A glance at the recommendations

At the end of the morning meeting on Friday, 8 May, Ambassador Chidyausiku released his draft recommendations for the 2010 Review Conference (RevCon). The recommendations include specific proposals that identify concrete practical actions; stand a reasonable prospect of commanding consensus; address issues related to implementation of Treaty; and build upon earlier decisions such as those at 2000 and 1995. He emphasized that they are not a comprehensive summary of all proposals that have been made to the RevCon, nor do they preclude any other item states parties might want to address.

The document attempts to balance the three pillars of the Treaty. Section 2 focuses on disarmament. It calls for the RevCon to consider adopting an action plan “setting practical and achievable and specified goals, and measures leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons,” such as the CTBT, FMCT, verified reductions, greater transparency, reducing operational status, refraining from qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, etc. It specifically recommends the RevCon “[e]xamine, inter alia, ways and means to commence negotiations, in accordance with article VI, on a convention or framework of agreements to achieve global nuclear disarmament, and to engage non-parties to the Treaty.”

In this context, the Chair’s disarmament recommendations seek a small but definite step forward in the disarmament agenda, beset by a decade of deadlock. Its inclusion of a nuclear weapons convention would, if adopted, for the first time put on the horizon the means for eliminating nuclear weapons.The non-proliferation recommendations do not go as far as those on disarmament, though they do emphasize the importance of safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meeting the call of many delegations to this PrepCom who seek to eliminate double standards and political discrimination, this section suggests the RevCon affirm that export controls should be “implemented in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner ... in conformity with articles I, II, III, and IV of the Treaty.” The non-proliferation section also addresses the issue of negative security assurances, where it recommends the RevCon look at ways “to achieve additional assurances that are legally-binding.”

While many governments are justifiably concerned about the emergence of a two-tiered international system, where global rules enforce the division between haves and have nots and where some “responsible” states are trusted with “sensitive” materials while others are not, the strengthening of non-proliferation norms is a worthy objective. In particular, improvements in the safeguards regime will certainly be vital in ensuring confidence in a nuclear weapon free world.

Section 4, on nuclear energy, calls on the RevCon to reaffirm article IV and to “[r]eiterate that restrictions on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy should not be applied for political purposes.” This rather extensive section addresses both the access and security aspects of nuclear energy. It tries to balance these two objectives in a way that supports multilateralization of the fuel cycle while ensuring that states’ decisions in this field, as long as they meet the obligations of the Treaty, do not jeopardize their access to nuclear material and equipment.

The contentious debate between rights and obligations related to article IV will undoubtedly continue, unfortunately distracting attention from dealing with the fact that continued promotion of nuclear power increases the difficulty of achieving or verifying a nuclear weapon free world.

Section 5c, on the Middle East resolution, recommends the RevCon “consider the proposal to call upon the nuclear-weapons States to convene a conference of all states of the Middle East region to address ways and means to implement the Resolution.” This call, along with the one made by Egypt and supported by Russia for the appointment of a special coordinator on the implementation of the resolution, seem to be gaining traction among delegations. However, the special coordinator is not mentioned in these recommendations.

As the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 was bound to the Middle East resolution, the implementation of the goals set forth in the resolution may play a major role in the continued vitality of the NPT regime. As such, failing to adopt serious and practical steps toward this end could begin to jeopardize the objective of achieving a permanent peace in the Middle East through disarmament and diplomacy, rather through the politics of arms racing and antagonism.

Regarding Treaty withdrawal, the document simply recommends that the RevCon acknowledge states’ right to withdraw and consider modalities “under which States parties could collectively respond to notifications of withdrawal.” It does not deal with any specific proposal, such as those suggesting response by the UN Security Council.

In terms of strengthening the Treaty, section 7a recommends the RevCon view the decisions from 1995 and 2000 as “embodying principles, objectives, or means” to promote the Treaty’s universality. Section 1 also deals with this issue, urging the RevCon to “[d]eclare that the Treaty is an expression of fundamental principles of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation that are universal in scope.” This formulation emphasizes the relevance of customary international law, wherein even non-parties are legally bound by the Treaty’s provisions. It also recommends the RevCon call on all non-parties to “adhere” to the Treaty, rather than to call on them to join as non-nuclear weapon states (as urged by the majority of delegations at the PrepComs).

