The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference:
Breakthrough or Bust in '05?
Report from the first week of the NPT 2005 Review Conference
Back to the main page on the 2005
NPT Review Conference.
By Carol Naughton, BASIC consultant
The week has been a mixture of frustration at not having access
to the floor of the conference, and therefore less access to the
diplomatic teams, and a sense of community at working with so many
colleagues from NGOs across the world.
It took two and half hours to get in and registered on the first
day as there were so many NGOs attending. I was so glad that I made
it into the General Assembly to hear Kofi Annan give his opening
speech. He spoke strongly on the dangers of nuclear war, either
by accident or design, and told delegates that in the shock, anger
and despair that would follow a nuclear strike they would have to
ask themselves, "How did it come to this? Could I have done more
to strengthen the NPT?" He told the delegates that the NPT had an
ambitious agenda but that the consequences of failure were too great.
Success, he said, would be plain for all to see - a world free of
nuclear weapons.
Mohammed ElBaradei spoke next outlining the work of the IAEA and
concluding with - "the opportunity comes only once every five years.
If we fail to act, the NPT framework may be the same in 2010 but
the world will be different. If recent history is any teacher, by
2010, 'would-be proliferators' will continue to innovate, and sensitive
nuclear technology will continue to spread. The arsenals of nuclear-weapon
States will continue to be modernised. And extremist groups will
continue their hunt to acquire and use a nuclear explosive device
- or, even worse, succeed." He accepted that we cannot accomplish
everything in one month but said that the wheels should be set in
motion. "Humanity deserves no less."
The chair of the conference, Ambassador Duarte of Brazil, told
us that despite his best efforts over the last year there was still
no agreement on an agenda but that he was making progress. Unfortunately
as it has turned out, he was over optimistic and at the end of the
week there was still no agreement on an agenda or on subsidiary
bodies to be included. Neither is there agreement on which committees
will consider new issues, such as Treaty withdrawal or concern over
Iran.
It appeared on Thursday that agreement was reached but the text
that Ambassador Duarte suggested included: "It is understood that
the Review Conference would be conducted in the light of the decisions
and the outcome of previous Conferences, and allow for discussion
of any issues raised by States Parties." The Egyptians wanted this
strengthened with the replacement of "in the light of" with "taking
account of" and "issue" replaced by "issues". Tension grew tangibly
all though Thursday and by Friday morning huddles of delegates could
be seen arguing around the conference fringe, but, no resolution
had been reached by 18.00 on Friday.
All references to the final outcomes of 1995 and 2000 were deleted
so it is felt by most delegations that the battle for this has been
lost already and Egypt is prolonging it unnecessarily. Ambassador
Duarte said that there will be no plenary sessions on Monday and
called on all chairs of the different groups to use the time to
meet and consult with a view to "overcoming the questions on procedure".
The next plenary will open on Tuesday morning.
There had been some criticism of Ambassador Duarte, in a few circles,
for not finding a diplomatic way through this impasse but I would
argue that it is unfounded. He is an extremely experienced diplomat
and remains calm and strong in the face of all this pressure. He
is being completely even-handed and although he expressed his sadness
that the conference is not living up to the expectations of the
rest of the world, he is resolute in his aim of trying to find the
right way forward, not the easiest.
One other very disturbing aspect of the whole week of opening statements
is that the conference chamber has been almost empty for every session.
Many reasons have been put forward for this:
- the webcam means that the delegates can be at their desk working
and hear the statements at the same time ·
- everyone is in behind the scenes consultations
- the general air is of such depression that no one feels it is
necessary to be there
- delegates are looking beyond the NPT already and therefore do
not feel it necessary to be there
Whatever the reason, it is bizarre that while we are all so focussed
on this conference as being of vital importance to the future of
the NPT and therefore to the abolition of nuclear weapons, the people
party to this are missing! However, thanks to the efficiency of
the DDA, the opening statements are being placed on the UN website
almost simultaneously
Another, no less intense, series of negotiations have also been
taking place this week. The NGO presentations. A group of NGOs have
been working for the last eight months or so to prepare for the
three hour slot on Wednesday when the NGO community has the opportunity
to give presentations of their collective views to the conference.
