|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
NPT: Meeting Yields Dissension, Criticism of U.S. Policy By Jim Wurst Ambassador Norman Wulf of the United States told the concluding session of the meeting that “the momentum towards further nuclear reductions is continuing.” A summary of the two-week meeting written by the chairman reflected the fact that the majority of states do not agree with this view. “Concern and uncertainty was expressed about existing nuclear arsenals, new approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons, and possible development of new generations of nuclear weapons,” wrote Ambassador Henrik Salander of Sweden. As the first of four annual meetings leading up to a review conference for the NPT in 2005, nothing substantive was expected from this meeting. Salander took it up under his own authority to prepare the summary. Before he released the report, he stressed that the paper would be “a factual summary … It is not a negotiating text.” Delegations were free to comment, but “it will not be negotiated or amended,” he said. “There was emphasis on multilateralism as a core principle in the area of disarmament and nonproliferation with a view to maintaining and strengthening universal norms and enlarging their scope. Strong support was expressed for the enforcement of existing multilateral treaties,” Salander’s paper said. Wulf took issue with the way the document referred to U.S. rejection of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, two conventions endorsed in the consensus final document of the NPT’s 2000 review conference (see GSN, April 5). “Clearly some U.S. policies related to Article VI [on nuclear disarmament obligations] differ from the conclusions of the 2000 Final Document. The administration, for example, has no plans to seek ratification of the CTBT but continues to observe the moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. We ask that you not confuse media reports with U.S. policies,” he said. According to Salander’s paper, “concern was expressed that the decision by the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and the development of missile defense systems, could lead to a new arms race, including in outer space, and negatively affect strategic stability and international security.” “We are disappointed at the nature of the reference to the ABM Treaty,” Wulf said. ”We think that many delegations now recognize that there is nothing destabilizing about the U.S. decision to withdraw from that treaty and that the momentum towards further nuclear reductions is continuing. President Bush is determined to transform our relationship with Russia and to replace mutual assured destruction with mutual cooperation. Success in missile defenses can indeed lead to reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, as can other measures.” The United States was not the only critic of the paper. Iraq and North Korea objected to references to their lack of compliance with NPT because of their nuclear programs. Several states thought there should have been greater emphasis on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Even the routine phrase “states parties stressed” was criticized; the United States and France felt Salander should have written, “some states parties.” Nongovernmental experts attending the meeting were pointed in their criticism of the United States, and to a lesser extent, the other four nuclear powers that are parties to the treaty: China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom. According to Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, “the non-nuclear weapon states feel they have been cheated and lied to ... You can see a build up of frustration that is not being expressed.” “There’s a lot of anger there and some point it’s going to burst,” said William Peden of Greenpeace International. “The NPT regime will be lucky to survive beyond 2005.” The nuclear weapon states “are still dragging their feet.” While he welcomed the reductions in their stockpiles, he said ”these are reductions in weapons they were going to get rid of anyway … It’s a spring cleaning exercise.” Johnson said the nuclear powers “are rolling back their commitments, and it’s not only the United States. Other nuclear weapon states are also now trying to renegotiate obligations they undertook by consensus in 1995 and 2000.” Much of the criticism has focused on the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review that envisions more uses for nuclear weapons (see GSN, March 13). Johnson said the review “clearly shows the intention to develop new nuclear weapons, more usable nuclear weapons … It is about holding all options open, maintaining the possibilities to maintain all capabilities.” The nuclear weapon states made an obligation under the NPT to pursue “‘an unequivocal undertaking to achieve the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.’ If all options are open for new developments, then they are not abiding by that very central commitment,” Johnson said. The consensus agreement from the 2000 review conference also called on all states to report on their fulfillment of their NPT obligations. The United States and France resisted references during this meeting to reporting, even though they made reports to the meeting. “Their refusal … is really a refusal to be accountable,” Johnson said. “The point is not that [the nuclear weapon states] do not want to give information … The point is that they don’t want to be held to providing reports as a requirement, as an obligation, and therefore as an element of accountability that was agreed to in 2000 … They don’t want to set a precedent of providing information in the future,” she said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
