|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
NPT: Nuclear Nonproliferation Meeting Opens With Gloomy Assessment By Jim Wurst New Zealand’s minister of disarmament, Marian Hobbs, said today, “The past year has been an inauspicious one for the NPT in general and for the issue of nuclear disarmament in particular.” Hobbs was speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden, an ad hoc group working to persuade the nuclear powers to embark on a series of steps leading to nuclear disarmament. “Trends have been dismal,” she added. “Deeply unsettling events in the Middle East and in Asia surely must serve as a spur to our efforts to fully implement the NPT regime and to underscore emphatically the significance for global stability of compliance with international obligations as well as the universality of the treaty.” Two of those trends are the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT, which became final this month (see GSN, April 10), and the invasion of Iraq, an NPT state, which was undertaken in part because of charges that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons (see related GSN story, today). The chairman of the meeting, Hungarian Ambassador Laszlo Molnar, opened the proceedings saying that, with the unanimous support of the parties, the nameplate of North Korea “would be held in custody” by him for the duration of the meeting — in other words, the issue would be taken off the table. He said a debate over the country’s status would “serve as a detriment” to the work of the NPT. Molnar later told Global Security Newswire that the meeting was “heading for a procedural quagmire” over how to deal with North Korea’s withdrawal and that he took the “unprecedented step” of taking the nameplate in custody “so as not to prejudice the outcome of the ongoing negotiations” over North Korea’s nuclear program. Most countries called on North Korea to reverse its decision and submit its nuclear facilities to international inspections. Speaking for the New Agenda, Hobbs said the group “supports dialogue over confrontation. We hope for an early, peaceful resolution of the situation, leading to [North Korea’s] return to full compliance with the treaty’s terms.” Argentina took a harder line, calling on the committee to condemn North Korea’s action. U.S. Ambassador John Wolf said the dangers to the NPT come from “irresponsible” parties to the treaty, meaning, for the most part, North Korea and Iran (see GSN, April 11). “Iran provides perhaps the most fundamental challenge ever faced by the NPT,” he said. Under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, Wolf said, “Iran has been conducting an alarming, clandestine program to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities that we believe make sense only as part of a nuclear weapons program.” Wolf said the NPT “is dangerously out of balance. Disarmament continues,” while nonproliferation is weakened. “It is not credible to argue that we are not on a steady downward path towards the goals of [nuclear disarmament]. Yet, the path for nuclear proliferation is spiraling upward,” said Wolf. “The NPT’s core purpose is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. While the treaty has been largely successful in this respect, irresponsible NPT parties are taking action that pose fundamental challenges to the treaty,” Wolf added. “The time for business as usual is over. The time for resolute action is here,” he said. “We must choose to strengthen our political commitment to the NPT and build stronger barriers against those who try to violate the treaty’s fundamental obligations.” Wolf made only a passing reference to Iraq, grouping it with North Korea and Iran as countries developing nuclear weapons under the cover of peaceful nuclear programs. Iraq was represented by diplomats accredited to the United Nations under the government of Saddam Hussein. Nawfal Basri, a second secretary from the mission attending today’s meeting, told GSN that there have been no challenges to the credentials of any members of the delegation. Hobbs referred to Security Council debates over Iraq in her comments, saying that “the recent international debate” over weapons of mass destruction “underlined international concerns about the legitimacy, possession and possible use of such weapons. These statements should provide further impetus to international efforts to de-legitimize all nuclear weapons and to hasten international efforts towards nuclear disarmament.” “The real guarantee against the use of any weapons of mass destruction anywhere, including nuclear weapons, is their complete elimination and the assurance that they will never be used or produced again,” Hobbs said. South Africa also sought to broaden the nuclear debate beyond Iraq. Pretoria’s representative, Peter Goosen, said during the council debate that “strong statements … were repeatedly made about the threat that is posed by weapons of mass destruction, about the need to eliminate this threat, about the need to destroy these weapons by many of the members of the international community and about the legitimacy of their possession.” He added, “It is our belief that given this now universal condemnation of the possession, proliferation and possible use of weapons of mass destruction, we should move even more decisively to implement” nuclear disarmament by all states. This is the annual preparatory committee meeting leading up to the treaty’s 2005 review conference. Molnar told participants, “Only if we avoid the temptation of complacency or pessimism, and focus our efforts on what united and now what divides us, can we expect to continue to build on the progress achieved by our predecessors. Our work must ensure that the NPT and the larger nonproliferation regime remain vital and robust as a pillar of international security.” This preparatory meeting concludes May 9.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
