The importance of being earnest 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 Wednesday, 13 May 2009
On Tuesday morning, the Chair opened the floor to general
comments on his draft recommendations to the 2010 NPT Review
Conference (RevCon). Before the meeting, many representatives
from diverse regions expressed hope that the document could
be adopted with minimal changes in order to maintain a positive
spirit going into the RevCon. However, when the floor opened
for general comments, a few cautiously suggested specific
areas in which they felt the draft could be improved.
Nineteen delegates provided general comments on the draft.
The primary complaint expressed was of a perceived lack of
balance between the Treaty’s three pillars. Some delegations,
such as Australia, argued that the high degree of specificity
articulated in the nuclear disarmament section is not reflected
in other sections, particularly that on non-proliferation.
The French and Russian delegations suggested that since Section
2 contains an action plan for nuclear disarmament, Sections
3 and 4, on non-proliferation and nuclear energy, should likewise
contain action plans. Alternatively, the French delegate proposed,
a single joint action plan could be developed.
All three sections do contain action plans to some degree.
Section 2 specifically lists several “practical disarmament
initiatives” to be identified by the RevCon and recommends
it examine ways and means to commence negotiations on a nuclear
weapon convention. Section 3 does not list specific initiatives
but rather recommends the RevCon itself identify ways to universalize
and strengthen the safeguards system and to achieve legally-binding
security assurances. Section 4 makes some suggestions on how
the RevCon could move forward on the issue of multilateralizing
the fuel cycle while addressing concerns about additional
restrictions and discrimination. The action plans as currently
formulated in Sections 3 and 4 are not as explicit as that
for Section 1, though the intent is similar, calling on the
RevCon to identify ways forward on all of these issues.
Despite the variety of suggestions, the vast majority of
speakers called for flexibility and compromise to guide the
Committee in its work. Many emphasized the importance of the
Chair’s introductory, or chapeau, paragraph, which specifically
notes that the recommendations do not preclude future initiatives
nor stand as declarations of states parties’ positions.
The Brazilian delegation said this paragraph is sufficiently
clear that the recommendations do not preempt the work of
the RevCon in any way.
Despite this clarity, the US delegation called on the Committee
to “defer” some of the details in the recommendations
until 2010, because they contain “a level of substantive
detail” that the United States is “not fully able
to address at this time.” It requested the Committee
wait until the US administration is ready to engage with the
rest of the world on these issues—specifically until
after it has completed its upcoming defense and nuclear posture
reviews, which, in turn, will determine how hard and how fast
the Americans are willing to push (or allow themselves to
be pushed) toward achieving nuclear disarmament.
The rest of the world has waited a long time for the United
States. We can no longer put off substantive work with which
every other state party is ready to move forward. Hopefully
the US delegation will understand, as the other delegations
do, that the recommendations in no way bind their positions
or create commitments to be undertaken between this year and
next. It would be devastating for the NPT and the nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation regimes if the US delegation
were to stall the momentum created by its President’s
pledge in Prague to work for a nuclear weapon free world.
In order to give a chance for states parties to discuss specific
modifications to the text, the Chair facilitated consultations
between delegations on Tuesday afternoon and will hold another
session Wednesday morning. As noted by the Cuban representative,
who urged the Committee to act “pragmatically and realistically,”
there is little time left to take apart these draft recommendations
and put them together again. It is essential that the Committee
forward consensus recommendations to the RevCon, both to give
a strong signal of states parties’ commitment to the
Treaty and the review process and to ensure that the RevCon
has sufficient guidance for its substantive work—something
severely lacking in 2005.