The rest of section 7 focuses on strengthening the review process, recommending that the RevCon consider “establishing a uniform, practical and cost-efficient reporting system for the implementation of the Treaty.” While it suggests the consideration of other proposals, it does not specifically mention Canada’s ideas of a standing bureau or annual meetings.

Though many continue to be cynical about the merits of institutional reform, implementing any of the thoughtful reforms suggested by Canada would almost certainly improve the quality of NPT meetings while providing governments with an additional incentive to take serious their obligations under the broader nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation framework.
Finally, section 8 calls on the RevCon to commend the contributions of civil society and to consider proposals for the enhanced participation of NGOs in the Treaty review process. It also encourages the RevCon to underscore the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation education.

Last Tuesday, several NGOs presented their own set of recommendations to the PrepCom. Many of the NGO recommendations regarding nuclear disarmament overlapped with those of the Chair. The NGOs pushed for farther reaching measures though, calling for governments to eliminate “nuclear deterrence” from their security strategies; to establish international controls on delivery systems and anti-missile systems; and to join the International Renewable Energy Agency. These and other recommendations can be found at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

Michael Spies contributed analysis to this article.

PrepCom Chair submits his draft recommendations for 2010

At the end of the morning meeting on Friday, 8 May, Ambassador Chidyausiku (Chair of the PrepCom) released his draft recommendations for the 2010 Review Conference. The recommendations only include specific proposals that identify concrete practical actions; stand a reasonable prospect of commanding consensus; address issues related to implementation of Treaty; and build upon earlier decisions such as those at 2000 and 1995. He emphasized that they are not a comprehensive summary of all proposals.

Analysis will be forthcoming.

NPT PrepCom adopts an agenda for the Review Conference!

First thing in the morning meeting on Wednesday, 6 May, the PrepCom adopted a provisional agenda for next year's Review Conference. The agenda will be the same as the one used at the 2000 Review Conference, with a minor technical update: in paragraph 16, the phrase “and the final document of the 2000 Review Conference” will be added.

In addition, the Committee approved the postponing of the Review Conference by one week. It will now be held from 3-28 May 2010 in New York. The Committee also approved the Non-Aligned Movement's nomination of the ambassador of the Philippines to serve as the Review Conference chair.

2010 NPT RevCon agenda within sight…

On the opening day of the NPT PrepCom, the chair ambitiously announced that he would seek a decision on one of the keys tasks of the meeting: an agenda for the 2010 NPT RevCon (the second key task is agreeing to substantive recommendations to the RevCon). More than an inconsequential procedural step, the agendas to NPT conferences in recent years have become hotly disputed and politicized items. Governments frequently interpret the composition of the agenda as a statement of political value.

At the 2005 RevCon, NPT delegations were unable to begin their substantive deliberations for nearly three weeks due to disputes over the agenda, and in particular, US insistence that the agenda omit references to past NPT outcomes.

The proposed agenda for the 2010 RevCon is reportedly based on the agenda of the 2000 RevCon, incorporating appropriate technical updates. According to sources, the chair was compelled to drop the addition of language calling for the review to take into account developments subsequent to 2000 – likely out of concern that this would permit the RevCon to single out specific cases of non-compliance. As of Tuesday, a single delegation continued to object to the adoption of the agenda as it stands.

A key sticking point in 2005, the agenda in 2000 provided a mandate for review of the Treaty taking into account the decisions and resolution adopted in 1995. It also provided for two subsidiary bodies: one to deal with practical disarmament steps and the other to deal with implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East. In addition to these two topics, during the present review cycle delegations have requested other subsidiary bodies to deal with security assurances and with withdrawal from treaty (the latter was considered by a subsidiary body in 2005).

Especially in light of the numerous statements expressing renewed optimism and welcoming the recent high level attention to nuclear disarmament from many nuclear weapon states, the quick and painless adoption of the RevCon agenda would be a good sign that governments will be able to seriously work toward achieving substantive agreement in 2010.

