The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The NPT Review Conference 2005: Acronym Special Coverage
Day 23: closed meetings and bracketed texts
May 24, 2005
Rebecca Johnson
Back to the main page on the NPT
The NPT Review Conference moved into its endgame on May 24,
Women's International Day for Disarmament. Prospects for a
positively negotiated and agreed outcome are looking more remote
than ever. The three main committees (MC) and their subsidiary
bodies (SB) have been negotiating more or less for the past two
days on texts generated by their chairs, and all are having serious
difficulties that look likely to prevent agreement. Square brackets
around disputed text are multiplying and MC.II finished its last
designated session with much of its text bracketed.
Disagreements have also come down to the wire on attempts among
the five nuclear weapon states (Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States) to agree a P-5 statement. On this, however, the
brackets have been diminishing over the weeks since negotiations
started (before the Review Conference opened), and it is understood
that only two or three remain, including the CTBT, Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI) and possibly still North Korea and/or
withdrawal from the NPT. While a P-5 statement would be far too
late to contribute constructively to the RevCon's conduct and
outcome, there is a chance that - depending on what it says - an
agreed P-5 declaration could still play a role in demonstrating the
priorities for the nuclear weapon states (or at least where they
are prepared to agree with each other). Though it is very late to
influence the Review Conference, attempts to reach agreement have
intensified, moving to a higher level of governmental authority
than New York for the final push.
The president, Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil, has called a
plenary for tomorrow (Wednesday), ostensibly to consider what to do
with the text from the committees. According to the work programme,
MC II was to have finished its deliberations today, with one more
session each for MC I and MC III tomorrow. But by Tuesday's end
Egypt and Iran had objected to the adoption of MC II's bracketed
text and had tied up the committee in legalistic knots so that the
Chair, Ambassador László Molnár of Hungary,
barely knew whether he could send the text forward or would have to
ask for extra time. The stand-off must have sent shivers down the
spines of the chairs of the other committees, with only one session
each to go and many unresolved areas of disagreement in both the
committees and especially their subsidiary bodies.
MC II deals with safeguards and its SB bears the same unwieldy
title as in 2000: "regional issues, including with respect to the
Middle East and implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle
East". In the 12 paragraphs of the most recent SB report available,
there are sections about the 1995 Resolution and reporting on steps
to fulfil it, a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East,
safeguards and the additional protocol, India and Pakistan,
welcoming Libya's deproliferation, and the traditional call on
Israel to accede to the NPT. On North Korea, a placeholding
sentence notes that states participating in the six-party talks
will try to get consensus on a sentence.
The main issues of contention are a lengthy paragraph on Iran,
which Iran wants to be deleted in its entirety, and a paragraph
that calls for the taking of additional measures to induce Israel
to accede to the NPT, including convening a standing committee and
denial of transfers of technology and cooperation in the nuclear
and research fields.
The paragraph on Iran states the current situation, including
the IAEA assessment and diplomatic initiatives of the EU-3
(Britain, France and Germany). It notes that Iran has signed the
Additional Protocol but calls on it to ratify and fully implement
it. It also calls on Iran to "respect the Paris Agreement and the
relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, in particular
suspension of the enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Reportedly, the disagreements have not really been about the
wording per se, but because Iran objects to there being any
paragraph at all that implies criticism or suggests noncompliance
with any aspect of the safeguards agreements or treaty. Iran argues
that it should not be singled out because it is complying with IAEA
inspections and has signed the additional protocol. Square
bracketed or not, this paragraph is the major reason for Iran's
attempts to block transmittal of the report. We will have to wait
to see how (or if) this question will be resolved.
The May 24 draft for MC I, chaired by Ambassador Sudjadnan of
Indonesia, contains 8 principal paras that focus mainly on the
article I and II obligations. It includes the sentence "The
Conference calls upon the NWS to refrain from nuclear sharing for
military purposes under any kind of security arrangements, among
themselves, with non-nuclar-weapon states and with states not party
to the Treaty." There are also two paragraphs supporting the
recommendations of the Report of the UN Secretary General on
disarmament and nonproliferation education. There is also a second
draft of a paper prepared by the chair of SB I, Tim Caughley of New
Zealand, on practical disarmament steps under article VI. These 12
paragraphs seek to build on the decisions from 1995 and 2000, but
some have complained they are not strong enough. For its part, the
United States has reportedly earmarked many paragraphs for
deletion.
