Reworking 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 Thursday, 14 May 2009
On Wednesday evening, after consultations with various delegations,
the Chair released a revised version of his draft recommendations
to the 2010 Review Conference.
Overall, the revisions weakened the recommendations on disarmament,
civil society participation, and education, but have bolstered
those on implementing the Middle East resolution. The sections
on non-proliferation and nuclear energy have also been adjusted,
purportedly in an attempt to create more balance between the
three pillars. Each of the three pillars now has an action
plan, as several delegates requested during their general
comments on Tuesday.
It remains unclear as to whether the PrepCom will be able
to adopt the recommendations the end of its session. The amount
of time remaining could possibly allow for a second revised
document to be offered Thursday afternoon, giving the PrepCom
a last chance to adopt it Friday afternoon. However, if the
Committee cannot agree to adopt the revised document on Thursday,
it is likely that the Chair will have to forward it to the
RevCon as a working paper, despite his aversion to such a
solution.
Below is a detailed assessment of the differences between
the original recommendations and the revised version, pointing
out where recommendations have been strengthened, weakened,
or changed to some effect.
Introduction
The introductory paragraph of the revised text, CRP.4/Rev.1,
adds a sentence noting, [t]he States parties reaffirm the
need to maintain a balance between the three mutually reinforcing
pillars of the Treaty. It also explains in more depth the
methodology of the recommendations, explaining that the recommendations
include elements for [the RevCons] consideration in evaluating
the implementation of the undertakings of the States parties
under the Treaty, and areas in which, and the means through
which, further progress should be sought in the future.
Section 1. Universality
The revised section on promoting universality has weaker language
on disarmament. Where CRP.4 recommended the RevCon declare
that the Treaty provides a legal foundation for the strengthening
of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and
for the achievement of nuclear disarmament and the ultimate
objective of general and complete disarmament under effective
international control (the language of Article VI), CRP.4/Rev.1
simply recommends the RevCon, [d]eclare that the Treaty remains
the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime
and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.
As per the Algerian delegations suggestion during the general
comments on Tuesday, the language on non-states parties has
been changed to recommend the RevCon call on them to join
as non-nuclear weapon states and without conditions.
This section also has new language on complianceadding [recognizing]
consequences for breaches of Treaty violations and on nuclear
energyadding [r]eaffirm that the Treaty fosters the development
of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Section 2. Action plans
Rather than outlining one action plan on nuclear disarmament,
CRP.4/Rev.1 includes a three-part action plan for all three
pillars.
Disarmament The plan for nuclear disarmament is similar, but contains
a few substantial changes that diminish disarmament. While
CRP.4 recommended the RevCon [r]ecognize growing expectations
for progress to achieve nuclear disarmament, and indicate
support for ongoing and future efforts in these fields, CRP.4/Rev.1
recommends the RevCon indicates support for ongoing and future
efforts and recognizes the importance of practical nuclear
disarmament by all nuclear-weapon States.
Likewise, while CRP.4 recommended the RevCon acknowledge
that several commitments from 1995 and 2000 have not yet been
fulfilled and called for an action plan to implement these
commitments, CRP.4/Rev.1 simply recommends the RevCon [r]eaffirm
and update these commitments, without mentioning they have
not been fulfilled. It also divides the original list of disarmament
initiatives into two paragraphs: one calling for facilitation
of the entry into force of the CTBT and negotiations on a
fissile materials [cut-off] treaty and the other calling for
discussion on ways and means to ensure the irreversibility,
verifiability, and transparency of disarmament activities
and for recognition of the benefits of reducing operational
status, reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons, and reducing
reliance on nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, while the original version recommend the RevCon
examine 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, the updates severely undermine this call by
only recommending commencement of open-ended discussions
to identify possibilities available to establish an international
legal framework for the achievement of global nuclear disarmament.
At least the new language also recommends the engagement of
non-states parties with the aim of attaining a world free
of nuclear weapons.
The language on security assurances, formerly in the non-proliferation
section, has been moved to the disarmament section but remains
identical.
