NPT Review Conference

[Fighter488]

Disarmament diplomacy -- Avoiding "double whammy" at NPT Review Conference ​

by Lucy-Claire Saunders

UNITED NATIONS, April 29 (Xinhua) -- Beginning next week, members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will have the opportunity to put teeth into the most widely ratified arms control treaty if they can avoid getting bogged down in a slurry of political disagreements.

The 2010 Review Conference, scheduled for May 3-28 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, is intended to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Treaty, which is founded on the ultimate bargain: Nuclear-weapons states agree to eliminate their arsenals, non-nuclear weapons states promise not to acquire such weapons and all parties to the Treaty are guaranteed the right to peacefully use nuclear energy so long as obligations are met.

It is also the basis for imposing sanctions on such countries as Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).

But this Review Conference comes at a time when confidence in the NPT's effectiveness is at an all-time low and the Treaty itself is being questioned as legitimate. Three fundamental challenges remain:

First, the five nuclear-weapon states -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- struggle to adequately pursue long- term disarmament negotiations in good faith stipulated under Article VI of the Treaty;

Second, with three nuclear-weapon states outside the NPT regime -- India, Pakistan, and Israel (legally, the DPRK failed to follow procedures under Article X after the announcement of its withdrawal) -- the Treaty has yet to become fully universal.

The three countries which remain outside the NPT have all been invited to the Review Conference to listen and see documents, but not to speak. None of them have yet confirmed their attendance but that doesn't mean they won't show, according to a UN official here on Thursday;

And third, the international community has yet to find a uniform mechanism to enforce the rules and deter withdrawal.

"We're at something of a tipping point, much as we were in the 1960s when the NPT was being negotiated," Robert G. Gard Jr., chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Xinhua last month. "The NPT is eroding to the point of irreversibility, beyond of which could be a cascade or proliferation of weapons."

The last NPT Review Conference in 2005 was largely considered a failure because members were unable to agree on all frontiers and became quagmired in lengthy quarrels about procedural issues.

"We all know that 2005 was an acknowledged failure," UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told a group of UN-based correspondents on Wednesday. "We should not unrealistically (have) raised expectations this time."

As in the past, the goal for the 2010 Review Conference will be the adoption of a final document by consensus, which indicates universal approval of the Treaty's status. However, this can be exceedingly difficult.

For Philippine Ambassador Libran N. Cabactulan, who will preside over the 2010 Review Conference, success, among other things, will be defined in terms of what can be achieved along the lines of three substantive challenges: Crafting of a disarmament plan that is both aggressive and practical, moving toward a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and strengthening the NPT regime so it can effectively deal with questions of compliance, withdrawal and implementation.

DISARMAMENT ACTION PLAN

A disarmament action plan that "lays down a firm foundation for negotiations leading to the total abolition of nuclear weapons," would be one concrete step that NPT parties could purse at the Review Conference, according to Cabactulan.

In 2000, all NPT states agreed to "13 Practical Steps" toward nuclear disarmament. One of those steps is the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans all nuclear blasts in all environments, for military or civilian purposes.

Another of the 13 steps is reaching an agreement on banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. In 2009, the Geneva-based UN Conference on Disarmament agreed to a work plan that included kickstarting talks on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT). But progress has now stalled.

Sharon Squassoni, a specialist in weapons of mass destruction proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, recommends updating the 13 steps by, in part, paying attention to Japan's "11 Benchmarks for Global Nuclear Disarmament."

Rather than describing the steps under the traditional pillars of the NPT -- nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy -- the Japanese proposal rests on three other pillars: efforts by nuclear-weapon-holding states (including those outside the Treaty), efforts by the entire community (which includes CTBT, FMCT, and restrictions on ballistic missiles), and measures taken by countries that aspire to nuclear energy ( safeguards, safety, and security).

"This approach reduces the polarizing effect of measuring nuclear disarmament commitments against non-proliferation and peaceful uses commitments," Squassoni wrote in a 2009 essay. "It makes the disarmament project truly a global one, rather than something for which the nuclear-weapon states first have to take responsibility."

MIDDLE EAST NUKE-FREE ZONE

Success would also entail progress made toward achieving objectives laid out in the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, which called for talks on establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region.

In a working paper Egypt submitted to Treaty members, Cairo said the Review Conference should formally express regret that "no progress has taken place on the implementation of the resolution" and call for an international treaty conference by 2011, according to media reports. However, there is some controversy as to whether the formal declaration will include a negotiating mandate.

Regardless, any progress made on this front could start to pave the road toward achieving universality, Cabactulan told reporters at the United Nations on Thursday.

"It might solve the problem of universality if we push to its logical conclusion the resolution in 1995," he said. "If you solve the problem there, that might open up windows."

However, Cabactulan warned that the situation in the Middle East is so fraught with political complications that it could easily become "a show stopper."

