Home

 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Embassy Talks, May 2005

 

---

Introduction

From: Sheila Triggs
To: ukwilpf@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: [ukwilpf] NPT Embassies talks

Walking and talking to the embassies

The nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) came into force in 1970. It now has over 180 countries signed up. Every 5 years there is a Review Conference at the UN in New York. This year many activists went to New York to lobby the delegates to the NPT for total nuclear disarmament.

There is a tradition organised by Christian CND, of activists visiting London embassies to discuss the NPT while the Conference is going on during May. This year WILPF organised the visits. There were 16 people (half of them Wilpfers), in four groups who visited embassies over two days.

The idea was to meet the 5 Nuclear Weapons Sates (NWS) signatory to the NPT, including our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the three acknowledged NWS who have not signed the NPT: India, Pakistan and Israel, and the embassies of most of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC); countries dedicated to furthering the disarmament pillar of the NPT.

The Egyptians would not make an appointment, and the Israelis failed to keep their appointment. But at the other embassies and FCO we spent between 30 minutes and an hour in discussions. All the participants took trouble to be well informed and felt they had gained a lot from taking part.

We thought it would be worth sending out the detailed reports on ukwilpf as well as to ourselves. So as each one is completed I will circulate it. It is pasted below and atached as well. You may want to print it off for particpants who are not on e-mail. Just delete if it does not interest you.

Sheila

---

1)

Meeting at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Sarah Price (Deputy Head), Alex Pykett and Graham Nelson, Security Policy Department

With Rosemary Addington, Betty Scharf, Tahrir Swift, and Sheila Triggs

Sarah Price started by saying that the UK considers the NPT as an important part of our security framework. The NPT Review Conference is taking place in a very important time with new challenges emerging.

There are warranted fears that 1) Terrorist organisations are trying to get hold of fissile materials to make radio active weapons and threaten the world's stability. 2) Signatory countries use Article IV of the NPT legally to acquire nuclear energy technology and mask the illegal development of a nuclear weapons programme. Then they opt out and go on to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Sarah brought up the examples of Libya, Iran and North Korea as cases in question. While the Libyan case had a happy ending as Libya carried out a cost benefit analysis and decided with the help of UK and US security and economic assurances, its security, and regional position was best served by abandoning nuclear weapons (NW).

Sarah explained that a balance is needed between the different pillars of the NPT: nuclear disarmament and non proliferation are linked, therefore the UK which has achieved a great deal, cannot be expected to start on disarmament while there are serious worries about horizontal proliferation.

The UK is working with the EU to a): Increase the political cost of opting out of the NPT b): Counter proliferation, cooperating on how to deal with Iran. c) The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) needs strengthening with additional Protocol to increase the verification process and transparency, which would increase confidence in the treaty, by improving compliance.

d) On the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMT) there has been a long stalemate in Geneva because of significant differences on how to achieve the aims of the treaty. Now people are beginning to think about objectives. The UK was pushing for negotiations without any preconditions as this will hopefully help in narrowing the gulfs between the different views on such a treaty.

However on the question of the US position on signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, [signed and ratified by the UK], Sarah explained that the real opposition was in Congress. This had not been expected. The UK was pushing to get a monitoring system up and running and working for consensus. A moratorium on testing is till holding

The UK is committed to disarmament and the Government Brochure, given to the party, shows the UK's commitment to the 13 steps of the NPT

A good outcome of the conference from the UK government's point of view would be to produce a short sharp and focused document saying something for the way ahead.

Sarah explained that the EU now has a common position by bringing together differing perspectives of UK and France, Nuclear Weapons States and Sweden and Ireland, New Agenda Coalition, apart from the spectrum of other members, on the priorities of the NPT.

On Iran: Sarah was asked why the model of Libya cannot be applied to N. Korea and Iran. She explained that through the E3 negotiations with Iran, [UK, Germany & France] that government has been given incentives to forgo its nuclear fuel cycle. The EU could guarantee a supply of nuclear fuel. There was also the idea that the IAEA could take on the role of supplier of nuclear fuel at a reasonable price. Membership of the WTO had been offered as an incentive by the US, which is supportive of these EU steps. Sarah agreed that bellicose statements and threats of military action do not help matters.

The reluctance of Israel to rule out any plans for attacking Iran especially in view of the US recently selling Israel bunker busting missiles was not commented on, but Sarah said that the military option (by the US), is unlikely.

Sarah thought that while in Libya Gaddafi was the real decision maker, in North Korea the regime survival is at the heart of the problem and therefore the situation is different!

Rosemary raised the question of why the UK does not carry out the cost benefit analysis concerning the UK's own nuclear arsenal. Sarah explained that the UK needed its minimum nuclear deterrent as an important part of its defences. It was explained that Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA himself has said that Nuclear deterrent is irrelevant in today's world.

Sarah, Graham and Alex all denied that there are any plans for Aldermaston to be used for the renewal of the UK's nuclear arsenal. They claimed that the new Laser system is for safety testing. They claimed that they have not seen the Independent articles on the 2nd May that claimed the UK has already made the decision to renew its nuclear arsenal at the cost of £10bn.

They claimed that no decision has been made about Trident extension or replacement and that the UK is not assisting the US in research into Missile Defence System. There would be a public debate on any renewal of Trident.

They also claimed that the Mutual Defence Agreement between US & UK routine extension was not a violation of the NPT, [there is legal opinion making this case], but did not produce any supporting argument.

Much was made of the major reductions in NW since the Cold War, and the U.S. & Russian nuclear arms reductions under the Moscow Treaty. We pointed out these could be reversed and did not apply after 2012.

Asked about the commitments to nuclear disarmament in the 2004 Report of the UN High-Level Panel A more secure world: our shared responsibility, Sarah said the UK is happy to sign up to the pledges mentioned in this report as well as those mentioned in the Kofi Annan's response : In larger Freedom, and will lobby for them. It was pointed out that other countries could see WMD as rich countries' self indulgence.