United States delivers a positive statement to the NPT PrepCom

On 5 May, the US delegation, headed by Rose Gottemoeller, delivered a statement during the Committee's general debate. The statement was a very encouraging sign that this US administration is taking the NPT seriously and is ready to change its attitude toward and position on a few key aspects of the implementation of the Treaty.

Gottemoeller read a message to the PrepCom from President Obama, which reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the Treaty and to achieving a successful outcome at this Committee and at next year's Review Conference.

She then delivered an assessment of the United States' basic positions on each of the three pillars of the Treaty: disarmament, non-proliferation, and nuclear energy. She reaffirmed that the US would seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. Most importantly, she reaffirmed the decision to extend the NPT in 1995 and the decision made at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, including the 1995 Middle East resolution. The statement did not make any reference to Iran or North Korea.

Check the Reaching Critical Will website soon for a complete copy of the US statement.

NPT PrepCom begins

The third and final Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) in the current review cycle for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) began today at UN Headquarters in New York. Government representatives delivered their countries’ “general debate” statements and non-government representatives engaged in several interactive panel discussions throughout the day. For details for the days events, see Reaching Critical Will’s newsletter, the NPT News in Review No.2. (Previous and future editions will be available online and you can also subscribe to receive it daily in your inbox.)

Reaching Critical Will is posting all government statements in near-real time. We will also post all other conference documents as we receive them, so stay tuned to the website for regular updates.

UNDC closes with only procedural reports

The United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC)’s 2009 session closed on 1 May after three weeks—more or less—of deliberations. Once the Commission adopted its agenda after a few days of stalemate, the working groups got started on the second week of the Commission’s three week schedule. Working Group I, on “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons,” struggled to nominate a chair for a few days. In the end, Paolo Cuculi of Italy was elected chair. Given the limited amount of time available to the group, the chair decided to hold thematic debates on the issues and to start work on the recommendations next year.

For Working Group II, on “Elements of a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade,” the chair, Johan Paschalis of South Africa, submitted a draft non-paper (pdf) for consideration. The group got through one revision process, swelling the chair’s original four page draft to 11 pages. They reportedly got about two-thirds of the way through a second revision process and plan to continue working on this draft next year. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the elements for a declaration will be ready by January 2010, as the Commission next meets in April of that year. It is unclear whether the decade will begin without the declaration, or whether the decade will begin once the General Assembly approves a declaration, presumably later in 2010.

At the final plenary meeting, the Commission as a whole adopted the reports of Working Group I, Working Group II, and a report of the Commission. There was some discussion about an amendment proposed by the Bureau, which the Commission ultimately decided not to include. The amendment was a paragraph noting that the UNDC recommends that consideration of the elements of the draft declaration be continued during its 2010 substantive session. Pakistan’s delegate felt this confused the issue and could potentially reopen the agenda for debate next year. The rapporteur, Ambassador Piet de Klerk of the Netherlands, explained that the Bureau felt this paragraph would not change anything about the UNDC’s agenda. After a brief discussion, however, the amendment was dropped at the suggestion of India.

In his closing remarks, the Chair of the UNDC, Ambassador Andrzej Towpik, argued that the Commission needs some critical self-assessment and perhaps some adjustments to its methods of work. He suggested the Commission devote one of its meetings next year to reviewing these issues. He also lamented that the UNDC was unable to agree to invite experts to deliver presentations to the Commission, and hoped this could be considered again next year. The Pakistani delegate took the floor to disagree with the Chair’s assessment that the Commission needed to reform its methods of work. He argued that it is “not always logical to apply a corporate model to intergovernmental meetings” and that instead of “dismantling” existing machinery, states should apply increased financial and human resources to what we have now. He also argued in favour of maintaining the rule of consensus, saying its rejection may give short-term benefits but not long-term solutions.

Overall, most delegates seemed revealed to get through the first year of the Commission’s new cycle without any major blockages and with the adoption of reports, however procedural they may be. Hopefully next year the UNDC can get to work on the first day, rather than the second week, and can produce substantive recommendations in the working groups.