We are a bit late with the May current events column because we have been waiting for reports on the NPT PrepCom (the first preparatory committee meeting in preparation for the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty scheduled for 2010), which took place in Vienna during the first two weeks of May.
The NPT is the only international agreement regarding the control and elimination of nuclear weapons. It is subject to multilateral review every five years. In late April and early May of four of the five years between the review conferences, PrepComs (preparatory committee meetings) are held to prepare for the treaty reviews.
These PrepComs and the Review Conferences they prepare for are important. All the official nuclear-weapon states are there, and most nations participate. Also present are the disarmament NGOs, the disarmament experts lobbying hard to persuade national delegates to take substantive action. Not present are the nuclear renegades—India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The first three have never signed the NPT. North Korea was a long-time member and participant until it withdrew in 2004 to become a nuclear-armed nation in October 2006.
The NPT is a treaty originally proposed in the late 1960s by the US and other nuclear-weapon states. Their primary concern was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was signed by 189 nations because it was presented as a bargain. On one side of the bargain, the non-nuclear states agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. On the other, the nuclear-weapon states agreed to 1) help the non-nuclear weapon states obtain nuclear technology for peaceful uses (nuclear power and medical applications), and 2) negotiate the total elimination of nuclear weapons and a return to a nuclear-weapon-free world.
This bargain worked out pretty well for the nuclear-weapon states. It was over thirty years before the first country (North Korea) abandoned the agreement and became a nuclear power. However, the disarmament obligation in this treaty has never been taken seriously by the nuclear-weapon states. Year after year, they would plead “vital to national security” and go on about their business of making more numerous and/or more powerful nuclear weapons. They were also highly discriminatory in deciding which of the non-nuclear nations would be allowed to have peaceful nuclear technology.
After the Second Special Session on Disarmament in 1982, a massive groundswell of public opinion, a gradually improving relationship between the US and the USSR, and strained national budgets led to dramatic decreases in the numbers of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear-weapon states have never even considered living up to the promise of total elimination.
Thus, year after year, the NPT PrepComs and Review Conferences have seen the nuclear-weapon states claiming that they are, in fact, reducing the number of their nuclear weapons while negotiating hard to keep the lid on nuclear proliferation. Meanwhile, the disarmament NGOs and a few courageous nations would find subtle and largely ineffective ways to stand up to the nuclear-weapon states and demand greater progress toward a nuclear-weapon-free world.
In many ways, this 2007 NPT PrepCom was no different, but it is important to note that tension between the US and Iran nearly scuttled the entire meeting. We lack space in this column to go into a detailed blow-by-blow description of the conflicts that arose between Iran and the US. Those who want more complete information can find it at: http://www.acronym.org.uk. This is the website of Dr. Rebecca Johnson, executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. Dr. Johnson always seems to have the inside scoop.
Suffice it to say that the US took every opportunity to criticize Iran and put the emphasis on threats to the non-proliferation regime, while Iran was continually seeking to criticize the US and put the emphasis on disarmament obligations. It all came down to some extremely finely drawn differences in wording that appear meaningless to observers without knowledge of the diplomatic history of the treaty, but this wrangling prevented the PrepCom from even adopting an agenda for the first seven of its 14 days.
Luckily, South Africa stepped into the breach and came up with compromise wording and Iran was willing to accept it to allow the meeting to proceed. In the end, the PrepCom produced quite a remarkable report and an especially remarkable Chairman’s Summary. We should all be fervently praying that this outcome is symbolic of the determination and ability of the international community to prevent the violence the US, Israel and Iran have been threatening for months.
The chair of this PrepCom was Yukiya Amano, the ambassador from Japan.
He is now considered something of a hero in disarmament quarters both
for his excellent handling of a difficult political situation, and for
his courageous summary of the proceedings. If you are interested in reading
his entire summary, please go to this website: http://www.acronym.org.uk/npt/chair.pdf
For a summary of his summary and an enjoyable report on the NPT, I present
below a report by Felicity Hill, widely regarded as the coolest person
in disarmament.
Screams of laughter – peals of joy – the Chairman’s summary mentions the Nuclear Weapons Convention in paragraph 10 of his rather courageous and thorough factual summary!!!
This is a great summary — it includes everything we wanted it to include and not too much of what we didn’t want. The highlight for ICAN [International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons] is without a doubt Paragraph 10, which refers to the need for a nuclear weapons convention. It reads: ‘The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the obligations of nuclear weapon States was recalled and support was voiced for the development of a nuclear weapons convention.’ Other highlights include references to the 1995 and 2000 Review Conference decisions, expression of the need for full implementation of the 13 practical steps agreed in 2000, reference to concerns about modernisation in the UK and US, a paragraph on disarmament education, and a concluding paragraph on the valued contribution of civil society in the review cycle. Due reference was given to the gravity of the situation in Iran and the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK last year. Predictably, and perhaps unavoidably, the summary notes states parties’ reaffirmation of the ‘inalienable right’ to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It also notes the call by some states to ensure the free, unimpeded and non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. We would have liked the summary to make reference to New Zealand’s view that nuclear power is not compatible with sustainable development.
Summary of each paragraph [in the Chairman’s Summary]
I close this month’s column with a press release from the PrepCom:
VIENNA, AUSTRIA — “Nuclear weapons have provided us with the capacity of self-destruction. These weapons are suicidal, genocidal and ecocidal,” commented Felicity Hill, coordinator of ICAN and former peace and security adviser for the United Nations. “We know — and have stressed time and again — that we can’t cure nuclear war. But we certainly can prevent it.”
“This NPT meeting got off to a shaky start because of procedural wrangling. But there has been a great deal of positive dialogue over the last few days, and no one should consider the meeting a failure,” she said. “However, while disarmament is back on the table, so are new hydrogen bombs in the US and nuclear submarines in the UK. There has been too little discussion on the proposed US-India deal, although it has been challenged.
“One very positive development is that Costa Rica and Malaysia presented a working paper to encourage governments to begin negotiations for the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) — a law that would comprehensively ban nuclear weapons.
“A model NWC, prepared by a consortium of doctors, lawyers and disarmament experts, was submitted to the meeting as an official document. We have our fingers crossed that the idea will take flight, either in this forum or at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva,” she continued.
“Such a convention is, in our view, the surest way to bring about the total elimination of nuclear weapons and to verify that elimination has occurred. The NPT itself envisages the goal of an NWC in Article VI.
“Governments have always been reluctant to act on such monumental issues as nuclear abolition without an irresistible groundswell of popular support. We must all realise our potential to effect positive change in this area.
“A powerful civil society movement aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons — once and for all — is our greatest hope for global survival. Indeed it may well be our only hope,” remarked Hill. “Now is the time to act. Holding off any longer could prove catastrophic. Complacency on this issue could mean the world ends in an afternoon,” she concluded.