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
Thursday, 7 May 2008

Complete PDF of this edition.

Highlights from the Cluster 3 Discussion:

Articles III and IV: Discussion of nuclear fuel cycle proposals
• Thailand reiterated basic elements of the NAM position on fuel cycle proposals.
• The United States expressed support for fuel supply assurances as a backup mechanism, which could contribute to the expansion of nuclear power and provide an alternative to the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. The United States encouraged other states to support the NTI nuclear fuel bank initiative.
• Nigeria said any attempts to limit nuclear activities due to their proliferation-sensitivity must cease and that any proposals for fuel assurances must be consistent with the NPT and IAEA Statute.

Highlights from the Cluster 3 Discussion on Other Provisions of the Treaty:

Article X: Withdrawal
• Australia said the UN Security Council should convene automatically in the case of withdrawal and should demand immediate verification with the Treaty’s provisions. Australia expressed the view that any state that withdraws should be banned from receiving nuclear material, equipment, or technology, and should be obligated to verifiably return or dismantle any such items provided under Article IV.
• Canada reiterated its call for agreement on the principles that no state should be allowed to withdraw and maintain its Treaty benefits; that a state should be in compliance with the NPT prior to withdrawal; and that withdrawal from the Treaty does not absolve a state of violations committed while it was party to the Treaty.
• Japan said that upon notice of withdrawal, the depository states should convene an extraordinary meeting of states. As contained in its working paper on the subject, Japan also described areas of “common awareness” reached in previous discussions on the issue.
• South Africa said discussion of withdrawal should be limited to interpretation of Article X and that it could not accept any proposal that represented a de facto amendment to the Treaty. South Africa also said penalties for withdrawal were not provided under the Treaty and that any change could only be dealt with through the Treaty amendment process.
• Indonesia raised concerns about the UN Security Council dealing with withdrawal cases in light of its limited membership and application of the veto right. Indonesia called for withdrawal cases to be dealt with through an emergency meeting of NPT parties instead.
• The Republic of Korea expressed the view that a notice of withdrawal must be provided in writing to be valid, NPT obligations must be satisfied at the time of withdrawal, and any equipment and material obtained under Article IV must be returned to the supplier. Its suggestions for a response mechanism included an emergency meeting of states parties empowered to call upon a withdrawing state to elaborate its motives and to consider how materials and equipment will be returned, ensuring such material and equipment remains under IAEA safeguards.
• The United States said “constructive” consensus was only possible on responding to withdrawal of treaty violators, noting there was no consensus on penalizing withdrawal per se or on making withdrawal more difficult.
• The European Union said the legal requirements of Article X and the implications for withdrawal should be clarified. It expressed the understanding that in the case of withdrawal, a state should remain liable for violations committed while party to the Treaty and that technology and material previously acquired should continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
• New Zealand said the need for a response mechanism was a matter of priority.
• Switzerland suggested two elements toward addressing withdrawal: creating disincentives by specifying consequences and creating incentives by specifying benefits of Treaty membership, with implementation of Article VI crucial in the latter context.
• Iran argued against taking up the issue of withdrawal, stating the NPT faced more urgent priorities. In a right of reply to the EU cluster 2 statement, Iran asked what incentives do states have to stay in the Treaty if non-NPT states are rewarded for non-participation?
• Cuba rejected equating withdrawal to a threat to international peace and security.
• Argentina favored the study of a response mechanism and suggested withdrawal could be dealt with through an extraordinary session of states parties.

Interactive discussion on withdrawal
• Indonesia asked Japan, who would decide if a withdrawing state is no longer allowed to use equipment, material, and facilities supplied to it? Indonesia also disagreed that the issue of withdrawal was automatically linked to international peace and security. Indonesia gave several examples of why a state might decide to withdraw, which included: deciding the Treaty no longer served its interests or that it no longer provided any economic benefit. In the latter case, Indonesia specifically referred to the US-India deal.
• South Africa expressed appreciation of the US position, which focused on targeting violators of the Treaty that withdrew. South Africa said it would have appreciated it more if the United States had added that violators would be identified through some internationally recognized forum rather than through the unilateral view of states.

Strengthening the Treaty: Standing Secretariat
• Canada argued in favor of a standing NPT secretariat, calling for the establishment of a standing bureau an important first step. Over the next year, Canada will work out the financial aspects of its proposal and present the results as a working paper to the third session of the PrepCom. Canada also called for annual meetings of states parties.
• The United States argued against creating any standing NPT body, stating the problems facing the NPT regime were political rather than procedural and that there were no institutional gaps that needed to be filled.
• New Zealand specifically endorsed Canada’s proposal for a standing NPT secretariat, and repeated the call for annual meetings.
• Switzerland listed proposals for a standing secretariat and annual meetings of states as possible steps that would reinforce the NPT’s institutions.

Strengthening the Treaty: Other measures
• The United States said work should be done to control the costs of the NPT conferences, suggesting the secretariat should maintain electronic copies of documents only. The United States suggested the scale of assessments be reviewed. The United States also suggested revision of the procedures of selecting the bureau.
• New Zealand expressed support for a cross-regional bureau.
• The Secretariat, in response to issues raised by the United States, agreed to the need of shifting from written summaries to digital audio records archived on the internet. The Secretariat said it would be in a better position to provide information about these options by the Review Conference.

Procedural Matters:

2010 Review Conference agenda
• The chair announced he would be conducting informal consultations with the chair of the first PrepCom, intended to facilitate work on the agenda for the Review Conference, to be agreed to at the third PrepCom.

Chair’s factual summary
• The chair announced he would circulate his factual summary of the session on the afternoon of Thursday, 8 May.

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