The NPT PrepCom met on the morning of 8 May to consider the draft text of the recommendations from the Preparatory Committee to the 2015 NPT Review Conference. In the afternoon session, the Chair responded to delegates' statements by announcing his intention to convert the draft recommendations into a working paper.
As noted in yesterday’s write up, the draft recommendations are organized under three main headings: nuclear disarmament; nuclear non-proliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and regional issues, including the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, universality of the Treaty, the strengthened review process, and withdrawal from the Treaty.
In an effort to secure consensus, the draft recommendations are structured in a general way along the lines of the 2010 Final Document and build on several of the 64 actions adopted by the 2010 Review Conference.
Delegates’ comments on the draft recommendations
Some 20 delegations made interventions giving their assessment and comments on the draft recommendations. All delegations that made statements thanked and praised the Chair for his effort to produce draft recommendations in good faith and to reflect the converging and diverging positions of states parties, acknowledged that the paper formed a good basis to continue discussions with a view to achieving consensus.
In commencing the discussion on the draft recommendations, Switzerland set the tone with a positive overall assessment of the paper, which it said formed a good basis on which to engage, move forward and maintain the constructive atmosphere of the Preparatory Committee over the past week and a half.
In general, Western states—including both nuclear-weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS)—expressed support for the Chair’s paper and made suggestions and proposals to improve the recommendations. The Western NWS praised the paper but then stated that they could not accept proposals or recommendations that went beyond those agreed at the 2010 Review Conference. Furthermore, they could not agree to new measures on nuclear disarmament, and noted the importance of working towards disarmament in the context of increased security. Western NWS also noted that they were prepared to engage in further discussions and negotiations on the Chair’s draft recommendations but due to the limited time left in the PrepCom it would not be possible to achieve consensus.
Ireland, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), commended the draft recommendations as offering a good basis for agreement on an outcome document but then proceeded state that the text on the humanitarian consequences could be strengthened, particularly the unacceptable harm caused by any nuclear detonation.
The statement by Indonesia on behalf of the Group of Non-Aligned States (NAM) also complimented the Chair for his effort to produce draft recommendations but then proceeded to point out that: (a) the paper did not reflect the NAM proposals, particularly their main priorities; (b) there were inconsistencies in language in the treatment of the three pillars of the Treaty; (c) the sub-titles were outside the mandate of the Preparatory Committee; (d) the United Nations General Assembly’s High Level segment in 2013 and Resolution A/68/32 were not reflected in the text; (e) the Preparatory Committee was not authorized to reaffirm the outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference but merely to recall it; and (f) that there was no call for accession by Israel to the NPT as a NNWS.
Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, Iraq supported the NAM’s assessment of the draft recommendations, and stated that the paper did not meet the minimum demands of the Arab Group, nor did it reaffirm the call for Israel to accede to the NPT as a NNWS and place all of its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Furthermore, the paper contained new language on nuclear disarmament and on nuclear disarmament which was differed from that of the 2010 final document.
In its comments, France called for the draft recommendations to build on uniting issues and improve the existing consensus of 2010. It stated that the draft recommendations drifted away from the 2010 consensus language, and that the paper suffered from additions and omissions which resulted in a change of scope. France also noted that it had counted some 12 areas of difficulty in the paper through omissions and that the reference to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was not conducive to achieving consensus. It added that the paper did not contain any reference to the Fukushima nuclear accident and related nuclear safety matters. France concluded by stating that all states parties should demonstrate good will in order to achieve consensus at the 2015 NPT Review Conference.
The United States strongly commended the draft recommendations and the efforts of the Chair and his team in preparing the paper, and also commended the positive atmosphere prevailing in the Preparatory Committee. The USA stated that it was not prepared to accept some of the draft recommendations, even though there were many useful recommendations. It noted that the text on the Middle East should reflect the progress achieved to date by the Facilitator. The USA concluded that the discussion had shown that consensus would not be achievable on the draft recommendations. Therefore, in order to avoid contentious debate, the USA recommended that the Chair proceed to move forward in a positive spirit.
Japan joined the chorus in commending the draft recommendations and the Chair, and proposed that the criticism of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) with regard to its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes should be strengthened. The United Kingdom also commended the paper but reminded delegates that no previous final session of a Preparatory Committee had been able to achieve consensus, and that the UK would have preferred a simpler paper closer to the language of 2010. More time was needed to address the lack of balance. Canada supported the draft recommendations, proposing that consensus be sought, and considered the text on nuclear disarmament to be particularly solid. It wanted better balance in the language on nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Russia stated that it could agree to most of the draft recommendations, but that there was some imbalance and thus achieving consensus would be difficult. China stated that the paper should be more balanced—and in particular that it should provide a better balance between the supply and demand of nuclear material (a coded reference to China’s increasing concern over the increasing quantities of separated plutonium in Japan)—and comprehensive. Further discussion was needed. Austria commended the paper and indicated its readiness to work towards achieving consensus. However, it also expressed a desire for an improved, forward-looking text on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
The Chair’s response
The Chairman of the 2014 NPT Preparatory Committee, Ambassador Enrique Román-Morey, thanked all of the delegations which had provided comments on his draft recommendations. He noted that no delegation had found the paper to be unacceptable, and that all delegations that had spoken had supported continuing work to achieve consensus through improving the draft recommendations. He adjourned the morning session and announced that the Preparatory Committee would resume its deliberations in its afternoon session.
When the Preparatory Committee reconvened in the afternoon session, the Chair provided his assessment of the comments made by states parties in the morning and announced that even though states parties were willing to proceed with discussions toward consensus, it was his judgement that the available time would not be sufficient to achieve consensus. The Chair notified the states parties that he would revise the draft recommendations in light of the comments provided and that he would then convert the draft recommendations into a Chair’s Working Paper and convey it to the 2015 NPT Review Conference under his own authority. The Preparatory Committee would reconvene on Friday morning to adopt the Report of the Preparatory Committee to the 2015 NPT Review Conference, and then conclude the work of the Committee.
By converting the draft recommendations into a working paper, the recommendations can be transmitted to the 2015 Review Conference under the authority of the Chair even though the paper did not command the consensus of the Committee. This sets a good precedent for future sessions of the Preparatory Committee after the 2015 Review Conference. Furthermore, by rejecting proposals to prepare a summary report—which in any case is beyond the mandate of the Committee—the Chair avoided rewarding recalcitrant states by including their proposals in a summary report, for which they could not obtain consensus.
Assessment and looking ahead
Although this session of the Preparatory Committee has been regarded as the best in many years in terms of its constructive atmosphere and lack of conflictual debates, as well as its good Chairmanship and competent support team for the Chair, the inescapable conclusion is that states parties are not living up to their commitments agreed in Decision 1 of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and at the 2000 Review Conference. Specifically, states have failed to agree on consensus recommendations to the Review Conference, and have also failed to fully implement their commitments agreed at the 1995, 2000 and 2010 NPT review conferences.