he Third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2005 NPT Review Conference (RevCon) was held from April 26 to May 7, 2004 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of Indonesia. This PrepCom was the last one before the Review Conference in 2005. Of the 189* state parties to the NPT, 123, and representatives from the IAEA attended the PrepCom. As observers, representatives from other international and regional organizations such as OPANAL, CTBTO, the European Commission, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and representatives of 69 non-governmental organizations also attended.

In the more than 40 opening statements that were delivered almost all the states parties highlighted the importance of a more effective compliance mechanism regarding treaty obligations. However, there was a different emphasis on compliance between NWS and many NNWS. The NWS, especially the United States, emphasized compliance with the treaty’s nonproliferation obligations, while many NNWS, especially those from the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), focus on the lack of compliance with Article VI and subsequent disarmament agreements. Other issues that were addressed included the need for negative security assurances to NNWS, and whether the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology should be limited.

Concerns were also raised over Libya, Iran, the DPRK, and activities of the A-Q Kahn nuclear supply network. However, Libya’s admission that it had maintained a clandestine nuclear weapon program and its subsequent cooperation with the IAEA to dismantle all of its nuclear weapons-related capabilities were noted positively. Although many delegations raised concerns over the DPRK’s announced withdrawal from the treaty, substantive discussions on how NPT parties should react to this announcement were effectively avoided through the Chairman’s announcement that there will be no open debate on this issue.

The NAM States highlighted the issue of security assurances and reminded the PrepCom in their statements that the 2000 Review Conference called for the PrepCom to make recommendations on “legally binding security assurances” by the five nuclear weapon states for the 2005 Review Conference. The United States, in its statement to the chair’s summary, specifically expressed its opposition to negative security assurances.

Many States Parties called for IAEA additional protocols to be adopted as the safeguard standard in the NPT. Although the NAM reaffirmed the importance of IAEA safeguards system including comprehensive safeguards agreements and additional protocols, it opposed further restrictions on NNWS in order to achieve universality of comprehensive safeguards.

Since the UN Study on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education was adopted by consensus at the 2002 General Assembly, the issue of education has been prominent in strengthening the complete implementation of disarmament and nonproliferation obligations under the NPT. Several delegations expressed support for nonproliferation education as a way to strengthen the NPT regime.

The 2004 PrepCom was mandated to submit a consensus report with practical recommendations for the 2005 RevCon, taking into account the deliberations and results of the two previous sessions (2002 and 2003) which considered “principles, objectives and ways in order to promote the full implementation of the Treaty, as well as its universality.” It also was supposed to finalize the procedural arrangements for the 2005 RevCon. However, the PrepCom failed to agree on most issues, and refused to annex the chairman’s summary to the final report mainly because of conflicting perspectives towards treaty obligations between the NWS and the NNWS.

In the final analysis, the PrepCom was unable to agree on almost anything except endorsing Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil as the president-elect of the 2005 Review Conference. Major differences over whether to recognize the achievements of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 Review Conference led to the objection by the United States and France to the inclusion of reference to these conferences in the draft agenda for 2005. The result of these differences was no agreement on either the agenda or other procedural aspects of the 2005 Review Conference. The PrepCom was also not able to agree on any substantive recommendations to the Review Conference.

*This number includes North Korea.

Take the NPT Quiz