Sarah raised the point that the great concern of states in Africa was on the issue of small arms control. The UK government was pursuing the possibility of an Arms Trade Treaty. We needed to understand the security concerns of other countries. Aid offered for nuclear energy leaves a country with more in its budget for other needs.

Asked whether Jeoff Hoon's threat against Iraq changes the UK's policy of no first use of NW, they claimed that it did not. It was not made clear however why a nuclear submarine was deployed when Iraq clearly as Mohamed Baradei has confirmed, had no nuclear programme.

The last question was: when will the UK start multilateral negotiations on total abolition of nuclear weapons? They replied: this is a matter for the new government to think about its overall policy.

---

2)

Meeting at the Pakistan Embassy, Lowndes Square, SW1 on Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Rosemary Addington, Betty Scharf, Tahrir Swift, and Sheila Triggs. The delegation saw Mr Abdul Basit.

Pakistan has stopped attending the NPT review conference as an observer after it had tested nuclear weapons in 1998, since observer status would not have given them right to reply to criticism leveled at Pakistan during the conferences.

He started by firmly stating that inviting Pakistan to join the NPT as a non nuclear weapons state (NNWS) is a non starter option. He said however that they were discussing with major powers including with Jack Straw in the UK a way of accommodating India, Pakistan and Israel, (NWS outside the NPT). He does not envisage his country giving up NW unless it is in the context of a bilateral agreement with India or in the context of designating South Asia as a nuclear free zone (regardless of China).

According to Mr Basit for Pakistan, nuclear weapons are a defensive measure acquired only after India has done so, while for India it is more of a status symbol in the region. The situation should be seen in the light of the commercial imbalance between India and Pakistan.

Mr Abdul Bassit, did not think that optimism due to the recent improvement in the two countries relations can be extended to a possible agreement on the nuclear issues. He was keen to promote Pakistan's attempts to further peace in this field by mentioning proposals for regional agreements put forward in 1999/2000, while India was under a Hindu nationalist government, but India was not amenable. The rejected proposal explained Mr Abdul Bassit, was pending the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) coming into force. But there was a voluntary moratorium.

He explained that Pakistan's civilian nuclear facilities adhere to international controls and inspections (under facility specific agreement 153), but obviously not the military sites. He explained that the last nuclear test carried out by Pakistan in May 1998 after India had done so. Mr Abdul Bassit, explained that delegations from all over the world came to Pakistan urging them not to follow suit. There was even one from the US government, who when asked would they guarantee Pakistan's security declined to give that assurance. [Mr Abdul Bassit, did not explain how this test has enhanced Pakistan's security, but he reiterated that his country has not contravened what it has not signed up to]

Because of the need to be treated as a partners, Pakistan proposed an additional Protocol to be attached to the NPT that recognized Pakistan, India and Israel as NWS but enabled them to be part of the NPT but he said this proposal would not be acceptable to the NNWS

Mr Abdul Bassit, reiterated that Pakistan will not proliferate its nuclear arsenal, they could not afford an arms race in the region. Their deterrent was at a minimum since no other country would guarantee their security

It is plain that distrust is the biggest hurdle in this region. On the question of exporting nuclear weapons know-how, Mr Abdul Bassit, said that Pakistan owned up to the problem (associated with Mr Khan selling nuclear weapons know-how to other states) and had addressed the issues. He assured us that a new law was introduced to tighten export controls and that he is confident it will not recur. Pakistan complies with Security Council Resolution 1540. He pointed out that similar incidents take place in countries despite their claim of having ironclad export measures.

---

3)

Meeting at the French Embassy, 58 Knightsbridge on Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Rosemary Addington, Betty Scharf, Tahrir Swift, and Sheila Triggs

We were greeted by Didier Canesse the Second Counsel who welcomed us into his office.

Mr Canesse started by giving us an assessment of the global changes since 2000:

1) North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT is unprecedented and quite worrying.

2) Iran's possession of a clandestine nuclear programme linked to acquiring nuclear capability [linked by whom? Not the IAEA, this should have been challenged, but we were too tired at the time!]

3) The uncovering of an international network that has been illegally acquiring nuclear know-how- from Professor Khan in Pakistan. Libya being one of the countries in question.

He asked us if we were visiting the embassies of N. Korea and Iran, countries of concern for nuclear proliferation

France would like to see the strengthening of the non-proliferation part of the NPT in accordance with UNSC resolution 1540. The G8 will attempt to strengthen controls on the transfer of nuclear technology. First is the technology for nuclear power reprocessing. The IAEA has the capability to do this. [this is a blatant attempt to use other bodies to amend the NPT that should be blocked, again it was difficult to concentrate and attempt to understand what he was saying and formulate a response]

Mr Canesse spoke of France's wish to see the Additional Protocol on verification becoming a common practice and violations being dealt with appropriately. It would give the IAEA power to inspect more widely.

When asked by Betty on the credibility of a message of non and counter proliferation coming from countries reluctant themselves to adhere to the disarmament pillar of the NPT, Mr Canesse went on to talk about the French dismantling many testing and storage facilities and the reduction of nuclear submarines from 6 to 4. He also pointed out that France is working through the EU for a common approach on the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), and the resumption of negotiation on the Fissile material Cutoff Treaty (FMT).

He also alluded to France's participation in the E3 negotiation to reach a peaceful solution on Iran. This is done through offering Iran security assurances and trade cooperation. It was pointed out to Mr Canesse that when the US decided to attack Iraq, no international agreement made them hesitate.

On the question of France actively disarming. Mr Canesse rejected the idea of France further reducing its nuclear independent arsenal while the proliferation issues are not resolved. He stated that France has no intention of modernising its nuclear arsenal and has no programme of mini nukes.

