The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

NPT PrepCom 2008

Day 3, General Debate ends with concerns about cold war legacies of tactical nuclear weapons and contamination

April 30, 2008

Rebecca Johnson

Back to the main page on the NPT

The General Debate concluded this morning, and the PrepCom moved immediately to hearing more focussed statements on 'cluster 1' issues, which mainly cover Articles I and II on the non-transfer of nuclear weapons technologies and Article VI on disarmament. This email highlights new or key points from the last few general statements, which were from the Kyrgyz Republic, Libya, Nigeria, Belgium, Belarus, Austria, Kuwait, and Namibia. In addition, the PrepCom heard statements from the League of Arab States and the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC).

Three further draft decisions were circulated to the conference but not yet taken. In addition to the three circulated on the first day, these are: iv) Election of Ambassador Boniface Guwa Chidyausiki of Zimbabwe to chair the Third (2009) PrepCom; v) venue and dates for the third prepcom, recommended to be New York, May 4-15, 2009; and vi) venue and dates for the 2010 Review Conference, recommended to be New York from April 26 to May 21.

The Palais des Nations will be closed tomorrow for the May 1st holidays, though since the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) has arrived in town to discuss the scope and verification ideas and options for the draft fissile material cut-off treaty, so some of us will still be working all day on that, despite forecasts for lovely weather!!

I will not bring out another update until after all the sessions on nuclear disarmament (cluster 1 and the special session on practical disarmament and security assurances) are over, so that I can provide more of a thematic overview of key issues, questions and proposals. Unless decisions are taken or there are any dramatic changes in the PrepCom dynamics, the next update is likely to be Monday rather than Friday.

The last of the General Debate - dealing with nuclear dangers, HEU and the environmental legacy of nuclear production and waste, and tactical nuclear weapons.

Kyrgyz ambassador Muktar Djumaliev spoke of the "united belief" of states in Central Asia that their NWFZ "will strengthen peace and security at the regional and global levels" and called attention to the "innovative nonproliferation feature of the zone, which requires states parties to adhere to the IAEA's Additional Protocol." Arguing for "creative efforts" to reduce terrorist access to nuclear materials, the Kyrgyz Republic explicitly supported the Norwegian proposal from the 2005 review conference, to enhance the security of existing stockpiles of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) while minimizing its use in the civilian nuclear sector." Amb Djumaliev highlighted the importance of disarmament education and drew particular attention to the "often overlooked environment problem caused by nuclear weapons production". Detailing some of the appalling waste and contamination legacy from the Soviet nuclear weapons still being borne by Kyrgyz, Amb Djumaliev called for "appropriate assistance" from governments and the international community "to expedite the clean-up" and find a comprehensive solution and attached the Appeal on this problem that had been agreed at Bishkek on September 7, 2007.

The League of Arab States underlined the concerns and proposals introduced previously by Syria on behalf of these states (see day 2). Libya and Kuwait endorsed Arab concerns and elaborated on their national positions in this light. Nigeria underscored its support for the NAM positions and underscored the importance of reducing dangers and instability by taking nuclear weapons off alert, drawing attention to the UN General Assembly resolution on reducing operational status that Nigeria co-sponsored last year with New Zealand, Chile and others.

Austria argued that the "unequivocal undertaking by the NWS to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" [as contained in the 13 steps from 2000], "forms part of the NPT acquis". In a statement that gave strong support to the CTBT, HCoC and FMCT, Austria then bravely bucked the overwhelming trend at this PrepCom, where everyone and their cousins seems to feel obliged to embrace nuclear energy. Calling for "new thinking", Austria argued that "the dangers related to nuclear technology cannot be ignored for the sake of short-sighted focus on national economic interest, fears of limitation of state sovereignty or loss of control over a key technology sector." The statement then identified some practical considerations on this, following on from the "food for thought" presentation made at the 2007 PrepCom by host Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik: "it is time to design a framework suited to the nuclear realities of the 21st century which resticts the most dangerous technologies, enrichment and reprocessing, exclusively to facilities under multilateral control. These limitations need to be accompanied by proper rules of transparency and by an assurance that legitimate users could get the supply of fuel they need."

Belgium endorsed the EU statement and wanted firm commitments from the nuclear weapon states that they would continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals, preferably in ways that were transparent, verifiable and irreversible. Belgium, a NATO member with a US nuclear weapons base on its soil, especially highlighted the importance of reducing and moving towards the elimination of nonstrategic/tactical nuclear arms and called on the major nuclear weapon states to pursue this objective.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2008 The Acronym Institute.