As first half of NPT Preparatory Committee concludes, unanimous support for recommendations seems hard to achieve
May 6, 2019
by Junji Akechi, Staff Writer
NEW YORK — The first half of the schedule has concluded at the third Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York. In the general debate, the representatives from member states offered remarks, after which the United States and Russia began criticizing one another over the right of reply. During the latter half of the schedule, from May 6 to 10, the participants will discuss draft recommendations. It will likely be difficult for them to align their views so that the recommendations receive unanimous support.
As the Preparatory Committee opened, the United States and Russia announced their intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, deepening the division between these two nations. On April 29, the first day of the conference, the U.S. delegation contended that violations by Russia over a long period of time were what effectively ended the treaty, thus blaming Russia for the U.S. denunciation of the treaty. Russia countered that this claim was groundless and unfair, saying that it was the United States that had violated this international agreement.
On May 2, the U.S. side sarcastically remarked that Russia falsely lays blame on the United States for every global issue, including snow in Siberia. The two countries sought to blame the other, calling the other’s claims propaganda. With the United States pulling out of its nuclear deal with Iran in May of last year, there was a fierce clash between these two countries. The United States referred to Iran’s secret nuclear development program coming to light in the past, saying that Iran was not at all trustworthy and that it should not be criticizing other nations. It also mentioned the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, in which American diplomats were held captive. Putting the blame on Iran, the United States said that Iran had yet to apologize for this dreadful conduct. Iran said that the United States was violating the obligation of disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, and that it was the United States that could not be trusted.
Malaysian Ambassador Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid, who is chairing the session, distributed the draft recommendations, which will serve as the basis for discussions at the Review Conference in 2020. In the second half of the Preparatory Committee, discussions will involve regional issues concerning the Middle East and other areas, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, prior to discussions on the draft recommendations.
Interview with Keiko Nakamura, Associate Professor at the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University
At the third Preparatory Committee for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the divide between the United States and Russia, as well as differences in the participating nations’ attitudes toward the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, have become clear. Keiko Nakamura, an associate professor at the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, listened to the general debate during the first half of the conference (April 29 – May 3). The Chugoku Shimbun interviewed Ms. Nakamura about how she regards the discussions and the prospects for the latter half of the Preparatory Committee session.
How do you view the first half of the conference?
The participants were all expressing a sense of crisis about the current conditions involving the NPT. On the whole, they seemed to be trying to at least make next year’s Review Conference a success. Two failures in a row (following the unsuccessful Review Conference of 2015) will deal a serious blow to the NPT regime. The chairman presented the draft recommendations at an early stage, which I took as a sign of his eagerness to promote a positive outcome. On the other hand, the United States and Russia were casting blame at one another. It isn’t uncommon for delegates to make harsh remarks to appeal to voters in their respective nations, but some of the comments that were made were too much for a diplomatic setting like this.
What is the stance of the United States like?
They are focused on creating what they say is an environment conducive for making progress on nuclear disarmament, based on the idea that improving the international security environment is critical for this goal. They deserve some praise for admitting that disarmament is at an impasse, but the NPT is a deal in which the nuclear weapon states have pledged to reduce their nuclear arms while the non-nuclear weapon states agree to refrain from possessing such weapons. If the United States doesn’t take action to advance nuclear disarmament on the grounds of external conditions, this means they will be ignoring past promises and agreements, which could lead to the collapse of the NPT regime.
What has been the attitude of the participants toward the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons? While the nuclear weapon states remain opposed to the treaty, some countries have asserted that the treaty can complement Article 6 of the NPT, which stipulates that signatories make efforts to advance nuclear abolition. We can interpret the actions of the United States, in putting forward the idea of creating a better security environment, as a desire to take the initiative in the nuclear disarmament debate since the non-nuclear nations took the lead in this field in the process of the nuclear weapons ban treaty being adopted.
How do you think things will proceed in the second half of the session?
Whether the recommendations can be adopted will depend on whether common ground can be found between the United States and Russia, Iran, and Syria. The participants should at least strive to show a cooperative attitude in order to adopt the recommendations, which would be a positive sign for next year’s Review Conference. Since the NPT permits only five countries to possess nuclear weapons, the United States should want to take advantage of this regime. So for the United States to easily give up the NPT is unthinkable. But using harsh language and making enemies is a style adopted by the Trump administration, which doesn’t believe in multilateralism.
How do you view the Japanese government’s attitude?
The Japanese government introduced what has been achieved by the Group of Eminent Persons (comprised of distinguished international experts from both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states). Frankly speaking, the Japanese government doesn’t have much of a presence. I hope they will grow more assertive and engage in more active diplomatic efforts in the field of nuclear disarmament.
