The NPT PrepCom continued smoothly on its third day, 30 April 2014, with statements by another 32 states in the morning and in the afternoon during the extended General Debate.
Discussions on ‘Cluster 1’ nuclear disarmament issues started in the late afternoon with statements from nine states. As on the first two days, most of the statements touched upon the well-worn theme of achieving a world without nuclear weapons, although marked by differences in approaches to nuclear disarmament—a step-by-step approach or a direct move to a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Statement by the Swedish representative
In its statement, Sweden noted that it had joined the NPT to improve national, regional and global security through nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Sweden had a nuclear research and development programme in the 1950s and 1960s. It took some years for Sweden to come to the decision that it would be more secure and better serve international security if it were to give up this programme. Sweden chose to do so and to work together with others, including those countries that possessed nuclear weapons, to achieve a comprehensive and solid disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Sweden then signed the NPT when it was opened for signature in 1968, and it has never regretted this decision.
The opportunities for nuclear disarmament have to be fully seized. Old postures and alert levels largely remain as they did during the cold war, as does the reliance on nuclear deterrence. This contravenes the growing understanding of the need to further disarm in order to enhance security and improve human development. Sweden believes that, in order to be effective, negotiations on nuclear disarmament must include those countries that possess nuclear weapons. It also seems necessary that such negotiations address both humanitarian and security-related aspects.
Sweden continues to promote the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and in this regard it recently hosted a meeting in Stockholm of the Group of Eminent Persons (co-hosted by SIPRI), which focused on new and innovative approaches to bringing the Treaty into force. Sweden’s technical support for the CTBT verification regime continues, including through further development of the noble gas system, SAUNA, to help detect underground nuclear explosions.
Statement by the German representative
Germany reiterated that the NPT remains a cornerstone of the international disarmament and non-proliferation architecture. This Treaty has greatly contributed to making the world a safer place. Germany called upon all states still outside the NPT to join the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). The NPT facilitates, on a daily basis, peaceful cooperation in nuclear matters, mostly thanks to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Furthermore, states in compliance with the NPT enjoy Negative Security Assurances (NSA), which are meant to protect NNWS. NSAs should become part of a binding treaty regime, and thus contribute even more than today to improving the security environment of an overwhelming majority of countries.
With regard to non-proliferation, Germany is actively involved in finding a diplomatic solution to the current proliferation crises, which could jeopardize the integrity of the Treaty. In this regard, Germany welcomed the positive momentum with respect to the negotiations with Iran and hoped that a permanent solution can be found by this summer. This would underline the role of the NPT as an indispensable stabilizing element in international relations.
Statement by the Malaysian representative
In contrast, Malaysia noted that in recent years, there had been initiatives outside the NPT that had given more focus, emphasis and effort towards achieving the goals of non-proliferation. While Malaysia had been supportive of such initiatives, it was evident that the objectives of the disarmament pillar of the Treaty had not been pursued with corresponding urgency, particularly by the nuclear-weapon states (NWS), whether inside or outside the NPT framework.
Next year, it will be 20 years since the infamous bargain of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference was struck among states parties to the NPT. In 1995 the NNWS had reaffirmed the decision to foreswear the development or use of nuclear weapons, on the understanding that NWS would accelerate the pace of their nuclear disarmament. Sadly, while Malaysia acknowledged that some efforts had been taken in reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons, the pace of disarmament was crawling slow, rather than accelerated. The NWS continued to emphasize need to accelerate non-proliferation while ignoring their obligations in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of the Treaty. Malaysia urged the NWS to accelerate their efforts towards achieving the objectives of the disarmament pillar.
Malaysia looked forward to the NWS fulfilling their commitments to report to this meeting on the steps that they are undertaking on nuclear disarmament, as agreed under the 2010 NPT Review Conference ‘Action Plan’. Malaysia believed in the strengthening of existing nuclear-weapon-free-zones (NWFZs) and the establishment of new NWFZs represents a positive step towards attaining the objective of global nuclear disarmament. In this regard, Malaysia remained concerned about the danger of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It lamented the fact that a NWFZ had yet to be established in that region. Malaysia believed that the establishment of NWFZ would enhance global and regional peace and strengthen the WMD non-proliferation among all Middle Eastern countries. Thus, Malaysia joined the call for the establishment of a NWFZ in the region without delay. In this regard, Malaysia called for the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East and urged the Conference on establishing a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East to be convened as soon as possible.
Malaysia affirmed that it would continue to table the resolution on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations General Assembly this year. The Advisory Opinion of the ICJ clearly stipulated that states had a legal obligation not only to pursue in good faith, but also to bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It was unfortunate that while this resolution continued to enjoy the support of the vast majority of states, there were still some NPT states parties that abstained or voted against the resolution – which only leads to questioning their position relating to Article VI of the Treaty.
Statement by the Iranian representative
Iran stated that nuclear disarmament leading to a nuclear-weapon-free world continued to be the essential objective of the Treaty and that NWS had primary responsibility in this regard. It was a source of grave concern that after almost 45 years of the entry into force of the NPT, no single serious step had been taken by the NWS towards fulfilling their obligations and unequivocal undertakings on nuclear disarmament. On the contrary, the continuing programmes of some NWS in conducting research and development of new types of nuclear weapons, including through conducting nuclear weapon tests in alternative ways, modernizing their existing nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon sharing, improving the role of nuclear weapons in their military and security doctrines, assisting some non-parties to the Treaty in developing their nuclear weapons through transferring nuclear equipment, materials and know-how, as well as their persistent refusal even to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament, were contrary to the spirit and letter of the NPT.
Such activities and policies would not only undermine the objectives of the NPT, but would also put the integrity and credibility of the Treaty into jeopardy. The NWS should reverse this trend and demonstrate their strong and genuine political will in support of negotiations on nuclear disarmament by adoption of practical nuclear disarmament measures, including through commencement of dismantling their nuclear arsenals. The 2010 NPT plan of action for the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East was a step forward after a long delay in its implementation. However, despite the readiness of all countries of the region to participate in the 2012 conference on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the refusal of Israel to participate in the conference, in total defiance of the unanimous decision in 2010 and the call of the international community, seriously challenged the implementation of this Resolution.
This in no way exonerated the conveners of the Middle East NWFZ conference from their responsibility, as the review conferences of the Treaty had repeatedly reaffirmed that the implementation of the 1995 Resolution remained one of the main objectives of the Treaty. Iran firmly believed that an agreed plan of action and timetable for the universality of the Treaty in the Middle East should be one of the main priorities of the 2015 NPT review conference.
Assessment and looking ahead
Given many states’ insistence on speaking in the General Debate and giving lengthy statements, instead of observing the five-minute limit, the PrepCom is running nearly a day behind schedule. The majority of the statements repeated past positions and no new proposals were presented. On Thursday, the discussion on Cluster 2 issues will begin, covering safeguards, NWFZs and regional issues. In the afternoon, Under-Secretary Jaakko Laajava of Finland, who is the Facilitator for the Conference on a Middle East NWFZ, will present his report on his consultations with the 22 Arab states, Iran and Israel on the convening of the conference.