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 Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Recommendations to the 2010 RevCon
• The chair opened to floor on Tuesday for general comments
on his draft recommendations to the 2010 RevCon.
• The chair expressed reluctance to go down the path
of submitting the recommendations as a chair’s working
paper.
• The chair indicated he would facilitate consultations
between delegations over the text on Tuesday afternoon and
Wednesday morning. He stressed that engaging in detailed negotiations
over the text would not be feasible.
• The next plenary meeting of the PrepCom will take
place on Wednesday afternoon, where it is hoped delegations
can take action on a likely revised text.
General views of states on the recommendations
• Many delegations implicitly or explicitly expressed
support proceeding on the basis of the chair’s text,
notwithstanding their desired revisions or their views that
the text could be strengthened. Several referred to it as
a good basis for discussion, including Brazil, Japan, the
New Agenda Coalition, the ROK, Malaysia, and South Africa.
• As a caveat intended to help persuade reluctant delegations
to move forward on the basis of the chair’s text, a
number of delegations positively noted, as reflected in the
document, that the recommendations will not prejudice the
work or outcome of the RevCon.
• Several delegations faulted the text for not reflecting
balanced treatment of the three pillars of the Treaty, including
the NAM, Russia, the US, the UK, France, and the ROK.
• Some specifically argued that the nuclear disarmament
section was more detailed than those dealing with the other
pillars. Russia called for actions plans on all three pillars,
not just disarmament. France agreed, but noted a single action
plan would be sufficient if it addressed all three pillars.
• The NAM and Iran faulted the structure of the recommendations
as not sufficiently reflecting the three pillars.
• Several delegations cautioned against tinkering too
much with the text, especially in a manner that necessitates
wide negotiations or that includes provisions that are not
widely supported. In this context, Canada and Norway appealed
for flexibility.
Calls for specific language in the recommendations
• The NAM called for the inclusion of, inter alia, a
reference to legally-binding security assurances and concrete
measures for implementing the Middle East resolution.
• The United Kingdom and Russia said the portion on
the Middle East should reflect discussions and proposals made
during the third PrepCom.
• Egypt and Canada disputed the draft text’s suggestion
that the presently constituted “strengthened review
process” is “indispensable,” highlighting
their calls and support for NPT institutional reform.
• Canada suggested the text recommend establishment
of subcommittees on the topics of withdrawal and institutional
reform.
• Egypt contested as too narrow the idea, expressed
in the draft, that restrictions on the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy not be applied “for political purposes,”
arguing instead that restrictions should never be applied.
• Russia and Canada suggested the non-proliferation
section could be strengthened.
• The United States suggested it could not support any
disarmament steps that go beyond the policies described in
President Obama’s 5 April speech. The US delegation
expressed its desire to defer taking any decision on disarmament
measures until after it completes its upcoming defense and
nuclear posture reviews.
• Algeria called for the text to reflect progress toward
achieving a compromise programme of work in the CD.
• Algeria also called for the recommendation on universality
to call for states not party to the Treaty to join as non-nuclear
weapon states rather than to adhere to the Treaty without
preconditions.
• Delegations expressed divergent views on the text’s
treatment of withdrawal, with Canada requesting more language
reflecting positions that have been expressed. Algeria, on
the other hand, suggested the language in the draft text went
beyond the positions of many states.
• Several delegations, including France and the UK,
also indicated they would be submitting suggestions on changes
or amendments to the chair.
