The 2000 NPT Review
Conference (RevCon)
14 April - 19 May 2000, New York
STATEMENT
BY
DR. SOLA OGUNBANWO
ON BEHALF OF THE NIGERIAN DELEGATION
BEFORE THE
2000 REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES TO THE TREATY
ON THE
NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
24TH
APRIL – 19TH MAY, 2000
NEW
YORK 27 APRIL, 2000
Mr.
President,
Let me
formally congratulate you on your election as President of the 2000
Review Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons. With your rich diplomatic experience and your
well-known negotiating skills, we are confident that you will guide our
deliberations to a fruitful end. In the discharge of this challenging
task, I wish, on behalf of my delegation, to assure you of our full
cooperation. My delegation would also like to extend our warm
congratulations to the other members of the Bureau.
I wish
to pay special tribute to the United Nations Secretary General, His
Excellency Kofi Annan, for his leadership and untiring effort for the
advancement of the cause of disarmament, and in particular, for his
visionary MILLENNIUM REPORT, entitled "We the Peoples: the role of
the United Nations in the twenty-first Century", which was
published earlier this month.
Mr.
President,
It
is fifty-five years since atomic bombs fell on the cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. This event galvanized the international community to take
measures which will hopefully ensure that such weapons would never be
used again. It is forty-one years since me United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA), in resolution 1380, called for
an international agreement to limit the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. And it is thirty years since the genesis was established for a
global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), under which non-Nuclear Weapon States Parties
have committed themselves not to acquire such weapons, in which the five
Nuclear Weapon States have also committed themselves to negotiations
"in good faith" for nuclear disarmament.
The NPT has undoubtedly contributed
immensely to an international environment conducive to peace and
stability and one which is devoid of military competition and wasteful
nuclear arms race. It remains the key barrier against nuclear disorder.
And it is essential for the well being of the world. This explains why
it stands out as the most widely accepted disarmament agreement in
history.
Mr.
President,
Nigeria's commitment to the NPT has been deep and firm. Apart from the
effective role which we played during the negotiation of the Treaty at
the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC), in the mid-1960's,
Nigeria occupies a pride of place as an early Party to the Treaty,
indeed the second to sign it. Our adherence to the NPT stems from our
conviction that our national interests and security can both be better
served by pursuits other than by seeking nuclear weapons. Nigeria's
commitment to the 'goal of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World was clearly
demonstrated early in our nationhood when in the early 1960s we strongly
opposed nuclear tests conducted in the Sahara Desert. It is significant
that the initiatives of the African States at that time to denuclearize
Africa led to the adoption by the UNGA of the first resolution on a
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (resolution 1652 of 1961). In demonstration
of our firm belief in the Treaty, we have also concluded Safeguards
Agreement with the international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nigeria's
signing of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (the Treaty on
Pelindaba) is another attestation of our commitment to building a
Nuclear-Weapon-Free World. The current Administration in Nigeria under
the leadership of President Olusegun Obasanjo is now reviewing all
disarmament treaties that are yet to be ratified including the Treaty of
Pelindaba. We have also ratified the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Mr.
President,
The challenge before us, as we begin
our deliberations, is the effective implementation of the terms of the
NPT following the Decisions we took in 1995 on its indefinite extension.
That requires that we consider how well the objectives we set ourselves
in 1995 have been met and what needs to be done. Such an effort would
bring us closer to the realization of the seven principles and
objectives contained in the 1995 Principles and Objectives for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. It is in this context that I offer
the following comments.
Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
Nigeria
attaches great importance to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear
disarmament which are the inseparable twins of Article VI of the NPT.
On
nuclear non-Proliferation, the number of adherents to the NPT has
continued to increase and now stands at 187 including the five Nuclear
Weapon States. We heartily welcome the new members that have acceded to
the Treaty since our last Review Conference. While universality is
within reach, there are still a number of countries that have decided
not to join the NPT. The challenge facing the international community is
how to engage these States through some sort of consultative mechanism.
One such mechanism could be the NPT MANAGEMENT BOARD which my delegation
is proposing that we establish for handling certain NPT-related
functions. I will speak more about our proposal later on in my speech.
The
fact that 182 out of the 187 States Parties to the NPT are non-Nuclear
Weapon States has manifestly demonstrated that Security is possible
without nuclear weapons. The establishment of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
(NWFZS) by these same non-Nuclear Weapon States in their various regions
further reinforces the fact mat nuclear weapons do not guarantee
security. Rather they distract from it.