Mr. Canesse said that the US policy with N. Korea is counter-productive. It would be better to use the approach that Eurpoe has used with Iran, offering something in exchange. Asked about his view on Pakistan's idea of an accommodation with the NWS outside the NPT, Mr Canesse said that the NPT must avoid recognising India, Pakistan and Israel as NWS within the treaty but encourage them to control their arsenals

Mr Canesse was asked by Sheila why did France not join the NPT until 1992. He said the France's NWs are its independence symbol and France was not ready to sign up to any agreement committing it to disarm until the cold war was over. France was able to join late as a NWS because it was recognised as such before the NPT was established.

Mr Canesse, explained that the addressing the roots of conflict would probably help towards building a secure environment in which countries will not seek nuclear weapons. The last question was probably too much for Mr Canesse as there was a tone of irritation in his voice when asked: if as you say in today's world the threats are not nuclear, how can France preach non nuclear security to other states when it has an arsenal of its own? His reply was that nuclear weapons in the hand of democracy is not the same as in the hands of a non democratic state.

---

4)

Meeting at the Irish Embassy, Governor Place, SW1 on Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Rosemary Addington, Betty Scharf, Tahrir Swift, and Sheila Triggs

We were greeted by Mike Hanon? the press officer in the embassy, instead of Jim Carroll who was otherwise engaged.

Asked what Ireland hopes to come out of the NPT Review Conference, he said that Ireland would like o see article VI (nuclear disarmament) being taken seriously by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and also Ireland would like to see states signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to bring it into force. Ireland is also worried about the positions of North Korea, which has withdrawn from the NPT. The Irish Minister had urged them to return, together with the nuclear states outside the treaty: India, Pakistan and Israel. Selective compliance with the NPT threatens its credibility, all articles should be upheld.

Ireland sees no benefits in acquiring nuclear facilities especially since the current nature of security threats make such weapons absolutely useless. Ireland would also like to see negotiations start on the Fissile Materials Cut off Treaty, (FMT)

Ireland has no civilian nuclear facilities and therefore has not fissile materials to worry about. Its own worry comes from across the water in the shape of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. The pollution caused by dumping in the Irish Sea and the risk of fallout if the plant is ever targeted by terrorism.

On the question on disarmament concerns in the 2004 Report of the UN High-Level Panel A more secure world: our shared responsibility, he said that Ireland is 100% committed to the stated aims. He went on to mention that the Irish Foreign minister is one of Secretary Generals the representatives for Kofi Annan's recommendations, 'In Larger Freedom'.

The delegation expressed its anxieties on the ability to move away from the UN charter in Kofi Annan's recommendations suggesting giving greater influence for countries in accordance with their financial/peace keeping contributions. This discriminatory nature cannot be helpful towards creating global partnerships and equality under international law.

On the question of the role of civil society, Mr Hanon put 1) informing/educating the public 2) not leaving everything to governments 3) putting pressure on government lobbying the NWS's as an important tool for pushing for fuller global compliance with all the pillars of the treaty. It is plain that distrust is the biggest hurdle in this region.

He emphasized how important NGO's work is in this field not least as to act as a watchdog on their own government's level of compliance.

Mr Hanon said that Irish NGOs are widely recognized for their overseas development work. Ireland's aid budget will probably reach the target percentage of 0.7% of GNP by 2012, (although 2007 was the original target). The Irish government is in favour of the EU constitution (though it still has to go before the Irish people), but envisages no unusual increase in its defense budget as might be suggested in the constitution.

---

5)

(We have taken a lot of trouble to set down this report. It was our least productive encounter and frustration does not lead to good note-taking!)

Meeting at the U.S. Embassy Grosvenor Square, Thursday 12th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Mary Holmes, Glen Lee, Nikki Packham, Sheila Triggs, and Margaret Turner. The group saw Pam Tremont, First Secretary, Political Affairs

[In spite of providing names in advance and arriving with photographic ID it took 30 minutes before we were actually in the presence of Pam Tremont and we made this clear to her. The US Embassy, as many will know, is now surrounded by low walls of reinforced concrete, and fencing and has 2 armed guards in front. It's interesting that none of the other London embassies seem to feel the need for this kind of protection and might suggest that good relationships with others are the best form of security.]

According to Pam Tremont the success of the NPT is the 3 pillars of non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the sharing of nuclear energy technology. The US sees proliferation as the biggest threat. The US has fulfilled its disarmament obligations.

The US would see a good success of the treaty as a re-affirmation of the non-proliferation goals of the NPT.

We were given a print-out of a statement on Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. and Pam Tremont quoted from it items of the US nuclear arsenal that had actually been destroyed. Nuclear weapons have been reduced by 13,000 since 1998. By 2012 there will have been a reduction of 80% in 15 years. The US was very active in the security of nuclear weapons. It's worth noting that in this statement, in spite of the reductions listed, there is no mention of the Thirteen Steps programme and the commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Questioned about the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons on foreign soil, Pam Tremont said that this was within the NPT and the weapons were in a safe place, NATO partners would protest if the US withdrew them.

We were told that the US was not developing new nuclear weapons, but until we have reached complete nuclear disarmament (see North Korea and Iran) America need to be prepared with a nuclear research programme. Pam claimed very specifically that the US was not developing any new weapons, only research.

She put the non-ratification of the Comprehensive Teat Ban Treaty (CTBT) at the door of Congress. [Although after rejection the Bush Administration has not re-presented it]. There is of course a multilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Congress is the area of government most likely to be influenced by civil society, she said. She noted that Congress was conservative, looks to defend US security and does not look at the wider picture. She felt Congress had the support of the American people in its approach.

Without US nuclear weapons China would have overrun Tiawan. Pam emphasised the role of the USA as the world' policeman. Countries wanted US protection.

Questioned about a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Free Zone, Pam Tremont said that Israel [the nuclear weapons state in the Middle East] is surrounded by hostile states. The US would not back a WMD free zone in the Middle East, and will not discuss Israel, Pakistan or India at the NPT Review Conference

Having challenged the amount of US aid that goes to Israel we spent a while talking without a useful response about the low percentage of US GDP spent on development aid. We felt the need to set security in a wider context. Pam Tremont insisted on emphasising the gross aid donations of the US and would not recognise the strings and direction of US aid. Her response to our commenting on how the US is perceived in the world, was to reel off the exact number of US diplomatic personnel who have been killed by terrorists since the second world war.

