Commentary: NPT president seeks to avoid conference collapse despite deepening chasm between nuclear haves and have-nots
May 29, 2015
by Michiko Tanaka, Staff Writer
NEW YORK--At the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), held every five years, the Conference President Taous Feroukhi presented the draft of the final document on May 22. Future initiatives for nuclear disarmament were rolled back significantly from those presented in an earlier draft. The chasm and confrontation has deepened between the nuclear states, which maintain nuclear arsenals for their security interests and view a legal ban on nuclear weapons with great caution, and the non-nuclear states, which seek the early elimination of nuclear arms based on the inhumanity of these weapons. In this way, the conference can be declared a failure.
The seemingly fruitful results of the 2010 Review Conference included a final document which made clear reference to the inhumanity of nuclear arms and noted a proposal for negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. Since the last Review Conference, global awareness of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons has risen sharply, with governments of non-nuclear states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) taking the lead in stepping up efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the catastrophic consequences their use would bring about. The nuclear powers, however, have put up resistance and were unanimous in rebuffing the contents of the draft document for this Review Conference, arguing that it included too many references to the inhumanity of nuclear arms and that it would be impossible to set a time frame for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
In the end, the wording of the nuclear weapons convention, which had remained intact in the draft report from Main Committee I (Disarmament), was removed from the President’s text. Also removed was wording stating that all nations must comply with applicable international law because the use of nuclear weapons does not meet international humanitarian law. A paragraph highlighting the slow pace of the implementation of nuclear disarmament was completely deleted, and the significance of the language which presses for further nuclear disarmament was weakened. Without final agreement, the conference will collapse. In order to prevent this worst-case scenario, the president moved toward compromise with the nuclear powers.
In the final draft, the conference recommends that the U.N. General Assembly establish at its session in September an open-ended working group to identify “effective measures,” including legal provisions, and start discussions. As such a working group is open to all states and NGOs, it can support the establishment of legal provisions. The proposal to form a working group of this sort was not included in the final document of the 2010 Review Conference. Nevertheless, the President’s text states that the Conference recommends that the open-ended working group conduct its work on “the basis of consensus.” It encourages and enables the nuclear powers to engage in discussions on one hand, while on the other hand, legal provisions could not be established if they express opposition.
Compared to the backdrop of the 2010 Review Conference, when nuclear disarmament was given a boost with the inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama who advocated creating “a world without nuclear weapons,” the global state of affairs has grown increasingly tense. This year, which marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan, many A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki traveled to New York to support the success of the Review Conference. The voices of aging A-bomb survivors, saying that this would be their final time at this event, were frequently heard. The rollback at the conference has soured their hopes and demonstrated the limits of the NPT regime, now sharply divided between the nuclear haves and have-nots. The prospect of their long-standing wish for the abolition of nuclear weapons remains uncertain.
(Originally published on May 23, 2015)
NEW YORK--At the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), held every five years, the Conference President Taous Feroukhi presented the draft of the final document on May 22. Future initiatives for nuclear disarmament were rolled back significantly from those presented in an earlier draft. The chasm and confrontation has deepened between the nuclear states, which maintain nuclear arsenals for their security interests and view a legal ban on nuclear weapons with great caution, and the non-nuclear states, which seek the early elimination of nuclear arms based on the inhumanity of these weapons. In this way, the conference can be declared a failure.
The seemingly fruitful results of the 2010 Review Conference included a final document which made clear reference to the inhumanity of nuclear arms and noted a proposal for negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. Since the last Review Conference, global awareness of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons has risen sharply, with governments of non-nuclear states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) taking the lead in stepping up efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the catastrophic consequences their use would bring about. The nuclear powers, however, have put up resistance and were unanimous in rebuffing the contents of the draft document for this Review Conference, arguing that it included too many references to the inhumanity of nuclear arms and that it would be impossible to set a time frame for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
In the end, the wording of the nuclear weapons convention, which had remained intact in the draft report from Main Committee I (Disarmament), was removed from the President’s text. Also removed was wording stating that all nations must comply with applicable international law because the use of nuclear weapons does not meet international humanitarian law. A paragraph highlighting the slow pace of the implementation of nuclear disarmament was completely deleted, and the significance of the language which presses for further nuclear disarmament was weakened. Without final agreement, the conference will collapse. In order to prevent this worst-case scenario, the president moved toward compromise with the nuclear powers.
In the final draft, the conference recommends that the U.N. General Assembly establish at its session in September an open-ended working group to identify “effective measures,” including legal provisions, and start discussions. As such a working group is open to all states and NGOs, it can support the establishment of legal provisions. The proposal to form a working group of this sort was not included in the final document of the 2010 Review Conference. Nevertheless, the President’s text states that the Conference recommends that the open-ended working group conduct its work on “the basis of consensus.” It encourages and enables the nuclear powers to engage in discussions on one hand, while on the other hand, legal provisions could not be established if they express opposition.
Compared to the backdrop of the 2010 Review Conference, when nuclear disarmament was given a boost with the inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama who advocated creating “a world without nuclear weapons,” the global state of affairs has grown increasingly tense. This year, which marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan, many A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki traveled to New York to support the success of the Review Conference. The voices of aging A-bomb survivors, saying that this would be their final time at this event, were frequently heard. The rollback at the conference has soured their hopes and demonstrated the limits of the NPT regime, now sharply divided between the nuclear haves and have-nots. The prospect of their long-standing wish for the abolition of nuclear weapons remains uncertain.
(Originally published on May 23, 2015)
