State of affairs of consultations
I. Introduction 1. During a series of consultations with many delegations, political/regional groupings, the UN Secretariat and NGOs which the Chair conducted in the sidelines of the First Committee’s session last October and in Geneva during January, most of the representatives of State parties expressed their deep concerns on the challenges and crisis being faced by the NPT. Therefore, it is necessary to underscore that State parties should do their utmost to address them by focusing our attention and deliberations in the Third Prepcom and to reconcile differences with a view to strengthening the treaty. 2. During those consultations, many delegations indicated that the 3rd Prepcom meeting will be complex and will face formidable difficulties before it can achieve concrete results. This is the case since, in accordance with the decision of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Third Prepcom has a different mandate when compared with the previous two Prepcoms, namely: • “The Preparatory Committee, taking into account the deliberations and results of its previous sessions, should make every effort to produce a consensus report containing recommendations to the Review Conference.” • The States parties agreed that the procedural arrangements for the Review Conference should be finalized at the last session of the Preparatory Committee. 3. In his consultations, the Chair made it clear that basically he will act more as an interlocutor and facilitator. Thus, the success of the Prepcom will depend upon the spirit of compromise and accomodation on the part of delegates to achieve a consensus report and recommendation as stipulated in the Final Document of the 2000 Revcon. As for the conduct of the Prepcom, the Chair will uphold the principles of transparency and inclusiveness. II. Organizational and Procedural issues
of the III Prepcom 4. The question of formulating a “time-table” is very crucial, however, it has turned to be a delicate one. Many delegations have indicated that the formulation of a “time-table” should be balanced, and regard all issues as being equally important. 5. In this regard, in the preliminary thinking of the Chair, he will divide the two weeks’ session (morning and afternoon) into two parts, namely; during the first week, the State parties will have the opportunity to deliberate on different clusters and block of issues, as well on procedural aspects of the 2005 Revcon; and during the second week, they will be discussing a draft recommendation. 6. The first week will be allocated to 3 sessions of general debate (Monday morning and afternoon and Tuesday morning; 1 session for the NGOs statements (Tuesday afternoon); and 1 session the organization of the 2005 Review Conference (Wednesday morning). Within this week, 6 sessions will be allocated for the deliberations on bloc and cluster issues (Wednesday afternoon, Thursday morning and afternoon, Friday morning and afternoon, and Monday morning). The rest of the second week will be assigned to discussing preparatory work for the review of the operation of the Treaty in accordance with Article VIII, paragraph 3 of the Treaty, in particular consideration of principles, objectives and ways to promote the full implementation of the Treaty, as well as universality, …, with a view to formulating draft recommendations for the Review Conference. 7. During the consultation, the Chair has been made aware that a group of countries has insisted on the allocation of a specific time to discuss the Negative Security Assurances at the Prepcom. This group has argued among others things that the 2000 Revcon has agreed that this issue of NSA should be addressed in a specific time. The reaffirmation by General Assembly resolution 58/35 of the urgent need to reach an early agreement on this issue was also cited in advancing this case. On the other hand, a state party has expressed its view that the issue of NSA should not be discussed in such specific time slot. 8. The Chair therefore suggested that State Parties adopt the practice of the previous Prepcom, namely that this issue will be discussed under cluster 1 as well as at the discussion on formulating the draft recommendations for the Review Conference at the second week. Different views remain on this particular issue and the Chair will continue to consult States parties to find a compromise solution. 9. As to the second week meeting, the Chair would generate discussion or even a negotiation with a view to formulating draft recommendations. Under the sub-heading of “Improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty” (paragraph 7), the 2000 Review Conference clearly stated that: the Preparatory Committee, taking into account the deliberations and results of its previous sessions, should make every effort to produce a consensus report containing recommendations to the Review Conference. b. Rules of Procedure (RoP) 10. The Rules of Procedure of the NPT Review Conference are applied mutatis mutandis to the work of the Preparatory Committee. Therefore, the Chair does not foresee difficulty from the Prepcom to adopt its RoP. III. Organizational and Procedural aspects
