NPT conference enters final week with nuclear powers hardening their stance
May 26, 2015
by Michiko Tanaka, Staff Writer
NEW YORK--The Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), held every five years and now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York, has entered its final week. The nuclear weapon states are prepared to stoutly resist the arguments made by the non-nuclear nations, who are aiming for a ban on nuclear arms by highlighting the inhumanity of these weapons. Another focal point of the conference is the Middle East. However, a draft of the final document concerning this issue has only just been submitted and has yet to be discussed. It is uncertain whether agreement on a final document, the basis for which the NPT member parties will work toward a world free of nuclear weapons, can be reached by May 22, the final day of the conference.
At the meeting of Main Committee I (Disarmament) on May 15, when the subject of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons came up for discussion, the nuclear-armed nations abruptly spoke in sharper tones. They rebuffed the proposal by the non-nuclear weapon states to restore language to the final document which states, “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances,” which had been removed from the earlier draft. The representative of the United Kingdom said flatly that there would never be consensus for this language because it contradicts their policy of maintaining a nuclear deterrent and that they would not change their policy within the remaining negotiation period.
Countering the remarks made by the nuclear weapon states, the non-nuclear nations stressed that they have the right to ask under what circumstances nuclear weapons would be used and who would suffer. In a lengthy 27-minute speech, Abdul Minty, the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva, struck back by saying that if nuclear weapons were used, everyone on this earth could be killed, and thus it is imperative to discuss the establishment of a legal framework. Unless the nuclear weapon states are more flexible about their policy, he said, nothing will come of this year’s Review Conference.
Transparency of nuclear arsenals
Despite three weeks having passed since the Review Conference opened, the member nations have not come to a compromise even on the issue of the inhumanity of nuclear arms. The earlier draft of the final document called for discussion on a potential legal framework, such as a nuclear weapons convention, which would set a time limit for eliminating nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear-armed nations have expressed strong opposition to a legal framework. Incorporating the original language for this into the final document, without change, is expected to be difficult.
At the committee on disarmament matters, the transparency of nuclear arsenals by the nuclear weapon states is another major issue to be discussed. The draft document requires the nuclear powers to provide a detailed annual report on the number and types of nuclear warheads in their possession. While such reporting is essential for observing progress in nuclear disarmament, each nuclear weapon state provides this information at its own discretion. It is not clear, however, whether these countries will aid the advancement of nuclear disarmament through more transparent reporting.
Dissatisfaction with procedures for holding conference
Another factor that will affect the outcome of the Review Conference is the situation in the Middle East. The final document from the 2010 Review Conference agreed on language stating that an international conference to discuss establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region would be convened in 2012. However, this conference has not materialized due to deep distrust involving Israel, which is not an NPT member party but is presumed to hold nuclear arms; Iran, which is suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons program; and other Arab nations.
On May 15, a subsidiary body of Main Committee II (Non-proliferation) compiled a draft of the final document, which states that an international conference will be “convened by December 15.” However, prior to the start of discussion on the final document on May 18, Arab countries have already been voicing dissatisfaction with the procedures for holding the conference.
The three Main Committees, including Main Committee III (Peaceful use of nuclear energy) will submit their own draft documents to Taous Feroukhi, the chair of the NPT Review Conference. Ms. Feroukhi will then seek for the final document to be adopted by the entire NPT membership. “Due to significant differences between the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, the prospects for reaching an agreement are still uncertain,” said the representative of a non-nuclear nation. “We have to find ways to make compromises through continuing negotiations.”
(Originally published on May 19, 2015)
NEW YORK--The Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), held every five years and now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York, has entered its final week. The nuclear weapon states are prepared to stoutly resist the arguments made by the non-nuclear nations, who are aiming for a ban on nuclear arms by highlighting the inhumanity of these weapons. Another focal point of the conference is the Middle East. However, a draft of the final document concerning this issue has only just been submitted and has yet to be discussed. It is uncertain whether agreement on a final document, the basis for which the NPT member parties will work toward a world free of nuclear weapons, can be reached by May 22, the final day of the conference.
At the meeting of Main Committee I (Disarmament) on May 15, when the subject of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons came up for discussion, the nuclear-armed nations abruptly spoke in sharper tones. They rebuffed the proposal by the non-nuclear weapon states to restore language to the final document which states, “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances,” which had been removed from the earlier draft. The representative of the United Kingdom said flatly that there would never be consensus for this language because it contradicts their policy of maintaining a nuclear deterrent and that they would not change their policy within the remaining negotiation period.
Countering the remarks made by the nuclear weapon states, the non-nuclear nations stressed that they have the right to ask under what circumstances nuclear weapons would be used and who would suffer. In a lengthy 27-minute speech, Abdul Minty, the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva, struck back by saying that if nuclear weapons were used, everyone on this earth could be killed, and thus it is imperative to discuss the establishment of a legal framework. Unless the nuclear weapon states are more flexible about their policy, he said, nothing will come of this year’s Review Conference.
Transparency of nuclear arsenals
Despite three weeks having passed since the Review Conference opened, the member nations have not come to a compromise even on the issue of the inhumanity of nuclear arms. The earlier draft of the final document called for discussion on a potential legal framework, such as a nuclear weapons convention, which would set a time limit for eliminating nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear-armed nations have expressed strong opposition to a legal framework. Incorporating the original language for this into the final document, without change, is expected to be difficult.
At the committee on disarmament matters, the transparency of nuclear arsenals by the nuclear weapon states is another major issue to be discussed. The draft document requires the nuclear powers to provide a detailed annual report on the number and types of nuclear warheads in their possession. While such reporting is essential for observing progress in nuclear disarmament, each nuclear weapon state provides this information at its own discretion. It is not clear, however, whether these countries will aid the advancement of nuclear disarmament through more transparent reporting.
Dissatisfaction with procedures for holding conference
Another factor that will affect the outcome of the Review Conference is the situation in the Middle East. The final document from the 2010 Review Conference agreed on language stating that an international conference to discuss establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region would be convened in 2012. However, this conference has not materialized due to deep distrust involving Israel, which is not an NPT member party but is presumed to hold nuclear arms; Iran, which is suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons program; and other Arab nations.
On May 15, a subsidiary body of Main Committee II (Non-proliferation) compiled a draft of the final document, which states that an international conference will be “convened by December 15.” However, prior to the start of discussion on the final document on May 18, Arab countries have already been voicing dissatisfaction with the procedures for holding the conference.
The three Main Committees, including Main Committee III (Peaceful use of nuclear energy) will submit their own draft documents to Taous Feroukhi, the chair of the NPT Review Conference. Ms. Feroukhi will then seek for the final document to be adopted by the entire NPT membership. “Due to significant differences between the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, the prospects for reaching an agreement are still uncertain,” said the representative of a non-nuclear nation. “We have to find ways to make compromises through continuing negotiations.”
(Originally published on May 19, 2015)
