Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
10/24/2014
With six months remaining until the scheduled 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, advocates of the treaty this week called on the five main nuclear-weapon states (P5) to implement the 64-point 2010 NPT Review Conference Action Plan more quickly, as P5 states have moved sluggishly to implement key parts of the agenda during the last four years, they said. Speaking during the Arms Control Association’s annual meeting in Washington, Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said current U.S. nuclear modernization plans send a message to non-nuclear-weapon states that atomic weapons will remain for the foreseeable future and that nuclear weapon states don’t intend to reduce reliance on the munitions and their delivery systems.
The U.S. could bolster its credibility in the NPT arena and define a forward path by re-examining the plans, she said. “You cannot invest a trillion dollars into something that you plan to get rid of in any kind of stable future,” she said. “So revising that would really help strengthen the US position going into the NPT review conference.”
During the ACA meeting, both Mukhatzhanova and Lord Des Browne, former U.K. Secretary of State for Defence and current vice chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said that as P5 states underscore individual platforms, confidence in a unified approach to global nuclear disarmament is eroding. “The incremental approach to disarmament to the bargain that the recognized nuclear weapon states—the U.S., the UK, Russia, China, France—struck 45 years ago, is now so painfully slow, that it too often feels as if we’re moving backwards. And it’s difficult to see a path forward when the five nuclear weapon states can’t agree on how to proceed,” Browne said.
State Dept. Official Defends Pace of Disarmament Progress
Speaking at the ACA meeting, Anita Freidt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear and Strategic Policy, said the U.S. remained committed to disarmament, but would not take predetermined steps to achieve nonproliferation goals. “The United States is committed to pursuing a responsible approach to nuclear disarmament in keeping with our NPT commitment,” she said. “Slow progress in one area will not deter us from seeking headway in others. There is constant criticism about the pace of disarmament, especially by the P5. It has to be a step-by-step process. It’s the only responsible way to move forward.”
Recommendations for NPT Improvement
To accelerate good-faith implementation of the NPT, Browne recommended the P5 states engage in more “military-to-military” communication on crisis management, akin to what was displayed during the Cold War, to build cohesion among members. Although Russia routinely divides the P5 alliance, “particularly the European members of it,” cohesion could be built through an approach to managing the situation in Ukraine, and through a renewed mutual disarmament dialogue despite current tensions. “Somebody needs to make the first move,” he said. While Browne lauded the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, he urged officials to “get the job done,” citing the potentially persuasive ability of issues like the viability of stockpile stewardship in building consensus.
The intention behind creating the P5 was a force for “progressive dynamism,” Browne said. “It appears that, inadvertently, we created a cartel,” he said. “Meanwhile, we are states expanding the nuclear arsenal, surreptitiously seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of a civil energy program, and detonating nuclear test devices in the face of international condemnation.” Citing Latin American states as a possible example, Browne proposed that non-nuclear parties to the NPT should quiz nuclear states on disarmament progress and challenges in a session of the review conference. “If you are the leader of a Latin or South American country, none of whom use nuclear weapons and none of whom benefit from an umbrella of nuclear weapons, are you not entitled to ask who’s to hold these weapons some challenging questions?” he said.
Group Frames NPT in Humanitarian Terms
While P5 states have dragged their feet on developing a unified disarmament framework, the NPT’s humanitarian community is working to create a sense of urgency among NPT members, Mukhatzhanova said. “There is a broad recognition that we have to frame the nuclear disarmament debate, debate about the future of it, in humanitarian terms, about the concern of human beings, not the security concerns of a couple of states,” she said. “Beyond that, there are very few specifics, and some states do support the idea of negotiating a weapons ban. Does it mean they’re ready to start tomorrow? Probably not. What are they ready to start tomorrow? Again, that is something they will have to define in slightly more concrete terms going into the review conference so that they can more effectively press for this issue.” Mukhatzhanova expressed uncertainty about whether the humanitarian initiative would provoke action, or merely equate to human-focused language included in the next review conference’s final document.
An NPT group tied to the Open-Ended Working Group, which is dedicated to advancing multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations, has been surging for the last two years, Mukhatzhanova said. A working paper authored by the New Agenda Coalition outlines the pros and cons of different disarmament modalities such as nuclear weapons conventions, nuclear weapons bans, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. “I think what nuclear weapon states could do very usefully between now and the [review conference] and beyond is to accept that invitation to conversation and see how that can usefully be integrated into the new conference process,” Mukhatzhanova said. “They absolutely need to demonstrate the willingness to have that exchange rather than what we’ve seen of today as to the ‘our approach is the best approach.’ ”