---

6)

Part of WILPF's campaign work is on economic justice. Since we had time and opportunity we talked also about this issue in relation to Mexico

Meeting at the Mexican Embassy, 16 St George Street Hanover Square, Thursday 12th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Mary Holmes, Glen Lee, Sheila Triggs, and Margaret Turner

The delegation met Rebeca Del Valle [I think she had a legal brief at the embassy] and the embassy human rights expert called in briefly and introduced himself to us.

Latin America is a Nuclear Free Zone. Mexico is opposed to nuclear weapons.

In Mexico for a civilian, particularly in the north, the US is felt as a threat. There is a big US military base at Tucson, so Mexicans are aware of being just three hours away from this base. The southern part of the US is a military zone. If there were an attack on the US, the base at Tucson would be the first place to be attacked. Mexicans do not know what security measures there are there. It is a human right to feel safe and respected in your own territory. Mexico does not have influence with the US, therefore multilateral treaties like the NPT are important.

There is more pressure on the people in Mexico to conform [the implication is compared to the UK] and there are no big anti-nuclear groups in Mexico. However it is becoming easier to express your concerns in Mexico.

There is no nuclear power in Mexico. Power comes from hydroelectricity, and there are reciprocal arrangements with the US. Water is supplied to Mexico and power sent back to the US. A recent problem was contamination with nuclear waste of water coming into Mexico from the US. A pressure group called CYTRA campaigned against this, and Rebeca offered to send us some information on this campaign

We asked about Mexico in relation to NAFTA (North America Free Trade Area). This was signed 10 years ago. It has meant that Mexico can export more to North America, (US & Canada). But now they are invading Mexico with imports. Their power is greater. The gap is widening between the rich and poor. US multinationals come into Mexico. This makes some more jobs, but small businesses subsequently close down.

Qualified Mexicans can get a sort of work permit to work in the US, but not so many people, while US citizens can work in Mexico. Developing the tourist industry means that their demand for water has precedence. For the Mexican population water supply is not constant. US culture is influencing TV, families, food, music especially for the younger generation. A new trade agreement between the US and Central American countries is before Congress at present.

However there is a Latin American trade grouping without the US called MERCASUR, which includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Argentina and in this the leading countries are more equal.

---

7)

This is the fifth NPT mailing pasted below and attached. The 3 pillars of the NPT are are commitment by all the signatories to
1. nuclear non-proliferation
2 nuclear disarmament
3 access to the tachnology for nuclear energy

Meeting at the New Zealand High Commission, 80, Haymarket, London on Monday, May 9th to discuss the nuclear Non - Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York.

Bill Dobbie, Political Counsellor, met with Glen Lee, Lorna Archer, Mollie Beirne, Kate Brodbin and David Hall

Bill Dobbie gave us copies of the address to the President of the NPT Review Conference in New York by The Hon. Marian Hobbs on behalf of the seven members of the New Agenda Coalition: Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden. (www.beehive.govt.nz) New Zealand is the current Coordinator for the New Agenda Coalition and has two objectives:-

International
To achieve a good outcome, by consolidating gains and by moving forward in all three areas pillars - by promoting a consistent approach from countries with common interests, by stressing, through lobbying, that all countries have obligations both to disarm, and to stop developing nuclear weapons. (The development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the third pillar of the Treaty). It is acknowledged that negotiations in 2005 are proving to be much harder than they were in 1995 and 2000, with some risk of ground being lost through acrimonious discussions and 'Why should we?' divisions. Progress so far has been slow. There has been some commitment, but more is needed. Some countries may choose to move forward on less than all three pillars, and retain the blame culture.

For New Zealand
To achieve a solid outcome in all three areas, but with a primary focus on disarmament; to deal with concerns about security; to promote disarmament education; to reach agreement with Australia about how to deal with countries who withdraw from NPT ( Article 10 ); to accelerate the 13 steps agreed in 2000; to achieve enforcement of the Test Ban Treaty; and to make acceptance the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) Protocol a condition for the continuing use of nuclear materials.

The New Agenda at this Review Conference will address the increasing concerns about the lack of compliance and implementation of all commitments made in the context of the NPT regime. In particular, we will address the troubling development that some nuclear-weapon States are researching or even planning to develop new or significantly modifying existing nuclear weapons. These actions have the potential to creat the conditions for a new nuclear arms race and would be contrary to the Treaty. ( from Hon. Marian Hobbs address to the Review Conference)

Lorna Archer

WILPF Member

---

8) A summing up of the NPT Review Conference from WILPF Secretary General Susi Snyder

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Triggs <sheila.triggs1@btinternet.com>
To: <ukwilpf@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: [ukwilpf] Fw: Brief Note from NY

Dear All,
After all the efforts round the NPT here and in New York, I am forwarding
this message from NY from Susi Snyder our Secretary General. The outcomes
for the treaty do not look positive, but as you see the activists are still trying to find ways forward .
Sheila

A Brief Note from NY

Dear WILPF Section Presidents, Committee Convenors and International
Representatives,

I send you fond greetings from New York City, where we are having the
first day of sunshine all week. This bright spring day will hopefully
offer some hope and inspiration to those gathered in the dark and smoky
UN basement for the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference,
which is looking rather dismal.

Although governments have argued for a month over procedural issues
here, they have used those arguments to uphold certain principles-
mainly, that the 1995 and 2000 Review Conference outcomes are still
important, and still valid. It appears that yesterday, this argument
came to a close, for an unexplained reason, and the principled stance of
countries, specifically those in the Non Aligned Movement, has
collapsed. We don't know why. Perhaps we will find out today.

