Divide widens as participants at NPT Preparatory Committee debate recommendations
May 9, 2019
by Junji Akechi, Staff Writer
NEW YORK—On May 7, the third session of the Preparatory Committee for next year’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference opened debate over the draft of recommendations that were provided by the chair of the session, Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid, for the Review Conference in 2020. The Preparatory Committee session is being held at United Nations headquarters in New York. With regard to the achievements made through the framework of the NPT, which next year will mark the 50th anniversary year since it came into force, opinions were divided between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states.
Among the 55 items included in the draft recommendations, which were provided on May 3, the delegates from the participating nations voiced their views about three items described in the preface. The nuclear weapon states, including the United States and France, contended that the NPT framework has helped advance the aims of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. They argued that its historical success should be stressed in the milestone 50th anniversary year in 2020.
Meanwhile, many of the non-nuclear weapon states, including New Agenda Coalition member countries like Brazil and Mexico, pointed out that efforts for advancing nuclear disarmament have not produced sufficient progress. They requested that the recommendations clearly state that the obligation for nuclear disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, be fully implemented in line with agreements made in the past. This includes the “clear commitment by the nuclear States to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” which was agreed by all state parties at the NPT Review Conference in 2000.
There was also debate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, with the representative from Iran mentioning the possibility of that nation’s withdrawal from the NPT. The Iranian delegate said that the NPT “recognizes the existence of the unconditional right of any State party to withdraw from the Treaty in exercising its national sovereignty” then criticized the unilateral decision made by the United States to withdraw from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. “The obligation to undertake negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament has not been fulfilled, preventing nations from exercising their right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Non-nuclear weapon states have fewer reasons to remain in this treaty.” Then, in order to avoid withdrawals from the treaty, Iran requested that all signatories comply completely with all NPT provisions.
(Originally published on May 9, 2019)
NEW YORK—On May 7, the third session of the Preparatory Committee for next year’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference opened debate over the draft of recommendations that were provided by the chair of the session, Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid, for the Review Conference in 2020. The Preparatory Committee session is being held at United Nations headquarters in New York. With regard to the achievements made through the framework of the NPT, which next year will mark the 50th anniversary year since it came into force, opinions were divided between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states.
Among the 55 items included in the draft recommendations, which were provided on May 3, the delegates from the participating nations voiced their views about three items described in the preface. The nuclear weapon states, including the United States and France, contended that the NPT framework has helped advance the aims of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. They argued that its historical success should be stressed in the milestone 50th anniversary year in 2020.
Meanwhile, many of the non-nuclear weapon states, including New Agenda Coalition member countries like Brazil and Mexico, pointed out that efforts for advancing nuclear disarmament have not produced sufficient progress. They requested that the recommendations clearly state that the obligation for nuclear disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, be fully implemented in line with agreements made in the past. This includes the “clear commitment by the nuclear States to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” which was agreed by all state parties at the NPT Review Conference in 2000.
There was also debate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, with the representative from Iran mentioning the possibility of that nation’s withdrawal from the NPT. The Iranian delegate said that the NPT “recognizes the existence of the unconditional right of any State party to withdraw from the Treaty in exercising its national sovereignty” then criticized the unilateral decision made by the United States to withdraw from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. “The obligation to undertake negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament has not been fulfilled, preventing nations from exercising their right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Non-nuclear weapon states have fewer reasons to remain in this treaty.” Then, in order to avoid withdrawals from the treaty, Iran requested that all signatories comply completely with all NPT provisions.
(Originally published on May 9, 2019)
