Front page article from the News in Review, the daily NGO newsletter from the second session of the
Preparatory Committee for the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
Wednesday, 7 May 2008

Complete PDF of this edition.

Highlights from the Cluster 2 Discussion:

Middle East
• The United Kingdom and the United States took note of Egypt’s working paper WP.20 on measures to implement the 1995 NPT resolution. The United Kingdom said it would give the proposals careful consideration.
• The United States elaborated on its allegations regarding the Syrian reactor, calling its design “curious” and insinuating its purpose was for the production of plutonium. The United States noted that it was not designed for electrical power generation, not connected to an energy grid, and not located near a population center.
• In a right of reply, Iran categorically rejected allegations against it as “obsolete” and “boring”. Iran vowed it would never suspend its uranium enrichment program or its cooperation with the IAEA.

Highlights from the Cluster 3 Discussion:

Article III: Strengthening Safeguards
• Australia urged other states to make the Additional Protocol a condition of supply.
• The European Union stated that an NPT Review Conference decision that comprehensive safeguards and the Additional Protocol constitute the IAEA verification standard, “would greatly enhance the confidence necessary for more active international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Articles III and IV: Update on fuel cycle proposals and initiatives
• Japan said it was working to follow up on its standby arrangements proposal, which it said would enhance the “transparency and predictability of the front-end market.”
• The Netherlands said it would present the results of the April 2008 Berlin conference to the June meeting of the IAEA Board. The Netherlands cited the need for further discussion on the fuel cycle in an open and transparent manner and in the context of the IAEA.
• Germany provided an overview of its Multilateral Enrichment Sanctuary Project to establish an IAEA enrichment plant on neutral territory. Germany stated any fuel cycle proposal must not introduce new obligations to NPT states parties.
• Russia provided an overview and update of its International Uranium Enrichment Center, stating it was negotiating a decision with the IAEA regarding establishment of a low-enriched uranium reserve at the Center.
• Austria provided an overview of its two-step proposal for the IAEA to broker all fuel cycle transactions and to eventually extend control over sensitive nuclear technologies.
• The IAEA outlined its three-step suggestion for extending multilateral control to the nuclear fuel cycle. The IAEA stated the Agency’s Director General would submit the NTI fuel bank proposal to the Board of Governors once a remaining $45 million was pledged by interested states.
• The United Kingdom provided an overview of its enrichment bonds concept and repeated Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s 19 March announcement that the UK would sponsor an international conference on the fuel cycle later this year.

Articles III and IV: Discussion of fuel cycle proposals
• Canada suggested fuel cycle initiatives “should be based on criteria that recognize exemplary non-proliferation credentials and legitimate economic or fuel-cycle justification for preserving future uranium processing options.”
• The Non-Aligned Movement said, toward achieving consensus, consideration of the issue was premature prior to extensive consultations. The NAM also stated the issue of assurances is very complex, with technical, legal, commercial, and economic implications. The NAM called for all proposals to be consistent with the provisions of the NPT, without prejudice to the right to nuclear energy.
• Australia expressed interest in exploring multilateral approaches to enhance assurances and to avoid the unnecessary spread of proliferation-sensitive technologies. Australia also expressed the view that “a well functioning market provides an effective assurance of fuel supply and practical alternative to the acquisition of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.”
• The European Union stressed the need for pragmatic solutions that “reflect economic reality and the real needs of the recipient countries.”
• The Republic of Korea specifically endorsed the US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program, of which it is a member, citing its development of advanced, proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies.
• Brazil said most proposals ignored the success of safeguards. It also challenged the suggestion that the Treaty contained loopholes. Brazil said any proposal must not place restraints on any states that applies comprehensive safeguards and must not supercede any existing agreement.
• New Zealand said any mechanism must be consistent with the NPT provisions under Articles I, II, and III.
• South Africa said discussion of fuel cycle mechanisms should involve the IAEA. Any mechanism should not include preconditions or require states to forgo any rights. South Africa rejected attempts to control nuclear technology in the name of non-proliferation.
• Egypt said it was studying various proposals and recognized the need for assurances, stating it was unacceptable to leave the matter of supply up to political or economic considerations.
• Switzerland said the discussion on fuel cycle mechanisms should take place in the context of the NPT. Switzerland said it cannot accept proposals that aim to restrict access to fuel cycle technologies on the pretext of limiting the risks of proliferation, as “such proposals would unjustifiably discriminate against these States.”
• Norway expressed support for an IAEA fuel reserve as an “important first step toward towards developing an equitable multilateral framework for the nuclear fuel cycle that provides assurances against supply disruptions and strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation regime.” Norway also expressed more general support for efforts to make the nuclear fuel cycle more proliferation-resistant, while taking into account the concerns of developing countries.
• China said it understood the objective of the proposals is to reduce the risk of proliferation. Similar to the NAM, China said the proposals should be carefully considered and studied in light of technical, political, and economic complexities.
• Turkey said that the right of states to make their own fuel cycle choice must be respected.
• Indonesia expressed the understanding that fuel assurances were intended to be complementary to the non-proliferation regime. Indonesia also linked the issue to the need for a verifiable fissile materials treaty. Indonesia suggested several conditions for the adoption of any mechanism, including negotiations through a transparent, non-discriminatory process under the IAEA.
• Malaysia said an assurance mechanism should be incentive-based, commercially competitive, and free of monopolies and inappropriate political restraints. It expressed opposition to suspension of rights as a precondition for assurances of supply or for fuel cycle services. Malaysia also said that if multilateral approaches are to succeed, export controls should be rationalized in the context of the NPT.
• Algeria said, before it could be adopted, any mechanism must take into account Article IV, in addition technical, political, and economic considerations.

Articles III and IV: Other discussion of the fuel cycle
• Canada said its industry had recently expressed interest in developing uranium enrichment in order to add value to its uranium reserves and conversion services.

Other Provisions: Strengthening the review process
• Offered as food for thought, Ukraine proposed dividing future sessions of the Committee into two parts: reviewing the implementation of the Treaty; and development of new measures to strengthen the NPT regime. Ukraine also suggested that state reports be circulated in advance, which would be reviewed as well. The PrepCom could be responsible for preparing proposals for the RevCon. To avoid further financial difficulties, Ukraine suggested establishment of a special office in the IAEA to deal with organizational matters.

Procedural Matters:

The Committee adopted six decisions:
• Decision 4: The Committee elected Amb. Boniface Guwa Chidyausiki of Zimbabwe, the nominee of the Non-Aligned Movement, as chair of its third session.
• Decision 5: The Committee decided to hold its third session in New York from 4–15 May 2009. The chair indicated the host country gave him assurances about upholding longstanding diplomatic practices, in response to concerns regarding the issuance of visas.
• Decision 6: The Committee decided to hold the RevCon in New York from 26 April–21 May 2010.
• Decision 1: The Committee invited the UN Secretary-General to nominate a provisional Secretary-General of the RevCon, to be confirmed by the Conference.
• Decision 2: The Committee noted the estimated costs of the RevCon and PrepCom and expressed the understanding in the method for determining cost estimates for advance payment for the third PrepCom and the RevCon. The Committee also agreed that outstanding dues (totaling more than $700,000) must be paid “in proper time.”
• Decision 3: The Committee requested the UN Secretary-General provide a financial report to the RevCon and each PrepCom session.

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