By Nigel Chamberlain
Global Beat Syndicate
(KRT)
GENEVA – For two weeks in May, U.N. photocopiers here at the Palais des Nations disgorged reams of paper distributing speeches and position papers on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, as the 188 member-states of the Non-Proliferation Treaty conducted a status review.
But did anyone notice?
To the delegations and to the ranks of the Non-Governmental Organizations with limited access to the proceedings, the five-year NPT Review Conferences and three intervening Preparatory Committee gatherings – the PrepComs – are viewed as a mixture of formalized sparring, an opportunity to get views and opinions on the record and a rather ineffectual talking shop.
The NPT was seen in 1970 as the best means available to both prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to achieve nuclear disarmament. Thirty three years later, neither objective has been achieved, despite notable successes along the way. Worryingly, faith in the eventual achievement of the treaty’s historic bargain between nuclear- and non-nuclear weapon states is on the wane. Now some countries are clearly making alternative plans to achieve national security.
Meanwhile, the three nuclear-weapon states that remain defiantly outside the treaty – Israel, India and Pakistan – are now the joined by the treaty’s first defector – North Korea. Though it does not yet have a confirmed nuclear-weapon capability, many analysts believe Pyongyang is about to join three non-member states and five declared nuclear weapon states, all of whom remain unwilling to divest themselves of the very capability they hypocritically claim a right to posses to ensure their national security. In effect, they violate the bargain inherent in the NPT by saying, “We must have them, but you must not.”
The most significant paragraph of the 10-page summary by the chairman, Ambassador Laszlo Molnar of Hungary, was his reaffirmation that each treaty article is binding on all member states and that each must be held accountable for their strict compliance with all their obligations. He then reminded everyone that they had expressed their readiness to reinforce the NPT’s effectiveness by coming down harder on reported cases of non-compliance.
The effort to prevent the buildup or spread of nuclear weapons would be greatly helped if states would adopt greater transparency and if they would report back to these conferences on their non-proliferation and disarmament activities. Such accountability could be supplemented by more intrusive inspection and verification agreements. If neither measure works, agreed and robust actions against non-compliant states will be needed.
As always, parts of the chairman’s summary will get special attention and parts will be interpreted differently, depending on whether the reader’s main focus is the non-proliferation or the nuclear disarmament aspects of the treaty. That is splitting hairs. In reality, proliferation has two dimensions – horizontal and vertical, and both are contrary to the spirit and the objectivea agreed to by all members: global elimination of nuclear weapons.
Not surprisingly, many comments throughout the two weeks focused on recent U.S. proposals to find new roles for a new generation of nuclear weapons. U.S. delegates responded robustly, first by aggressively accusing Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program and then demanding a full and open declaration of Tehran’s intentions. Such overt antagonism is almost unheard of at NPT gatherings and is generally regarded as undiplomatic.
Iran responded that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, and Tehran’s delegates were joined by others in their condemnation of the U.S. double-standard in failing to address ways to induce nuclear-armed Israel to join the NPT.
Washington’s verbal attack on Iran is being pressed home elsewhere. The Bush administration is seeking a declaration by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is in breach of its NPT obligations. If agreed, this complaint could go before the U.N. General Assembly, as happened with North Korea.
Ambassador Molnar concluded his summary with the standard comment about the value of the involvement and contributions of civil society in the treaty review process – a reference to NGO participation. But it is doubtful whether the restricted presence of a few specialized NGOs actually represents wider civil society.
What is not in doubt is that civil societies are neither well-informed about this ongoing review process nor are they demanding that member states stop talking about, and get on with, the task of ridding the world of the threat of nuclear war.