CCND Report of the 2005 NPT RevCon

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

Report from the NPT Review Conference
Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

1. Introduction and Background

"Some 35,000 nuclear weapons remain in the arsenals of the nuclear powers, with thousands still deployed on hair-trigger alert. Whatever rationale these weapons may once have had has long since dwindled. Political, moral, and legal constraints on actually using them further undermine their strategic utility without, however, reducing the risks of inadvertent war or proliferation. The objective of nuclear non-proliferation is not helped by the fact that the nuclear weapon States continue to insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security, while in the hands of others they are a threat to world peace. If we were making steady progress towards disarmament, this situation would be less alarming. Unfortunately, the reverse is true." — United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan

Every five years since the Treaty came into force in 1970, the Review cycle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has offered an opportunity for the world community to come together to hold governments accountable to their promises and obligations. While difficulties have continued to plague the processes surrounding the NPT, the three pillars of the treaty – non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy have been affirmed at every review meeting. The NPT is the only legally-binding international agreement on nuclear disarmament. It binds 184 of the world's governments to never develop nuclear weapons and 5 of the world’s nuclear powers to the total elimination of their nuclear stockpiles. In order to fulfil the reasonable and achievable goal of a nuclear-free world - a goal of peace and security that the majority of governments and citizens have articulated as their democratic right - the NPT demands consistent attention and focus from non-governmental organizations and governments alike.

At the last Review Conference in 2000, agreement was reached between the five declared nuclear weapon states (NWS) and the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) on 13 practical steps enabling systematic progress towards the complete elimination of the world’s nuclear arsenals. Furthermore in the final document produced by the 2000 Conference, the five nuclear weapon states gave “an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals”.

In May 2005, more than 1700 delegates registered for this conference representing a wide range of groupings within civil society – young people, educators, physicians, indigenous people, faith-based groups, grassroots organisers and women’s groups amongst others. Many Japanese people attended including a numbers of hibakusha from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also attending was a group of more than 100 Mayors for Peace representing some 23 countries and including the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I attended the conference representing Clergy Against Nuclear Arms (CANA) and as one of a larger group of UK representatives from organisations including the Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CCND) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

What follows is a review of the sessions attended in the main Conference itself, meetings organised by the NGOs and numerous conversations, formal and informal which provided information, insight and a perspective of serious engagement by civil society on moral issue of profound importance for humanity.

2. The Main Review Conference

The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan set the tone for the conference when, in his opening speech to the gathered delegates, he stated:

“The plain fact is that the regime has not kept pace with the march of technology and globalization, and developments of many kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress.
International regimes do not fail because of one breach, however serious or unacceptable. They fail when many breaches pile one on top of the other, to the point where the gap between promise and performance becomes unbridgeable. As you meet to review the NPT, your urgent task is to narrow that gap.”

Other opening statements recognised that very little had been achieved on the implementation of these 13 practical steps agreed in 2000. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei acknowledged that the world has changed in the five years since then and the recognised threat of international terrorism has brought heightened awareness of the weaknesses in the NPT. These include the acquisition by more and more countries of sensitive nuclear know-how and capabilities; the uneven degree of physical protection of nuclear materials from country to country and the limitations of the IAEA verification procedures and authority; the continuing reliance on nuclear deterrence and the ongoing perception of imbalance between the nuclear “haves” and “have nots”. A worrying sense of insecurity persists unaddressed in a number of regions, most prominently in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.

Many of the speeches from individual states which followed picked up the perceived imbalance between the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS). This in turn has caused a perceived imbalance in the “pillars” of the Treaty itself. For the NWS, the scope of the 2005 Conference is almost exclusively on non-proliferation – and more specifically on horizontal non-proliferation, with little or no reference to disarmament. There are significant moves underway by the NWS to retract their commitment to the 13 steps agreed in 2000, and to re-open discussions on them. By contrast, speech after speech from NNWS and non-aligned states spoke of non-proliferation and disarmament as mutually reinforcing processes and stressed the importance of upholding what was agreed in 2000. Germany, through its Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer was one of many delegations, including Canada, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Ireland, Brazil and New Zealand, which reaffirmed the 13 Practical Steps as “the basis for and benchmarks by which we will measure” nuclear disarmament progress. Fischer highlighted four important areas upon which the Review Conference should make progress, including: universalizing the Additional Protocol; ensuring civil nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes; providing security and physical protection of nuclear weapons and material; and strengthening enforcement against “severe violations of the Treaty.”
New Zealand’s Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control Marion Hobbs, speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), called for stricter adherence to the 13 Practical Steps, including entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Calls were issued by Canada for a Permanent Secretariat for the NPT and for an Annual Policy Forum to strengthen accountability in progressing these agreed steps. The Malaysian delegation issued a paper calling, amongst other things, for renewed support for the Conference on Disarmament and for significant action by the NWS states to the agreed steps and to Article VI of the NPT.

