Competing visions of disarmament Michael Spies and 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 Thursday, 7 May 2009
The NPT PrepCom heard many different—but not necessarily
exclusive—takes on how to proceed with disarmament as
it proceeded through its Cluster One discussion on 6 May.
Cluster One focuses on implementation of the provisions of
the Treaty relating to non-proliferation, disarmament and
international peace and security, specifically: Articles I
and II and preambular paragraphs 1 to 3; Article VI and preambular
paragraphs 8 to 12; and security assurances.
All five nuclear weapon states delivered statements to this
cluster, giving sometimes divergent takes on the requirements
of achieving nuclear disarmament, each from their own unique
perspective.
The US delegation reflected mainly on US policy changes stemming
from President Obama’s 5 April speech in Prague, rather
than discussing possible future steps in the NPT context.
The lack of future oriented discussion likely reflects the
ongoing nature of the new administration’s policy reviews,
the most important of which will be the upcoming Nuclear Posture
Review.
The US statement did offer some refreshing breaks from the
recent past. Notably, the United States recognized its special
responsibility as nuclear weapon state to lead disarmament
efforts, though it still stuck to the formulation that non-nuclear
weapon states must do more to help make disarmament possible
by establishing the “necessary” conditions. The
statement also cast the ongoing post-START negotiations with
Russia as the first part of a step-by-step process leading
to disarmament, rather than an indefinite end point.
France and the United Kingdom each recalled their respective
recent proposals for achieving disarmament. Both proposals
call for further US/Russian strategic arms reductions and
do not immediately involve processes that would bind or constrain
their own nuclear arsenals, with the exception of pursuing
steps already agreed to (i.e. the CTBT and an FMCT). Whereas
the French proposal deals with broader multilateral arms control
issues—particularly dealing with the issue of missiles—the
UK approach places emphasis on dealing with proliferation,
linking pursuit of disarmament to dealing with proliferation
concerns.
Russia and, to a lesser though increasing extent, China focused
on pursuing disarmament measures that would also incidentally
improve possible perceived security imbalances with the United
States. Russia specifically called for steps to create a stable
strategic security environment suitable for disarmament, outlining
its familiar initiatives. These include preventing a build
up of conventional capabilities to offset nuclear reductions
and ceasing development of space weapons and missile defenses,
both priorities for China as well.
For its part, China generally stuck to its traditional positions,
calling for non-first use commitments, legally-binding security
assurances to non-nuclear weapon states, de-targeting, and
withdrawing nuclear weapons to national territories. China
also called for an end to nuclear sharing and nuclear umbrella
arrangements.
In addition, the US, UK, and French delegations delivered
reports on their nuclear disarmament efforts, giving general
overviews of their reductions of warheads and fissile materials.
These informal reports followed from the past practice of
these delegations, which opt not to provide more formal reports
to the PrepComs as many delegations would like, especially
following from the step 12 of the 13 practical steps.
Agenda adopted for 2010
Of critical importance, the smoothest—or at least quickest—adoption
of an agenda in recent NPT history occurred Wednesday morning.
After intense consultations with all delegations, the chair
submitted a draft provisional agenda for the 2010 NPT Review
Conference, which the PrepCom adopted without discussion.
The agenda is the same as the one used at the 2000 Review
Conference, with a minor technical update: in paragraph 16,
the phrase “and the final document of the 2000 Review
Conference” has been added. The text of the agenda is
available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org. The PrepCom also
moved quickly though other procedural matters related to the
2010 RevCon (see the News in Brief, page 10).