of the 2005 Review Conference e. Background documentation 17. Traditionally, the NPT Prepcom has requested the Secretariat and the IAEA to prepare background documentation for the Conference. Documents are also invited from the NWFZ organizations. Prior consultations with many delegations have been conducted by the Chair to determine whether the approach taken for the 2000 NPT Review Conference should be followed. It is absolutely necessary that a decision on background documents be taken at the third Prepcom. 18. During the 2000 Review Conference, 14 (fourteen) documents have been submitted to the Conference. As to the author, the Chair has noted that 7 documents were prepared by the Secretariat, 3 documents by IAEA and 4 documents by the respective depository of the treaties on nuclear-weapons-free-zones. 19. The Chair has appealed that the contents of documents to be submitted to the 2005 Revcon of similar character with the one submitted to the 2000 Revcon, updated to capture the current developments on the implementation of the NPT. f. Subsidiary bodies 20. According to rule 34 of the RoP, the establishment of subsidiary bodies of the respective Main Committees is the authority of the Revcon. However, paragraph 6 of Decision 1 of the 1995 Revcon states that the Prepcom can make recommendations on their establishment to the Revcon on specific issues. 21. From the previous consultations, the Chair has anticipated that this is one of the more difficult questions to resolve. A group of states has indicated its intention that it will take a firm position concerning the creation of subsidiary bodies on NSA and the Middle East. Some countries have expressed their strong objection to the idea. As consultation is still continuing, the Chair will take note of all proposals and deal with the issue at a later stage. g. Participation by the NGOs 22. The participation of NGOs both in the Preparatory Committee meetings and Review Conferences has made important contributions in improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty, particularly after the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. The 2000 Review Conference agreed that “a meeting should be allocated to non-governmental organizations to address each session of the Preparatory Committee and the Review Conference”. According to Rule 44.4 of the Rules of Procedure for the 2000 Review Conference, “Representatives of the non-governmental organizations who attend meetings of the plenary or of the Main Committees will be entitled upon request to receive the documents of the Conference”. 23. Such a specific role for NGOs has indeed been maintained during the convening of the 1st and 2nd Prepcom meetings. At the 1st Prepcom in 2002, representatives of 62 NGOs attended the meetings, during which 14 of them made statements. Subsequently, at the 2nd Prepcom in 2003, representatives of 37 NGOs were present, and 11 of them made statements. 24. Accordingly, unless there is strong objection by State parties, the Chair will maintain the same practice, and uphold the significant role of the NGOs by allocating a session for their statements on Tuesday, 27 April 2004, for the afternoon session. The Chair would highly appreciate it if the NGOs could make the maximum use of the time allocated in an effective and efficient manner. 25. Based on the consultations with NGOs’ representatives in New York and Geneva, the issue of concern to them is about their access to the Conference. They underscored that the Third Prepcom should provide for greater participation in the discussions during the session; to circulate information and distribute publications; to interact with delegations; and to obtain documents of the meetings. In this context, the Chair will consider any proposal that will maintain the practice during the previous Prepcom. h. Participation by Specialized Agencies, Regional and International Organizations 26. Some delegations touched upon the question of participation of specialized agencies, and international and regional intergovernmental organizations, such as CTBTO, OPANAL and the Arab League. However, this issue needs further consultation. According to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure, participation of such organizations shall be limited to observers to the meetings, but they will be given the opportunity to submit, in writing, their views and comments on questions within their competence, which may be circulated as documents of the meetings. i. The status of DPRK 27. This issue is still controversial. The settlement of the issue procedurally or politically will depend on the outcome of the on-going six parties’ talks. Some delegations suggested that the Chairman should follow the precedence set by Ambassador Molnar, namely under his responsibility not to open a debate on this issue and to retain the name plate of DPRK temporarily in his custody. 28. Indeed, it is the Chair’s intention to follow this precedent. IV. Substantive issues of the 2005 Review Conference j. Nuclear disarmament 29. Many delegations whom the Chair have consulted stated that the Third Prepcom session should maintain a balance in the deliberations between the issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, including its vertical and horizontal dimensions. In accordance with Article VI of the NPT, the issue of nuclear disarmament will continue to be pursued, particularly by a group of and other States Parties, so it can be expected to remain contentious vis-à-vis the Nuclear Weapon States. k. Non-proliferation 30. A few representatives, mostly of the Nuclear Weapons States, have indicated that the success of the Third Prepcom will be determined by how far it is able to address and deal with the issue of non-compliance, especially with regard to the efforts of some countries that are suspected to be “proliferators”. l. Negative security assurances (NSA) 31. It has been cited by a number of the representatives of the State parties that this has long been a priority issue for an overwhelming majority of non-nuclear-weapon states, based on their concerns raised by the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and its consequences for international peace and security. A number of non-nuclear weapon states representatives have stated that further