Searching for consensus Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Front page article 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 Friday, 15 May 2009
On Thursday, consensus on Chair’s draft recommendations
continued to elude delegations. After another morning of consultations
and regional group meetings, the Chair opened the plenary
meeting lamenting that he had not been able to garner consensus
on his draft recommendations. Expressing the belief that it
would be best not to ruin the spirit of cooperation that had
been demonstrated thus far at the PrepCom by continuing to
fight over the recommendations, he opened the floor for comments
on ways to move forward.
Of the 25 delegations that spoke, most expressed disappointment
that consensus on the document could not be met. Many, including
those of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan,
Mexico, Russia, and South Africa, said they would be willing
to agree to the revised text. Most of these delegations said
they would have agreed to the original text as well and reiterated
their understanding that the recommendations are not binding
and do not prejudge the outcome of the RevCon.
Only a few delegations took the initiative to be transparent
about their positions. The UK ambassador said that while the
revised text contains four policy issues that the United Kingdom
has opposed on public record, the only remaining problem for
his delegation was two letters in the preambular paragraph.
Sources suggested the UK wanted to alter the sentence explaining
that the recommendations identify “areas in which, and
the means through which, further progress should be sought
in the future” to “could be sought in the future.”
The Egyptian delegation expressed very clearly that it is
dissatisfied with large portions of the revised recommendations.
The Egyptian ambassador listed several specific examples.
He questioned the title of Section 1, “Universality
of the treaty, and of principles of disarmament, non-proliferation,
and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” arguing that
this could lead one to believe that the rights related to
nuclear energy granted to NPT states parties under article
IV of the Treaty are to be universally applied. He also criticized
the revised disarmament action plan for recommending only
some but not all of the 13 practical steps from the 2000 RevCon,
arguing that only partially citing previous decisions undermines
them. Further, while noting that some of the recommendations
in the Middle East section have been improved, he objected
to the use of the word “consider,” arguing that
the PrepCom must be more assertive in recommending the RevCon
take action on things.
The Cuban delegation said it would have supported the original
draft but that the watering down of practical disarmament
measures moved the Committee further away from consensus.
It expressed belief that some states parties seem to not really
be “in a position to produce substantive recommendations
at present time that would help us to truly move forward in
applying three pillars.”
Despite these discrepancies, many delegations—including
those of the African Group, Chile, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands,
the Republic of Korea, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and
the United States—encouraged the Chair not to give up
just yet. The US delegation argued the Committee was “closer
than is apparent” to reaching agreement and asked for
more time to “work out the small differences”
between delegations. However, the Iranian delegation expressed
disbelief that any consensus could be reached and urged the
Chair to close consideration of this issue and move on. The
Iranian ambassador argued that the states insisting that consensus
could be reached were simply trying to ensure they would not
be blamed for the stalemate.
Many of the most drastic revisions to the draft recommendations,
particular those relating to disarmament, are now more in
line with nuclear weapon state positions—for example,
the elimination of a recommendation to examine ways and means
to commence negotiations “on a convention or framework
of agreements to achieve global nuclear disarmament,”
and another to identify “refraining from the qualitative
improvement of nuclear weapons” as a practical disarmament
measure. Given this, and given that the Egyptian and Cuban
problems with the recommendations are well known, it could
be disingenuous for some delegations to suggest that consensus
is nigh.
However, as Ambassador Landman of the Netherlands pointed
out, the Chair knows best what the remaining difficulties
are. He noted that while the statements delivered during Thursday’s
plenary made it sound like the PrepCom could “make the
extra mile” and arrive at an agreement, the Chair should
call upon those countries that in his view have to make that
mile, to do so. The Chair agreed to postpone a decision on
the recommendations until Friday morning, though he said he
would not hold consultations with delegations between now
and then. Suggesting that the delegations work with each other
on the issue, he said he would be happy to hear about any
new initiatives.
Despite uncertainty about the future of the recommendations,
most delegations welcomed the overwhelmingly positive atmosphere
at this PrepCom. The Australian ambassador, describing some
of her previous PrepCom experiences as similar to “pulling
teeth,” emphasized that since the Committee has already
adopted an agenda and held substantive debates, the session
should by no means be considered a failure if it is unable
to forward recommendations to the RevCon.
Indeed, this is the most constructive NPT conference in quite
some time. While it will be disappointing if the spirit of
compromise is diminished in the debate over the recommendations,
it does not mean the RevCon is a lost cause. The fact is,
the majority of states parties were willing to compromise.
And while it remains to be seen what the Obama administration’s
official policies will look like by the 2010 RevCon or to
what degree other states parties might be willing to “give
and take” next year, there have been many promising
indications of good will and cooperation at this PrepCom that
should be carried forward as a manifestation of the recommendations.
