2005 NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE

1
2005 NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE

• BRIEFING TO THE PARLIAMENTARY
• PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
• 7 SEPTEMBER 2005

2
2005 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE

• Introduction
• History of the NPT
• Previous Review Conferences (1970 - 1995 2000)
• Preparations for 2005 deadlocked
• 2005 Review Conference General Debate (Plenary)
• Procedural Issues
• Work of the Main Committees and Subsidiary Bodies
• Role of the Non-Aligned Movement
• Role of the New Agenda Coalition
• Role of South Africa
• Importance and future of the Treaty

3
INTRODUCTION

• 2005 NPT Review Conference held in New York from
  2 to 27 May 2005
• Conference adopted procedural report - all three
  Main Committees and Subsidiary Bodies of
  Conference unable to reach consensus on
  substantive issues
• Time constraints unwillingness to reach
  compromise selective insistence on fixed
  positions by certain States Parties - major
  factors contributing to the failure of the NPT
  Review Conference

4
INTRODUCTION (Cont.)

• The failure by some States to implement
  obligations under the Treaty (esp. nuclear
  disarmament)
• Roll-back of agreements reached at previous
  Review Conferences
• These factors and the failed Preparatory Process
  created a climate wich made it difficult to make
  progress on some key challenges facing the Treaty

5
GENERAL DEBATE

• Opening address by UN Secretary General Kofi
  Annan
• Statement by the Director General of the
  International Atomic Energy Agency
• Support for proposal on a moratorium on new
  enrichment and reprocessing facilities and
  creation of so-called multinational facilities
  that will ensure a reliable supply of fuel for
  nuclear reactors is of concern - may impact on
  countries article IV rights and their choices in
  the area of the peaceful application of nuclear
  energy

6
GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.)

• NAM may find it increasingly difficult to argue
  against some of the positions and proposals
  advanced by the US and others
• Could damage cause of developing countries and
  compromise positions and solidarity in structures
  such as the NAM

7
GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.)

• Central themes during General Debate
• Non-compliance by both nuclear- and
  non-nuclear-weapon States
• Protracted pace of nuclear disarmament - source
  of frustration among the non-nuclear-weapon
  States
• Confidence in the NPT - ensure that peaceful uses
  do not contribute to nuclear-weapon
  proliferation.

8
GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.)

• Growing number of countries questioning the 1995
  decision to extend the Treaty indefinitely
  particularly in view of the current status of the
  Treaty and the unequal treatment of the various
  provisions, which has impacted negatively on the
  core bargains agreed to during the 1995 Review
  and Extension Conference

9
PROCEDURAL ISSUES

• Agenda for 2005 NPT RevCon not resolved during
  third PrepCom - remained unresolved more than 2
  weeks - prevented substantive work from being
  undertaken
• Originally US/Iran problem regarding the
  inclusion of language referring to developments
  since the last Review Conference.
• Presidents proposal - Iran supports - although
  proposal created difficulties for most
  delegations, no other countries willing to object
  to proposal

10
PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.)

• Except Egypt - started to object to proposal on
  basis that outcome of 2000 Review Conference was
  being compromised
• General perception at Conference that Egypts
  objection was a posturing exercise - no agreement
  possible without Egypts concurrence
• Egypt insistence that agenda should specifically
  reflect 1995 Resolution on Middle East and wanted
  undertaking from President that subsidiary body
  on Middle East will be created

11
PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.)

• Major area of disagreement within the NAM
• South Africa emphasised the adopted NAM position
  on three subsidiary bodies (incl. Middle East),
  but urged de-linking of agenda from other issues
  - to ensure progress on substantive work
• Adoption of agenda on 12 May - made possible by
  de-linking agenda with programme of work and
  establishment of subsidiary bodies

12
PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.)

• NAM decision - support proposed agenda provided
  that President issues interpretative statement as
  official document by means of asterisk contained
  in the agenda
• After the adoption of the agenda - intensified
  informal consultations to finalise the allocation
  of agenda items to the Main Committees, as well
  as the establishment of subsidiary bodies

13
PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.)

• Based on proposal by Chairs of Main Committees,
  President issues informal paper on proposed
  allocation of items to the Main Committees, as
  well as draft decision on establishment of 3
  subsidiary bodies
• nuclear disarmament and security assurances
• regional issues (including the Middle East)
• other provisions of the Treaty (including Article
  X withdrawal)

14
PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.)

• NAM indicated that it could only respond to
  proposal when other groups have responded
• Most WEOG countries indicated support, but US had
  to await new instructions
• After almost three weeks of intense negotiations
  on the outstanding procedural issues, including
  the adoption of an agenda, the allocation of
  items to the Main Committees and the
  establishment of subsidiary bodies, the
  Conference finally resolved these issues on 18
  May 2005

15
WORK OF MAIN COMMITTEES SUBSIDIARY BODIES

• Overall agreement on allocation of time within
  Main Committees and the subsidiary bodies, except
  for subsidiary body on regional issues, including
  the Middle East
• Egypt insisted on more time for deliberations on
  1995 resolution on the Middle East
• Decision allocate time in a similar manner as
  2000 Review Conference - more time to the Main
  Committee, less time to subsidiary bodies

