A glance at the recommendations 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 Monday, 11 May 2009
At the end of the morning meeting on Friday, 8 May, Ambassador
Chidyausiku released his draft recommendations for the 2010
Review Conference (RevCon). The recommendations include specific
proposals that identify concrete practical actions; stand
a reasonable prospect of commanding consensus; address issues
related to implementation of Treaty; and build upon earlier
decisions such as those at 2000 and 1995. He emphasized that
they are not a comprehensive summary of all proposals that
have been made to the RevCon, nor do they preclude any other
item states parties might want to address.
The document attempts to balance the three pillars of the
Treaty. Section 2 focuses on disarmament. It calls for the
RevCon to consider adopting an action plan “setting
practical and achievable and specified goals, and measures
leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons,” such
as the CTBT, FMCT, verified reductions, greater transparency,
reducing operational status, refraining from qualitative improvement
of nuclear weapons, etc. It specifically recommends the RevCon
“[e]xamine, inter alia, ways and means to commence negotiations,
in accordance with article VI, on a convention or framework
of agreements to achieve global nuclear disarmament, and to
engage non-parties to the Treaty.”
In this context, the Chair’s disarmament recommendations
seek a small but definite step forward in the disarmament
agenda, beset by a decade of deadlock. Its inclusion of a
nuclear weapons convention would, if adopted, for the first
time put on the horizon the means for eliminating nuclear
weapons.The non-proliferation recommendations do not go as
far as those on disarmament, though they do emphasize the
importance of safeguards and the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Meeting the call of many delegations to this PrepCom
who seek to eliminate double standards and political discrimination,
this section suggests the RevCon affirm that export controls
should be “implemented in a transparent and non-discriminatory
manner ... in conformity with articles I, II, III, and IV
of the Treaty.” The non-proliferation section also addresses
the issue of negative security assurances, where it recommends
the RevCon look at ways “to achieve additional assurances
that are legally-binding.”
While many governments are justifiably concerned about the
emergence of a two-tiered international system, where global
rules enforce the division between haves and have nots and
where some “responsible” states are trusted with
“sensitive” materials while others are not, the
strengthening of non-proliferation norms is a worthy objective.
In particular, improvements in the safeguards regime will
certainly be vital in ensuring confidence in a nuclear weapon
free world.
Section 4, on nuclear energy, calls on the RevCon to reaffirm
article IV and to “[r]eiterate that restrictions on
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy should not be applied
for political purposes.” This rather extensive section
addresses both the access and security aspects of nuclear
energy. It tries to balance these two objectives in a way
that supports multilateralization of the fuel cycle while
ensuring that states’ decisions in this field, as long
as they meet the obligations of the Treaty, do not jeopardize
their access to nuclear material and equipment.
The contentious debate between rights and obligations related
to article IV will undoubtedly continue, unfortunately distracting
attention from dealing with the fact that continued promotion
of nuclear power increases the difficulty of achieving or
verifying a nuclear weapon free world.
Section 5c, on the Middle East resolution, recommends the
RevCon “consider the proposal to call upon the nuclear-weapons
States to convene a conference of all states of the Middle
East region to address ways and means to implement the Resolution.”
This call, along with the one made by Egypt and supported
by Russia for the appointment of a special coordinator on
the implementation of the resolution, seem to be gaining traction
among delegations. However, the special coordinator is not
mentioned in these recommendations.
As the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 was bound
to the Middle East resolution, the implementation of the goals
set forth in the resolution may play a major role in the continued
vitality of the NPT regime. As such, failing to adopt serious
and practical steps toward this end could begin to jeopardize
the objective of achieving a permanent peace in the Middle
East through disarmament and diplomacy, rather through the
politics of arms racing and antagonism.
Regarding Treaty withdrawal, the document simply recommends
that the RevCon acknowledge states’ right to withdraw
and consider modalities “under which States parties
could collectively respond to notifications of withdrawal.”
It does not deal with any specific proposal, such as those
suggesting response by the UN Security Council.
In terms of strengthening the Treaty, section 7a recommends
the RevCon view the decisions from 1995 and 2000 as “embodying
principles, objectives, or means” to promote the Treaty’s
universality. Section 1 also deals with this issue, urging
the RevCon to “[d]eclare that the Treaty is an expression
of fundamental principles of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
that are universal in scope.” This formulation emphasizes
the relevance of customary international law, wherein even
non-parties are legally bound by the Treaty’s provisions.
It also recommends the RevCon call on all non-parties to “adhere”
to the Treaty, rather than to call on them to join as non-nuclear
weapon states (as urged by the majority of delegations at
the PrepComs).
The rest of section 7 focuses on strengthening the review
process, recommending that the RevCon consider “establishing
a uniform, practical and cost-efficient reporting system for
the implementation of the Treaty.” While it suggests
the consideration of other proposals, it does not specifically
mention Canada’s ideas of a standing bureau or annual
meetings.
Though many continue to be cynical about the merits of institutional
reform, implementing any of the thoughtful reforms suggested
by Canada would almost certainly improve the quality of NPT
meetings while providing governments with an additional incentive
to take serious their obligations under the broader nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation framework.
Finally, section 8 calls on the RevCon to commend the contributions
of civil society and to consider proposals for the enhanced
participation of NGOs in the Treaty review process. It also
encourages the RevCon to underscore the importance of disarmament
and non-proliferation education.
Last Tuesday, several NGOs presented their own set of recommendations
to the PrepCom. Many of the NGO recommendations regarding
nuclear disarmament overlapped with those of the Chair. The
NGOs pushed for farther reaching measures though, calling
for governments to eliminate “nuclear deterrence”
from their security strategies; to establish international
controls on delivery systems and anti-missile systems; and
to join the International Renewable Energy Agency. These and
other recommendations can be found at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.
Michael Spies contributed analysis to this article.
