Editorial: NPT Preparatory Committee meeting fails to produce recommendations, nuclear weapon states must fulfill their disarmament obligations first
May 11, 2025
Conflicts are flaring up in different corners of the world, and the risk of nuclear weapon use is increasing. It is regrettable that the meeting failed to secure a foothold toward changing this situation.
The Third Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, has closed without adopting draft recommendations that would serve as a basis for the next review conference.
What has become clear is the rift between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, as well as the differences of views among nuclear weapon states themselves. An outcome document on strengthening the review process, which would have urged nuclear weapon states to conduct disarmament negotiations, was not adopted, either. This casts a shadow over the future of the review conference.
The draft recommendations called on nuclear weapon states to adopt a policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons and appreciated that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons takes heed to a contribution toward a world without nuclear weapons.
A pillar of strengthening the review process is to call on each nuclear weapon state to submit a report on its nuclear forces and nuclear disarmament efforts. Words urging a reexamination of nuclear deterrence and nuclear sharing were included in the draft, but were deleted due to opposition from nuclear weapon states and countries dependent on nuclear deterrence. However, the fact that the idea was lain on the table for discussion is significant.
From these two documents, we can see a structure where nuclear weapon states and some others do not heed to appeals by non-nuclear weapon states that such weapons pose a threat to global security.
Non-nuclear weapon states expressed their frustration with the NPT regime one after another, arguing that nuclear weapon states are were not fulfilling their obligations to engage in disarmament negotiations.
On the other hand, nuclear weapon states have insisted the priority is to improve the security environment, even justifying the current stagnancy. Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? Progress in nuclear disarmament and transparency of nuclear forces is the path toward security.
With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the situation in the Middle East, divisions have been becoming deeper. In addition, the Donald Trump Administration’s nuclear policy remains unclear. The 2022 review conference was the first to end in failure for the second consecutive time. A third failure has taken on a touch of real possibility. The raison d'être of the only international framework for nuclear disarmament, in which nuclear-weapon states participate, is being questioned.
Seizing this opportunity, North Korea has declared its withdrawal and is advancing its nuclear and missile development. Israel, a nonmember nuclear weapon state, has been persistently attacking the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian Self Government area. India and Pakistan, both nuclear weapon states, have engaged in military conflict, running the risk of nuclear war. The international community must not let these countries just do what they want. For this reason, reorganizing the NPT regime is a pressing need.
This is precisely why the role of a “bridge” is crucial. As a nation that has suffered the atomic bombings, Japan has openly declared that it would serve as a bridge between nations. However, its presence was weak. As it relies on the nuclear umbrella, it opposed the chair’s proposal to reconsider nuclear deterrence. As a result, it could not take firm action to bring about agreement.
During the discussion, Indonesia, a non-nuclear weapon state, argued that countries relying on nuclear deterrence have a responsibility to pursue security that does not depend on nuclear weapons. The Japanese government should take this seriously and take steps to free itself from nuclear deterrence.
Furthermore, Japan must urge dialogue among all countries and strive to reduce nuclear threats and to produce a final document at the review conference. Now that the 80th anniversaries of the atomic bombings are approaching, we must not leave the situation as it is.
(Originally published on May 11, 2025)
The Third Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, has closed without adopting draft recommendations that would serve as a basis for the next review conference.
What has become clear is the rift between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, as well as the differences of views among nuclear weapon states themselves. An outcome document on strengthening the review process, which would have urged nuclear weapon states to conduct disarmament negotiations, was not adopted, either. This casts a shadow over the future of the review conference.
The draft recommendations called on nuclear weapon states to adopt a policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons and appreciated that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons takes heed to a contribution toward a world without nuclear weapons.
A pillar of strengthening the review process is to call on each nuclear weapon state to submit a report on its nuclear forces and nuclear disarmament efforts. Words urging a reexamination of nuclear deterrence and nuclear sharing were included in the draft, but were deleted due to opposition from nuclear weapon states and countries dependent on nuclear deterrence. However, the fact that the idea was lain on the table for discussion is significant.
From these two documents, we can see a structure where nuclear weapon states and some others do not heed to appeals by non-nuclear weapon states that such weapons pose a threat to global security.
Non-nuclear weapon states expressed their frustration with the NPT regime one after another, arguing that nuclear weapon states are were not fulfilling their obligations to engage in disarmament negotiations.
On the other hand, nuclear weapon states have insisted the priority is to improve the security environment, even justifying the current stagnancy. Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? Progress in nuclear disarmament and transparency of nuclear forces is the path toward security.
With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the situation in the Middle East, divisions have been becoming deeper. In addition, the Donald Trump Administration’s nuclear policy remains unclear. The 2022 review conference was the first to end in failure for the second consecutive time. A third failure has taken on a touch of real possibility. The raison d'être of the only international framework for nuclear disarmament, in which nuclear-weapon states participate, is being questioned.
Seizing this opportunity, North Korea has declared its withdrawal and is advancing its nuclear and missile development. Israel, a nonmember nuclear weapon state, has been persistently attacking the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian Self Government area. India and Pakistan, both nuclear weapon states, have engaged in military conflict, running the risk of nuclear war. The international community must not let these countries just do what they want. For this reason, reorganizing the NPT regime is a pressing need.
This is precisely why the role of a “bridge” is crucial. As a nation that has suffered the atomic bombings, Japan has openly declared that it would serve as a bridge between nations. However, its presence was weak. As it relies on the nuclear umbrella, it opposed the chair’s proposal to reconsider nuclear deterrence. As a result, it could not take firm action to bring about agreement.
During the discussion, Indonesia, a non-nuclear weapon state, argued that countries relying on nuclear deterrence have a responsibility to pursue security that does not depend on nuclear weapons. The Japanese government should take this seriously and take steps to free itself from nuclear deterrence.
Furthermore, Japan must urge dialogue among all countries and strive to reduce nuclear threats and to produce a final document at the review conference. Now that the 80th anniversaries of the atomic bombings are approaching, we must not leave the situation as it is.
(Originally published on May 11, 2025)