"I challenge the state parties, and everybody, to think creatively to new directions and perceptions," he said.

COMPLIANCE AND VIOLATIONS

The NPT itself is silent on how to assess compliance, resolve disputes, and what procedures to follow during non-compliance. At the Review Conference, NPT members may seek to further clarify verification obligations and close loopholes that allow for withdrawal.

Through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, the Security Council is available to address Treaty violations and, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, order the use of force or economic sanctions.

However, the IAEA board and the Security Council are often politically divided.

Deepti Choubey, the deputy director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Xinhua that she worries the opportunity to clarify issues of noncompliance and withdrawal will be missed in favor of a consensus final document.

"If the states that have signed up to the NPT insist on results being agreed to by universal consensus, it will be very difficult to move forward on any of the proposals that aim to clarify the process of withdrawal or consequences for non-compliant states seeking to withdraw from the NPT," she said in an email message.

At the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the United States adopted an approach of calling out non-compliant states by name. Some blamed this tactic for the conference's failure. This time around, said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, the United States will probably take "a country- neutral approach."

To be sure, a successful 2010 Review Conference faces many obstacles. The trust divide between the nuclear haves and have- nots continues to widen. The spirit of the Treaty is under threat. And, the ultimate goal of a world free from atomic weapons seems a distant dream. The stakes are high.

"If we have failure in 2010, it will be a double whammy," Cabactulan said.



Disarmament diplomacy -- Avoiding "double whammy" at NPT Review Conference

 

[Fighter488]

U.S. is expected to reveal size of nuclear stockpile​

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 1, 2010

The Obama administration is likely to reveal a closely guarded secret -- the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile -- during a critical meeting starting Monday at which Washington will try to strengthen the global treaty that curbs the spread of nuclear weapons, several officials said.


Various factions in the administration have debated for months whether to declassify the numbers, and they were left out of President Obama's recent Nuclear Posture Review because of objections from intelligence officials. Now, the administration is seeking a dramatic announcement that will further enhance its nuclear credentials as it tries to shore up the fraying nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The numbers could be released as soon as Monday, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is to address the NPT Review Conference in New York, officials said. She will speak after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is likely to repeat his demands for more global controls over the stockpiles of the nuclear nations.

U.S. officials fear he could hijack the conference with such demands, diverting attention from his own nuclear program, which is widely seen as violating the nonproliferation treaty.

Arms-control groups estimate the U.S. arsenal contains 9,000 weapons, with roughly 5,000 of them active and the rest in line for dismantlement.

Arms-control activists and officials in the Energy and State departments have argued that making the numbers public would prove how much progress the U.S. government has made in shrinking its Cold War arsenal.

That's important because, under the NPT, nuclear-weapons countries promise to move toward disarmament, while non-nuclear nations pledge they won't build a bomb. A total of 189 countries are treaty members.

The last NPT Review Conference, in 2005, collapsed in failure, with many countries accusing the Bush administration of shirking its disarmament obligations.

'A major step'


Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, said releasing the U.S. numbers would be "a major step forward in transparency."

"The United States has not gotten enough credit for the reductions it has made," he said. "That's even true of the Bush administration. . . . It makes it easier for us to make the case we are in fact reducing the number of nuclear weapons."

The U.S. intelligence community has been concerned that terrorists or states with nuclear ambitions could use the numbers to figure out how much plutonium or uranium is needed to make a bomb. But Lewis and other arms-control advocates say information on that is easy to find.

Several officials said the announcement on the stockpile numbers will be made during the conference. But one senior official cautioned that no final decision had been made. He noted that legally, such information could be declassified only if it were clear it would not lead to further nuclear proliferation. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

There appears to be only one instance when current figures on the size of the U.S. stockpile were made public. In 1992, Gen. Colin L. Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, included aggregate stockpile numbers in a chart used at a congressional hearing on a new strategic arms agreement.


The numbers had not been declassified, but the disclosure apparently attracted no news coverage at the time. According to a 2000 Department of Energy document, the Defense Department steadfastly refused to declassify the stockpile figures even after the Powell presentation.

On a nuclear roll


The Obama administration believes it is going into the NPT conference in a position of strength, pointing to a string of recent nuclear achievements -- including an arms treaty with Russia and a nuclear-terrorism summit that drew 46 countries to Washington.

The NPT, which took effect in 1970, is widely seen as one of the world's most successful treaties. But it is facing its greatest strain in a quarter-century, due to the Iranian program and North Korea's decision to quit the pact after having secretly developed a bomb. Iran insists its program is aimed at producing peaceful nuclear energy, but it has hidden its nuclear facilities from inspectors. It has also been sanctioned three times by the U.N. Security Council for defying its orders to stop enriching uranium.

