Taking Stock of
the Non-Proliferation Regime
by Carah Ong, April 2002
From 8-19 April
2002, States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
met at the United Nations in New York for the first Preparatory
Committee (Prep Com) meeting to the 2005 review conference of
the treaty. This was the first meeting of the States parties to
the NPT since the 2000 Review Conference at which the Thirteen
Practical Steps to Implement Article VI Obligations of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty were adopted. While the NPT is the most universal arms
control regime, there are serious problems facing its survival
as the cornerstone for nuclear disarmament.
Reporting
The issue of reporting sparked heated debate during
the meeting. In the final consensus document of the 2000 Review
Conference, the States parties agreed to "regular reports,
within the framework of the strengthened review process for the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, by all States parties on the implementation
of article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on "Principles
and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament",
and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court
of Justice of 8 July 1996." However, at the Prep Com, the
nuclear weapons states, led by the US, resisted the idea of a
standardized procedure that was put forward by Canada and advocated
by many other countries.
While reporting would be a means to ensure that
States are more transparent and accountable for their actions,
the US argued that reporting should be left to the determination
of individual States parties. Ambassador Javits of the United
States delegation stated, "Engaging in technical or legal
interpretation of the [13] steps [agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review
Conference in the Final Document] individually or collectively
would not, in our judgement, be a useful exercise. The question
that should be before us on Article VI is not whether any given
measure has or has not been fulfilled, but rather: is a nuclear
weapon state moving toward the overall goal? For the United States,
the answer is an emphatic yes."
While the reduction of large nuclear stockpiles
that were built up during the Cold War is certainly welcomed,
the nuclear weapons States must not simply limit their reporting
to these reductions while ignoring specific commitments they made
in the context of the NPT. It is a complete hypocrisy for the
nuclear weapons States on the one hand to claim that they are
fulfilling their obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons by making
large reductions in strategic stockpiles, while on the other hand
taking no action to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. In fact,
the nuclear weapons States continue to rely on nuclear deterrence,
modernize nuclear arsenals and develop new nuclear weapons.
The US Nuclear Posture Review
Many statements made by delegations expressed concern,
whether explicitly or indirectly, with the US Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) that leaked to the media in March 2002. Fears about
US plans and the future of the NPT were heightened when the US
said during its opening statement that it only "generally"
agrees with the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
Despite commitments to reduce its reliance on nuclear
weapons, the NPR reaffirms the role of nuclear weapons in US national
security policy. In the past, nuclear weapons have been viewed
as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. However, the
NPR reveals that the US intends to integrate nuclear weapons into
a full spectrum of war-fighting capabilities, including missile
defenses. The NPR unveils that nuclear weapons are no longer weapons
of last resort, but instruments that could be used in fighting
wars. States at the NPT Prep Com also raised concerns about the
possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and
plans to develop and deploy new "earth-penetrating"
nuclear weapons.
The NPR contains contingency plans for using nuclear
weapons against seven states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North
Korea, Russia and China -- constituting a disturbing threat in
particular to the named states and in general to international
peace and security. Contrary to long-standing US assurances not
to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States, five of the
named states for which the US has contingency plans are non-nuclear
states. As Reverend Joan Brown Campbell noted in a Middle Powers
Initiative presentation, when the US reserves to itself the right
of first strike, it gives up the moral high ground and the right
to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.
Counter-proliferation or Prevention?
After 11 September, there has been an effort to
divert attention from key issues facing humanity to the war on
terrorism. However, in the post-11 September environment there
remains an opportunity to address the prospect of terrorism from
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in a way that deligitimizes
their use. There is a legitimate concern about WMD and missile
proliferation. However, the only way to ensure that WMD do not
reach terrorists is to abolish them and their means of delivery.
Serious concerns were raised about US plans to
deploy missile defenses. Despite agreeing to preserving and strengthening
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the 2000 Thirteen Practical
Steps document, the US delivered formal notification to the States
of the former Soviet Union on 13 December 2001 that it will withdraw
from the treaty in June 2002 in order to proceed with the deployment
of missile defenses. While the stated purpose of missile defenses
is to defend against missile attacks, it is unlikely that they
could do so effectively. The deployment of missile defenses will
only produce instability and insecurity in critical regions of
the world, including in North East Asia, the Middle East, and
South Asia. Additionally, the inherent link between the deployment
of missile defenses and the weaponization of outer space means
that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will allow the US to research
and develop space weapons and space-based weaponry using technological
overlaps from missile defenses.
Regional Issues
In light of the current conflict in the Middle
East, many delegations condemned Israel's possession of nuclear
weapons and failure to join the NPT. There was also concern that
no action has been taken by the States parties to promote the
achievement of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East,
nor the realization of the goals of the 1995 resolution on the
Middle East.
There was little talk about India and Pakistan,
despite the escalating conflict between the two nuclear rivals
in the last several months. Neither India nor Pakistan has joined
the NPT. The US called on all four non-NPT parties -- Cuba, India,
Israel and Pakistan -- to show restraint in their nuclear programs
and to "protect against the proliferation of technology and
materials to others seeking nuclear weapons."
NGOs and the NPT
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are playing
an increasing role in the NPT process that is largely reflective
of a more globalized world. During the Cold War, States were the
primary actors in the world. However, today, groups and individuals
are playing greater roles. The challenge for NGOs is to increase
their role in the NPT process and at the same time to reach beyond
the governmental process to the people. As UN Undersecretary for
Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala noted in his address during
the Middle Powers Initiative presentation on the first day of
the Prep Com, there is a need to reactivate civil society on the
nuclear issue because of the complacency and apathy that set in
after the Cold War.
At the Prep Com, NGOs were given one meeting of
the session to deliver 14 prepared statements on issues related
to the NPT. Following the presentations, there was a roundtable
for NGOs and delegates to exchange information. Several delegations
complimented the NGOs on the level of expertise and professionalism
in both the presentations and in the literature that NGOs brought
to the Prep Com. NGOs also held a number of panel presentations
outside of the Prep Com.
Conclusion
The time leading up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference
is critical. NGOs bear great responsibility to raise awareness
in civil society about the issues facing the survival of the non-proliferation
regime and efforts towards eliminating nuclear weapons. NGOs also
must transform the discussion of nuclear abolition into a dynamic
of action by urging individuals everywhere and non-nuclear weapons
States to put pressure on the nuclear weapons States to fulfill
their obligations of verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament.
Resources
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Briefing Book on the
Status of Nuclear Disarmament
http://www.wagingpeace.org/new/programs/index.htm
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Importance
to Disarmament Efforts
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/prolif/index.html
Chairman's Factual Summary of the NPT 2002 Prep
Com
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/articles/2002/020424ongchairman.htm
NGO Presentations at the NPT Prep Com
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/ngostate2002.html
Reaching Critical Will NGO Shadow Report to the
Prep Com http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/shadowreport/ngoshadrepindex.html
Thirteen Practical Steps to Implement Article VI
Obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/2000/0713nptsteps.html
|
