Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Committee Work Underway
By Rebecca Johnson

The General debate has now finished, with over 90 national or group statements. When it is possible to obtain and digest all (or most) of the statements, the Acronym Institute will put out a more detailed summary of what has been said on key issues such as the CTBT, fissban, missile defence, tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon free zones, and so on. As the sessions increasingly run in parallel and begin to be closed to NGOs, juggling the demands of daily observation, schmoozing in the corridors, liaising with delegations, media and NGOs, and (of course) sleep will sometimes mean that these briefings give a shorter update, not covering the extent of all the interventions. But we will still aim to provide useful pieces of the puzzle to build up a fuller picture as the Conference progresses.

On Tuesday, it was the turn of the non-nuclear weapon states to respond to yesterday's statement from the nuclear weapon states. On behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, Ambassador Antonio de Icaza said the N-5 statement "falls short of our expectations regarding nuclear disarmament". While appreciating that the nuclear powers acknowledged their responsibilities and sought a forward-looking approach, de Icaza reiterated the NAC call on the nuclear weapon states to make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals and... to engage in an accelerated process of negotiations..." De Icaza reiterated the importance of the concrete measures proposed in the New Agenda working paper as early and interim steps to be taken by the NWS. In identical phrasing, the New Agenda Coalition and the Movement of Non-Aligned States both stressed that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is an obligation and a priority and not an ultimate goal, and even less a goal that is linked, subject or conditioned to general and complete disarmament".

Speaking after the New Agenda, Ambassador Makarim Wibisono gave the non-aligned states' view. In particular, the NAM were concerned about the "conditionalities" that the NWS had linked with their obligations to nuclear disarmament. Recalling the unanimous conclusion of the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that their existed an obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith and bring them to a conclusion, the NAM called on the NWS to "unconditionally adhere to their commitments to fulfil with determination their nuclear disarmament obligations under article VI". The NAM also reiterated their long-standing call for the early commencement of negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament and for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, employment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination".

While a few delegations took the floor to welcome the NWS' initiative, viewing it as a constructive indication of the basis on which consensus on some of the most difficult issues might be obtainable in a final document, many others expressed their disappointment. The division of opinion and ambivalence regarding the statement was summed up in a comment oft-repeated in the corridors on both Monday and Tuesday: "we dislike the P-5 when they are in unison, but we hate it even more when they are divided".

Following up its rather belligerent statement to Main Committee I, the United States submitted a working paper consisting of 12 points that it believes should be noted in any review or "backward look" on implementation of Article VI. The United States wanted acknowledgement of the "many steps" taken to reduce nuclear arsenals and reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and drew attention to President Clinton's statement of March 6 in which he "asserted without equivocation that the United States is committed to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons". Among the achievements which it wanted to be noted, the US working paper highlighted the CTBT, which now has 155 signatories and 56 ratifications, the continuing efforts under the START process to reduce US and Russian arsenals, unilateral US reductions in non-strategic weapons and the Trident fleet, and the ongoing programme which has resulted in the dismantlement of over 3000 nuclear weapons since 1995. Also to be highlighted were US-Russian agreements to deactivate all strategic systems to be eliminated under START II and their progress towards establishing a bilateral early warning information exchange, cooperative threat reduction programmes, and the trilateral initiative with the IAEA on fissile material disposition. In addition, the United States wanted the Conference to welcome the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, continuing efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, and the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate or conclude a fissile material cut-off treaty.

The Middle East

As in past years, Egypt has taken the lead in pushing for NPT parties to address the problems posed by Israel's unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and nuclear weapon capabilities. Ambassador Ahmed Aboul Gheit asked what parts of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East had been achieved. Noting that Djibouti, United Arab Emirates and Oman had acceded since 1995, leaving Israel alone in its "intransigent refusal" to adhere to the NPT, he argued that this "imbalance cannot be accepted" and cannot last. Gheit stated that the 1995 resolution was an "integral" and "indivisible" part of the package of decisions which enabled the indefinite extension of the Treaty to be adopted without a vote, and warned: "the NPT cannot have any credibility with the states of the region as long as one state is exempt from its provisions". Egypt urged the NPT to recall that "the uniqueness of the situation in the Middle East region" had already been acknowledged in 1995, and that the 2000 Review Conference "must be unequivocal in its demand that Israel accede to the Treaty without further delay and that it place all its nuclear facilities under the safeguards regime of the IAEA." Egypt seemed further to argue that progress towards universality of the NPT ran parallel to or even preceded the verification of states parties' compliance with the Treaty. By contrast, the United States has been insisting on strict compliance, notably by Iraq, which is still in violation of its safeguards agreement. Egypt argued that the depositary states, Britain, Russia and the United States, which co-sponsored the 1995 resolution, bore a particular responsibility for its implementation. Having called in the general debate for a "mechanism to monitor and follow-up the progress made" in implementation of the 1995 resolution, Egypt followed up with a working paper to Main Committee II, which began to be discussed in the first meeting of subsidiary body II on regional issues and the Middle East, chaired by Ambassador Christopher Westdal of Canada.

Egypt proposed that there should be: i) a follow up committee comprising the chair of each session of the NPT PrepComs plus the three depositary states, to initiate contacts with Israel and report back to successive review conferences; ii) a special envoy from among NPT states parties to pursue discussions with Israel and report back; and iii) further work undertaken by the depositary states.

In its statement to subsidiary body II, Britain strongly disagreed with Egypt's view of the special responsibilities of the depositary states. Britain underlined that the resolution clearly called on all states parties to work for the early establishment of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. However, Britain reiterated its call to Israel to adhere to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and to place all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Furthermore, Britain indicated guarded interest in Egypt's proposal for a special envoy to be sent to the Middle East on behalf of NPT parties "with the task of assisting the states of the region in their endeavours to establish a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. Britain asked for further details, including a possible mandate and arrangements for financing such a special envoy, saying that "in certain circumstances", this "could be a positive move".

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.