The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference:
Breakthrough or Bust in '05?
Report of the second week of the NPT Review Conference
Back to the main page on the 2005
NPT Review Conference.
By Carol Naughton, BASIC consultant
The second week opened with still no prospect of an agenda in sight.
The plenary was not due to be in session until Tuesday morning and
the chairs of the different groupings were all calling meetings
to try to resolve the very difficult problem of reaching consensus
on the agenda at paragraph 16. This is the part of the agenda where
substantive work begins and where it states what will be covered
in the Review Conference.
Although it would appear that this dispute over finding agreement
on wording for an agenda is ludicrous, this is only the tip of the
iceberg. The actual disagreement is a fundamental difference in
approach to the Review Conference. On the one hand are those who
want nuclear disarmament to be included as well as non-proliferation,
and therefore reference to the final documents of the Review Conferences
of 1995 and 2000. On the other hand are those who do not want these
reviewed but simply want to focus on non-proliferation.
The US is adamant that there should be no reference to the 2000
final outcome and the '13 steps' and are trying to 'de-grade' this,
as some delegates called it. They say that in today's world disarmament
is a non-issue and the key is counter-proliferation.
The NAM states are equally adamant that there should be no roll
back. Egypt was taking what some, including some NWS, call a principled
position on 'no compromise' on nuclear disarmament. Others were
blaming Egypt for wasting time when the battle is already lost.
However it is clear that the proposed amendment made by Egypt was
never put on the table as Ambassador Duarte had already been told
that it would not be accepted even though, off the record, three
NWS said that they would have supported it.
Egypt played a major role in achieving the resolution in 1995 on
creating a Middle East free from WMD and will not allow that to
be lost. The US and Egypt appeared to be locked in combat. Then
the suggested inclusion by the US of the reference to 'further developments'
upset Iran who thought that was aimed at them. And so it goes, on
and on and on. Egypt were reportedly complaining that Iran was 'hiding
behind them'. Meanwhile the opening statements in the General Assembly
were almost complete and time was running out.
Wednesday afternoon saw the conference move to Conference Room
4 for the NGO presentations. This is the only three-hour slot in
the entire month when NGOs have the official opportunity to put
their point of view to the delegates. For the first time since it
opened, the conference floor was full. Almost every nation had several
delegates in attendance. The galleries were full of NGOs and media.
The air was full of expectation and we did not let them down. The
presentations were so full of information and were delivered with
such spirit that it would have been very hard to ignore us. There
were 15 presentations in total with a set of recommendations to
the conference. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements.html.
The two young women who gave the statement on behalf of the youth
of the world were incredible. They concluded with the question,
"We are ready to step forward to a more peaceful and secure world
for the sake of our common future! Are you ready to join us?" http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/nptngo-Wasley
My turn was next to give BASIC's presentation on NATO: Nuclear
Sharing or Proliferation? It was worth all the months and final
hours of negotiations to be able to speak on the floor of the UN
and look the delegations in the eye while urging them to adopt recommendations
for the way forward that are both immediate and achievable, and
that further both disarmament and non-proliferation. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/nptngo-Naughton
Immediately after the presentations we had a breakthrough and at
ten minutes past six on Wednesday night the President, Ambassador
Duarte, was able to announce he had an agenda. This had been a compromise
that saved face on all sides. Quoting from the UN Website:
"Following the adoption of the agenda (document NPT/CONF.2005/CRP.1),
the Chairman of the conference, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte (Brazil),
made a formal statement underlining that that review would be conducted
in light of the decisions and the resolutions of previous conferences,
and allow for the discussion of any issue raised by States parties."
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/341/72/PDF/N0534172.pdf?OpenElement
This was followed by a speech from the NAM welcoming the agenda
and giving their interpretation of it as including a review of the
resolution from 1995 and the decisions of 2000 including the final
outcome. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/342/71/PDF/N0534271.pdf?OpenElement
The Western Group spoke also to support the President. The sound
of hundreds of breaths being released as the gavel came down shook
the room! Then being drawn in again as Egypt requested the floor.
However it was simply to clarify that the statements by the President
and by the NAM, including the 'asterix' that links these statements
to the official agenda, would be included in the official documents.
Off we all went for a celebratory drink at the reception hosted
by Japan that evening. However we were only just in the foothills.
Now it was down to the real negotiations on what would be within
each of the main committees and what subsidiary bodies would be
included. The ball was back in play again and it was going to be
a dirty game by all accounts. By Friday late afternoon the game
rumbled on and one delegate told me he just did not have the vocabulary
to describe how the US delegation was behaving. Everyone I spoke
to was in despair. Until the decision on how many subsidiary bodies
there will be, and in which committee they will lie is decided,
then the committees themselves cannot be decided upon!
Months had been spent preparing for this conference, which we had
all been told, was of the utmost significance for the world, for
peace and for security and here it was totally blocked with no way
forward. No agreement was anywhere in sight on subsidiary bodies.
Everyone was saying that for the conference to succeed there had
to be real dialogue and people would have to listen to each other
but, if no substantive work could be done, then they could not even
get to the point of talking to each other.
The NAM states were very clear that there must be subsidiary bodies
on security assurances and the US equally adamant that there should
not be. It had been expected that there would be three subsidiary
bodies. Now it looks as if the issue of 'Middle East' will be included
in 'Regional Issues' and 'Security Assurances' may be put together
with 'Nuclear Disarmament' in Committee 1. The other issue of withdrawal
from the treaty is still under negotiation as to whether it will
be in Main Committee three under 'peaceful uses of nuclear technology'.
Carol Naughton
16 May 2005
|
