2002 NPT Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)
8 - 19 April 2002, New York\

BASIC Notes from the NPT PrepCom 
Issue #2, April 18, 2002

As the 2002 Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty  (NPT) neared its end on Thursday night, meeting chairman Ambassador Henrik Salander of Sweden released the “Chairman’s Factual Summary” to an expectant crowd of diplomats and meeting observers.

Salander stood by his promise to issue a factual review of key issues, concerns, and ideas raised during the course of the PrepCom.  Balanced and thorough, Salander sought to reflect an accurate sense of the meeting – and it is to his credit that he largely achieved this difficult task.

Delegates felt that the chair’s factual summary would be a reasonable way to close this meeting, the first of three prior to the next NPT Review Conference in 2005.  With many significant international events in the past year, and countries uncertain of the best path to take to shore up the NPT by 2005, a simple description of the meeting’s themes was overwhelmingly affirmed as the most useful way to take the temperature of the international non-proliferation regime without raising new disagreements, stalemates, or other obstacles.

Salander’s summary reflects the wide spectrum of statements on the sum total of the NPT’s parts.  The document touches on many important ideas:

-         BUSH ADMINISTRATION RECORD:  A large number of countries expressed grave reservations about the record of the United States in achieving significant progress on the steps to enhance arms control and non-proliferation outlined in the May 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document.  In addition to generally lamenting the lack of progress by nuclear-weapons states, the summary mentions “an emphasis on multilateralism as a core principle in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation,” a sentiment that contrasts strongly with the harmful unilateral measures enacted recently by Washington.  The document also refers to “the decision by the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and the development of missile defense systems”; citing concerns that such moves “could lead to a new arms race, including outer space”.

-         NUCLEAR TERRORISM:  Countries reaffirmed the importance of controlling nuclear material and enhancing non-proliferation efforts as a means to combat nuclear terrorism, all the more prominent in international thinking in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.  The chair’s summary cites “a greater sense of urgency to the common efforts of all States in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.”

-         ARTICLE VI:  Nuclear disarmament commitments by the five nuclear states were cited as essential, combined with non-proliferation efforts, to the continued success of the NPT as an effective treaty.  Specific reference was made to Article VI of the NPT which commits states to pursuing “good faith” negotiations on nuclear disarmament.  The statement notes “without the fulfillment of Article VI over time, the Treaty… will lose its true value.”

-         CTBT SUPPORT:  States Parties overwhelmingly showed support for the CTBT, urging accession of ratifiers and the treaty’s entry into force as soon as possible.  This goal, one of the “13 steps” outlined in 2000, has been ignored most notably by Beijing and Washington.

-         NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS:  Some countries raised the need for reductions in the role, and eventually the numbers, of non-strategic nuclear weapons.  The final summary included the idea floated by Germany during the PrepCom of formalizing the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992. [At that time, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev enacted unilateral, reciprocal reductions in their respective non-strategic nuclear weapons arsenals.]

-         TRANSPARENCY:  A key theme of the meeting rested in reporting measures by States Parties as indicated in the 2000 Final Document.  During the meeting, delegates debated whether the agenda would include reporting on Article VI commitments and on the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.  In the end, States Parties agreed to discuss Article VI implementation and regional issues without “reports.”  The chair’s summary offers a bland overview of this tumultuous topic, simply stating that countries desired a range of resolutions, from open-ended discussions to prepare proposals for future PrepCom meetings to leaving the reporting style and substance to be determined by each country. 

-         REGIONAL ISSUES:  India, Israel, and Pakistan are all given equal weight when discussing accession to the NPT and regional concerns that are raised by their non-NPT participation.  Israel in particular is spotlighted as a stumbling block to the Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone advocated by some of its Arab neighbors.  On the non-compliance issue, Iraq and North Korea are highlighted by the summary as negligent of their NPT commitments, following strong assertions by countries such as the United Kingdom and United States.

-         NEGATIVE SECURITY ASSURANCES:  This topic was given a good amount of time in statements from non-nuclear weapon states, especially since the assurances are seen as a part of the “bargain” given by nuclear-weapon states to win the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995.  The issue was lent further importance in light of the recent US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which indicated a willingness on the part of Washington to target certain NPT Non-Nuclear Weapons States with nuclear weapons.  Concerns about Britain’s security assurances were also raised during the conference, following recent comments by the U.K. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons in a future conflict with Iraq.  These fears were later refuted in a statement from the U.K. delegation.

With such significant matters in the balance, Salander’s summary could not begin to seek consensus from states so long before the 2005 Review Conference.  However, the document provides a reasonable explanation of the conference’s proceedings.  It generally outlines issues without papering over cracks in the regime, and with opinions from such a wide variety of actors, the summary does an admirable job of weighting the arguments appropriately.

Chairman's Summary of PrepCom Proceedings 

Back to Official Documents and Statements

Back to NPT home page