16
WORK OF MAIN COMMITTEES SUBSIDIARY BODIES

• Main Committee I 4 sessions for general exchange
  of views and 1 session each for nuclear
  disarmament and security assurances, respectively
• Main Committee II 4 sessions for general
  exchange of views and 2 for subsidiary body -
  also preference to delegations that would
  specifically speak on the issue of the Middle
  East to be followed by other regional issues
• Main Committee III 4 sessions for general
  exchange of views and 2 for subsidiary body

17
MAIN COMMITTEE I (NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT)

• Major factors preventing consensus in Main
  Committee I
• Position of US on significance of certain aspects
  and provisions of the NPT
• Reluctance to reaffirm agreements and
  undertakings at previous Review Conferences
• Tendency to avoid balance between nuclear
  disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation

18
SUBSIDIARY BODY ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND
SECURITY ASSURANCES

• US rejection of most elements on nuclear
  disarmament, including CTBT, prevented agreement
  on substantive report on nuclear disarmament in
  Subsidiary Body
• Deliberations on security assurances less
  polarised
• However, Subsidiary Body was unable to reach
  consensus due to fixed positions of some
  nuclear-weapon States and insufficient time to
  consider substantive and textual changes proposed
  by some delegations

19
MAIN COMMITTEE II (SAFEGUARDS NON-PROLIF.)

• Most controversial issues
• Proposal to adopt the Additional Protocol as
  condition of supply for nuclear material,
  equipment and technology
• Acceptance of integrated safeguards (i.e. the
  Additional Protocol), as new verification
  standard
• References to UN Security Council resolution 1540
  in relation to the strengthening of export
  controls
• Chair of Main Committee II draft report on basis
  of debate and working papers - many pertinent NAM
  issues omitted

20
MAIN COMMITTEE II (Cont.) (SAFEGUARDS
NON-PROLIF.)

• Also no proposals on institutional issues (review
  and preparatory process up until the 2010 Review
  Conference) or work of the Subsidiary Body on
  regional issues, including the Middle East
• Egypt (also Iran) established linkage between
  report of Committee II and the report of the
  Subsidiary Body - Committee II cannot adopt a
  report without agreement on a report by the
  Subsidiary Body on Regional Issues, including the
  Middle East

21
SUBSIDIARY BODY ON REGIONAL ISSUES, INCLUDING THE
MIDDLE EAST

• Most controversial issue was the decision by some
  western countries (particularly the US and some
  EU countries) to focus on Irans nuclear
  programme
• Subsidiary Body unable to reach agreement on a
  report
• Main Committee II consequently unable to reach
  consensus on a substance report
• First Committee to conclude work - set tone for
  other Committees

22
MAIN COMMITTEE III (PEACEFUL USES)

• Work focussed on peaceful uses of nuclear energy
  and other provisions of the Treaty not dealt with
  by other Main Committees
• Also unable to adopt a substantive report,
  although there was a possibility to attach to the
  Committees report bracketed text of the
  substantive work of the Subsidiary Body on
  Articles IX and X of the Treaty
• Egypt, supported by some Arab Group members,
  could not agree

23
MAIN COMMITTEE III AND SUBSIDIARY BODY ON OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY

• US blocked consensus to attach a report on
  substantive work to the procedural report
• Main areas of disagreement
• proposal to suspend nuclear co-operation if a
  State Party is in non-compliance with its
  non-proliferation obligations and safeguards
  agreements or withdraws from the Treaty
• proposal to minimise the use of Highly Enriched
  Uranium (HEU) for nuclear energy
• issue of not targeting nuclear installations
  under IAEA safeguards for an attack

24
ROLE OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

• NAM well prepared for Conference
• Positions of some NAM countries on certain
  aspects of the Treaty created tension within the
  Movement
• Changing of NAM Chair created some continuity
  problem

25
ROLE OF THE NEW AGENDA COALITION

• Group established especially to advance nuclear
  disarmament
• Problems with some partners who regard nuclear
  arms reductions (Moscow Treaty) as important
  steps towards nuclear disarmament
• Some NAC partners developing hesitation with the
  groups position on negative security assurances
  (NSA)
• Personal commitment of the New Zealand Minister -
  effectively mobilised other members

26
ROLE OF THE NEW AGENDA COALITION (Cont.)

• NAC far less active than at 2000 RevCon
• NAC unable to play meaningful role due to
  divergent views on some key aspects of the
  original goals of the New Agenda Coalition
• Conference illustrated that without cohesion and
  sense of purpose, NAC will not be able to make
  any real impact in the area of nuclear
  disarmament
• Need to mobilise all members effectively so as to
  ensure that NAC advances the demand for nuclear
  disarmament

27
ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA

• With all the difficulties on key issues, South
  Africa acted most of the time as deal breaker,
  particularly within the NAM, but also within the
  broader conference
• Delegation was instrumental in breaking deadlock
  on agenda and was able to come up with consensus
  language with regard to the final report of the
  Conference

28
ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA (Cont.)

• South Africa, both in the context of bilateral
  consultations with key delegations at the Review
  Conference, as well as in consultations within
  the Non-Aligned Movement and the New Agenda
  Coalition, worked towards securing agreement on
  some of the major challenges facing the NPT Regime

29
IMPORTANCE AND FUTURE OF THE NPT

• Failure to reach any substantial conclusions at
  the 2005 Review Conference represents a serious
  crisis for the NPT
• Continued denial and lack of implementation of
  undertakings and agreements at previous
  Conferences undermines the intergrity of Treaty
• Incremental restrictions on the inalienable
  rights of States Parties in compliance with
  obligations raises questions regarding the
  original core bargains