Mixed Results for Zimbabwe Chair of United Nations Nuclear Weapons Meeting

Taking advantage of the perceived new global security environment, Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku, Zimbabwe’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, chaired the third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2010 Review Conference (RevCon) of States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to a relatively successful conclusion.

Published on 18 May 2009 in ISS Today

Taking advantage of the perceived new global security environment, Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku, Zimbabwe’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, chaired the third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2010 Review Conference (RevCon) of States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to a relatively successful conclusion.

The NPT is a multilateral treaty, which opened for signature on the 1st of July 1968 and entered into force on the 5th of March 1970. Although the NPT is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the actual use of nuclear weapons, either by design or by accident continues to be one of the most fundamental threats to global human and environmental security. The NPT is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and to preserve the right of states to the peaceful uses of nuclear power (for energy and medical purposes).

Convened in New York from 4 to 15 May 2009, the primary objective of the meeting was to draft recommendations for next year’s Review Conference. The Zimbabwe Chair was able to issue a draft final report and recommendations by the end of the first week. Many governmental representatives expressed the hope that the document could be adopted with minimal changes – through flexibility and compromise - in order to build on the international positive nuclear disarmament momentum. The new global nuclear security environment has been characterized by a positive atmosphere given recent events such as the 5 April 2009 speech by US president Barack Obama in Prague, in which he declared that he would "seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons"; the joint statement between Obama and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on their commitment to negotiate a new agreement to replace START and new initiatives by prominent members of civil society such as “Global Zero”.

On the evening of 13 May, after consultations with various delegations, the Chair released a revised version of the draft recommendations. The revisions weakened the recommendations on disarmament, civil society participation, and education, but strengthened the wording on implementing a long-standing UN Resolution on the Middle East (which calls for the creation of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East). The sections on non-proliferation and nuclear energy were adjusted to create more balance between the three pillars - with each having an “action” plan.

However, on 14 May 2009, when the Chair reconvened the Plenary after another round of extensive bi-lateral consultations, he announced that, to his regret, it seemed likely that all States could not agree to this document. While Iran and NAM accepted the Chair’s assessment (as he was best placed to determine this), after pleas by some countries including the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, South Africa and Nigeria (the convenor of the Africa Group), the Chair decided to have one more go at reaching consensus overnight.

On 15 May, the Chair ultimately declared that the Committee could not reach agreement and that the recommendations would not even be forwarded to the Review Conference as a working paper or a Chair`s paper.

This is disheartening even though some states forcibly argued that even if no consensus on recommendations for the 2010 RevCon could be reached, the fact that an agenda for 2010 had been agreed to means that the meeting was a success. This was in reference to the fact that no final Prepcom has ever agreed on an agenda for the following RevCon. Frankly, given the positive hype and expectation at the beginning of the first week, this represents another failure to take forward the idea of a nuclear-weapons-free world despite the utterances of Obama and that the US delegation committed themselves to: ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiation of a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, and a follow on to START via a new bilateral reductions treaty with Russia. In addition, the introductory paragraph had specifically noted that the recommendations did not preclude future initiatives nor stand as declarations of states parties’ positions. Representing another split from the Bush-era policy, the US reaffirmed the decision to extend the NPT in 1995 and the decisions made at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, including the 1995 Middle East resolution.

These events and the new US position had helped to open the door for progress on nuclear disarmament. This optimism was, however, tempered by underlying tensions such as: the continued debate between the non-proliferation first or disarmament first camps; the tensions between those accused of non-compliance with their obligation to disarm and those accused of non-compliance with their commitment to not develop or acquire nuclear weapons; and the non-implementation of the 13 practical steps to nuclear disarmament agreed to in the 2000 Review Conference.

Meanwhile, Malawi has become the 27th African State to ratify the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) when it deposited its instrument on 28 April 2009. The Treaty of Pelindaba commits African countries not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons, and also facilitates the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes on the continent. It also includes a protocol for the five nuclear weapon states to sign and ratify, and therefore to respect the status of the zone.

Under Article 18, the Treaty will enter into force on the date of deposit of the 28th instrument of ratification.

As of 18 May 2009, all 53 members of the AU have signed the Treaty. However, the following countries have not yet ratified the Treaty: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Democratic Rep. of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sao Tome & Principe, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia as well as the area known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. As an important part of the security architecture of the AU and a step towards strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Pelindaba aims to promote international action and solidarity towards regional peace and security as well as promoting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. More importantly, it facilitates the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in the continent. To this effect and upon entry into force, the Depository (the AU) will convene a Conference of all Parties in accordance with Article 14 on the establishment of an African Commission on Nuclear Energy (AFCONE) as envisaged under Article 12 of the Treaty.

Hopefully, the new international climate and the Treaty of Pelindaba’s pending entry-into-force will prevent a repeat of the 2005 Review Conference, which failed to reach any substantive agreement. Based on this PrepCom however, nuclear multilateralism and compromise are not yet back in fashion. The only things agreed to were three administrative issues:

This outcome was despite the Obama speech in Prague, the US and Russia’s commitment to negotiate a new agreement to replace START and civic initiatives such as “Global Zero”.

 Noel Stott, Senior Research Fellow, Arms Management Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)