THE PERMANENT OBSERVER MISSION OF SWITZERLAND TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Unofficial English translation

Preparatory committee for the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Third session

STATEMENT

of Mr. Jenö Staehelin, Ambassador, Head of the Swiss delegation

(General exchange of views and discussion on expected products)

New York, 10 May 1999

 

Mr. Chairman,

Allow me to begin by noting that the Swiss delegation welcomes the fact that you are chairing this third session of the preparatory committee for the Review Conference on the Treaty for the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). There can be no doubting your qualifications for the job. This delegation looks forward to working once again with an eminent representative of Colombia in the context of this Treaty.

 

Mr. Chairman,

This 3rd session is crucial for the proper functioning of the Review Conference of the year 2000. To ensure its success we need to analyse why the 2nd session was unable to achieve all its objectives.

Political and procedural factors undoubtedly played a role in last year's failure. In our analysis however one of the reasons is the fact that there are certain differences of opinion as to the nature of the reinforced review process and its objectives, as well as different interpretations of the meaning of the decisions taken in 1995, and perhaps even as to the Treaty itself. These differences are in need of clarification. Failing this the whole process will be in jeopardy and neither this session nor the Review Conference will be able to reach an understanding on the nature and contents of the results achieved. Clarification of the relationship between non-proliferation, arms control and nuclear disarmament might also help to unblock the proceedings at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament.

The position of Switzerland with respect to the decisions taken in 1995 is very clear:

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are of crucial importance to international security. For as long as there is disparity in the nuclear world order and a continuing danger of further proliferation, whether horizontal or vertical, the international community must spare no effort to find a solution. The stability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime depends on nuclear disarmament.

The NPT remains the essential instrument, and must continue to be so even in difficult times. The documents approved on the occasion of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the enlargement of the brief of the preparatory committee should help to further strengthen the role of the NPT.

The NPT is based on a reciprocal commitment, namely the renunciation of nuclear weapons by the vast majority of States and the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, in exchange for the commitment of the nuclear-weapon States to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

To this fundamental compromise a second one was added in 1995: the indefinite extension of the NPT in exchange for the "Principles and Objectives", the reinforced review process and the resolution on the Middle East. These 1995 decisions form a complete package, which cannot be undone.

Switzerland has always defended the view that the decision of 1995 to extend the Treaty indefinitely must not signify the indefinite continuation of the status quo, particularly insofar as the prerogatives of the nuclear powers are concerned. It would be wrong to think that following the indefinite extension of the Treaty, implementation, in particular of Article VI, would no longer be relevant.

The review process of today is no longer the same process as prior to 1995. It is of a different nature. It no longer has to be limited to a text-drafting process lasting four years. We do need to develop structures and mechanisms that will ensure strengthened accountability of the States Parties concerned and effective implementation of the Treaty.

 

Mr. Chairman,

In view of the fact that the main objective of this third session is to draw up recommendations for the Conference of the year 2000, and to do so as quickly as possible, we feel that it is necessary to reconsider certain of our working methods, learning the lessons of the second session. We have in mind the following measures:

  1.  
  2. Avoid losing time with an excessive number of national declarations, since our respective national positions are well-known. We should give priority to work on concrete proposals for recommendations. We therefore welcome the Chairman’s initiative to dedicate this first day of our session to a discussion on expected products of the Review Conference, and to have the entire second week available for the drafting of concrete proposals.
  3.  
  4. Cease clinging to the rigid structure of three "clusters", a formula which was created in an earlier period to satisfy the requirement for a certain geographical distribution of responsibilities, but which perhaps no longer corresponds to all of today's requirements. We need to concentrate on those aspects of the Treaty where reaching consensus is difficult. Our work programme should therefore be followed in a very flexible manner, making it possible to pass immediately to the next item once discussion has been exhausted.
  5.  
  6. For even greater effectiveness it might also be a good idea to appoint co-ordinators for each aspect or each article of the Treaty and related clauses of the preamble and the "Principles & Objectives". The informal discussions organised by these co-ordinators should be open to any delegation interested and could serve as the main working method for next week.

 

Mr. Chairman,

Before concluding, let me make some remarks on the nature of the documents which the Preparatory Committee should envisage for the adoption by the 2000 Conference.

The goal of the review process must be the adoption of texts which comprise both a retrospective and a prospective vision.

This objective could be reached if the Review Conference adopts two types of documents:

Firstly, a final document on the review of the implementation of the Treaty since the 1995 Review Conference. Since past experience has shown that consensus on all parts of such a document is not always possible, we would be open to other formulas which reflect the results of the review.

Secondly, a new set of reaffirmed principles and of updated and completed objectives, adopted by consensus, should complement the 1995 document. We have to ensure that the 1995 Principles and Objectives, which remain valid, are implemented, but we should also propose additional Principles and Objectives for the 2000 Conference.

The chairmen’s documents of the first and second sessions could be a starting point. They must be enriched i.a. with proposals made at the three sessions of the Preparatory Committee. The Swiss delegation has submitted several such proposals in a Working document (NPT/CONF.2000.PC.II/7).

We note that the working documents submitted by the delegations of Canada and South Africa at this session are inspired by similar considerations as ours, and we would be therefore be happy to work in this respect with these delegations.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.