The 2000 NPT Review
Conference (RevCon)
14 April - 19 May 2000, New York
STATEMENT
OF DR. TARIQ RAUF
ADVISOR TO CANADA'S NPT DELEGATION
TO
THE INFORMAL PLENARY ON A
STRENGTHENED REVIEW PROCESS,
AT THE SIXTH REVIEW CONFERENCE
OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
5
May 2000
Reinforcing
the Strengthened Review Process
Mr. President:
The
delegation of Canada greatly appreciates your decision to allocate time
at this Review Conference for a consideration of the strengthened review
process for the Treaty. My delegation is committed to working with you,
as well as with other delegations, in completing our consideration of a
review of the review process with a view to formulating clear and
precise guidance governing the work of the next - the 2005 - NPT Review
Conference and of its Preparatory Committee which will commence in the
year 2002.
Canada
accords fundamental importance to the concept of a “strengthened
review process" as initiated by the 1995 Review and Extension
Conference. For the past four years, we have been operating in the
belief that the effective implementation of a welldesigned, results-oriented,
strengthened review process is central to the fulfilment of the
principle of "permanence with accountability".
The
review process, comprising the Preparatory Committee sessions, the
Review Conference itself, and any other mechanisms agreed by the States
parties should address two basic questions: for what are States parties
accountable; and how that accountability is to be exercised? Canada has
come to this Review Conference prepared to address both of these
questions. With your leadership, Mr. President, as well as with the
cooperation of other delegations with a similar commitment to enhancing
the strengthened review process, we are confident that we shall be able
to craft and agree to a formulation that both clarifies and enriches the
1995 Decision on a “Strengthened Review Process for the Treaty".
Mr.
President:
We
draw your attention to two Canadian working papers, the first entitled,
"Reinforcing the strengthened review process" - NPT/CONF.2000/WP.5
of 2 May 2000 - and the second, with the title, “Further enhancing the
strengthened review process for the Treaty"- NPT/CONF.2000/PC.III/3
of 3 May 1999.
For
Canada, the NPT always has been, and will always remain, a Treaty of
commitment, not convenience. We are dedicated to seeking the full
implementation of all of the provisions of the Treaty, as well as those
of the Decisions and the Resolution adopted in 1995. As we have
maintained since 1995, the objective of the on-going strengthened review
process is the presentation and enhancement of the authority and
integrity of the NPT. It is in that regard that Canada set out in 1997,
in 1998, and in 1999 - and is setting out again in 2000 - three
principles to guide its work:
-
permanence with accountability;
-
a qualitatively strengthened ongoing review process that
both evaluates and is forward-looking; and
-
pragmatism and dynamism on an evolving basis.
In this
context, it is our view that the Review Conference and its Preparatory
Committee must both consider and evaluate the operation and
implementation of the Treaty and the 1995 decisions and resolution and
identify possibilities for further progress toward their complete
implementation. The strengthened review process must be
"product-oriented" and structured to facilitate the attainment
of that objective.
The
Preparatory Committee
The
Preparatory Committee has completed its first cycle in the context of
the strengthened review process. It is now possible to draw some
conclusions from the experience of the 1997, 1998 and 1999 sessions.
Overall, the exercise succeeded in completing practically all of the
necessary procedural arrangements. This should not come as a surprise,
as ours is a mature Treaty with well developed procedures. However,
completing procedural arrangements is not a sufficient accomplishment.
That said,
the Preparatory Committee was unable to agree on recommendations to the
2000 Review Conference on substantive issues, despite having tried
different modalities in each of its three sessions. Many such
substantive issues, as well as principles, objectives and ways to
promote the full implementation of the Treaty were discussed, but these
discussions were not fully reflected in the reports emanating from each
session. This does not represent progress over past practice. And it
certainly does not represent the fulfilment of a strengthened review
process or of permanence with accountability.
We do not
share the view that it is too early to reach any conclusions on the
operation of the Preparatory Committee. We are not prepared to
accept a qualitatively different preparatory process that is devoid of
substantive results.
Permanence
with accountability entails accountability by us all for our compliance
with and fulfilment of undertakings under the Treaty and the 1995
Decisions and Resolution. The vitality and substance of the strengthened
review process itself are of great importance to Canada. This process
must be able to deal on an on‑going basis with substance, not just
process. Unless this is clearly recognized and robust measures
undertaken to reinforce the strengthened review process, the NPT regime
could fail to realize the enhanced potential set out in the 1995
package.
In
Canada's view, the Preparatory Committee process should carry out
substantive deliberations along three lines.
First,
as an integral part of the strengthened review process, Canada believes
that Preparatory Committee sessions should consider and report on the
operation and implementation of the Treaty and of the 1995 Decisions 1
and 2 and the Resolution. Given time limitations, it may not be always
possible for each session to consider all of these provisions. Hence,
each session of the Preparatory Committee should issue a substantive
report relevant to those considered at that session, in addition to
reporting on procedural preparations. Such a report would be prepared
and transmitted on the authority of the Chairman.
Second,
as another integral part of the strengthened review process in the
context of permanence with accountability, Canada believes that each
session of the Preparatory Committee may also discuss, evaluate and on
the basis of consensus reach conclusions and recommendations for further
action on recent international issues and events pertaining to the
operation, implementation, authority or integrity of the Treaty as well
as of the 1995 Decisions 1 and 2 and the Resolution. It is simply
unacceptable that at the 1999 session of the Preparatory Committee, we
were unable to collectively state for the record anything regarding 11
nuclear detonations carried out in South Asia - not one paragraph, not
one sentence, not a single word! It is as well unacceptable that NPT
States Party should have to wait for an entire quinquennium in order to
render comments, judgements or recommendations regarding international
developments that strike at the very core of the Treaty. Some might be
content to wait for five years; Canada certainly is not. We support
Japan and Australia's proposal, in this context.