As the conference unfolded, two issues became significant. One was the degree of polarisation that characterised the debate. On the one hand were the majority of states such as those outlined above which remain determined to use the Review Conference to strengthen the disarmament commitments under the treaty and to accelerate the implementation of agreements already reached. Against this was a much smaller number of states who failed to even mention disarmament in any significant way. These included not just the obvious candidates of the NWS themselves but others such as Poland and South Korea.

The second was the failure of the conference to agree an agenda, an issue which became so significant that by the end of the first week, it threatened the continuance of the conference itself. Protracted negotiations continued almost to the end of the second week of the conference. Many states were unhappy with the demands of the USA and France to exclude references to the Final Document of 2000. There was also substantive disagreement on a call for focused discussion on regional issues particularly the Middle East.

At the time of writing this report, it seems that after what the Conference President Duarte called a “painful, protracted, and difficult to understand” procedural process, an agenda has finally been agreed. Substantive work, however has not yet begun pending agreement on the number and make-up of the subsidiary bodies to carry this through.

(The texts of the speeches delivered and other information on the main conference can be viewed at : http://www.un.org/events/npt2005)

3. Meetings and representations organised by NGOs
Outside the main conference, the meetings organised by the NGOs themselves possessed an energy and purpose sadly lacking in the General Assembly Hall. The range of speakers and subjects covered was outstanding. Sadly, the lack of meeting space provided for the NGOs severely restricted the numbers who could attend.

While it is not possible to give a detailed account of all these events, the following gives a flavour of the range covered.

(a) Rejecting the logic of counterproliferation
The meeting, organised by CND and including speakers from the UK, USA, Japan and France, challenged the Nuclear Weapons States’ (NWS) attempts to use the NPT to legitimize their own growing arsenals as well as the strategy of using threats of war to deter proliferation –a strategy dubbed “counterproliferation”. In the five years since the 2000 Review Conference, both US and UK non-proliferation policies have been almost entirely focused on preventing other countries from acquiring WMD using all means necessary, even threats of war. Policies such as the US’ Nuclear Posture Review, which stress the necessity of modernizing its arsenals weapons actually make proliferation more likely by granting political value to nuclear weapons. All speakers questioned the commitment of the NWS to Article VI of the NPT which calls for good faith efforts towards disarmament. The ensuing discussion focused on strategies that NGOs could pursue to reintroduce questions of disarmament to NPT negotiations as well as the necessity of the disarmament movement forming coalitions with other peace and economic justice organisations.

(b) A Return to the World Court? Lawyers Discuss Options of Article VI Compliance

The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP), an educational association that uses national and international law to promote peace and disarmament, considered the options for returning to the International Court of Justice for a judgment on compliance with Article VI. The question follows the historic 1996 World Court opinion, which ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, and that states have an obligation to conclude negotiations on their disarmament. According to Alyn Ware, because the original decision was two-pronged, a return to the court might seek clarification on one or both of those issues, seeking (1) a more defined statement on the (il)legality of specific weapons and current policies and practices, and/or (2) elaboration of the obligation to bring negotiations to a conclusion.
Other issues raised during the discussion centred around the presence of US nuclear weapons at UK bases and whether this nuclear sharing constitutes a violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.
In the same panel, Peter Weiss discussed the legal status of the 13 steps in relation to the interpretation of Article VI disarmament obligations. According to a paper released by LCNP (see www.lcnp.org), the 13 steps laying out an agenda for implementation of Article VI are an authoritative, legally binding interpretation of the treaty because they were the result of a consensus agreement among all the parties. Mr. Weiss explained that Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codified customary law, tells us that a generally agreed upon interpretation of a treaty effectively becomes a part of the treaty.