Non-proliferation
The non-proliferation section has been strengthened. It now
recommends the RevCon reaffirm that the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is a threat to international peace and security,
which is established language, rather than simply a global
challenge.The paragraph on export controls adds quite a bit
of substance, including a recommendation on transparency,
dialogue, and cooperation and another calling for recognition
of the importance of national rules and regulations on nuclear-related
transfers.
There is also additional language on the IAEA, including
a call for affirmation of the need for full cooperation with
the [IAEA] to resolve any outstanding verification issues,
which follows a new paragraph on the de-nuclearization of
the Korean peninsula. CRP.4/Rev.1 also recommends the RevCon
[r]eaffirm the importance of acceptance of the Agencys full-scope
safeguards, and welcome the IAEAs efforts to increase the
Agencys ability to detect undeclared nuclear activity rather
than just welcoming the IAEAs efforts to strengthen safeguards.
Nuclear energy
Section 4 of CRP.4 covered nuclear energy, safety, and security.
In CRP.4/Rev.1, ways to advance peaceful uses of nuclear
energy has been given its own action plan and ways and means
to strengthen nuclear safety and security is now a separate
section.
The action plan on nuclear energy notes rather than welcomes
the growing applications of nuclear technology, though it
still reaffirms the inalienable right to nuclear energy
of states parties.
Rather than stressing the need to intensify consideration
of multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle, the
new version recommends stressing the importance of extensive
and transparent consultations in the consideration of multilateral
approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. The rest of the language
in this paragraph is the same as in the original.
Another paragraph has been added to include language on cooperation
programmes to assist new-nuclear energy states develop adequate
infrastructures.
Section 3. Nuclear safety and security
Maintaining much of the original language, the revised recommendations
do not include the note that acquisition of nuclear materials
by non-state actors could potentially jeopardize the Treaty.
This section also no longer includes a recommendation to urge
careful consideration of measures of control and monitoring
of global stocks of weapon- usable materials and the capacity
to produce such materials or to support efforts to enhance
the security of stockpiles of such materials or to minimize
their use in the civilian nuclear sector.
Section 4. Regional initiatives Most of the language on nuclear weapon free zones remains
the same, though in the new version the new Central Asian
NWFZ is noted rather than welcomed. The new version adds
a recommendation noting the importance of the UNDCs guidelines
for NWFZ, but it takes away the recommendation to [n]ote
the existence of strong support for the creating of a [NWFZ]
in the Southern Hemisphere, replacing it with a call to consider
establishment of new zones in regions with nuclear facilities
and materials and to note the importance of establishing
WMDFZs.
Section 5. Middle East
Previously folded into the section on regional initiatives,
the Middle East resolution now has its own section. Rather
than describing the 1995 resolution as being integrally linked
to the extension of the NPT, it is now an essential element
of the decision to extend the Treaty.
The new version does continue to recommend consideration
of a conference on implementing the resolution, though it
no longer specifies the nuclear weapon states as the potential
convenors. The rest of the section goes much further than
the original language, adding a recommendation to establish
a subsidiary body to Main Committee II at the RevCon to consider
practical steps to promote the earliest implementation of
the resolution and to consider appointing a special coordinator
to hold consultations with the countries in the region and
report to the review process, which has been suggested by
Egypt and supported by other delegations, including the Russian
Federation.
Section 6. Withdrawal
The two short paragraphs on withdrawal remain identical to
the originals.
Section 7. Strengthening the review process
The new version eliminates the recommendation for consideration
establishment of a uniform, practical and cost-efficient
reporting system for the implementation of the Treaty. This
section otherwise remains the same.
Section 8. Civil society; education
The new version significantly diminishes the recommendations
on both subjects. It only recommends noting rather than
considering the proposals for enhanced participation of
NGOs in the review process. It also recommends consideration
of the UN Secretary-Generals recommendations on disarmament
and non-proliferation education rather than encouraging
states to implement them, for which the original text called.
