2005 NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE BRIEFING TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 7 SEPTEMBER 2005

2005 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Introduction History of the NPT Previous Review Conferences (1970 - 1995; 2000) Preparations for 2005 deadlocked 2005 Review Conference General Debate (Plenary) Procedural Issues Work of the Main Committees and Subsidiary Bodies Role of the Non-Aligned Movement Role of the New Agenda Coalition Role of South Africa Importance and future of the Treaty

INTRODUCTION 2005 NPT Review Conference held in New York from 2 to 27 May 2005 Conference adopted procedural report - all three Main Committees and Subsidiary Bodies of Conference unable to reach consensus on substantive issues Time constraints; unwillingness to reach compromise; selective insistence on fixed positions by certain States Parties - major factors contributing to the failure of the NPT Review Conference

INTRODUCTION (Cont.) The failure by some States to implement obligations under the Treaty (esp. nuclear disarmament) Roll-back of agreements reached at previous Review Conferences These factors and the failed Preparatory Process created a climate wich made it difficult to make progress on some key challenges facing the Treaty

GENERAL DEBATE Opening address by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan Statement by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Support for proposal on a moratorium on new enrichment and reprocessing facilities and creation of so-called multinational facilities that will ensure a “reliable” supply of fuel for nuclear reactors is of concern - may impact on countries’ article IV rights and their choices in the area of the peaceful application of nuclear energy

GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.) NAM may find it increasingly difficult to argue against some of the positions and proposals advanced by the US and others Could damage cause of developing countries and compromise positions and solidarity in structures such as the NAM

GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.) Central themes during General Debate Non-compliance by both nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States Protracted pace of nuclear disarmament - source of frustration among the non-nuclear-weapon States Confidence in the NPT - ensure that peaceful uses do not contribute to nuclear-weapon proliferation.

GENERAL DEBATE (Cont.) Growing number of countries questioning the 1995 decision to extend the Treaty indefinitely particularly in view of the current status of the Treaty and the unequal treatment of the various provisions, which has impacted negatively on the core bargains agreed to during the 1995 Review and Extension Conference

PROCEDURAL ISSUES Agenda for 2005 NPT RevCon not resolved during third PrepCom - remained unresolved more than 2 weeks - prevented substantive work from being undertaken Originally US/Iran problem regarding the inclusion of language referring to “developments since the last Review Conference”. President’s proposal - Iran supports - although proposal created difficulties for most delegations, no other countries willing to object to proposal

PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.) Except Egypt - started to object to proposal on basis that outcome of 2000 Review Conference was being compromised General perception at Conference that Egypt’s objection was a posturing exercise - no agreement possible without Egypt’s concurrence Egypt insistence that agenda should specifically reflect 1995 Resolution on Middle East and wanted undertaking from President that subsidiary body on Middle East will be created

PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.) Major area of disagreement within the NAM South Africa emphasised the adopted NAM position on three subsidiary bodies (incl. Middle East), but urged de-linking of agenda from other issues - to ensure progress on substantive work Adoption of agenda on 12 May - made possible by de-linking agenda with programme of work and establishment of subsidiary bodies

PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.) NAM decision - support proposed agenda provided that President issues interpretative statement as official document by means of asterisk contained in the agenda After the adoption of the agenda - intensified informal consultations to finalise the allocation of agenda items to the Main Committees, as well as the establishment of subsidiary bodies

PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.) Based on proposal by Chairs of Main Committees, President issues informal paper on proposed allocation of items to the Main Committees, as well as draft decision on establishment of 3 subsidiary bodies: nuclear disarmament and security assurances regional issues (including the Middle East) other provisions of the Treaty (including Article X – withdrawal)

PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Cont.) NAM indicated that it could only respond to proposal when other groups have responded Most WEOG countries indicated support, but US had to await new instructions After almost three weeks of intense negotiations on the outstanding procedural issues, including the adoption of an agenda, the allocation of items to the Main Committees and the establishment of subsidiary bodies, the Conference finally resolved these issues on 18 May 2005

WORK OF MAIN COMMITTEES & SUBSIDIARY BODIES Overall agreement on allocation of time within Main Committees and the subsidiary bodies, except for subsidiary body on regional issues, including the Middle East Egypt insisted on more time for deliberations on 1995 resolution on the Middle East Decision: allocate time in a similar manner as 2000 Review Conference - more time to the Main Committee, less time to subsidiary bodies

WORK OF MAIN COMMITTEES & SUBSIDIARY BODIES Main Committee I: 4 sessions for general exchange of views and 1 session each for nuclear disarmament and security assurances, respectively Main Committee II: 4 sessions for general exchange of views and 2 for subsidiary body - also preference to delegations that would specifically speak on the issue of the Middle East to be followed by other regional issues Main Committee III: 4 sessions for general exchange of views and 2 for subsidiary body