Third,
Preparatory Committee sessions as non-negotiating - i.e.
non-decision-making forums should summarize both their procedural and
substantive deliberations and forward those summaries to successive
sessions. These summaries made on the authority of the Chairman, along
with the reports referred to above, could culminate at the last session
of the Preparatory Committee in recommendations on matters of substance
to the Review Conference for action by that body to promote the full
implementation of the Treaty and the 1995 outcomes, as well as of its
universality.
In
accordance with Decision 1 of 1995, the Preparatory Committee will meet
in each of the three years prior to a Review Conference and, if
necessary, a fourth meeting may be held in the year of the conference.
In this regard, we support the proposal made by the Netherlands and
Norway.
The
Review Conference
In
addition to evaluating the period under review and taking a forward
look, each Review Conference should also consider the efficiency,
effectiveness and operation of the review process itself. The last line
of paragraph 7 of the 1995 Decision 1 clearly provides for such an
outcome: Review Conferences should also address specifically what might
be done to strengthen the implementation of the Treaty...".
A review
of the review process to learn from past experience of omission or
commission, to define and clarify it, and to improve its efficiency,
effectiveness and operation, will contribute to enhancing the relevance,
authority and integrity of the Treaty and the 1995 outcomes. In this
context, it may be appropriate at some point in the future to structure
a balanced review on an article-by-article basis, instead of the present
overlapping and somewhat inefficient Cluster. In 1995, Canada agreed to
the continuation of the present three main committee structure on the
understanding that the work of the committees could be organized and
coordinated in terms of an article-by-article review, such that the
substantive responsibility for the preparation of the report with
respect to each specific issue is undertaken in only one committee. The
review process should be a "living process”, responsive to the
needs of the membership of the Treaty. One way to carry this out might
be through establishing Subsidiary Bodies to Main Committees, as
pioneered by this Review Conference. In this regard, we support the
proposal submitted by Myanmar recommending Subsidiary Bodies at future
NPT Review Conferences.
Public
Profile
As an
integral part of the strengthened review process, Canada believes that
each session of the Preparatory Committee should continue to report publicly
on its work pertaining to the operation and implementation of the
Treaty. As my Foreign Minister noted in his plenary speech last week, if
we are to have real accountability then we need to have real
transparency. Welcome moves in this regard are the inclusion of NGO
advisors on a number of delegations to this conference - including two
on Canada's delegation - and the opportunity provided to the NGO
community to make its views and recommendations known directly to this
Review Conference.
The issues
of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation have been democratized.
These are no longer the exclusive purview of military officials,
diplomats and government scientists. Several NGOs include as members
retired arms control negotiators, former weapons scientists, academic
experts and individuals from many different walks of life. Our
experience in this context, going at least as far back as 1985,
demonstrates that the commitment and expertise of NGO advisors can do a
great deal to enhance the openness and public accountability of our
work, to involve civil society in our important issues, and to mobilize
public support for and participation in our efforts directed at
achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
With the
global reach of the Internet and its associated revolution in
information technologies, we are very ill-advised to ignore NGOs and
civil society. Citizen verification and information distribution are
valuable tools in countering proliferation. We recommend that each
Review Conference, including its full Preparatory Committee process,
encourages greater transparency, including increased NGO access and
participation and enhanced media awareness.
In
practice this would involve enhancing the present level of access and
participation provided to NGOs. We recommend that NGOs should be
allowed, upon request, to attend most meetings other than those
designated as closed consultations. In addition, NGOs should be
committed to make presentations to each of the Main Committees at Review
Conferences as well as to meetings at the Preparatory Committee devoted
to specific subject areas.
Such
enhanced access and participation would be open to eligible NGOs working
in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The
eligibility of NGOs may be decided by the President of the Review
Conference and Chairman of a Preparatory Committee session, on the basis
of a list provided by the United Nations Department for Disarmament
Affairs. NGO participation could be considered on the basis of
geographic representation, but with each NGO having a demonstrated
record of appropriate work in this field.
Mr.
President:
We
welcome the two working papers on strengthening the review process,
within the general structure of Decision 1 adopted in 1995, submitted
respectively by Japan and Australia, and by the Netherlands and Norway,
as well as some of the views expressed by other delegations on this
theme. We firmly believe that any proposals put forward to the Review
Conference should enhance the 1995 Decision.
We have
carefully studied these two working papers and are pleased to find that
there are several common themes between them and our paper. These
working papers share a commitment to enhancing accountability through a
reinforced strengthened review process with regard to the Preparatory
Committee. Canada and the four countries noted above are interested in
achieving, inter alia:
-
a better focus to the substantive work of the Preparatory
Committee; an improved structuring of the work programme;
-
an appropriate substantive reporting format;
-
a capability to address and report on international and
regional issues or events having a bearing on the authority and
integrity of the Treaty; and
-
overall improvements in the process leading up to Review
Conferences.
We are
confident that any draft working paper produced by you, Mr. President,
based on the views expressed here and the working papers introduced at
this informal plenary session, will comprehensively capture the
common themes identified in the preceding paragraphs. May we suggest
that you consider organizing on-going informal consultations, with
respect to inviting comments on a draft working paper, on a strengthened
review process that you would prepare following this particular session.
In this regard, we pledge to provide you with all the assistance that
you and your staff may require.
Mr.
President:
We can
either continue to “muddle through" or we can opt for a
"construction for the future" - for us, there is only one
clear choice: that of contributing to a Construction for the
future" leading to a stronger Treaty regime.
Thank you.
Back to Official
Documents and Statements
|