The NPT seems to be coming to a close with some agreement on a final
document- one with absolutely no reference to previous agreements. This
is the worst imagined outcome of this Review and gives the feeling of
bleakness and despair. However, I want to let you know that all is not
lost!

Despite the governments and their failure to discuss substantive
matters, the NGOs who are here have been making tremendous strides
forward. We have come together in numerous meetings and side events and
have planned our next steps to move forward on disarmament.

All over the world, women and men will gather for the 60th commemoration
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have asked that those who are involved in
the Mayors for Peace campaign, the Mayors and those who recruited them,
to hold town hall meetings, or events in the city centers for this
remembrance of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is
a way to keep the Mayors engaged, after the Review Conference. If you
have been working with your Mayor, or know someone who has, now is the
time to ask them to issue a statement on the close of this review, that
is forward looking. A statement that says that the people of the world
want nuclear disarmament and know that it is the best way to prevent
nuclear proliferation. A statement that says we remember the horrible
use of nuclear weapons in 1945, and we will never let that happen
again. A statement that calls on heads of state to join like-minded
states and begin discussions on a treaty banning nuclear weapons- in an
alternative forum if necessary.

We will be working with governments to have a resolution introduced in
the General Assembly that demands the start of negotiations on a treaty
banning nuclear weapons- in the General Assembly if no other forum will
do it. All around the world we need to push our governments to join
this work, and to remember that we, the people, want an end to the
threat of nuclear weapons.

We will also be remembering that Chernobyl happened 20 years ago next
April. Many organizations are already planning on commemorating this
terrible accident, and using April 26th, the anniversary, as a spring
board for anti-nuclear power campaigns. We must remember that nuclear
power powers the bomb, and that there are alternatives readily
available. To this end, we are promoting the International Sustainable
Energy Statute as part of a package with a Nuclear Weapons Convention
(treaty banning the bomb). These two model treaties, when put
together, provide a sustainable hope for a peaceful future.

Today, at the close of the conference, WILPF will be issuing a press
release, and I will make sure that you all get a copy of that.

I also want to let you know that I will be taking next week off for
personal leave. I will be spending part of the time camping in
beautiful forests with a good friend, and the rest with my family. I
will not be checking my email during that time, and if I have not yet
responded to something you've sent, I will take care of that as soon as
I return.

With this message, I just want to let you know that while the Review
Conference may be in a dismal state, the spirits and hopes of us here in
NY are not completely crushed.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the tremendous efforts
of our volunteers in the office- Ms. Alex Sundberg who came from Sweden
to help for the last few months, Mr. Hongwei Chen who is a New Yorker
who came to help out because he understood that disarmament and
nonproliferation are two sides of the same coin, and knew the positions
of WILPF were closest to his own belief system. And lastly, but
certainly not least, Ms. Rhianna Tyson, who has been working tirelessly
for the last several years on this issue, and has done a tremendous job
elevating WILPF through the Reaching Critical Will project. These
three individuals, and all of those who have come to help and provide
support around them, have truly been an inspiration to many and without
them the hope that many NGOs feel today, would not have been possible.

In Peace and Solidarity,

Susi Snyder

---

9)

NPT RevCon ends spinelessly

Any part of any of the Acronym reports or updates can be circulated, forwarded or quoted from free of charge, but please credit the author appropriately.

Day 26: Spineless NPT Conference Papers Over Cracks and Ends with a Whimper
May 27, 2005
Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Delegates from 153 countries at the 2005 NPT Review Conference failed to build on past agreements and adopt any kind of decisions or recommendations for furthering progress in the vital security issues of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. From start to finish, this conference did little more than go through the motions, and was one of the most shameful exhibitions of cynical time-wasting seen outside the Geneva Conference on Disarmament.

Instead of utilising their four weeks and resources to tackle the vital challenges and debate practical ideas for implementing the treaty's commitments more effectively, the government delegations tangled themselves in procedure, lost a lot of time, and then, under the auspices of the dignified, consultative and patient Conference President, Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil (as described by New Zealand), they gave up the pretence. On the final day they agreed to a procedural document that numbered the participants and meetings and indicated how they would cover the financial costs; they made a few more speeches and went home.

The failure of the conference to adopt consensus agreements was due to politics, especially the entrenched positions and proliferation-promoting policies of a tiny number of influential states, including the United States and Iran, as they pursued their narrowly defined self interests and sought to keep open their different nuclear options. At the expense of the security interests of the vast majority, a few others facilitated or coasted behind. They are no doubt delighted at this lowest common denominator outcome because it temporarily protected them from international criticism and action to encourage them to live up to their legal and political obligations.

Even so, it should still have been possible to use the conference to give a strong message about the importance of preventing the use, acquisition and spread of nuclear weapons and the nuclear materials used to make nuclear weapons. In failing to address these issues seriously or send any kind of principled message along those lines, the governments have betrayed the hopes, aspirations and security interests of their citizens from around the world, who have made clear again and again that they desire to live free of the threat of nuclear weapons.

Among the speeches today, or what could be heard of them through inadequate earphones tuned low with no volume switch, as tourist groups constantly streamed through and over zealous security guards hassled NGOs high in the fourth floor gallery, only a few stood out: Canada, for saying many of the things that - at the very least - should have been expected from the President; Sierra Leone for acknowledging the 'voice of the people', the actual and potential victims of nuclear weapons, and the contributions from civil society; Malaysia and perhaps South Africa, though not as strong as in the past; Cuba, the most recent party to the NPT and impatient in its calls for nuclear disarmament; and of course the government of the United States, for continuing to point the finger at others while refusing to take responsibility for this proliferation mess themselves. [If not on the UN website, the speeches are likely to be found at <www.reachingcriticalwill.org>].

