Other Voices, Other Rooms

UN: The controversy about the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) shows the tension that exists between the nuclear weapon states and non nuclear weapon states

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will be forty years old next year. Originally intended to be a temporary agreement, it has been extended indefinitely with a periodic reexamination in review sessions that are mandatory every five years. The next review conference is scheduled to take place in 2010. Every year leading up to the five year review there is a two week meeting, called a Preparatory Committee Meeting (PrepCom) where the nations who are signatories to the treaty discuss the problems of the treaty and consider the changes needed to try to achieve its objectives. The 2009 PrepCom was held at the United Nations headquarters in New York from Monday, May 5 to Friday, May 16.

Nongovernmental organization representatives held side events and were observers for the open sessions of the PrepCom. The challenge for the 2010 conference is to determine how to approach the controversy over what several nations believe has been a failure to implement the NPT in the past.

Among the sections of the NPT that have been the source of significant controversy are IV and VI. These sections involve what are considered to be the three pillars of the NPT, denuclearization (Section VI), non-proliferation, and the right to the peaceful use and development of nuclear technology (Section IV).

Which nations can enrich uranium without harassment?

In the past five years, the tension over which nations can enrich uranium without harassment has been a point of contention. The right of members of the NPT to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has been called into question by the US and its allies. The most glaring example is that of Iran. It has had its nuclear activity referred to the UN Security Council which has imposed sanctions even though the IAEA has documented the peaceful nature of Iran's program.

In the meanwhile Israel, India and Pakistan have proceeded to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons and have remained outside of the NPT. Similarly, other NPT nations like Japan and South Korea have agreements with the US for protection under the US nuclear umbrella.

The US under George W. Bush referred to North Korea as one of the 'axis of evil' nations along with Iraq and Iran. The US claimed the right to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. Such a claim, along with the US agreements with Japan and South Korea to provide protection under the US nuclear umbrella, is viewed by North Korea as a threatening provocation. Such actions by the US can be viewed as a violation under the NPT of the obligation of a nuclear weapon possessing nation not to use the threat of a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear nation.

In 2003 after the US, the European Union, South Korea and Japan halted fuel shipments to North Korea to punish Pyongyang for its nuclear program, North Korea withdrew from the NPT. North Korea claims it needs a nuclear defense because of the hostile actions of the US. Instead of the UN Security Council considering US hostile actions against North Korea, the Security Council has imposed sanctions on North Korea. A similar situation with regard to the Security Council and Iraq set the pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.

Five nations and the UN Security Council

There are five nations accorded nuclear weapon state (NWS) status under the NPT. They are the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia. These nations also have permanent membership status on the UN Security Council and possess a veto allowing them to control what the Security Council is allowed to consider and the actions taken. The obligation under Article VI of the NPT of these nations to take effective measures toward nuclear disarmament has not been met.

In its place, these nations act as privileged enforcers of what they deem appropriate to implement the treaty, namely the prevention of developing countries having access to nuclear fuel cycle know how and technology. Nations need this capability if they are to be self sufficient in their ability to have a reliable supply of nuclear fuel for the production of nuclear energy.

Critique of the monopoly of supply and knowledge of nuclear production

During the two weeks of meetings to discuss the NPT, a critique of the monopoly of supply and knowledge of nuclear production was presented in statements by several member nations and working papers they submitted for consideration.

Syria

Syria, in a working paper submitted to the 2009 Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference, expressed its concern "over the failure to implement the provisions of the treaty." It attributed this failure in the main to what it explained as the "imbalance in the treatment of its two basic objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament" and secondarily to the "double standard with respect to the...right of states parties to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful use"1.

Indonesia

The Indonesian Ambassador, Marty Natalegawa, in a statement to the general debate at the UN meeting, explained how the NPT was the result of a "grand bargain" requiring the proper relationship between its three pillars, that of non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy2 . He said:

Article IV of the NPT is actually part and parcel of a political bargain made within the NPT context. In return for the Non Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) giving up their options to acquire nuclear weapons, Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) promised both to work towards nuclear disarmament and that all States parties may cooperate in the further development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Describing the nature of Article IV, Ambassador Natalegawa explained:

We note with concern a new trend to restrict the utilization of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes by differentiating between 'sensitive' and 'non-sensitive' technology. For NNWS, especially developing countries, the main issue is how to utilize peaceful nuclear technology to the fullest extent to attain sustainable socio-economic development. We would like to remind that while the NPT stipulates that the transfer or use of nuclear equipment or material for peaceful purposes must be subject to full-scope IAEA safeguards, it does not prohibit their transfer or use based on 'sensitivity'.

