PEACE & SECURITY | Creating a more stable world
24 April 2008
Forty-Year-Old Nonproliferation Treaty Under a Microscope
Compliance and disarmament are among the most pressing concerns
Washington -- Nations that are party to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will discuss additional ways to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and foster cooperation for the peaceful use of nuclear energy when they meet in Switzerland April 28.
It will be the second of three meetings before they must make formal recommendations about the NPT during a review conference in 2010. The treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995 and must be reviewed every five years.
Under the terms of the NPT, the nuclear-weapon states have agreed not to transfer weapons or help encourage non-nuclear-weapon states to produce or acquire such weapons. And the non-nuclear-weapon states have agreed not to receive nuclear weapons or produce them.
Participants at the Geneva session, led by Ukrainian Ambassador Volodymyr Yel’chencko, the session chairman, will focus on topics tied to the treaty’s core. Christopher Ford, the U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation, says the review cycle is “a unique opportunity for countries to exchange views about how the treaty is living up to its intentions and expectations, and to develop common ground on how we can help it do better.”
While no consensus agreement is needed or envisioned at this point, Ford told America.gov, “We all aim to build greater policy convergence toward the 2010 Review Conference.”
He expressed the U.S. hope that there will be progress toward agreement on key principles of at least some of the important issues. As was the case during the 2007 NPT Preparatory Conference, the United States will focus on what can be done to help the treaty regime meet existing proliferation challenges.
Another area of U.S. interest is expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in what Ford characterized as “proliferation-responsible ways.” This is important for a variety of reasons, including its great value “as a major and environmentally responsible contribution to global development” at a time of rising energy demands, he said.
Ford said this is at the forefront because “well-crafted proposals, such as reactor fuel supply assurances, can help expand nuclear power generation” and they can help persuade nations that they do not need to develop fuel-cycle capabilities. This is highly desirable because there otherwise would be a tremendous proliferation risk since the fissile material produced for fuel also could be diverted for direct use in a nuclear weapon.
The United States also will highlight the need to strengthen the treaty regime’s ability to deter and, if need be, to respond to treaty withdrawal by countries that are in violation of their obligations.
Finally, Ford said, the United States will highlight its “exemplary record of accomplishment” with respect to nuclear disarmament, as well as its “constructive and unprecedented contributions” to recent international disarmament debates. U.S. officials will discuss how U.S. policies “can help lay the foundations” for the kind of security environment that would be “necessary for nuclear disarmament to become a realistic and attractive policy choice” for existing weapons holders.
SEARCHING FOR COMMON GROUND
“We plan to work with our counterparts to develop common positions” on the raft of issues under review, Ford said, because some are sufficiently “ripe” to use as initial consensus building blocks for the final document that will be sought in 2010.
William Potter, who is director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute in California, has identified as many as nine obstacles facing the treaty. At the top of his list are the “increasing uncompromising national positions” offered by both the nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon states.
He says he is not sanguine about the current state of the NPT. His view is shaped partly by “the surreal quality of the debates” that he says too often dominate the review process and partly by an air of complacency he believes exists about pressing nuclear dangers.
Potter will be in Geneva sounding the alarm that, too often, “core nuclear proliferation and disarmament challenges are neglected” while the participants are consumed by haggling over procedural issues.
“Time is not on our side,” Potter warns. “We do not have the luxury of postponing the debate. We cannot wait until the [session’s] last three days” to begin substantive debate.
What is desperately needed, Potter said, is an extended and rich debate about the most pressing nuclear challenges of the day, leading to forging common ground on how to deal with them.
For more information about U.S. policy, see NPT Review Cycle on the State Department Web site.