Since this administration is quick to accuse critics of being anti-American, here is the analysis of the indisputably American Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association: The arrogant and clumsy U.S. strategy (which was the brainchild of former Under Secretary of State John Bolton) has most certainly reinforced the view of the majority of countries that the United States and the other nuclear-weapon states do not intend to live up to their NPT-related nuclear disarmament commitments. This not only scuttled the chance that this conference might have supported useful U.S. proposals on strengthening the nonproliferation elements of the treaty, but it will in the long-run erode the willingness of other states to fulfil their own treaty obligations, much less take strong action to condemn the transgressions of North Korea and Iran.

The so-called 'final document' the conference delegates managed to adopt did little more than list the participants and officials of the conference and how many meetings they held. As for the important issues they had all identified before and during the conference, such as entry into force of the CTBT, nuclear disarmament, the nuclear fuel cycle and strengthening safeguards and the institutional powers of states parties, the governments lacked the political will and backbone even to have an honest debate about these issues, let alone adopt measures that would strengthen the world's capacity to deal with them. While for most of the conference it was clear that no-one had a positive strategy, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this impotent impasse was the desired outcome of at least some game plans. The question why and the implications and consequences will have to wait for my longer analysis, once I've had the chance to talk to a lot more people.

Briefly, however, here are some obvious points:
· Nonproliferation is unsustainable without real and significant progress in nuclear disarmament.
· The nuclear fuel cycle is a much bigger security problem than recognised when the treaty entered into force in 1970, and will have to be addressed.
· Good ideas and proposals remain on paper without the strategies and game plans for how to achieve them, in 1995 and 2000 there were not only good ideas, but innovative, pragmatic strategies and active presidents willing to use the rules and procedural tools to their maximum possibilities in order to achieve a useful and regime-building outcome.
· The group system based on the Western Group and Others (WEOG), Eastern European leftovers, and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is outdated, severely dysfunctional and provides a refuge for scoundrels and naysayers to hide within.
· Issue-based coalitions, groups or alliances should form and stay together only when the can form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, and if they have coherent strategies as well as good positions. It's not unusual that political priorities and personalities change over time; if the whole becomes less positive, active and effective than the individual members would be on their own or by forming other ad hoc alliances to achieve further objectives, then it is time to recognise this and move on. A dysfunctional coalition constrains its members rather than empowering them.
· It is unwise to trust those who seek preferment, status or a seat on the security council.
· Though there may be superficial similarities, there is a telling difference in the style, objectives and effectiveness of regime-builders and managers. In diplomacy, managers are very likely to split differences and sacrifice principle to expediency.

Finally, in view of the failure of the 2005 Review Conference, the agreements obtained in the review conferences of 1995 and 2000 still stand as the legal and political benchmarks for measuring progress and promoting compliance until the NPT can be fully implemented in all its nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation aspects. Lack of agreement to build substantively on these commitments and undertakings may be disappointing, but the problems of the 2005 conference neither invalidate nor undermine the relevant obligations and undertakings previously agreed to. If anything, the lack of consensus in 2005 for further disarmament steps underscores the fact that the principles, measures and steps adopted by consensus in past review conferences have not yet been implemented, and more work must be done to ensure that they are.

The lack of leadership and positive progress at the 2005 Review Conference merely underscores the need for the rest of us to find other ways to ensure that our security needs and interests are taken seriously and fulfilled. During this month in the United States there has been the interesting news that a growing number of US mayors and local councils and authorities are choosing to implement the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol in their jurisdiction, despite the short-sighted obduracy of the Bush administration, because the evidence in front of their own eyes shows that climate change and global warming are a real problem and that denials and fluffy words won't make the consequences of climate change disappear.

The same is true of nuclear weapons: a real problem requiring long-term solutions. The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led a movement to the 2005 Review Conference that needs to be built on and given the right kind of coherent strategy that will enable us to get rid of nuclear weapons and threats for ever. The world's mayors and governors, together with parliamentarians, elected representatives at all levels, and civil society must not only make up for the deficiencies of timid or corrupt governments, they must create a strategic partnership between government and civil society. Preventing the use, testing, development and spread of nuclear weapons ranks with climate change as the major security challenges of our time. We'd better prove ourselves to be up to it!

Endnote and Thanks: I gather from the responses I have received to these periodic NPT RevCon analyses, from media representatives, politicians and NGOs around the world, that they have been helpful in your work, and I am glad. I would not have been able to come to New York and do this work at all were it not for the generosity and continuing confidence of the Ploughshares Fund, which enabled me to be here, and the Ford Foundation, which supported Acronym in continuing to research the issues and publish Disarmament Diplomacy over the past two years. I am immensely grateful to both. As a result of Acronym's proposal for work in 2005 (including the NPT and preventing the weaponisation of space) being rejected by the Rowntree Trust in November, I was not able to use this opportunity as in the past to give training and experience to the next generation of analysts that the world so badly needs. Without the additional resources, I have been covering the 2005 NPT Review Conference on my own, which would have been impossible without the collaboration, support and information exchange among a number of NGOs at the Review Conference. They are too many to list, but I'd particularly like to thank Felicity Hill of Uppsala and Brooklyn, Rhianna Tyson and Suzi Snyder of Reaching Critical Will/WILPF, and William Peden and the Greenpeace team in their smoky corner of the Vienna Café in the UN's basement. Power to all your elbows, and let's move past this depressing conference and on the Real Work.

27.5.05

==========================================
Dr Rebecca Johnson
Executive Director, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
website: http://www.acronym.org.uk
contact details, NPT conf in New York to May 31, 2005
tel: (1) 212 223 4989
cell: (1) 646 675 1436
Diplomat Condo, 210 E 47th St. NY NY 10016 USA

Acronym Office: 24 Colvestone Crescent,
London E8 2LH, England
tel: +44 (0) 20 7503 8857

---

10)

Meeting at the Swedish Embassy, 11 Montagu Place, Thursday 12th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Mary Holmes, Glen Lee, Sheila Triggs, and Margaret Turner

The delegation met Mr Ingemar Dolfe, Minister, Deputy Chief of Mission, who gave us copies of the speech by Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Laila Freivalds, at the NPT Review Conference on May 9th. Her presence was a sign of the importance of the NPT to Sweden, which is a member of the New Agenda Coalition.