There will be papers on many different aspects of the treaty and
finding consensus by email on the issues, wording, length and who
will present each paper has been difficult. However, after ten hours
of face-to-face negotiations, we reached consensus. Some papers
have had to be modified or even re-written but it has been done
collaboratively and has been a lesson for all of us in what it must
be like trying to reach consensus over the Review Conference committees.
On looking through all the opening papers, one thing that hit me
straight away was the differences in interpretation of the objectives
of the Treaty or even of the Review Conference.
For example the French statement says that the primary objective
at the conference is to, "reaffirm the NPT's unique, irreplaceable
contribution to the preservation of international peace and security".
The Marshall Islands support this in their statement, reiterating
ElBaradei's words that the core of the NPT can be summed up in two
words "security and development". Security, they said, was in eliminating
the nuclear threat and development for all in though advanced technology.
Switzerland went further reminding us that the NPT is the only legally
binding instrument of a global nature for promoting nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament. Argentina recalled that the NPT established a balance
of obligations between those states possessing nuclear weapons and
those not and, in reminding nations of their disarmament obligations,
restated their view that the NPT should not be the "disarmament
of the disarmed". The United States gives their interpretation of
the treaty in the first line of their statement, "The Nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty is a key legal barrier against the spread of
nuclear weapons and material related to the production of such weapons."
No mention of disarmament at all except to say later in the paper
that Libya, South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan had wisely
concluded that their security interests are best served by turning
away from nuclear weapons. They conclude that this demonstrates
that "in a world of strong non proliferation norms, it is never
too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state".
Maybe they are going to make that wise choice too.
The five nuclear weapon states vie as always to be the 'best boy
on the block' and tell us how they are implementing the NPT and
Article VI in particular. At least, true to his word, Ambasador
Freeman on behalf of the UK did not parade old retired weapons of
years gone by, which meant the UK proof of compliance was a little
thin on the ground this time. He was very strong in re-affirming
"our unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination
of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament" as well as the
UK continuing support for the relevant disarmament measures contained
in the decisions of 1995 and final outcome of 2000. This surely
must mean that the UK will not replace Trident.
The other four NWS similarly set out a story on compliance with
Russia saying it "strictly complies with all of its disarmament
obligations" and the United States "remains fully committed to fulfiling
our obligations under Article VI --------- We are proud to have
played a leading role in reducing nuclear arsenals". China apparently
has "never shunned its responsibility in nuclear disarmament" and
exercises "utmost restraint in developing nuclear weapons". This
failure of the NWS to accept that, in the eyes of the rest of the
world, they are in non-compliance is one of the biggest barriers
to meaningful debate.
The common theme in all statements was of course the concept of
'balance' of the three pillars in the final outcome of the conference.
Again though I think the different perceptions of that word could
fill a book. Sweden summed up the thoughts of many in expressing
the plea for a substantial Final Document that did not weaken the
treaty or the whole non proliferation and disarmament regime. They
said, " We must not weaken our collective security, we would all
be losers".
Many nations expressed the wish that the decisions of 1995 and
the Final Document of 2000 should be upheld and built upon. The
Ukraine reminded the conference that it had possessed one of the
biggest nuclear arsenals in the world and that their decision to
forswear them had been crucial to the outcome of the 1995 conference.
Lithuania put it succinctly as, "We look forward to this review
conference to further building upon the established principle of
'permanence with accountability' and in particular, upon the 13
steps ."
Many statements outlined the positive moves over the last five
years, citing Cuba and East Timor's accession to the treaty as well
as Libya coming into compliance and the Moscow Treaty. However most
recognised that the negatives far outweigh the positives and cited
the lack of implementation of the 13 point plan, North Korea, concern
over Iran's nuclear programme, increased danger of nuclear terrorism,
nuclear smuggling, the fall of the ABM Treaty, lack of progress
on universality of the treaty, the CD, the FMCT and the CTBT. The
new developments in pre-emptive strategies, lowering the threshold
for use of a nuclear weapon and the research on new nukes were all
mentioned frequently.
Most nations called for the CTBT to Enter into Force and the Marshall
Islands put this case very strongly, reminding us of the lasting
damage of nuclear testing in their lands. The other consensus issues
were in supporting the creation of NWFZs with Mexico applauded for
hosting the recent conference and the universalisation of the Treaty.
Both these subjects led to calls for Israel to renounce its nuclear
weapons and accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The
United Arab Emirates were particularly outspoken on this calling
for all scientific and technological assistance in developing its
nuclear facilities to Israel to be halted.
