What's New

Previous Events

Current Events for May

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]

  1. The NPT is the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime and essential for nuclear disarmament
  2. The NPT rests on three pillars and that disarmament and non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing processes
  3. States parties are committed to effective implementation of the NPT and the decisions from 1995 and 2000
  4. Multilateralism provides the only sustainable method of dealing with international security issues
  5. It is of grave concern that non-state actors might gain access to WMD and their means of delivery
  6. There is a need for support to achieve universality of the NPT
  7. Achieving compliance with the NPT is of great importance
  8. States parties called for the full implementation of the 13 practical steps from 2000, and there remains a general commitment to implementation of Article VI
  9. The total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or threat of use, and indefinite extension of the NPT does not imply the indefinite possession of nuclear arsenals
  10. Support was voiced for the development of a nuclear weapons convention
  11. States parties attached significance to reducing the deployed status of nuclear weapons
  12. Concern was voiced about plans to replace or modernize nuclear weapons and their means of delivery
  13. Nuclear weapon states reiterated their commitment to nuclear disarmament under Article VI
  14. The Moscow Treaty was acknowledged as a positive trend towards nuclear disarmament
  15. Increased transparency with regard to nuclear weapons capabilities as a voluntary confidence-building measure was strongly advocated
  16. Reporting by all states parties on the implementation of Article VI was encouraged
  17. States parties welcomed the Six Presidents agreement at the Conference on Disarmament
  18. Strong support was expressed for the CTBT and its early entry into force
  19. Concerns was expressed about abrogation of the ABMT and development of missile defence systems
  20. States parties stressed the importance of further reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons
  21. Negotiations for the immediate commencement of a FMCT is important
  22. Fissile material no longer needed for military purposes should be placed under IAEA control
  23. The G-8 Global Partnership makes a positive contribution on WMD matters
  24. Disarmament and non-proliferation education is important
  25. Nuclear weapon states should provide security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon states that they would not use nuclear weapons against them
  26. A universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances should be pursued as a matter of priority
  27. Serious proliferation events strained the NPT regime by eroding confidence in the compliance of all states parties
  28. States parties welcome IAEA efforts to strengthen safeguards
  29. The Model Additional Protocol is an essential and indispensable tool for effective functioning of IAEA safeguards
  30. States parties reaffirmed the need for the Model Additional Protocol to be universalised
  31. Export controls are a key element of the non-proliferation regime
  32. Support was expressed for the concept of international recognised nuclear-weapon-free zones
  33. Continuing and increased cooperation amongst the parties of the zones was encouraged
  34. States parties reaffirmed the importance of the Resolution on the Middle East adopted in 1995
  35. Great concern was expressed regarding the nuclear capability of Israel
  36. A solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to the objective of establishing a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone
  37. Serious concern was expressed over Iran’s nuclear programme
  38. States parties expressed grave concern over the DPRK’s nuclear programme and its announcement of a nuclear test
  39. States parties reaffirmed the inalienable right under Article IV of all States to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
  40. A call was make to fully ensure the free, unimpeded and non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes
  41. States parties emphasised the value and importance of the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme
  42. The importance of strengthening nuclear safety, radiation protection, the safety of radioactive waste management and the safe transport of nuclear materials was stressed
  43. States parties noted the importance of combating nuclear terrorism
  44. States parties urged the strengthening of the physical protection of nuclear material and facilities
  45. States parties emphasised the need to increase international cooperation in respect of the promotion of multilateralism in the nuclear fuel cycle
  46. Importance was attached to the need for any withdrawal from the NPT to take place in a manner consistent with the treaty’s purposes
  47. It was emphasised that a withdrawing party is liable for breaches of the NPT that occurred prior to withdrawal
  48. States parties should encourage a party to reconsider its sovereign position to withdraw
  49. The need to strengthen the treaty and its review process was expressed
  50. Some States parties spoke on rotation among regional grouping for the chairpersonship of NPT PrepComs and RevCons
  51. States parties emphasised the value of the involvement and contribution of civil society in the process of NPT review

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.