Applying this understanding to the Iranian situation, Natalegawa noted:

An important part of the NPT bargain is that the nuclear weapon possessing states (NWS) take credible and incremental steps to nuclear disarmament. According to several NPT member nations, the lack of progress in meeting this objective has been a critical part of the failure of the treaty's implementation.

Malaysia

Describing how this problem affects the other goals of the NPT, the statement presented by Malaysia pointed to how the review conferences were dominated by the nuclear weapons states calling for non proliferation rather than accepting the obligation on them to carry out nuclear disarmament.

"The failure of nuclear weapon states (NWS) in fulfilling their NPT obligations and the double standards attitude practiced in implementing the NPT further fuels insecurity," observed Malaysia3. As such a deadly cycle persists - as long as nuclear weapons remain within the defense doctrines of nuclear weapon states (NWS), insecured non nuclear weapons states (NNWS) will be tempted to develop such weapons."

To deal with this problem Malaysia argues for "effective measures to protect NNWS against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." This, Malaysia noted, raises the need for the comprehensive consideration of what is referred to as "negative security assurances" (NSA). An NSA is a declaration that a country will not use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear weapon nation.

Explaining the problem in another statement made to the NPT PrepCom, the Malaysian Ambassador, Mamidon Ali elaborated4:

Egypt

In a similar manner, the Egyptian Ambassador expressed his nation's, "growing concern" with what it refers to as "attempts to reinterpret Article IV of the NPT in a manner that aims to restrict the ability of non-nuclear states to benefit from their rights by creating artificial categories of 'sensitive' and 'non-sensitive' nuclear technologies or 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' states"5

Several nations, including Egypt, objected to what they referred to as a 'politicized' process by which the Nuclear Suppliers Group imposes restrictions on some nations but not on others.

Egypt also explained its objection to how the determination of what nations are allowed to develop nuclear enrichment capacity or 'self sufficiency in the area of fuel supply' has been removed from the nations themselves and has become part of a politicized process.

United Arab Emirates

The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates, Ambassador Ahmed Al Jarman, acting as the Chairman of the Arab Group, urged the need for the 2010 Review Conference to create an action plan that would require for its implementation, a series of practical and binding steps. This would include demanding all states outside the treaty accede to its obligations and preventing any form of cooperation with such states as long as they do not join the treaty"6. Also he called for reports of how member nations were fulfilling their practical obligations.

The 2009 PrepCom ended on Friday, May 16. The members agreed to an agenda for the 2010 Review Conference. The conference will be held from Monday, May 3 to Friday, May 28. They agreed to Ambassador Libran Nuevas Cabactulan of the Philippines as the President-designate of the 2010 Review Conference. They were not able to agree to a set of recommendations for the issues to be discussed, though there had been several draft recommendations proposed. The disagreements among the member nations remained substantial.

Iran

In his summary of the experience of the PrepCom, the Iranian Delegate, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs expressed his satisfaction that there was active coordination among the nations of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) activity during the two weeks of PrepCom sessions. They had, he said, succeeded in coming to agreement on a number of issues felt to be important.

He said there was a need for reforms and amendments to the treaty. Though he regretted that no significant steps were made in the fulfillment of the obligation of the Nuclear Weapon Nations to disarm, and bringing in Israel under the umbrella of the NPT, he said that the NPT was a means for the members to achieve their rights.

In the 2005 Review Conference, the disagreements among the member nations were so significant that they were not able to get beyond their struggle over setting an agenda and procedural issues. The 2009 PrepCom succeeded in making progress in being able to set the agenda in advance for the 2010 Review Conference and agreeing to procedural issues.

How can Israel and other nations possessing nuclear weapons be brought in

Still the 2010 Review Conference will have the difficult task of how to resolve the tension that exists between the nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Some of the issues in contention include disarmament of the NWS, whether and how Israel and other nations possessing nuclear weapons outside of the NPT can be brought into its framework, and how to solve the dispute over which nations are to be allowed to master the technology of nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes.

Such issues continue to pose a formidible challenge and unless they are solved, the whole NPT framework remains in jeopardy.