A seven para chair's draft on security assurances was also
discussed today. While most of the NWS seem able to accept it, the
United States is reportedly hostile to some sections.
On Monday the news from MC III, chaired by Ambassador Elisabet
Borsiin-Bonnier of Sweden, appeared more positive than the others,
with text reportedly substantially agreed on a basic report (though
one that had avoided most of the safety and security challenges
raised during the Conference and in working papers). In addition,
by lowering their sights to finding agreements that clarified the
interpretation and expectations of article X on withdrawal from the
Treaty and perhaps pointed some ways forward (without making any
decisions or commitments on strengthening the treaty's
institutional capacity or states parties' powers) it appeared that
it might be possible to get agreement on the text from the
subsidiary body, chaired by Alfredo Labbé of Chile. By the
end of Tuesday, the prospects for agreement on a text from MC III
and its subsidiary body seemed to have diminished, but there is one
session still to go, so some are keeping their hopes up.
In addition, Egypt has submitted an informal paper (CRP.3) to MC
III on universality of the NPT. While some traditional allies think
that it does not go far enough, a number of Western parties have
praised the paper as a genuine and thoughtful contribution to
discussion. Several have also noted that Egypt has contributed
substantially and meticulously in all the MCs and SBs, which
appeared to have surprised those who accused Egypt of not wanting
the Conference to get an agreed outcome. By the end of the day,
however, there were questions about why Egypt had joined with Iran
in blocking transmission of the report from MC.II and whether they
would do the same in MC I and MC III on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, in Washington D.C....
While the Bush administration positions on the CTBT and attempts
to walk back from US obligations under the NPT, as reinforced in
consensus agreements and commitments undertaken in 1995 and 2000,
have proved a major obstacle to attempts by other states parties to
have a positive and constructive Review Conference to deal with the
gamut of compliance and institutional challenges, the US Senate and
House of Representatives have taken a bipartisan initiative calling
on NPT states to insist on strict compliance with the NPT. Despite
the general thrust of the recommendations below, which do not
appear to take much responsibility for the spoiler role assumed by
the United States itself in key areas, it is presumed that this
resolution is not just directed at others, but intended to include
compliance with US commitments, including treaties that have been
painstakingly negotiated and entered into.
According to the Arms Control Association, on Tuesday, Senators
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced a
resolution in the US Senate calling on key states to reaffirm their
support for the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to agree to
additional steps to advance nonproliferation and disarmament goals
and commitments. A similar resolution was introduced in the House
of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 133) by Reps. Spratt (D-SC),
Markey (D-MA), Tauscher (D-CA), Leach (R-IA), Shays (R-CT), and
others.
As outlined in Sen. Feinstein's press release,
"The resolution introduced by Senators Feinstein and Hagel calls
on parties to the 2005 Review Conference to:
- Insist on strict compliance with the nonproliferation
obligations of the Treaty and to undertake effective enforcement
measures against states that are in violation of their treaty
obligations;
- Agree to establish more effective controls on sensitive
technologies that can be used to produce materials for nuclear
weapons;
- Support the efforts of the United States and the European Union
to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
- Support the Six-Party talks that seek the verifiable
disarmament of North Korea's nuclear weapons program;
- Accelerate programs to safeguard and eliminate nuclear-weapons
usable material to the highest standards to prevent access by
terrorists or other states;
- Agree that no state may withdraw from the Treaty and escape
responsibility for prior violations of the treaty or retain access
to controlled materials and equipment acquired for peaceful
purposes; and,
- Accelerate implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty-related disarmament obligations and commitments that would,
in particular, reduce the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and
weapons-grade material."
Full text of the resolution is available at:
http://www.capwiz.com/fconl/webreturn/?
url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.CON.RES.133:
24.5.05
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
|
