News in Brief Michael Spies | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
News in Brief section from the NPT News
in Review, the daily NGO newsletter from the third session
of the
Preparatory Committee for the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Review Conference Tuesday, 12 May 2009
• On Tuesday morning, the chair will open the floor
for general comments on his draft recommendations.
• States decided to allocate the same agenda items to
the main committees as in 2005.
• States decided to defer consideration of the final
document until the RevCon in keeping with past practice, following
a suggestion from New Zealand and in light of divergent views.
• States also decided on a number of other procedural
issues pertaining to the RevCon, agreeing to some measures
to cut the cost of background documentation, authorizing the
bureau to work intercessionally, and inviting intergovernment
and non-government organizations to attend the RevCon.
Highlights from the Cluster 3 Discussion
Fuel supply assurances
• The IAEA described progress toward establishing a
three-tiered mechanism for fuel assurances, based on its current
legal authority, including market-based assurances and a LEU
fuel reserve.
• Many delegations expressed support for the IAEA’s
efforts to establish a nuclear fuel bank, including the EU,
US, UK, France, and Norway. Norway also expressed support
for the German fuel cycle proposal.
• Malaysia said that the fuel bank proposal still requires
additional study regarding its legal, political, technical,
and economic dimensions.
• In response to fuel assurances, Egypt observed that
current efforts to create supply assurances did not seem to
be arising from concerns over supply but rather from concerns
of supplier states.
Discussion of multilateral fuel cycle approaches
• Turkey, the ROK, and Indonesia cautioned that multilateral
approaches should not impede on the right of states to make
decisions about their own development of the fuel cycle.
• China, Indonesia, and Iran called for in-depth studies
to assess political, economic, security, and/or technical
dimensions of multilateral approaches. Cuba called for in-depth
negotiations and for any proposal to be adopted by consensus.
Iran said any proposal should be taken up by the IAEA General
Conference and not by the Board of Governors.
• Several delegations warned against measures that would
effectively result in the denial of technology or compromise
rights, including Brazil, Switzerland, Malaysia, Nigeria,
and Iran. Brazil warned that multilateral approaches must
not impede the rights of states that adhere to comprehensive
safeguards. Switzerland said it does not envisage support
for proposals that in effect strengthen existing monopolies
or aim in principle to restrict the rights of states. Malaysia
and Iran warned that any approach must not introduce any new
non-proliferation commitments beyond existing ones. Nigeria
said any measures must not impose “unnecessary”
limitations on nuclear transfers.
• The ROK urged for more attention to be paid to multilateral
approaches to the back end of the fuel cycle, including waste
management.
• New Zealand said any proposal must include measures
related to safety and security of nuclear materials, especially
related to transport on the high seas.
• Austria said any proposal should increase transparency,
further international security, and create conditions for
nuclear disarmament.
• Egypt argued against the concepts of proliferation-sensitive
technologies and irresponsible nuclear states.
Discussion of other nuclear energy issues
• The EU proposed an action plan on promoting the responsible
development of nuclear energy, focusing on promoting assistance,
safety, security, safeguards, transparency, and development
of multilateral approaches to the fuel cycle.
• Norway cautioned that nuclear energy might not always
be the right way to generate electricity and welcomed the
establishment of IRENA.
• Austria said that in light of the economic costs and
the problem of waste, nuclear power is not a sustainable solution
to climate change.
Highlights from the Focused Discussion on Withdrawal from
the Treaty
• The United States reiterated its past positions regarding
the need to develop an understanding on responding to the
withdrawal of treaty violators.
• The EU also reaffirmed its past positions and proposals,
as set forth in a 2007 working paper.
• Several delegations, including Australia, the EU,
Japan, and Russia, supported the principle that nuclear materials
and facilities provided to a state, while party to the Treaty,
should remain in peaceful use and under safeguards after that
party were to withdraw.
• Several delegations, including the EU, Japan, Russia,
Canada, also supported the principle that a withdrawing state
should remain liable for violations committed while party
to the Treaty.
• Several delegations expressed the view that, in the
case of withdrawal, any materials supplied under Article IV
should be returned to the supplying state. Russia said that
any materials that could not be returned should remain under
lifetime IAEA safeguards.
• Russia expressed support for clarifying the requirement
of Article X, specifically recommending that a notice to withdraw
should be submitted in writing and provide sufficient detail
of the reasons for withdrawal.
• States expressed divergent views on whether any withdrawal
constitutes a threat to international peace and security.
Canada and Norway suggested any withdraw would constitute
a threat to international. Russia and Cuba disputed any such
automatic link. The ROK noted a withdrawal could constitute
a threat.
• A number of delegations, including Russia, Cuba, and
Iran, expressed opposition to revising Article X or undermining
the sovereign right to withdraw.
• States expressed divergent views on a response mechanism,
particularly on the question of whether a withdrawal should
trigger an automatic meeting of the UN Security Council or
the IAEA Board of Governors, or if an extraordinary session
of states parties should be convened.
• Indonesia opposed bringing withdrawal cases to the
Security Council, expressing support instead for extraordinary
sessions of states parties.
• Several delegations advocated for the Security Council
to convene immediately upon receiving a notice of withdrawal.
Russia expressed opposition to any immediate meeting of the
Council, noting that the body itself must decide whether any
particular case constitutes a threat to the peace.
Discussion of Other Issues
Institutional Reform
• Canada provided further details on its proposals to
achieve further reform of NPT institutions and the review
process. Canada specifically called for: annual general conferences;
establishment of a standing bureau; and establishment of a
NPT support unit with the Office of Disarmament Affairs.
• Norway expressed support for the ideas of holding
annual meetings and for establishing an NPT support unit.