The NPT review conferences, held every five years, have often turned into battles between the nuclear haves and have-nots. Several of the meetings have ended without final declarations, which require consensus.

U.S. officials are trying to lower expectations for this month-long conference, noting that Iran will likely object to any final declaration constraining its program.

"A final document should not be the measure of success," said Ellen O. Tauscher, the undersecretary for arms control, in a speech Thursday at the Center for American Progress.

The U.S. strategy is to get a supermajority of countries to agree to a plan to pursue new ways to punish nuclear cheaters and encourage the adoption of more nuclear safeguards. U.S. officials said it could provide momentum for seeking change in other venues, such as at the International Atomic Energy Agency.​

Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch contributed to this report.


washingtonpost.com

 

[Fighter488]

U.S. non-proliferation agenda caught in web of contradictions ​

Narayan Lakshman

On the eve of the next big nuclear-related event of the Obama presidency, the United States’ non-proliferation engine is shuddering dangerously, indeed running the risk of choking itself in a web of contradictions.

At a press conference to preview of the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in New York between May 3 and May 28, the tensions in the agenda, as well as a sense of gloom about what could realistically be achieved, were evident in equal measure.

As far as contradictions go, South Asia was clearly the elephant in the room. With ever more signs of weakness in the non-proliferation regime emerging, the administration has been fighting off the back foot to defend itself against allegations that it has contributed to this attrition. For example recent reports suggested that China was planning to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, potentially disregarding views of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

To a question on whether the such potential risks of proliferation had grown in the region due to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, said, “We do not believe we weakened the NPT in our peaceful civilian nuclear deal with India,” adding that it was a deal that came with safeguards and a number of other transparency mechanisms that “we think… add to the security and the non-proliferation concerns that we had prior to that.”

Yet she was quick to disclaim any responsibility that the U.S. might bear for events resulting as a consequence of the deal: “So I think that it is not our [fault] if something else happens, but certainly what we are for and what we make very clear we are for is that we want a strong NPT, we want a strong IAEA that is well funded, that has the authorities it needs to be the right watchdog for the time that we live in.”

If the China-Pakistan nuclear deal exposed some of cracks in the U.S.’s non-proliferation agenda in South Asia then Pakistan’s resistance to the Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty (FMCT) made the denial of these cracks impossible.

In a delicately balanced statement Ms. Tauscher said, “Everyone shares the disappointment that the United States shares that there is a country that is blocking the program of work that was a very hard fought agreement among the six Chairmen, somewhat historic, last year in the conference on disarmament in Geneva to move forward on a program of work, to begin negotiations on a FMCT.”

She added, “We join a lot of our friends and allies trying to persuade that country to step away and let the program of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation.”

And it is not only the FMCT but the NPT itself that the U.S. will attempt to tie India and Pakistan to. To a direct question on whether the U.S. would urge the nuclear-armed rivals to sign up Susan Burk, the President’s Special Representative for Nuclear Non-proliferation, said, “The U.S. has had a longstanding policy of supporting the universal adherence to the NPT, and I am quite confident that that issue will be raised during the review conference and there will be a desire to recommit the parties’ support for that.”

However, South Asia is hardly likely to give the U.S. much joy in this venture. The unspoken quid pro quo element of treaty ratifications, especially such high-profile treaties, would require the U.S. to resolve a massive contradiction at the very heart of global nuclear politics – that to bring get India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT the U.S. itself may have to accede to comprehensive test bans and disarmament on a much larger scale, proportional to the size of its nuclear arsenal.

Yet it is not South Asia, but Iran that is likely to continue to discomfit the U.S. during the meet. The State Department has consistently emphasised President Obama’s so called dual-track approach of holding out the possibility of negotiations while simultaneously seeking to build consensus around a sanctions regime against Iran in the event of it not cooperating.

But quite apart from the well-known resistance to sanctions by Russia and China and others like Brazil, the U.S. will also have to build a case around why it is pressing Iran so hard while Israel, which has nuclear weapons, may be considered equally responsible for jeopardising peace in the region.

In particular with regard to the 1995 Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-free zone resolution, Ms. Tauscher’s defence was: “Israel is a not a party to the NPT, will not be at the NPT.” However she added that the 1995 resolution “would also include, obviously, a nuclear-free zone... But we are concerned that the conditions are not right. And unless all members of the region participate, which would be unlikely unless there is a comprehensive peace plan that is being accepted and worked on, then you could not have the conference that would achieve what we are all looking to achieve.”

While the U.S. may be hard pressed to admit that it could be in a cul-de-sac, it came close to doing so on Friday when Ms. Tauscher said that the NPT Review Conference was not about a final communiqué or a product that comes out and the “real work of strengthening the regime “is not going to happen next week [but…] in the months and the years to come.”

The Hindu : News / International : U.S. non-proliferation agenda caught in web of contradictions