|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S., Brazilian Officials Offer Preview of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference By Joe Fiorill WASHINGTON — In a likely preview of debate at this year’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, a U.S. arms control official and a Brazilian diplomat diverged here this morning over U.S. progress on disarmament and the appropriate balance to be struck in reforms of the treaty regime (see GSN, Feb. 2). At an Arms Control Association panel discussion held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker stressed the need to head off future nuclear proliferation crises such as those in Iran and North Korea, while Brazilian Ambassador to the United States Roberto Abdenur — whose countryman, Sergio Duarte, will serve as chairman of the review conference — called for “balance” between disarmament and nonproliferation commitments. Rademaker, who heads the State Department Arms Control Bureau, said the United States was adhering to the treaty, including Article VI, which commits nuclear weapon states to work toward disarmament. He said criticisms of U.S. disarmament programs are not based on what the treaty language requires of the nuclear weapon states. “Our critics would have little to complain about if they restricted themselves to arguments based on the text,” Rademaker said. “Under any reasonable interpretation, the United States is in full compliance with its obligations.” Under Article VI, all treaty parties are required to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Rademaker laid out a list of reasons for his stance that the United States is in compliance with those provisions. Although Article VI “does not literally require the conclusion of agreements relating to disarmament,” he said, the United States has participated in negotiations resulting in “significant progress,” such as the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, in which the United States and Russia pledged to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Rademaker added that Article VI lays out “no timetable” and “no deadline” for disarmament and that the article’s provision on “general and complete disarmament” could be construed to support the maintenance of nuclear weapons until worldwide conventional disarmament is achieved. Reports that the United States is seeking to develop new nuclear weapons, Rademaker added, are erroneous. He said the 2002 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review indicates Washington is seeking ways to use new technology to maintain a nuclear deterrent while reducing its stockpile, as one way of shifting “emphasis away from nuclear forces to other means.” “Looking at options” for new nuclear weapon activities, he added, “says nothing about what we will do.” The focus at the May review conference in New York, Rademaker said, should be not on the United States but on a “crisis of compliance” involving countries such as North Korea and Iran. He rejected as “misguided” and “dangerous” any linkage between U.S. performance on Article VI and such countries’ alleged nuclear weapon programs. U.S. goals at the review conference are to involve stiffening enforcement of articles I, II and III of the treaty, which lay out the nonproliferation obligations of non-nuclear weapon states, Rademaker said, adding that Washington would seek to encourage all treaty parties to adopt the Additional Protocol to their nuclear safeguards agreements. The protocol allows for more intrusive monitoring of nuclear activities in countries that adopt it. In addition, he said the United States would recommend that nuclear energy help under the treaty’s Article IV be offered only to countries in compliance with the first three articles. Abdenur said the “integrity and the credibility of the NPT are at risk for various reasons,” including both lagging progress on disarmament and new proliferation crises. “We have to tackle in a more decisive way the aspects of disarmament,” he said, calling for more “transparency” and “accountability” from nuclear weapon states as they disarm. Abdenur called repeatedly for “balance” in reforming the treaty regime between the efforts of nuclear weapon countries, which he called “ever more lax and more aloof” with respect to disarmament, and those of non-nuclear states. The ambassador said bilateral disarmament steps such as those highlighted by Rademaker are welcome but insufficient for fulfilling the nuclear weapon states’ treaty responsibilities, because they are limited, reversible and bilateral, rather than multilateral. “We have no influence whatsoever on that, we the international community,” Abdenur said. Contradicting Rademaker, Abdenur said the United States is planning to develop new nuclear weapons. He also criticized Washington’s development of new doctrine allowing preventive use of nuclear weapons and use of such weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. Turning to proliferation concerns of the sort Rademaker focused on, Abdenur called for strengthening the institutions of the international nonproliferation regime. In particular, he said, a North Korea-style withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty must be made more “politically and technically costly.” The Brazilian also expressed alarm about the lack of an agreed-on agenda for the conference, slated for May in New York. Without advance agreement on an agenda, he said, the review will descend into “chaos.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