MAIN COMMITTEE I (NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT) Major factors preventing consensus in Main Committee I: Position of US on significance of certain aspects and provisions of the NPT Reluctance to reaffirm agreements and undertakings at previous Review Conferences Tendency to avoid balance between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation

SUBSIDIARY BODY ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY ASSURANCES US rejection of most elements on nuclear disarmament, including CTBT, prevented agreement on substantive report on nuclear disarmament in Subsidiary Body Deliberations on security assurances less polarised However, Subsidiary Body was unable to reach consensus due to fixed positions of some nuclear-weapon States and insufficient time to consider substantive and textual changes proposed by some delegations

MAIN COMMITTEE II (SAFEGUARDS & NON-PROLIF.) Most controversial issues: Proposal to adopt the Additional Protocol as condition of supply for nuclear material, equipment and technology Acceptance of integrated safeguards (i.e. the Additional Protocol), as new verification standard References to UN Security Council resolution 1540 in relation to the strengthening of export controls Chair of Main Committee II draft report on basis of debate and working papers - many pertinent NAM issues omitted

MAIN COMMITTEE II (Cont.) (SAFEGUARDS & NON-PROLIF.) Also no proposals on institutional issues (review and preparatory process up until the 2010 Review Conference) or work of the Subsidiary Body on regional issues, including the Middle East Egypt (also Iran) established linkage between report of Committee II and the report of the Subsidiary Body - Committee II cannot adopt a report without agreement on a report by the Subsidiary Body on Regional Issues, including the Middle East

SUBSIDIARY BODY ON REGIONAL ISSUES, INCLUDING THE MIDDLE EAST Most controversial issue was the decision by some western countries (particularly the US and some EU countries) to focus on Iran’s nuclear programme Subsidiary Body unable to reach agreement on a report Main Committee II consequently unable to reach consensus on a substance report First Committee to conclude work - set tone for other Committees

MAIN COMMITTEE III (PEACEFUL USES) Work focussed on peaceful uses of nuclear energy and other provisions of the Treaty not dealt with by other Main Committees Also unable to adopt a substantive report, although there was a possibility to attach to the Committee’s report bracketed text of the substantive work of the Subsidiary Body on Articles IX and X of the Treaty Egypt, supported by some Arab Group members, could not agree

MAIN COMMITTEE III AND SUBSIDIARY BODY ON OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY US blocked consensus to attach a report on substantive work to the procedural report Main areas of disagreement: proposal to suspend nuclear co-operation if a State Party is in non-compliance with its non-proliferation obligations and safeguards agreements or withdraws from the Treaty proposal to minimise the use of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) for nuclear energy issue of not targeting nuclear installations under IAEA safeguards for an attack

ROLE OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT NAM well prepared for Conference Positions of some NAM countries on certain aspects of the Treaty created tension within the Movement Changing of NAM Chair created some continuity problem

ROLE OF THE NEW AGENDA COALITION Group established especially to advance nuclear disarmament Problems with some partners who regard nuclear arms reductions (Moscow Treaty) as important steps towards nuclear disarmament Some NAC partners developing hesitation with the group’s position on negative security assurances (NSA) Personal commitment of the New Zealand Minister - effectively mobilised other members

ROLE OF THE NEW AGENDA COALITION (Cont.) NAC far less active than at 2000 RevCon NAC unable to play meaningful role due to divergent views on some key aspects of the original goals of the New Agenda Coalition Conference illustrated that without cohesion and sense of purpose, NAC will not be able to make any real impact in the area of nuclear disarmament Need to mobilise all members effectively so as to ensure that NAC advances the demand for nuclear disarmament

ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA With all the difficulties on key issues, South Africa acted most of the time as deal breaker, particularly within the NAM, but also within the broader conference Delegation was instrumental in breaking deadlock on agenda and was able to come up with consensus language with regard to the final report of the Conference

ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA (Cont.) South Africa, both in the context of bilateral consultations with key delegations at the Review Conference, as well as in consultations within the Non-Aligned Movement and the New Agenda Coalition, worked towards securing agreement on some of the major challenges facing the NPT Regime

IMPORTANCE AND FUTURE OF THE NPT Failure to reach any substantial conclusions at the 2005 Review Conference represents a serious crisis for the NPT Continued denial and lack of implementation of undertakings and agreements at previous Conferences undermines the intergrity of Treaty Incremental restrictions on the inalienable rights of States Parties in compliance with obligations raises questions regarding the original core bargains