The NPT PrepCom met for just 15 minutes on 7 May to hear a statement by the Chair introducing the draft text of the recommendations from the Preparatory Committee to the 2015 NPT Review Conference. In his introduction, the Chair noted that the document reflected his best effort at identifying the elements that are forward-looking and which may engender consensus.
The Chair’s draft recommendations
The draft recommendations are organized under three main headings: nuclear disarmament; nuclear non-proliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and regional issues. The latter includes the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, the universality of the NPT, the strengthened review process, and withdrawal from the Treaty.
In an effort to engender consensus, the document is structured in a general way along the lines of the 2010 Final Document and builds on several of the 64 actions adopted by the 2010 Review Conference. Some would regard the draft recommendations as not going far enough, while others would view them as overly ambitious, with the Chairman in all likelihood having to take a middle line between the divergent positions of states.
The main areas where consensus will need to be built include the specific steps and building blocks for nuclear disarmament (such as the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and alliances); disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons; stationing of nuclear weapons in foreign countries; closure and decommissioning of nuclear weapon test sites; moratoria on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons; transparency in matters relating to nuclear weapons; ways of addressing compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards; making the additional protocol to IAEA safeguards agreements mandatory (or the verification standard for NPT non-nuclear-weapon states); reducing and eliminating the use of highly-enriched uranium in civilian nuclear programmes; further strengthening of nuclear export controls; and universality of the NPT.
On regional issues, the contentious areas include the implementation of the Resolution on a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension; the convening of the conference on the zone as agreed at the 2010 Review Conference which was postponed in 2012; and the practical arrangements related to the conference. In addition, another difficult issue will be how to address the matter of the nuclear programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) and its nuclear tests carried out in 2013.
Assessment and looking ahead
The Chairman of the 2014 NPT Preparatory Committee, Ambassador Enrique Román-Morey, will invite comments on his draft recommendations during a plenary session on Thursday morning. The general feeling in the Delegates’ Lounge at the United Nations on Wednesday afternoon was that many delegations from non-nuclear-weapon states could ‘live with’ the draft recommendations, even though in their view they did not go far enough, while comments attributed to a couple of nuclear-weapon states suggested that the document went too far in some of its recommendations on nuclear disarmament.
In the discussion of the draft recommendations on Thursday, it will be important for delegations to focus on providing comments on the overall structure and content (rather than on specific wording in the 18 substantive paragraphs) and to avoid the discussion deteriorating into a conflictual mode. On Friday, it is possible that the draft recommendations may be agreed by consensus with a few changes in tone and emphasis. However, non-nuclear weapon states would be better served if they refrained from suggesting changes that they know would be unacceptable to the nuclear-weapon states, as non-nuclear weapon states would then be blamed for the failure of the Preparatory Committee.
The smart move would be for non-nuclear weapon states to allow the nuclear-weapon states to challenge the wording of the report (in which case any failure would be attributed to themselves). The preferred outcome would be for the draft recommendations to be adopted by consensus, with neither side proposing major changes, or for dissatisfied delegations being deterred from pulling down the document as they would not like to be blamed for the impasse.
Adoption of the draft recommendations by consensus would be a big boon for the strengthened review process for the Treaty and would send the message that states parties are prepared to live up to the commitments they have made in the past.