Return of multilateralism? Ray Acheson and Michael Spies | 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 Wednesday, 6 May 2009
The second day of the NPT PrepCom brought two very interesting
developments. During the continued general “debate,”
US Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance,
and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller delivered an anticipated
statement revising US positions in light of President Obama’s
5 April speech in Prague The statement was an encouraging
sign that the new US administration is taking the NPT seriously
and is ready to change its attitude toward and position on
a few key aspects of the implementation of the Treaty.
At the outset, Ms. Gottemoeller read a message to the PrepCom
from President Obama, who reaffirmed US commitment to the
Treaty and to achieving a successful outcome at this Committee
and at next year’s Review Conference. In a welcome split
from Bush era policy, Obama’s message emphasized the
importance of multilateralism. He urged governments to seek
common ground, however, recognizing“that differences
are inevitable and that NPT parties will not always view each
element of the treaty in the same way. But we must define
ourselves not by our differences, but by our readiness to
pursue dialogue and hard work.”
Representing another split from Bush era policy—one
that will help governments avoid the stumbling blocks encountered
in 2005, Ms. Gottemoeller announced that the United States
would place a balanced emphasis on all three pillars on the
Treaty throughout the rest of the review process. On disarmament,
she reaffirmed that the US would seek ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiation of a Fissile Materials
Cut-off Treaty, and a new bilateral reductions treaty with
Russia. Most importantly, she reaffirmed the decision to extend
the NPT in 1995 and the decisions made at the 1995 and 2000
Review Conferences, including the 1995 Middle East resolution.
The second interesting development was news on the agenda
for the 2010 RevCon, which is reportedly based on the agenda
of the 2000 RevCon, incorporating appropriate technical updates.
However, according to sources, the chair was compelled to
drop the addition of language calling for the review to take
into account developments subsequent to 2000—likely
out of concern that this would permit the RevCon to single
out specific cases of non-compliance.
The 2000 RevCon agenda provided a mandate for review of the
Treaty taking into account the decisions and resolution adopted
in 1995. It also provided for two subsidiary bodies: one to
deal with practical disarmament steps and the other to deal
with implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East.
As of Tuesday, a single delegation continued to vocally object
to the adoption of the agenda as it stands. Some delegates
expressed skepticism that this issue would be resolved by
the time the chair indicated he would like to take action
on the agenda (Wednesday morning). The nature of the objection
is unclear to many.
Especially in light of the numerous statements expressing
renewed optimism and welcoming the recent high level attention
to nuclear disarmament from many nuclear weapon states, the
quick and painless adoption of the RevCon agenda would be
a good sign that governments will be able to seriously work
toward achieving substantive agreement in 2010.
