|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
NPT: Geneva Meeting Ends Admitting Problems By Jim Wurst In his summary report of the meeting, Ambassador Laszlo Molnar of Hungary, the chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference, wrote that states “stressed the increasingly grave threat to the treaty and international security posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. … The gravity of this threat reinforces the need to strengthen the treaty.” North Korea, which withdrew from the treaty earlier this year (see GSN, April 10) and Iran were criticized for not complying with the treaty by pursuing nuclear weapons, while the nuclear weapons powers, particularly the United States, were criticized for not pursuing nuclear disarmament. The United States was also criticized for embracing military doctrines that envision more uses for nuclear weapons. Molnar’s summary was meant to take all these opinions into account without endorsing any of them. The summary does not represent a consensus view of all the parties, but rather, as Molnar said at a news conference, it “can be seen and adopted as a representative sample of the whole debate without going into any extremities.” For example, he said, some nuclear powers criticized him for not emphasizing more the progress in nuclear disarmament while some non-nuclear states said he “was not as forthcoming as I could have been on pressing for nuclear disarmament.” Andrew Semmel of the United States said at the committee’s final session, “While disarmament continues its downward trend, proliferation challenges are mounting. The relative attention paid by too many delegations to disarmament versus proliferation ignores the reality of our international security situation.” He added, “We cannot accept these assertions” concerning “the alleged failure” of nuclear disarmament. Molnar’s summary made an oblique reference to concerns about U.S. nuclear policies by saying, “Concern and uncertainty about existing nuclear arsenals, new approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons, as well as the possible development of new generations of nuclear weapons were expressed.” The United States was particularly vocal during the session in charging that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty. Semmel said he was pleased that Iran was specifically named, but “the summary has not gone far enough.” He said, “Iran poses as fundamental a challenge as the NPT has ever faced.” While under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, Iran is developing technology “intended to support a nuclear weapons program,” he added (see related GSN story, today). Amir Zamaninia of Iran said the U.S. allegation “clearly illustrates the U.S. policy of double standards” of accusing Iran while the United States is not complying with its disarmament obligations and ignoring the issue of nuclear weapons in Israel, which Zamaninia called “a proven and established proliferator.” Israel is the only Middle East country not party to the treaty “We are determined, because we do not have anything to hide, to work closely with the IAEA in a cooperative and transparent manner to make the truth about the peaceful nature of our nuclear program known to all,” said Zamaninia at the closing session. “The NPT will be strong only when it is fully complied with by both the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states alike, when we … avoid the temptation of picking what suits us at a particular juncture,” he added. The paragraph on Iran in Molnar’s summary noted that Iran has been asked to sign a new protocol with the IAEA that would give the agency greater access to the country’s nuclear facilities to better judge if Iran is in full compliance with the NPT (see GSN, Feb. 24). Such a protocol would “enhance the confidence of states parties and help eliminate concerns regarding [Iran’s] nuclear program,” the summary said. But the summary did not repeat any of the charges the United States made. The agency is to present a comprehensive report on Iran to its board of governors in June. Semmel said the treaty parties “must be ready to act firmly if Iran does not comply.” Semmel also expressed “concerns” about other treaty parties in the Middle East, including Libya (see GSN, April 7). A related issue is the commitment parties made at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences to work for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. The summary said the goal “remained valid” and “called upon Israel to accede to the treaty as soon as possible and to place its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.” Last year’s meeting was consumed over charges of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23, 2002). But this year’s summary was limited to pointing out that there “remained unresolved questions regarding Iraq’s programs of weapons of mass destruction” and that “some states parties took note of the IAEA’s readiness to resume its verification activities in Iraq.” North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty and its threats to resume its nuclear program presented “one important challenge from the very beginning,” said Molnar. The committee had to decide how to deal with North Korea’s withdrawal — the only country ever to pull out of the treaty — “without interfering with the ongoing political efforts” to resolve the issue. The summary’s wording, he said, “will not have a great significance at this point, but it is not going to cause any harm either.” North Korea should see incentives in the wording “and see the message that is very clear from the international community,” he added. The summary said states “deplored” North Korea’s decision and called the withdrawal “a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime.” It called on North Korea to dismantle its program “in a prompt, verifiable and irreversible way” while recognizing its “legitimate security concerns.” Semmel said this language was too weak and that North Korea’s “cynical and dangerous actions in its nuclear weapons program pose a grave threat to regional and international stability and deserves the strongest condemnation.” This was the second of three preparatory meetings leading up to the 2005 review conference for the treaty. The 2004 preparatory meeting is expected to make recommendations to the 2005 review conference. Therefore, this preparatory meeting was not expected to produce any concrete recommendations. Molnar’s summary will be the starting point for the work next year. The summary also called on India and Pakistan to renounce their nuclear weapons and join the treaty as non-nuclear states. Only India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not parties to the NPT. East Timor ratified earlier this week, bringing the total of states parties to 188.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