This briefing outlined the approach taken by the UK Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Programme in research and development of public knowledge of WMD and development of education materials. The work of this programme includes a significant amount of research into public opinion and awareness on these issues. This has revealed significant concerns about the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and mistrust in politicians and the media. It has also revealed large gaps in knowledge on these issues. While concerns about weapons of mass destruction had been one of the major issues of the Iraq debate, knowledge of the facts about nuclear weapons was severely limited among many people. More than 80% of those questioned were “resigned” to the presence of nuclear weapons amongst the UK defensive capability, but there was a sharp lack of awareness of actual policy in this area.
The programme has developed an imaginative programme of education materials aimed particularly at young people and focussed on the website www.comeclean.org.uk. These include lesson plans aimed at the Citizenship element of the National Curriculum. The programme also works with Pugwash in developing awareness within the scientific communities. A press launch involving Mikhail Gorbachev and Joseph Rotblat, and future presentations at the Hay Festival, Glastonbury Festival and Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Festival are all aimed at raising the public profile of this important programme.
(d) Mayor’s event

Mayor Itoh of Nagasaki addressing the Conference

Over 100 Mayors for Peace travelled to New York to monitor the proceedings. On Wednesday May 4 they held a lunchtime event in the General Assembly. The public gallery was full of NGO representatives and the press, while the conference floor, where the government representatives sit behind their country’s nameplates, was virtually empty. Mayor Itoh of Nagasaki held up a picture of his city on August 9 1945 and said that the majority of the world’s citizens, including 66% of US citizens surveyed, want the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and called on States to take action in the name of their own citizens to end the nuclear age.
The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mayor Akiba and Mayor Itoh, presented more than 8 million signatures to President Duarte calling for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Yoko Ono, the artist survivor of the Tokyo fire bombings during World War II, closed her statement by saying that, “A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. Imagine Peace”.

(e) Other events
Other events included a discussion of NATO strategy, particularly in the light of the Belgian senate’s vote to remove nuclear weapons from its soil and similar debates within Germany; a harrowing presentation by medical experts on the use of depleted uranium in “conventional” weapons used by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; a presentation by young peace walkers from Australia which was uplifting in its reflection of the human spirit but disturbing in recounting the effect of uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal on the lives of indigenous peoples both in Australia and across the world.

Details of these presentations and others are available on: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html

4. Access to delegations
Throughout the first week, there was considerable disquiet among NGOs at the poor facilities accorded them and the lack of access to delegations. Despite the largest ever number of NGO delegates being registered for this conference (1752), the room allocated to us held just 50 people. There were constant threats by UN security to close down this room if this number was exceeded. Those experienced in previous conferences were particularly disappointed in the lack of space to display papers or literatures within reach of the government delegations and the almost impossibility of meeting them. Copies of speeches at the conference were not readily available as they had been in former years. We were confined to the fourth floor gallery while lower galleries within reach of the delegates remained empty. Combined with the discourtesy shown to the Mayor’s representation to the conference (see above), the overall impression was of a significant chasm between the concerns and voices of civil society and those of government.
The British group of NGOs made strenuous efforts to meet the UK Disarmament Delegation, and at one stage had arranged a meeting with Dr. John Freeman, Head of Delegation and prepared a detailed agenda and question strategy. That meeting was subsequently cancelled at short notice by the UK delegation, citing the negotiations over the continuation of the conference (See above) as the reason for cancellation.
The following was to have been the agenda for the meeting:

a. How is the UK working towards disarmament in compliance with Article VI and the 13
steps? Where does the strategy on a proposed replacement for Trident fit in with this work?

b. In the light of the vote at Belgian senate and the debate on the issue in Germany, what is the position on US nuclear weapons at Lakenheath? Is the UK free to refuse to take US weapons on its soil?

c. Can we seek clarification on the First Use policy of nuclear weapons? How does first use relate to the Negative Security Assurances under which the UK has agreed not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states?

d. What is the UK policy on Nuclear Free Zones with particular reference to the Middle East? (This is of particular concern given that the rationale for the war in Iraq was to seek out WMD in that country and the continuing possession of nuclear weapons by Israel).

e. What are the UK Government priorities for NPT? What is the response to proposals for a Permanent secretariat and Annual Meetings to reinforce the disarmament process?

5. Prayer Vigil

Christians, Buddhists and Hindus pray together at the Isaiah Wall

Each morning a number of us gathered at the Isaiah wall in Ralph Bunce Place opposite the United Nations building to pray and reflect on the issues being discussed. There were Christians from the UK, Germany, Italy, France, US, Canada and other places. On most days we were joined by Hindus and memorably on the second day of the vigil by a group of Buddhist monks and young Australian and Japanese peace walkers who had spent the previous weeks walking from the nuclear base in Oakridge Tennessee to New York.
Each day we focussed our prayers on different continents and shared prayers, songs and reflections in the languages and images of those continents and from our different faith traditions. Surrounded by banners carrying the symbols of these traditions, we found a common language in the inscription on the wall “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war any more” and in the universal prayer for peace. As the week wore on, we learnt to express our longing for peace and reconciliation in a variety of languages and in the final line of that prayer: Shantih, shantih, shantih – Peace, peace, peace.