Mr Dolfe was not an expert on the NPT. He pointed out that embassy people are not experts on international matters. Policy-making was done in Stockholm; they were the experts. He distinguished between goals and tactics, i.e what is realistic, what can actually be done, in a country's position. Sweden has a Labour Government, which is active on disarmament and has had prominent women politicians at the Geneva negotiations. In Sweden there are no nuclear weapons and no party promotes them.

Support for the UN is a cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy, and Sweden will hold the Presidency of the UN General Assembly in July. He said that countries should abide by international rules. Sweden supports reform of the UN.

Mr Dolfe was keen to find out about us, and what we thought civil society's role could be on these issues. In return he told us that in Sweden civil society would try to influence government by holding seminars and conferences with politicians. Swedish people also work through political parties, and there are pressure groups within the parties. For some 10 years, half the Swedish government have been female.

11)

Meeting at the Brazilian Embassy, 32, Green Street, Mayfair, London on Monday, May 9th, 2005 to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York ( 2-27 May ).

Ibrahim Abdul Alek Neto and Ana Maria Sampaio Fernandez ( Minister-Counsellor) met with Glen Lee, Lorna Archer, Molly Beirne and Kate Brodbin.

 

1. Ibrahim explained that the Conference in New York, chaired by President Duarte of Brazil had not yet agreed an agenda. The US had not wanted one so a deliberate decision was made that discussions would begin without one. The US continues to see a role for nuclear weapons.

2. Brazil was a founder member of the New Agenda Coalition in 1998. It has had to withstand acute pressure to break it up, and the Coalition is less strong now. Egypt is a member but it needs more stimulation to participate. Another country has withdrawn under pressure from the original eight.

3. We asked what civil society could do. Ibrahim believed that governments, including the UK Government, could be influenced through the ballot box. The New Agenda Coalition is working hard to exert pressure on the US and UK through the UN not to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

4. Brazil has not been in conflict for many years. Latin America has been a Nuclear Free Zone since 1968, with no testing of weapons, following the Treaty of Tlatelolco in Mexico. The Carribean is also included. This status is recognized by the Weapon States. However, the UK retains the right to deploy nuclear weapons against any Latin America country if it is in alliance with a Nuclear State.

5. Both the US and UK want to restrict/limit uranium enrichment but the US does not trust the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) to monitor activities of this kind, just in case nuclear weapons, rather than nuclear energy, are produced. The possession of weapons encourages competition, and competition drives proliferation. Safety for future generations is only likely to be secured if there are no nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons by some countries means that other countries, like Iran, North Korea and Libya want to develop them. Japan is the only victim of nuclear attack, and has the most to fear. The US has nuclear weapons there, and also in Germany and in UK.

6. Ana Maria then expressed strong views about atomic energy. Fossil fuels and oil will run out, and wind farms and solar panels will not produce enough energy without damage to the environment and quality of life. Safer methods to dispose of waste, improved technology and research will mean that nuclear energy is the only way forward.

7. Brazil wants the NPT to have an outcome, and to make decisions. There is a risk that the goodwill and good faith which saw progress in 1995 and 2000 will be lost.

Lorna Archer - WILPF member

---

12)

Meeting at the Russian Embassy, Kensington Palace Gardens, Thursday 12th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Mary Holmes, Glen Lee, Nikki Packham, Sheila Triggs, and Margaret Turner. Andrey Vinnik (First Secretary) and Alexander ??? (Second Secretary) met with the group.

Andrey Vinnik told us that Russia attaches great importance to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a special message to the Conference from Vladimir Putin indicates this. The NPT is the cornerstone of non-proliferation, disarmament and other security regimes.

Russia wants to strengthen it. There are new challenges and threats, and the NPT is a useful instrument in challenging them. There is a danger of nuclear material getting into the hands of terrorists and the NPT is a means to prevent this.

The NPT promotes the peaceful use of nuclear energy in a co-operative framework. It allows the prevention of proliferation. It is signed by more than 180 countries, making it the most comprehensive treaty.

There are differences in countries' approaches. The New Agenda Coalition stresses total nuclear disarmament and Russia recognises this. Russia sees the main task to stop the further proliferation of warheads and nuclear materials. We need to seek a consensus between the nuclear weapons states (NWS) and the non nuclear weapons states (NNWS).

India and Pakistan should be urged to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). [Russia is a signatory]. As to the 13 steps of the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference, the treaty needs to be strengthened as a whole not just looking at each step. Russia would like agreement on a final document that underlines the importance of the NPT.

The reduction of nuclear weapons depends on many states. Russia is ready to reduce together with other countries, although unilateral initiatives have happened.

Russia is in favour of the Additional Protocol that allows the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) expanded rights to inspect in any country,

Bilateral reductions of weapons by Russia and the US. Reductions have taken place but the weapons are not dismantled just set aside and could be put into use in the future. Russia is trying to work with American colleagues to develop measures to implement the Moscow Treaty; establish procedures for reduction and verification. US partners not very co-operative

There are a lot of uncertainties in the world. The Muslim/terrorist threat was seen as very important by the Russians and mentioned frequently. We pointed out that nuclear weapons were not the way to deal with such perceived threats. China is a tough neighbour. Russia is not going to use nuclear weapons; they are a deterrent. Russia believes in no first use. The history of the development of nuclear weapons shows that the first five have to hold on to the present situation

We raised the lobbying by civil society at New York and here.

They said that Governments try to take into account civil society. But not everything can be implemented immediately. Everything has to develop together with a mutually acceptable approach. That is why it looks as though civil society and governments are not in tune with each other. Governments have more information than civil society. At this point we suggested that they looked on civil society as children compared with governments who are parents!