The
NWFZs created in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Soup Pacific,
Africa and South East Asia comprise about 110 United Nations Member
States, and together they form a nuclear weapon free mantle over vast
and densely populated areas of the Southern Hemisphere. Proposals to
establish additional NWFZs in Central Asia and the Middle East would
represent a further step in the direction of a Nuclear Weapon Free
World. It is evident from these developments that the non-Nuclear Weapon
States are fulfilling their share of the obligations under the NPT.
Mr.
President,
We
should therefore be clear where the problem lies. It lies in the
continued existence of and reliance on nuclear weapons for Security, and
how to achieve nuclear disarmament. When we extended me NPT indefinitely
in 1995, we did not indefinitely extend the possession of nuclear
Weapons by the Nuclear Weapon States. In fact, in 1995, we set ourselves
a programme of action for nuclear disarmament. Regrettably, that
programme of action remains unimplemented. I will cite a few examples to
bring this point to the fore:
There
has been no new treaty on the reduction of nuclear Weapons; START II
ratified by the United States in 1996 was ratified by Russia two weeks
ago. My delegation welcomes this long-awaited ratification of START
II, and hopes that this will lead to accelerated process of negotiations
under START III. There are no negotiations covering the Nuclear weapons
possessed by the other three Nuclear Weapon States (United Kingdom,
France and China). There are also no negotiations on the reduction and
destruction of all tactical nuclear weapons.
The
CIBT signed in 1996 has not yet entered into force because of Me
continuing delay in securing The required number of ratifications by
designated States. My delegation takes this opportunity to congratulate
the Russian Federation, one of the designated States, for ratifying the
CTBT. In this connection, we are of the view, that the nuclear tests
conducted in 1998 by India and Pakistan are set backs for the
international norms created for nuclear non-proliferation.
The
Conference on Disarmament has not begun negotiations on a convention
banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. In fact,
the failure of the CD, the single multilateral negotiating forum, for
the third year in succession to engage in any negotiations, is a source
of serious concern to the Nigerian delegation.
To
complicate nuclear disarmament efforts, we are now witnessing the
developments of strategic nuclear doctrines that continue to rely on
nuclear weapons for security. As the United Nations Secretary General
rightly in his Millennium Report, "the objective of Nuclear non-proliferation
is not helped by the fact that the Nuclear Weapon States continue to
insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security, while in the
hands of others Hey are a threat to world peace".
My
delegation is concerned about the possible deployment of anti-missile
defence systems which could have negative implications for the
reductions of the number of nuclear weapons. Our preference is for
negotiated settlement of the differences which had arisen between the
United States and the Russian Federation regarding the bilateral 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty).
Mr.
President,
It
is very clear from the foregoing that we have not met all of the
objectives we set ourselves in 1995. While nuclear nonproliferation is
on track, little progress has been recorded in nuclear disarmament. In
spite of this disappointing situation, Nigeria has not lost hope in our
collective ability to explore and find common ground on how to move
forward.
The
Way Forward
1.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
There is no doubt that the Nuclear
Weapon States bear primary responsibility for taking tangible steps
toward the elimination of nuclear weapons which exist in the thousands.
The situation is further compounded by the lack of adequate safe and
physical protection. The possibility that these weapons could be
transferred to unauthorized hands through smuggling. Efforts to achieve
nuclear disarmament cannot be left to the Nuclear Weapon States alone.
The international Community has a role to play. Some important proposals
have already been put forward by members of the international community.
These include the forward-looking initiatives taken by the New Agenda
Coalition. The realistic nuclear disarmament agenda proposed by the
Coalition was very ably addressed on Tuesday by the distinguished
Foreign Affairs Minister of Mexico. My delegation endorses the
Coalition's proposals including the idea that we can pursue nuclear
disarmament efforts in a sort of constructive parallelism at the
bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral levels.
Mr.
President,
What we need now is to capitalize on the positive trends of the new
initiatives and proposals and use them to advance the cause of nuclear
disarmament. The time has come for serious dialogue between the Nuclear
Weapon States and the non-Nuclear Weapon States. In this regard, my
delegation would like to appeal to the Nuclear Weapon States to take
time to respond to the abovementioned initiatives and proposals. Such
gesture will certainly enable us to find a common ground in moving
nuclear disarmament forward. The UN Secretary General's proposal in his
Millennium Report to me effect "that consideration be given to
convening a major international conference that would help to identify
ways of eliminating nuclear dangers" is very timely.
2.
Strengthening the Review Process for the NPT
The
three Sessions (1997, 1998 and 1999) of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for this Conference did not produce the desired results.
