NPT pillar of nuclear disarmament is needed to make treaty effective
May 12, 2019
by Junji Akechi, Staff Writer
NEW YORK — The discussions during the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which will be held in 2020, have revealed that the current state of the rift between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states has widened over the issue of nuclear disarmament, one of the three pillars of the NPT. The pattern of discord that led to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was not eased in this session. And there is now the grave problem of maintaining the effectiveness of the NPT, which next year will mark the 50th anniversary since it entered into force, prior to the Review Conference.
The United States said that the NPT, over the past 50 years, has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons while facilitating reductions in nuclear arsenals and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It stressed that, in this way, the three pillars of the NPT have been successfully pursued. However, many non-nuclear weapon states view the situation quite differently. Cuba responded by saying that progress has been made in non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but nuclear disarmament has not been advanced. One after another, the non-nuclear weapon states pointed to the responsibility of the nuclear-armed states. The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which actively advocates nuclear disarmament, stressed that the NPT obligates the nuclear weapon states to make efforts for the goal of nuclear disarmament.
The sharpest contrast was seen in views of the nuclear weapons ban treaty. The non-nuclear weapon states, including not only Austria and Brazil, who played leading roles in establishing the treaty, but also many countries and regional groups from Asia, Africa, Central America, and South America, expressed their support for the treaty. Chairman Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid said that the discussions were reflected in the final version of the recommendations for the session, including items concerning the need to outlaw nuclear arms. But under the current circumstances, it was very difficult to adopt this version of the recommendations. The nuclear weapon states persistently repeated their criticisms of the nuclear weapons ban treaty, with France saying that it would weaken the NPT regime.
In recent years, the nuclear weapon states have shifted their focus toward an appeal for the importance of creating a more conducive environment for international security in order to move forward with practical efforts for nuclear disarmament, disregarding the adoption of the nuclear weapons ban treaty. In the Preparatory Committee session, the United States sought to assume a leadership role by proposing that a new working group be formed that would be charged with discussing nuclear disarmament in the future. Several non-nuclear states responded cautiously to the U.S. suggestion. Brazil said that such a proposal should not be used as an excuse to avoid the obligation of nuclear disarmament.
The Preparatory Committee was held amid conditions in which nuclear disarmament is backsliding, with the United States and Russia announcing their intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In this connection, the United States and Russia lobbed accusations at one another. And the United States also came into conflict with Iran on the terms of the Iranian nuclear deal, from which the United States withdrew last year, with both sides engaging in an intense verbal dispute. The growing concerns of member states over the future of the NPT are proving to be valid, and the participants now believe that it may be hard to reach consensus on the final document at next year’s NPT Review Conference.
The previous NPT Review Conference, which took place in 2015, failed to adopt the final document, and if there is a second failure at the next conference, the NPT framework could be shaken. Tatsujiro Suzuki, the director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, explained that there is a basic difference in the interpretation of nuclear disarmament when it comes to the conflict between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states, and he said that resolving this conflict is a major issue as we look toward next year. He mentioned that the committee’s administrative decisions, including the election of a chairman, had gone smoothly. He added that a minimum level of results had been shown and he still holds out hope for the Review Conference in 2020.
(Originally published on May 12, 2019)
NEW YORK — The discussions during the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which will be held in 2020, have revealed that the current state of the rift between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states has widened over the issue of nuclear disarmament, one of the three pillars of the NPT. The pattern of discord that led to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was not eased in this session. And there is now the grave problem of maintaining the effectiveness of the NPT, which next year will mark the 50th anniversary since it entered into force, prior to the Review Conference.
The United States said that the NPT, over the past 50 years, has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons while facilitating reductions in nuclear arsenals and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It stressed that, in this way, the three pillars of the NPT have been successfully pursued. However, many non-nuclear weapon states view the situation quite differently. Cuba responded by saying that progress has been made in non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but nuclear disarmament has not been advanced. One after another, the non-nuclear weapon states pointed to the responsibility of the nuclear-armed states. The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which actively advocates nuclear disarmament, stressed that the NPT obligates the nuclear weapon states to make efforts for the goal of nuclear disarmament.
The sharpest contrast was seen in views of the nuclear weapons ban treaty. The non-nuclear weapon states, including not only Austria and Brazil, who played leading roles in establishing the treaty, but also many countries and regional groups from Asia, Africa, Central America, and South America, expressed their support for the treaty. Chairman Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid said that the discussions were reflected in the final version of the recommendations for the session, including items concerning the need to outlaw nuclear arms. But under the current circumstances, it was very difficult to adopt this version of the recommendations. The nuclear weapon states persistently repeated their criticisms of the nuclear weapons ban treaty, with France saying that it would weaken the NPT regime.
In recent years, the nuclear weapon states have shifted their focus toward an appeal for the importance of creating a more conducive environment for international security in order to move forward with practical efforts for nuclear disarmament, disregarding the adoption of the nuclear weapons ban treaty. In the Preparatory Committee session, the United States sought to assume a leadership role by proposing that a new working group be formed that would be charged with discussing nuclear disarmament in the future. Several non-nuclear states responded cautiously to the U.S. suggestion. Brazil said that such a proposal should not be used as an excuse to avoid the obligation of nuclear disarmament.
The Preparatory Committee was held amid conditions in which nuclear disarmament is backsliding, with the United States and Russia announcing their intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In this connection, the United States and Russia lobbed accusations at one another. And the United States also came into conflict with Iran on the terms of the Iranian nuclear deal, from which the United States withdrew last year, with both sides engaging in an intense verbal dispute. The growing concerns of member states over the future of the NPT are proving to be valid, and the participants now believe that it may be hard to reach consensus on the final document at next year’s NPT Review Conference.
The previous NPT Review Conference, which took place in 2015, failed to adopt the final document, and if there is a second failure at the next conference, the NPT framework could be shaken. Tatsujiro Suzuki, the director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, explained that there is a basic difference in the interpretation of nuclear disarmament when it comes to the conflict between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states, and he said that resolving this conflict is a major issue as we look toward next year. He mentioned that the committee’s administrative decisions, including the election of a chairman, had gone smoothly. He added that a minimum level of results had been shown and he still holds out hope for the Review Conference in 2020.
(Originally published on May 12, 2019)
