|
"Shades of Grey"
Front page article from the News in
Review, the daily NGO newsletter from the Preparatory Committee
for the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty
Friday, 11 May 2007
For the full edition of the News in Review,
click here.
Yesterday, governments tackled two of the most contentious contemporary
political issues: the Middle East and nuclear energy. The tone
was largely diplomatic, and delegations even engaged in some
interactive debate during the morning session. Yet, observing
from the corner, one has the sense that states are not hearing
each other. There are many diverse, nuanced, fluctuating views
about these two subjects, dependent on changing political, economic,
environmental, and social factors. The debate here at the PrepCom,
however, is largely stationary – there is a lack of acknowledgment
of each other’s perspectives, and a lack of flexibility
in reexamining one’s own position or understandings.
The main focus of the morning session was the implementation
of the 1995 Middle East resolution, which calls for the establishment
of a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the region. Many states
recalled that the resolution was an integral part of the decision
to indefinitely extend the NPT in 1995, and lamented that it
has not yet been realized, despite the 2000 Review Conference’s
affirmation that the resolution is still valid.
In determining why progress has stalled, most states pointed
to the political environment in the Middle East, and the lack
of determination by the nuclear weapon states to decisively
participate in changing this environment. Israel’s
nuclear weapon programme was frequently indicated as the number
one impediment to a NWFZ in the region, and many states called
for Israel’s immediate accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear
weapon state and to the IAEA’s comprehensive safeguards
agreements. Some states also called for NPT member states to
cease all nuclear cooperation with Israel, arguing that double
standards are being applied in the region. In Libya’s
words, some states are “judging small creatures”
while elephants act aggressively with the support of a gang.
The US argued that Iran’s alleged violations of its safeguards
agreements were responsible for holding up the creation of Middle
East NWFZ and the universalization of the NPT. The US delegate
said, “We cannot hope to attract new parties to the Treaty
if the non-proliferation assurances offered by the Treaty are
not seen to be credible.”
Other states had very different perceptions of actions that
undermine the Treaty. Some states questioned how the proposed
US-India deal will affect the non-proliferation regime. For
example, Canada said it wants “to ensure that any developments
in this regard do not weaken the international non-proliferation
and disarmament regime, and recall the positions already taken
by the NPT membership regarding conditions of supply to non-nuclear
weapon states.” NGOs have also invited the US to explain
to the PrepCom how the US-India deal is in compliance with NPT.
Other states argued that the failure to implement the Middle
East resolution undermines the NPT, as it indicates a bias in
implementing some of the Treaty’s provisions over others,
and encourages further nuclear proliferation in the region.
States also disagree about how to implement the Middle East
resolution. While the US argues that “progress toward
[a Middle East NWFZ] requires progress toward a political and
security environment in the Middle East that is conducive to
creating this condition,” many other states, including
South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Cuba, and Malaysia, believe
that the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East would help
create an atmosphere conducive to sustainable peace in the region.
As South Africa said, “the possession of nuclear weapons
provides only an illusion of security for those who posses,
but in reality it only serves to increase insecurity.”
This discord of perceptions continued in the afternoon session,
when delegates discussed the “peaceful” uses of
nuclear energy. In WILPF’s perspective, New Zealand correctly
posited that “nuclear power is not compatible with the
concept of sustainable development, given the long term costs,
both financial and ecological, of nuclear waste and the risk
of nuclear proliferation.” In contrast, France described
nuclear power as “protective of the environment”.
New Zealand has rejected nuclear energy for itself, while France
profits from the sale of nuclear technology. South Africa, unfortunately,
announced it is aiming to restart fuel cycle activities, while
Jordan mentioned it is planning to begin a nuclear energy programme.
Most other states remained silent on this issue.
Some delegations argued that “non-compliance with non-proliferation
commitments” voided NPT member states’ “inalienable
right” to nuclear technology. Others expressed concern
that there is an emphasis on non-proliferation at the expense
of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, at a time when many
developing countries are hoping nuclear power will supply their
growing populations and industries with energy. These states
called for a balance among the three pillars of the NPT. Malaysia
even pointed out that the tern non-proliferation non-compliance
“does not appear in that form, at all, in the text of
the NPT.”
Similarly, some states argued that multilateral controls of
the fuel cycle would discourage proliferation, while others
pointed out such controls would be in violation of Article IV
of the NPT, which affords member states the right to develop,
research, and produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
In the end, both sessions revealed important fault lines between
nuclear weapon states’ and non-nuclear weapon states’
positions on the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. The
NWS continue to prioritize non-proliferation, while the NNWS
believe that the double standards placed on the NNWS and with
respect to non-states parties are the true regime-eroding factor.
A fundamental discord of perception lies at the root of the
current impasse in the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
It is apparent in questions of reductions versus elimination,
rights versus obligations, security first versus disarmament
first, or Iran versus Israel – we are all looking at the
same situation, but are some are seeing it black and others
white. We all need a little more grey.
Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
|