According to the mandate contained in the 1995 Decisions, the PrepCom
was required to take decisions on procedural matters as well as make
recommendations on substantive issues. The PrepCom only succeeded in to
king decisions on procedure, leaving out substantive issues for
consideration by this Conference. We need to look at how to improve the
functioning of the review process so that it can accomplish more than
just adopting decisions on Procedure.
3.
Security Assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapon States
This
is a subject that deserves serious attention by this Conference.
Paragraph 8 of the 1995 Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament reads inter alia "....further steps should be
considered to assure non-Nuclear Weapon States party to the Treaty (NPT)
against the use or threat of Nuclear Weapons. These steps could take the
form of internationally legally binding instrument". Since the 1995
NPT Review and Extension Conference, two new proposals have been
submitted to assist in the "further steps" to be taken on
security assurances. They include a Draft Protocol to the NPT submitted
in 1997 by Nigeria, Myanmar, Kenya and Sudan to the first Preparatory
Committee Meeting for the 2000 NPT Review Conference in document NPT/CONF.2000/PC.1/32;
A draft Protocol submitted in 1999 by South Africa to the Third
Preparatory Committee Meeting for the 2000 NPT Review Conference in
document NPT/CONF.2000/pc.111/9. It is Nigeria's hope that all States
Parties would lend their valuable support for adequate consideration of
the proposals by Nigeria and other States.
The
fact that 110 United Nations Member States already have Security
Assurances through Memberships in NWFZ treaties should not prevent the
negotiation and conclusion of a legally binding treaty on Security
Assurances for NPT parties.
4.
The Need for NPT-based Mechanisms
(a)
Managing the NPT
The
NPT is the cornerstone of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime
and it has served the international Community very well. In recent
times, it has been facing serious challenges. Those challenges as well
as the recurring differences and confrontations each time an NPT Review
Process is in motion, have revealed the weakness of the NPT, the
vulnerability of the nonproliferation regime, and the fragility of the
coalition that brought about consensus decisions at the 1995 NPT Review
and Extension Conference.
Management
questions have too often been at the core of the problems of the NPT
Review Processes. Indeed, during the long intervening periods between
Review Conferences, NPT parties do not have NPT‑based mechanisms
to turn to for their frustrations, concerns, complaints, or
difficulties. In the past, such frustrations have been allowed to reach
boiling point and are then heaped on the Review Conferences resulting in
inconclusive meetings in certain cases.
As
a response to the management challenges facing the NPT, my delegation
would like to propose that we consider the desirability of creating an
NPT MANAGEMENT BOARD. The scope of the functions of the proposed Board
including its composition should be seriously considered at this
Conference.
(b)
Subsidiary bodies/Working groups.
The
decision we took on Monday on Subsidiary bodies should now allow us to
engage in a focused consideration of issues relating to nuclear
disarmament. In this connection, my delegation is of the view that the
issue of security assurances could be dealt with by a working group to
be established under Main Committee I.
5.
Updating the Principles and Objectives of Nuclear
Non‑Proliferation and Disarmament
The
1995 Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament (P&O) are essential yardsticks for measuring progress
from one Review Conference to the other. We therefore consider it useful
to commence from this Review Conference the process of regularly
updating the P&O. The updated 2000 Principles and Objectives will
then serve as benchmarks for the next Review Conference.
Peaceful
Uses of Nuclear Energy
Nigeria
attaches utmost importance to international cooperation for the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy. We are aware of the considerable contribution of
nuclear technology and applications in food and agriculture, mining,
water resources development, medicine, industry, electrical power and
research. It is in this context that we fully commend the crucial role
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been playing in the
promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology. It is of
crucial importance for IAEA to continue to function effectively and
efficiently. In this regard, we would like to see some real growth in
its regular budget.
Concluding
Remarks
Mr.
President,
As
this is the First Review Conference of the NPT following its indefinite
extension, the future of the NPT should be close to our hearts. We
should therefore focus our attention on what we can do to strengthen the
Treaty and not weaken it. We have a special responsibility to set a good
tone for the next Review Conference in 2005, and to set the agenda for
subsequent sessions.
The
question is how best to achieve our future agenda. The answer lies in
how we determine priorities. While we all have our national concerns and
priorities, nevertheless/ the best way forward is to look beyond those
national priorities and to focus on our collective interests.
As
we begin to review NPT-related developments, let us jointly set
ourselves precise and realistic goals, bearing in mind that in
disarmament, progress however modest or incremental is a positive
development for disarmament.
I
thank you.
Back to Official
Documents and Statements
|