Ｂattle over drafting of agreements continues in final week of NPT confab

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference entered its final week on May 24 with nuclear weapon states and the nations of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and others at loggerheads. With a substantial number of issues to be addressed, including an action plan for nuclear disarmament, the denuclearization of the Middle East, and the strengthening of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the increasingly tense negotiations are taking place in and out of the conference venue with the aim of adopting a final document of agreements on May 28.

On May 24, the three Main Committees resumed debate. Each committee agreed to its revised draft, after failing to reach agreement earlier, and the committee chairs were set to submit the drafts that evening. These three revised documents will then be integrated into a single draft. Libran Cabactulan, president of the conference, will present the integrated draft of the final document to the conference on the morning of May 25, then negotiations over this draft will continue at the general assembly and other sites.

One of the main areas of conflict concerns the action plan for nuclear disarmament found in the draft submitted by Main Committee 1. The initial draft reflected the intentions of non-nuclear states with the provision that an international conference to create a road map for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons be convened in 2014 as well as mention of a nuclear weapons convention.

However, the nuclear weapon states oppose setting target years for the abolition of nuclear arms, while the NAM nations argue that nuclear disarmament cannot advance without target years and they seek to have this language restored in the draft of agreements. This confrontation between the two sides is becoming increasingly fierce.

Meanwhile, NAM is employing a tactic of endeavoring for concessions from the United States over the "Resolution on the Middle East." Some European diplomats see this attitude as one taking advantage of the U.S. wish for the success of the conference.

Another focal point with regard to this 1995 NPT resolution is whether a blueprint can be established for making the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which would include the de facto nuclear weapon state of Israel. The United States wants to avoid naming Israel in these terms, but the U.S. response to this issue could result in an Arab backlash and the breakdown of negotiations.

In regard to the additional protocol regarding the IAEA, considered essential for the nuclear non-proliferation regime, a great gap exists between the keen backers of the protocol, nations which include Japan and which seek strong language for this measure, and some of the NAM countries, which are wary of those backing the protocol and argue that the issue should be left to the discretion of each nation.

(Originally published on May 25, 2010)
http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/mediacenter/article.php?story=201005251444414_en