(Originally published on May 6, 2019)
NEW YORK — The first half of the schedule has concluded at the third Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York. In the general debate, the representatives from member states offered remarks, after which the United States and Russia began criticizing one another over the right of reply. During the latter half of the schedule, from May 6 to 10, the participants will discuss draft recommendations. It will likely be difficult for them to align their views so that the recommendations receive unanimous support.
As the Preparatory Committee opened, the United States and Russia announced their intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, deepening the division between these two nations. On April 29, the first day of the conference, the U.S. delegation contended that violations by Russia over a long period of time were what effectively ended the treaty, thus blaming Russia for the U.S. denunciation of the treaty. Russia countered that this claim was groundless and unfair, saying that it was the United States that had violated this international agreement.
On May 2, the U.S. side sarcastically remarked that Russia falsely lays blame on the United States for every global issue, including snow in Siberia. The two countries sought to blame the other, calling the other’s claims propaganda. With the United States pulling out of its nuclear deal with Iran in May of last year, there was a fierce clash between these two countries. The United States referred to Iran’s secret nuclear development program coming to light in the past, saying that Iran was not at all trustworthy and that it should not be criticizing other nations. It also mentioned the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, in which American diplomats were held captive. Putting the blame on Iran, the United States said that Iran had yet to apologize for this dreadful conduct. Iran said that the United States was violating the obligation of disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, and that it was the United States that could not be trusted.
Malaysian Ambassador Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid, who is chairing the session, distributed the draft recommendations, which will serve as the basis for discussions at the Review Conference in 2020. In the second half of the Preparatory Committee, discussions will involve regional issues concerning the Middle East and other areas, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, prior to discussions on the draft recommendations.
Interview with Keiko Nakamura, Associate Professor at the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University
At the third Preparatory Committee for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the divide between the United States and Russia, as well as differences in the participating nations’ attitudes toward the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, have become clear. Keiko Nakamura, an associate professor at the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, listened to the general debate during the first half of the conference (April 29 – May 3). The Chugoku Shimbun interviewed Ms. Nakamura about how she regards the discussions and the prospects for the latter half of the Preparatory Committee session.
How do you view the first half of the conference?
The participants were all expressing a sense of crisis about the current conditions involving the NPT. On the whole, they seemed to be trying to at least make next year’s Review Conference a success. Two failures in a row (following the unsuccessful Review Conference of 2015) will deal a serious blow to the NPT regime. The chairman presented the draft recommendations at an early stage, which I took as a sign of his eagerness to promote a positive outcome. On the other hand, the United States and Russia were casting blame at one another. It isn’t uncommon for delegates to make harsh remarks to appeal to voters in their respective nations, but some of the comments that were made were too much for a diplomatic setting like this.
What is the stance of the United States like?
They are focused on creating what they say is an environment conducive for making progress on nuclear disarmament, based on the idea that improving the international security environment is critical for this goal. They deserve some praise for admitting that disarmament is at an impasse, but the NPT is a deal in which the nuclear weapon states have pledged to reduce their nuclear arms while the non-nuclear weapon states agree to refrain from possessing such weapons. If the United States doesn’t take action to advance nuclear disarmament on the grounds of external conditions, this means they will be ignoring past promises and agreements, which could lead to the collapse of the NPT regime.
What has been the attitude of the participants toward the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons? While the nuclear weapon states remain opposed to the treaty, some countries have asserted that the treaty can complement Article 6 of the NPT, which stipulates that signatories make efforts to advance nuclear abolition. We can interpret the actions of the United States, in putting forward the idea of creating a better security environment, as a desire to take the initiative in the nuclear disarmament debate since the non-nuclear nations took the lead in this field in the process of the nuclear weapons ban treaty being adopted.
How do you think things will proceed in the second half of the session?
Whether the recommendations can be adopted will depend on whether common ground can be found between the United States and Russia, Iran, and Syria. The participants should at least strive to show a cooperative attitude in order to adopt the recommendations, which would be a positive sign for next year’s Review Conference. Since the NPT permits only five countries to possess nuclear weapons, the United States should want to take advantage of this regime. So for the United States to easily give up the NPT is unthinkable. But using harsh language and making enemies is a style adopted by the Trump administration, which doesn’t believe in multilateralism.
How do you view the Japanese government’s attitude?
The Japanese government introduced what has been achieved by the Group of Eminent Persons (comprised of distinguished international experts from both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states). Frankly speaking, the Japanese government doesn’t have much of a presence. I hope they will grow more assertive and engage in more active diplomatic efforts in the field of nuclear disarmament.
(Originally published on May 6, 2019)