The Canadian proposal on strengthening the institutional deficit
of the Treaty, which last year was met with a stony silence, now
appears to be gaining much more support with a good many nations
making reference to it in their opening statements.
Iran made a very strong opening statement setting out their support
for the NPT and calling for the 13 point plan of 2000 to be implemented.
They called for a ban on new nuclear weapon developments, for a
revision of nuclear doctrines and all nuclear weapons to be put
on a lowered operational status. They lent their support too to
the call for negotiations on a FMCT and for a legally binding instrument
on providing security assurances to NNWS. Iran also claimed that
their nuclear facilities were for peaceful use only and stated that
they were, "determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology,
including enrichment". A statement that will not satisfy the United
States, who called for "permanent cessation of Iran's enrichment
and reprocessing efforts" in their opening statement.
Many nations referred to Iran's nuclear facilities in their opening
speeches but more the general position was in the words of New Zealand
which, " welcomes the negotiations that are taking place between
France, Germany and the United Kingdom, supported by the High Commission
of the European Union, and Iran on a long term arrangement to provide
objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively
for peaceful purposes."
The other issue raised by Iran was support for the call by some
in civil society for a Nuclear Weapon Convention. This was also
raised by Cuba.
The issue of the DPRK too was raised by many and support for the
six party talks given with a call for the DPRK to resume negotiations.
The EU statement summed up the views of many: "The EU restates its
firm resolve to contribute to the search for a peaceful solution,
through negotiations, to the DPRK nuclear issue, it hopes the dialogue
on this matter within the framework of the six party talks will
be resumed without delay."
Throughout the opening statements there was a consistent call for
security assurances to be codified in a legal instrument. This case
was put, I felt, very strongly by Myanmar which said, " States who
have voluntarily given up the nuclear weapon option not only deserve
but have the legitimate right to receive security assurances. In
this regard, Myanmar joins others in calling for the negotiation
of a universal unconditional and legally binding instrument on security
assurances." This was supported by Korea and by South Africa who
reiterated their call for security assurances to be considered in
a subsidiary body in Main Committee 1 of the conference.
The whole issue of the nuclear fuel cycle played a big part in
the opening round of statements with most nations calling for the
additional protocols to the IAEA Safeguard agreements to be universal.
The UK (and Lithuania's) statements on this reflected the views
of many, "We would like to see the combinations of a Comprehensive
Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol accepted as a future
condition for supply for sensitive nuclear materials."
Russia raised the two issues of support for developing a multilateral
approach to the nuclear fuel cycle being put forward by ElBaradei
and the IAEA and the initiative put forward by President Putin at
the Millennium Summit of developing proliferation resistant nuclear
technologies.
The UK's views were reflected by many in calling for rapid intervention
in the case of any state signalling its intention to withdraw from
the treaty. The UK statement summed up opinion, "We are committed
to ensuring that any State deciding to withdraw cannot subsequently
benefit from nuclear technologies obtained while a State Party,
or seek to use them in furtherance of an illegal nuclear weapons
programme."
Other issues that were raised by a few included sub strategic or
tactical nuclear weapons and many NGOs present took heart from the
German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs statement that appeared
to discuss NATO nuclear weapons when he said," It is also our aim
to reduce sub strategic nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of
their complete elimination. In Germany there is a serious public
debate on this issue which calls for practical steps."
The highlight of the week was on Wednesday lunch time when civil
society took over the General Assembly. Ambassador Duarte was presented
with the Abolition Now petitions with over five million signatures
calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Yoko Ono, representatives
of the Mayors for Peace, the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and
other representatives of civil society addressed the conference
delegates.
Yoko Ono told delegates that "if we drop the bomb anywhere
we drop it on ourselves" and asked them to "imagine peace".
She called on all to wake up, come together and not to waste even
one more day. Sadly, given what has happened over the rest of the
first two weeks, a plea left unheeded. Janet Bloomfield spoke on
behalf of the Abolition Now! campaign bringing the message from
Nobel Peace Laureate, Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat, to the delegates.
His message concludes with the words "above all remember your
humanity." (For the full text see http://www.comeclean.org)
One last comment. There was a great deal of support for the IAEA
and in particular congratulations to the Director General Dr ElBaradei
for his leadership.
Carol Naughton
8 May 2005
|
