NPT News in Review, Vol. 15, No. 2

Editorial: Nuclear disarmament: an endurance sport
25 April 2018

Allison Pytlak

During his opening remarks, the Chair of the second Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) compared this review cycle to running a marathon.

As a runner I always enjoy such comparisons. In this case however, I can’t help but feel that it may be more accurate to compare the review cycle to an obstacle course.

A very wide array of concerns and suggested priorities has been included in statements over the first two days of the conference, which is not unusual in a general debate. States have acknowledged external events that place pressure on the NPT: uncertainty around the future of New START and related impact on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the pending deadline for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; the Inter-Korean Summit; and the planned meeting between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States.

Some of these point to the NPT’s unfinished business in other areas like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and its long pending entry-into-force; efforts in the Middle East; and disarmament pledges relating to both doctrine and stockpile reduction.

There is the potential in all of these initiatives to patch together previously broken bridges and strengthen the international community as a whole—or cause further fragmentation. Division and polarisation has most recently been blamed on support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was widely welcomed by very many NPT states parties including for how it will complement and strengthen the NPT regime. Some of its opponents criticised its openly while others used more veiled expressions like “stigmatising initiatives”. The TPNW has merely made existing divisions more apparent.

An unusual dimension to the PrepCom so far has been the rights-of-reply between a small handful of states on a situation that does not immediately relate to the NPT and sounds very much like the closing days of the 2017 UNGA First Committee. These revolve around recent chemical weapons use in Syria, the alleged role of the Russian Federation, and the military response of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. At the heart of this debate are essentially two points: the appropriateness of including this in a meeting about nuclear weapons, and respect for international law.

The use of chemical weapons is heinous and abhorrent. Yet so too would be the use of nuclear weapons. Cherry picking which international rules and laws should be enforced—including through means that are themselves not entirely legal—is a relevant narrative for the NPT. It’s reflective of the same double standards that are eroding the NPT’s credibility; the lip service being paid to disarmament while simultaneously spending billions of dollars on developing and testing newer, deadlier, more modern, nuclear weapons. The legitimacy of certain countries to point fingers at others about international law and norm flouting is simply lacking, no matter how awful the actions they condemn.

Several non-nuclear-armed states, expressed concern during the general debate over the over the uptick in modernisation since the last PrepCom. This should be reflected in PrepCom outcomes. Warnings of a new nuclear arms race suddenly seem a whole lot more real when there actually are new weapons and systems being developed and tensions between nuclear-armed states is also on the rise.

“Gender” is a subject being taken up by an ever-widening group. Most references related very specifically to improving women’s participation in nuclear disarmament; a smaller number described the importance of using gender analysis or a gendered approach, or about the gendered impacts of nuclear weapons. These three things are not the same. As well, and as noted in another article of this edition of the NPT News in Review, states must practice what they preach—the PrepCom remains a heavily male-dominated environment. What was noticeable is that statements on any facet of the “gender issue” are becoming more developed and thought-out. As one example, the Group of Nordic Countries explained that it believes gender diversity is “smart policy” to break on-going “stalemate and trench-digging” in disarmament on the basis of research that demonstrates that diversity brings effectiveness, innovation, and sustainable decisions.

All races have a finish line, and 2020 is the end of this one. It seems far off but really isn’t. Training must begin now. Success for the review conference, and for the credibility of the NPT more broadly means identifying and agreeing on a manageable amount of priorities or areas on which to make progress rather than trying to be all encompassing. Introducing deadlines and making time bound objectives, whether it be in relation to a fissile materials cut-off treaty or other initiatives, would help facilitate national-level action in place of freewheeling talk across a spectrum of goals. It will also require, as Sri Lanka pointed out, transitioning from hiding behind empty terminologies and labels like “progressive” or “step-by-step”, to taking some steps.

[PDF] ()