Every five years, diplomats gathers in New
York City at the United Nations to hold a full-scale review conference of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty is one of the
world’s most important multilateral agreements, dating from 1968 when it
came into force; 189 states around the world are signatories. The NPT has
helped to curtail nuclear proliferation to just nine countries—in the
1960s, many believed that there would be fifteen or twenty nuclear powers
by now. But the fact that nearly all the countries in the world have
signed and ratified the NPT is an indication of its long-term success.
Charges of ‘Hypocrisy’ Threaten the
Nuclear Weapon States
However, the treaty is facing the most
daunting challenges in its history during this month’s review conference.
Part of the problem is that the original nuclear weapons states—the United
States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China—have not lived up to
their promise under Article Six of the NPT to move decisively toward the
irreversible elimination of their nuclear arsenals. That means many
countries, like India, Pakistan and North Korea, have
another rationale to obtain their own nuclear arsenals. The Great Powers’
inaction is also contributing to charges of ‘hypocrisy’ because they want
to deny access to nuclear technologies to non-nuclear weapons states, like
Iran. The U.S. and U.K. have threatened military pre-emption to prevent
the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries, as in the case of
Iraq, yet their own disarmament records are spotty. Many representatives
of the 189 nations meeting at the United Nations fear their meeting will
end in acrimony and unfettered worldwide nuclear proliferation.
Last Year’s NPT Meeting Collapsed
Two weeks of diplomatic negotiations at the
United Nations last spring did not produce recommendations for this year’s
conference, as preparatory meetings have in the past. Hours after the
meeting was supposed to end, it was simply adjourned with a final report
containing minimum details. Most of the meetings during the last week were
held behind closed doors so it is difficult to ascertain what, exactly,
happened. But it seems clear that the political debate at the heart of all
the procedural wrangling was the relative weight that should be given to
disarmament and non-proliferation. Diplomats could not agree on whether
the treaty’s chief priority should be disarmament, as promised under
Article Six by the nuclear powers, or addressing proliferation threats by
countries such as North Korea and Iran.
Stalemate Surrounds Implementation of
the “13 Steps”
Another key sticking point of the
negotiations was whether to acknowledge the final document of the previous
review conference in 2000. This procedural question was a lightning rod
for the political divisions among the delegates since the final document
included what became known as “the 13 steps”—specific actions the nuclear
powers agreed to as part of their disarmament commitments under the NPT.
Most importantly, the 13 steps included “an unequivocal undertaking by the
nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear
arsenals.” That undertaking included signing and ratifying the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, reducing tactical nuclear weapons, and
halting the production of weapons-grade nuclear materials.
The U.S. administration under George Bush
opposed the 13 steps, most notably it pulled out of the CTBT and the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and it opposed halting the worldwide
production of weapons-grade materials (which, ironically, Iran also
opposes). Because of the stalemate, last year’s preparatory meeting could
not even agree on seemingly routine items such as an agenda for this
month’s conference. While the collapse of negotiations was met with great
dismay among diplomats, the news received little media coverage in the
United States, Canada or worldwide.
The New Agenda Coalition Builds a Bridge
Recently, eight NATO States built a
‘bridge’ on the long road to nuclear disarmament by supporting a New
Agenda Coalition resolution at the UN calling for more speed in
implementing commitments to the NPT. The bridge gained extra strength when
Japan and South Korea joined with the NATO 8—Belgium, Canada, Germany,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and Turkey. These states,
along with the New Agenda countries—Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New
Zealand, South Africa and Sweden—now form an impressive centre in the
nuclear weapons debate and could play a determining role in this month’s
review conference.
The fact that important NATO players such
as Canada, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium have taken a more
pro-active stance indicates that they want to send a message to the
nuclear weapons states, especially the US, to take more significant steps
to fulfill commitments already made to the NPT. As retired Canadian
Senator Douglas Roche, chair of the Middle Power Initiative states, “The
situation the NPT finds itself in is so serious and the threat of nuclear
terrorism so real that governments need to put aside their quarrels and
power plays and take meaningful steps to ensure that the NPT will not be
lost to the world through erosion.”
Working Together Toward an International
Strategy
The Middle Powers Initiative, chaired by
Douglas Roche, held an international consultation co-hosted by former
President Jimmy Carter at the Carter Centre in Atlanta, Georgia in January. Many middle
powers and non-nuclear weapon states tried to build support for a series
of achievable measures. We wrote the final report of this Extraordinary
Strategy session to provide the launching point for discussions in other
countries. We also initiated another Ottawa meeting in February 2005 to
examine Canada’s potential role in this debate. The Middle Powers
Initiative, Project Ploughshares, the Canadian Pugwash Group, Physicians
for Global Survival, and Lawyers for Social Responsibility organized an
‘Ottawa roundtable’ that was attended by many high-level representatives
from around the world, including Ambassador Sergio Duarte, the President
of the NPT Review Conference. In a dialogue that engaged many prominent
non-governmental organizations and government officials, we explored
avenues to bring moderate NATO states and New Agenda Coalition states
together in support of a strategy to bridge the growing gap between
disarmament and non-proliferation elements in the NPT review process.
Threats from the United States, France,
the UK, Iran and North Korea Shadow Talks
Yet there is no doubt that this month’s
conference—which everyone hopes will close huge loopholes in the
Treaty—could likely fail despite its global importance.
Canada’s diplomatic representatives at the
conference are painstakingly aware of the salience of their discussions
for the future of humankind. But the first few days of discussion indicate
that mid-level diplomats sent by the U.S. want to avoid the issue of
‘vertical’ proliferation—which relates to Article Six and previous
promises to decrease, rather than increase the numbers of weapons of the
nuclear weapon states. They prefer to focus on issues surrounding
‘horizontal’ proliferation—revolving around Iranian and North Korean plans
to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. It appears American diplomats want
to jettison the 13 steps rather than update them. Adding to the potential
for a meltdown, Iran threatened on Saturday to resume producing nuclear
fuel and North Korea dismissed President Bush as a “philistine whom we can
never deal with.” Instead of moving
toward nuclear disarmament—and eventual nuclear abolition—these countries
are drastically decreasing global security. It is possible that the
most-important arms control treaty in history collapses this month—not
with a bang—but with a whimper.
Dr. Erika Simpson is an associate
professor of international relations in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Western Ontario and the author of NATO and
the Bomb (2001: McGill-Queen’s University Press). She attended the
2004 Preparatory Committee meeting in New York City and the Extraordinary
Strategy Session at the Carter Centre as a representative of the Canadian
Pugwash Group which is working with the Middle Powers Initiative under the
chairmanship of retired Canadian Senator Douglas Roche to support this
month’s review conference of the NPT at UN headquarters in New York City.