compounding the situation is the policy of some states to acquire sophisticated weapons, such as bunker-busters, mini-nukes and non-tactical nuclear weapons. The Chair may expect a continuing divergent of views on this issue. m. Middle East 32. At the 2000 Revcon Final Document, the Conference requested all States Parties, particularly the nuclear weapon states, the states of the Middle East and other interested states to report to the UN Secretary-General, the President of the 2005 Revcon as well as Chairpersons of the Preparatory Committee meetings on the steps that they had taken to promote the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East and the realization of the goals and objectives of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East. 33. Based on my consultation, there seems to have been a feeling among the Arab Group countries that the recommendations on the Middle East must at least be formulated in the language of the First and Second PrepCom, and that universality, particularly with regard to Israel, must also be emphasized. n. Practical Steps 34. As an important outcome of the 2000 Revcon, a review of the implementation of 13 practical steps needs to be undertaken, as it has a bearing on some Articles of the Treaty, particularly the commitment of Nuclear Weapon States to nuclear disarmament. Some of these States, particularly the US and the UK, have taken the position that they are no longer bound to implement these steps. Nonetheless, there are two approaches which can be taken, namely: a “partial approach,” to discuss each step one-by-one; and a “general approach,” to review the 13 steps as a whole. 35. Some representatives, particularly of NWS, prefer to accept the latter as it will not be focused on specific commitments which generally have been perceived as not being fulfilled by the NWS. o. Draft recommendations 36. With regard to the draft recommendations,
at the end of the first week of the Prepcom, the Chairman will circulate
a “non-paper” as a guiding document for delegates to negotiate
consensus or possible consensus on the recommendation of the Third Prepcom.
Such a non-paper will contain two parts. The first part will contain
the recommendation on the procedural aspect of the 2005 Revcon. The
second part will encapsulate substantive aspects of the 2005 Revcon
contains elements from the Chairmen’s Summary of the two previous
Prepcoms. These draft recommendations should not be a full scale recommended
items or measures to be taken up by the 2005 Revcon. It will be a set
of headings with a focus of attention on the three pillars on which
the effectiveness and integrity of the NPT rests, namely, non-proliferation,
nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 38. Last but not least, the Chair remains open to any suggestion as to the contents as well as the format of negotiations for the draft recommendations. At least, it is the intention of the Chair to make maximum use of the experience of the previous Chairmen in the conduct of the drafting and negotiation exercises. Other matters 39. The Chair will be available for further consultation in New York on 10-12 March 2004, in Geneva on 19– 20 April 2004 and from 21 April onwards until the Prepcom in New York.
First, issues that yield to consensus,
among other things are those issues relating to the strengthening and
preserving of the NPT; agreement on IAEA safeguards as a fundamental
tool and as a competent authority; the need to strengthen physical protection
of nuclear facilities and materials; the safe and secure transport of
radio-active material; the importance of dumping nuclear waste; the
maintenance of a moratorium on nuclear testing pending the coming into
force of the CTBT; the initiation of negotiations for the further reduction
and elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons; expediting/completing
the ratification processes of the Treaties of Bangkok, Pelindaba and
the Central Asian NWFZ; in the context of ensuring the safety and security
of nuclear materials, additional measures are agreed upon to further
strengthen the existing ones, such as the Convention on Nuclear Safety,
the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the
IAEA Action Plan on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism; and collective
commitment by States Parties opposing the granting of any assistance
to non-state actors regarding the acquisition of nuclear material. Third, issues with no possibility of agreement are the importance of transparency in export controls; Article IV and the lack of export controls; lack of progress on Article VI; the link between tactical nuclear weapons and other nuclear weapons; legally binding international convention or a protocol to the NPT for negative security assurances which must be broader in scope than Security Council resolution 984 (1995); linking security assurances to the fulfillment of treaty obligations; issues related to the Middle East question; how to address the status of DPRK; pledges of no-first use of nuclear weapons; and substantive reports to be submitted by all states parties, as appropriate, on all aspects of the NPT in a standard format Fourth, new issues since the 2000 Review Conference: Iran and Libya and the question of their compliance with Article IV; the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the role of the IAEA in preventing nuclear terrorism and access to non-state actors of nuclear material and technology; the principle of multilateralism and pre-emptive strikes; the question of DPRK’s nuclear weapons programs and its withdrawal from the NPT; the strengthening of the review process and NPT structures in 2005; and non-proliferation and disarmament education. _________ |