made proposals and are offering support to others in
an attempt to build a stable and durable
non-proliferation regime. Many of the ideas put forward
at the Conference by EU members are found in the European
Parliament's Wiersma Report on the NPT. This achieved
cross-party support from 80% of parliamentarians in
proposing a menu of options to strengthen the NPT and
further non-proliferation. The French Presidency,
supported by the European Commission, tried hard to block
this report, stating privately a belief that it would
encourage Non-Aligned Movement nations to seek further
disarmament concessions at the Review Conference. Extension The extension issue should
be one where the EU is united, since they committed
themselves last year to ".. help build consensus on
the aim of indefinite and unconditional extension of the
[NPT] .." [Council Decision of 25 July 1994,
(94/509/CFSP) from Official Journal L 205/1, 8.8.94]
Despite this three nations, Italy, Sweden and Denmark
called only for indefinite extension without mentioning
the word unconditional. Italy for example appealed
".. to all countries to accept the indefinite
extension of the NPT." EU diplomatic sources have
said that almost half the EU members do not support
unconditional extension, and that several of those who
use the phrase interpret it only as ruling out formal
amendment of the NPT. These differences are crucial, as
to obtain indefinite extension by a large majority,
substantial progress in the Review process will almost
certainly be necessary. The NPT Review Process There are also striking differences between EU States in the substance of the Review debate. There is obvious division between the nuclear and non-nuclear states in the EU, proposals from some of the latter revealing traditional support for disarmament policies. The two EU nuclear weapon states (NWS), the UK and France, made very thin speeches. France was constrained since it spoke on behalf of the entire EU and its speech contained nothing new. UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd announced that "the United Kingdom has ceased the production of fissile material for explosive purposes." This was added to the reiteration of the UK decision not to replace the WE-177 nuclear free-fall bombs when they are withdrawn in 1998. More negatively he ruled out any further disarmament, or even participation in multilateral talks until the position was reached where ".. US and Russian nuclear forces were counted in hundreds .." This, in effect rules out UK participation in any disarmament process for 20 or 30 years at least. This lack of proposals for strengthening the non-proliferation regime contrasts strongly with a range of positive initiatives and ideas put forward by the non-nuclear weapon states of the EU. Several EU states have clearly recognized that to obtain indefinite extension of the NPT a rigorous review process will be necessary, and this was reflected in the speeches of countries such as Denmark, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands and Sweden. The obligations of the nuclear states under Article VI featured heavily in these proposals, as did calls for stronger safeguards on nuclear materials. Several states mirrored the Danish call for ".. the ultimate goal of a world free from nuclear weapons..", a Treaty objective absent from the French and British speeches. Other proposals included: A timetable for nuclear disarmament: Sweden asked "Why should we accept that these weapons of mass destruction remain ..Sweden expects further disarmament negotiations in which all nuclear-weapon states take part. These states should also establish a specific time schedule for the implementation of their disarmament measures." The Netherlands while not requesting a timetable, stated that ".. all five nuclear weapons states can and should actively engage in further arms control and disarmament ..".
Withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons:
Stronger fissile materials safeguards:
This update was written by Martin Butcher, Centre for European Security and Disarmament.
|