The mutual responsibility of compromise 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 Tuesday, 5 May 2009
On 4 May, the third PrepCom, chaired by Ambassador Chidyausiku
of Zimbabwe, began in earnest with government representatives
delivering their countries’ “general debate”
statements and non-government representatives engaging in
several interactive panel discussions throughout the day.
The dominant themes expressed repeatedly during the general
debate were optimism and concern. The majority of states parties
cited the renewed Russian-US dialogue on bilateral reductions
and President Obama’s speech in Prague as reasons to
have hope that the decade of stalemate is finally coming to
a close. At the same time, most states worry that the last
ten years have done serious damage to the credibility of the
NPT and to the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime
in general.
However, based on these general statements, it seems that
everyone here is looking for a constructive way forward. Aside
from the usual criticisms expressed by some delegations about
each other’s compliance with various articles of the
NPT, most representatives are interested in achieving the
two primary objectives of this PrepCom: setting an agenda
and drafting some recommendations on substantive issues for
next year’s Review Conference.
In terms of setting an agenda for the Review Conference,
representatives voiced few concrete proposals. Canada’s
delegation suggested using the agenda established for the
2000 Review Conference as a basis for the 2010 agenda.
Regarding the recommendations, several delegates highlighted
their working papers submitted to the previous two PrepComs
as containing ideas for how to move forward on particular
pieces of the NPT. The Chair indicated that he will circulate
draft elements of these recommendations by Friday, which will
be based on statements and papers identifying practical initiatives
to reach consensus on at the Review Conference.
Giving a good indication of what some of these elements might
include, the overwhelming majority of delegations emphasized
the importance of the implementation of past agreements, particularly
those outlined at the 2000 and 1995 Review Conferences. New
Zealand’s delegate referred to these as an essential
part of the NPT’s “fabrics”.
Confronting a principle challenge to reaching consensus,
Switzerland’s delegation suggested a way to smooth the
tensions between the three pillars of the NPT. Ambassador
Streuli argued that the seemingly opposing priorities expressed
by delegations—non-proliferation, disarmament, or nuclear
energy—are linked to the three pillars of the Treaty
and therefore, “the very sources of disagreement contain
in themselves the makings of a possible compromise.”
He urged states to “commit themselves toward a re-adjustment
of the emphasis to be placed on each of the three pillars,”
arguing that since the they are inextricably linked, the fulfillment
of each is the best guarantee for the fulfillment of the others.
A common refrain throughout the day was that multilateralism
and compromise need to come back in fashion. For too long,
these values have been neglected and most delegations are
eager to see them reinstated to their proper place. Several
delegations stressed that all states share the responsibility
of acting in good faith to find a collective way forward this
year and next. The time for waiting is over. As Kenya’s
delegation argued at the end of the day, a nuclear weapon
free world is feasible in our lifetime, if we take bold, deliberate
political actions in that direction.