Iran has the right to nuclear energy. The process needs to be monitored and Iran does not stop the IAEA inspectors. The troika (UK, Germany & France & EU), want Iran to stop processing for 1-3 years. This makes the negotiations difficult. The Russians see hypocrisy in the UK position in relation to Pakistan and Iran

Civil society groups in Russia are more concerned with day to day issues like pensions and social benefits. The destruction of nuclear arsenals take a lot of money. In fact Russia has had to extend the period for the destruction of chemical weapons because of the cost to the economy.

The abandoning of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) by the US was very harmful to the international community. But the US Missile Defence is a failure and Russia has no plans for an arms race with the US. Russia is not undertaking any type of 'Star wars' programme itself.

Upgrading, however is a constant process for nuclear weapons. In Russia all nuclear developments are very secure against terrorists acquiring nuclear material. This does not happen. The Second Secretary noted that a loss of nuclear material from a French nuclear plant had been reported in today's newspapers

---

 

13)

Meeting at the High Commission for the Republic of South Africa at South Africa House,Trafalgar Square on Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York. 

Delegation: Pat Pleasance, Bruce Kent, Maggie Rees, Muriel Wood.

We met Ms. C.N. Ramosepele, and also Mr. Abbey Makoe, from Projects Management Section.

Their first comment was that countries should look at themselves before pointing fingers at others! The South African stance is very clear and consistent. They believe in a safer world and any negotiations would involve doing away with the nuclear element. Nuclear powers throw their weight around.

They agreed in response to our question that their country does not feel more insecure because of not possessing nuclear weapons. We suggested that they should make this feeling clear to others, and they emphasised that the whole issue would be raised at the forthcoming G8 summit. South Africa is not out to make enemies, and they have no overt or covert agenda. There is too much emphasis by larger nations on some of the smaller nations developing nukes, while the super powers are expanding theirs.

They referred to their fears of another Chernobyl accident.

We emphasised the respect and influence which South Africa has in the world, and asked if they could use this say in the African block. We congratulated them on being the first to give up nuclear weapons, and suggested that they might like to write an article for the Guardian on their position, perhaps prior to the G8. They hold the moral high ground on this issue.

The G8 summit again came up for discussion, linking this issue with poverty and the "Make Poverty History" campaign. The South African President is coming to the G8.

They asked us what we were doing as organisations on this topic, and we gave them details of some forthcoming events, and issued an invitation to them to come.

---

14)

Meeting at the Office of the High Commissioner for India, India House, Aldwych, on Monday 8th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York.

Delegation: Pat Pleasance, Maggie Rees, Muriel Wood

We met Ms. Smita Purushottom, a ministerial level official, and she was very hospitable.
She wanted to explain to us India's position on nuclear weapons, and how it had arisen. Initially after partition India had a very idealistic and peace loving philosophy of government, and wanted a better world without destructive tendencies. Then the problems started with Pakistan over Kashmir. She took us through the history of this dispute. She mentioned that India was a much more tolerant country than Pakistan and Muslims were flooding into India whilst the reverse was not true. Pakistan regards itself as a country for Muslims. Pakistan had attacked, not India. However, India's development of nuclear weapons had not been because of the relationship with Pakistan but because of the surprise attack in 1962 on India's territory by China. There was a choice: India could sit back and be walked all over or could ask the USA for the support of a nuclear umbrella. The USA refused to give any assistance, and so India felt there was no choice but to develop its own weapons. India would much prefer a de-nuclearised world, but the situation is that by acquiring nuclear weapons they have neutralised the situation. It is a triangle. However, she emphasised that they could handle the Pakistan situation themselves, and diplomacy is in progress.

Proliferation is happening, and she believes that information is being traded.

However, from Day 1 India had said that it will not proliferate and there will be no first use.

The discussion continued on the balance of weaponry including conventional weapons. It is clear that Pakistan cannot beat India and they know they can't trifle with India. They have issues on boundaries with China but the situation is improving and trade has increased. However India feels it has rogue states surrounding it. Progress is being made with Pakistan but until there is concrete progress India is not going to let down its guard.

India did put forward a plan for the world to reduce nuclear weapons but this was ignored by the major powers. India felt insulted by this.

There was also emphasis on the point that only the country itself should make its own mind up about nuclear weapons.

She emphasised that her country has the right goals, and pointed out that the per capita expense on defence was much lower than other countries.

We explained our goals which matched India's original ideals and discussed how we, and others including NGOs, could work together to achieve them. This did not produce anything concrete but appreciation by her that NGOs like ourselves were working in this direction.

---

15)

Meeting at the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, 49-41 Portland Place, on Monday 9th May to discuss the nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference underway at the UN in New York

Delegation: Pat Pleasance, Bruce Kent, Maggie Rees, Muriel Wood

We met Mr. Liu Kai Yang, the First Secretary.

By way of introduction Mr. Liu told us about the long history of the Embassy in London. He explained why China needed to have nuclear weapons. This was in order to secure peace in an international arena, and China felt they were necessary as a deterrent to protect their own security. He acknowledged treaty obligations.

We made the point that true security will be achieved when all the countries in the world actually give up their nuclear weapons but that inspections were needed to verify this.

We suggested that China might be in a position to begin negotiations with this in mind.

He felt that there was no threat of a world war at present, and as far as China is concerned the emphasis is on nuclear power as they have a need for energy.

We asked about their stance at New York, and he said he had searched his files for the latest position, and China had not changed its current policy.

China does not have a first strike policy. We congratulated them on this fact.

We also asked if there was anything they could do in connection with the India/Pakistan situation as we understand that they have influence there.

He asked us about CND's reputation currently, and its standing with the Labour Party. We said it was not the same as a few years ago, but we still had friends.

We discussed horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons, and our view that countries are falsely feeling more vulnerable in the present climate. There is a need for developing mutual trust.

Mr. Liu promised that he will report to his superior on our meeting and the points raised.

---

 

This is the last of the 2005 embassy reports on attitudes to the NPT and nuclear disarmament

---

Home