Nations at odds over draft recommendations at NPT Preparatory Committee
May 10, 2019
by Junji Akechi, Staff Writer
On May 8, at the third session of the Preparatory Committee for next year’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York, there was continuing debate on the recommendations proposed by the chair of the session. The nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states argued over the description of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Japan suggested that both sides of this argument be written into the draft of recommendations, but this idea was criticized by the pro-treaty nations. These divisions again demonstrated that reaching a unanimous agreement on the recommendations within the committee will be a difficult task.
With regard to the description of the nuclear weapons ban treaty, the debate centered on a sentence which states that the treaty was advocated by many states parties as a complement to the NPT. On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the representative from Indonesia said that if the nuclear weapons ban treaty was swiftly brought into effect, this would contribute to the goal of eliminating nuclear arms, and requested that words be added to urge the NPT member nations to sign and ratify the treaty in line with the recommendations. One after another, the other non-nuclear nations voiced their support for this position.
But the nuclear weapon states expressed their opposition. France argued that the statement made about the nuclear weapons ban treaty should be removed from the draft of recommendations, saying that the treaty would divide the NPT regime. Russia said that it could not accept this statement, either. The United States and the United Kingdom also voiced their dissatisfaction, contending that their opposing view was not properly reflected in the recommendations. China did not comment directly on this matter.
The Japanese representative proposed that the recommendations include the concerns expressed by each nation and the existence of different approaches, suggesting that the negative view of the nuclear weapons ban treaty on the part of the nuclear nations be incorporated. In response, Thailand candidly stated that it was against Japan’s proposal because the recommendations did not need to explicitly include this negative view of the treaty. The representative from Austria, the European nation that played a leading role in discussions to establish the nuclear weapons ban treaty, then argued that nations with various positions had come together to adopt the treaty because it was a legal framework needed for all approaches, not one of many approaches. After the meeting concluded, one of the officials from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “Japan’s proposal was rather a suggestion so that the session could issue unanimous recommendations, rather than our own argument.”
In addition, many non-nuclear states demanded that the recommendations include wording that would stress the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
(Originally published on May 10, 2019)
On May 8, at the third session of the Preparatory Committee for next year’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, now taking place at United Nations headquarters in New York, there was continuing debate on the recommendations proposed by the chair of the session. The nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states argued over the description of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Japan suggested that both sides of this argument be written into the draft of recommendations, but this idea was criticized by the pro-treaty nations. These divisions again demonstrated that reaching a unanimous agreement on the recommendations within the committee will be a difficult task.
With regard to the description of the nuclear weapons ban treaty, the debate centered on a sentence which states that the treaty was advocated by many states parties as a complement to the NPT. On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the representative from Indonesia said that if the nuclear weapons ban treaty was swiftly brought into effect, this would contribute to the goal of eliminating nuclear arms, and requested that words be added to urge the NPT member nations to sign and ratify the treaty in line with the recommendations. One after another, the other non-nuclear nations voiced their support for this position.
But the nuclear weapon states expressed their opposition. France argued that the statement made about the nuclear weapons ban treaty should be removed from the draft of recommendations, saying that the treaty would divide the NPT regime. Russia said that it could not accept this statement, either. The United States and the United Kingdom also voiced their dissatisfaction, contending that their opposing view was not properly reflected in the recommendations. China did not comment directly on this matter.
The Japanese representative proposed that the recommendations include the concerns expressed by each nation and the existence of different approaches, suggesting that the negative view of the nuclear weapons ban treaty on the part of the nuclear nations be incorporated. In response, Thailand candidly stated that it was against Japan’s proposal because the recommendations did not need to explicitly include this negative view of the treaty. The representative from Austria, the European nation that played a leading role in discussions to establish the nuclear weapons ban treaty, then argued that nations with various positions had come together to adopt the treaty because it was a legal framework needed for all approaches, not one of many approaches. After the meeting concluded, one of the officials from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “Japan’s proposal was rather a suggestion so that the session could issue unanimous recommendations, rather than our own argument.”
In addition, many non-nuclear states demanded that the recommendations include wording that would stress the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
(Originally published on May 10, 2019)
