Priorities for 2010: Recommendations
for Forward Progress Michael Spies and Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will
of WILPF
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, 18 May 2009 (Final Edition)
In an effort to focus the energies of states
and civil society toward achievable ends, we have taken up
the challenge of one delegation to the PrepCom to present
a short-list (maximum of three) of our own recommendations
for the 2010 Review Conference. While there are many worthy
items for consideration, we feel the following require the
most urgent and sincere action to revive and sustain the non-proliferation
and disarmament regime. We also believe these recommendations
could garner consensus at the next Review Conference if sufficient
action is taken now to support and work for them at all levels.
Disarmament Action Plan. With recent high-level reaffirmations
of the goal of nuclear disarmament coming from nuclear weapon
states, the atmosphere is the best it has been in a decade
for resurgent progress in the agenda to achieve a nuclear
weapon free world. Civil society and like-minded governments
must help to build political momentum for the articulation
of a forward-looking action plan for disarmament that includes
concrete measures to be taken both during the next review
cycle and beyond.
Such measures could include, inter alia:
• a decision to further reduce the operational readiness
of nuclear weapons and their role in security doctrines;
• pursuit of an international agreement dealing with
ballistic missiles and other WMD delivery systems;
• developing a standardized mechanism for the reporting
of nuclear weapon holdings;
• a decision to include non-strategic nuclear weapons
in disarmament and arms control processes;
• a decision to cease the modernization and qualitative
improvement of nuclear weapon systems; and
• consideration of the ways and means to start negotiations
on an international framework to achieve a nuclear weapon
free world.
Concrete Measures to implement the 1995 Middle East resolution.
The political atmosphere has also never been more favourable
for facilitating real and progressive progress toward fulfillment
of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East. Despite increasing
tensions—related to escalating war talk coming from
the Israeli government, the reluctance of the Iranian government
to fully resolve outstanding issues identified by the IAEA,
and the specter of the nuclearization of the region1—the
positions of key extra-regional powers are continuing to converge.
Toward implementing the 1995 resolution, many governments
are beginning to express support for concrete measures the
2010 Review Conference can take, including:
• convening a conference after 2011 to begin negotiations
on a framework or treaty to achieve a zone in the Middle East
free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; and
• appointing a standing NPT body to follow-up intercessionally
and support efforts toward these ends.
Strengthening the Review Process and NPT Institutional
Reform. As has been noted by many observers, the NPT is
the weakest of the treaties governing weapons of mass destruction
in terms of its institutional support. Moreover, further steps
toward disarmament will eventually necessitate an institutional
framework comparable to other treaty regimes governing weapons
of mass destruction. As it is presently constituted, the strengthened
review process involves a considerable waste of time, energy,
and money, which could be better spent facilitating agreement
on complex issues and responding to current developments.
In 2010, NPT states should give serious consideration to Canada’s
proposals for institutional reform, which could increase the
quality of NPT deliberations and enable to treaty’s
institutions to focus on specific issues and respond to developments.
These proposals include:
• a decision to hold annual general meetings in lieu
of the PrepCom meetings, empowered with decision-making authority;
• a decision to establish a standing bureau, mandated
to coordinate intercessionally and to convene extraordinary
sessions of NPT parties; and
• a decision to establish an NPT Support Unit to provide
full-time institutional support and memory to the NPT and
its meetings.
Notes
1. Expressions of interest to develop nuclear
power programmes, and their associated infrastructures, have
come from both Israel and the Arab states.