6. Responses and Areas of Concern Arising from the Conference for CANA (and other NGOs)
In this section, I suggest possible responses to this conference and the issues raised through it. The following is intended to promote discussion on future directions rather than being an exhaustive list of the issues.

(a) Pressure on Government
The questions formulated for our abortive meeting with the UK Disarmament Delegation form the basis for a continued questioning of Government policy. At the time of writing this report the NPT Review Conference is still underway and it remains to be seen what agreements on actions, if any, will be reached. We must hope that the 13 Steps of the 2000 Review Conference are upheld and reinforced by the 2005 conference. It is then the responsibility of the NGOs to hold the Government to account for any commitments made, particularly in making progress towards disarmament.
The forthcoming decision on a replacement for the Trident system is one specific area to address and the developments within NATO is another.

(b) Education and awareness raising
The work done by the UK Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Programme has pointed to the lack of awareness of these issues within the general public. The extraordinary figure of 80% plus being “resigned to” rather than “supportive of” a continued reliance on nuclear weapons within the UK stands in stark contrast to the active demonstration of opposition to the Iraq war. It also points to a huge potential for engagement and education on these issues and for developing the skills of participation and responsible action.

(c) Linking with other organisations/bodies/issues
At the meeting organised by CND, the necessity of the disarmament movement working with other peace and economic justice organisations was raised. In other speeches, papers and presentations throughout the week links between disarmament issues, environmental issues, world poverty, globalisation and global development were made explicitly and implicitly. This can apply also at Government level - the New Zealand Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Marian Hobbs pointed out that her portfolio also included Environmental Issues.

Stassen, Friessen and Langan in their “Practical proposals for ‘just peacemaking’”
include the following among their suggestions:

(i) Advance democracy, human rights and religious liberty.
(ii) Foster just and sustainable economic development.
(iii) Work with emerging co-operative forces in the international system.
(iv) Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
(v) Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary organisations

Developing an understanding of the links between these issues, sharing resources, and mobilising grassroots and popular support can also contribute to the education and awareness raising activities discussed above. Such co-operation can also help to counter the cynicism and apathy of those disillusioned with the political process. “Neither shall they learn war any more” implies also that the learning must be of peace, of ways to work co-operatively peace and to engage with the complex causes of conflict.

7. Conclusion - Theological Reflection
It was a particularly moving experience to celebrate Ascension Day during this conference. To speak and sing of the authority of the ascended Christ and of Christ raising our “human nature on the clouds to God’s right hand” in the context of a world where authority seems to lie in the possession of weapons that are so destructive of humanity is a chastening experience. It raises serious questions of where our security lies and in what or whom we place our trust.

The issues of education and participation mentioned above are of particular concern to the wider Christian community which seeks to be a place of discipleship and to share in the life of the Triune God. Our vision of the church in its broadest sense is that which is both an eschatological sign of God’s kingdom and a concrete community discerning and putting into practice models of peacemaking both individually and corporately. Our formation and growth in discipleship should also cause us to continually question and reflect on what it means to be both an eschatological sign of the kingdom to come and a concrete community in the present.

As a Eucharistic community, we also bear witness to the possibility of global transformation through seemingly insignificant local actions as week by week we take part in a local act with universal and transcendent implications. Growing in self-understanding of the nature of our community and its relation to the story of God revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a way to promote a theology of peace and justice within the life of the community. Far from being exclusive, such an understanding can contribute to our engagement with peacemakers and workers for justice of all faiths and none. It can provide an ongoing source of encouragement for the work of peace in the face of intransigent institutions which seek security in strength and whose policies are largely based on a fear of that or those whom we do not know.

My final response to the week is to suggest that our ongoing campaigning activity and our practical responses to the issues need to be underpinned and sustained by a commitment to prayer and reflection on the theological implications of acknowledging the authority of the risen and ascended Christ in a broken and violent world, and on the continuing reality of the presence of God at work in that world through the transforming presence of the Holy Spirit.

Liz Griffiths

St. Martin-in-the-Fields London

15 May 2005