The InterDependent

Could 2010 finally be the year for a breakthrough in the world’s most intractable arms control problem: the elimination of nuclear weapons? There have certainly been important positive developments, most notably willingness by the United States to re-engage in multilateral diplomacy and to entertain the idea of a world free of nuclear weapons as a realistic – rather than rhetorical – goal.

Just last week, the two superpowers, US and Russia, agreed on a new strategic nuclear weapons treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start. It will require the two countries to cut long-range warheads from the current tally of 2,200 to 1,550; launchers from 1,600 to 800; and cap at 700 each the number of nuclear-armed missiles and bombers.

Indeed, almost one year ago, President Obama delivered a groundbreaking speech in Prague where he called for a nuclear weapon free world.

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act,” Obama said last April. “We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

The US, he added, “will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons,” including reducing “the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiate a fissile materials treaty, conclude a new strategic arms treaty with Russia and strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) “as a basis for cooperation.”

The Prague speech has become the touchstone of US nuclear arms control policy ever since and was warmly embraced in the US and around the world not only for its positive message but also for the obvious break with the Bush administration’s disdain for arms control. It is not a coincidence that the “concrete steps” Obama mentioned are also the vital issues before the parties to the NPT, which will have its review conference in May at the United Nations.

Sergio Duarte, the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said in an interview with UNA-USA that the treaty’s states parties are “poised to make significant progress” at the review. While it is impossible to predict the outcome, he said, there is “a general atmosphere in which the parties to the NPT seem to think that this is the time to achieve some progress.”

Issues Left From 2005

People who were involved in the last review conference, in 2005 – and that includes Duarte, who, as Brazil’s ambassador, was president of the conference – rarely talk about the 2010 event without mentioning its predecessor. The 2005 conference was roundly considered a failure. Not only was it unable to produce a final document, but some two weeks of the four-week event were chewed up debating the agenda.

Consensus was hung up on a seemingly minor point – how to refer to the decisions of the previous review conferences – but it was a stand-in for the real issue: the Bush administration’s rejection of any agreements made by its predecessors. Ultimately, a final document could not be written because of the intractable positions of the US, Iran and Egypt, all for their own reasons. While Obama has gone out of his way to make it clear that he is not Bush, the issues that derailed the 2005 remain.

“Every effort should be made to avoid the negative outcome of 2005,” said Duarte in his office at the UN in New York. “The issues are still the same and they are not easy to deal with, but I am sure that the awareness by the parties will be a powerful element” in reaching an agreement.

Those issues are framed by the three pillars of the NPT: disarmament by the parties that possess nuclear weapons; pledges by non-nuclear weapon states not to acquire nuclear weapons (non-proliferation); and the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Duarte said the review conference will succeed “if it would treat all three pillars in a balanced way.” It will not be easy to equate progress in non-proliferation and disarmament since they are “different quantities.”

The conference also needs to make “a strong statement of support for NPT” and “compliance with all the obligations,” he said. Some of the commitments are cuts in the strategic arsenals of the US and Russia, legally binding promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, a reduced role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrine and progress on the test ban and fissile materials ban.

Duarte also said that there needed to be “some progress on the question of the Middle East.” The 1995 review conference adopted a resolution calling for work on a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone. No progress has occurred on this front (which was the source of Egypt’s objections in 2005). The general view is that without some substantive movement in this field, consensus will be difficult.

Duarte said he did not think all of this would be achieved. “That would be ideal,” he said, “but some progress on each of these questions would be a worthwhile result.”

Practically all procedural issues – including May’s agenda – were settled during a preparatory meeting in 2009.

Beyond the NPT, the centerpiece of the UN’s efforts for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament is Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s five-point plan for nuclear disarmament, which he issued in October 2008. The plan’s first point is a call on NPT parties “to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament. They could pursue this goal by agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear weapons convention.”

Duarte said Ban was “happy with the support from member states,” noting that this is the first time a secretary-general “made a major speech specifically on nuclear disarmament.” But Duarte was also cautious: the plan “needs some time for things to decant, to settle, in a sense.” He also said that the secretary-general welcomed the suggestions coming from nongovernmental organizations to advance the agenda but stressed it was up to member states “to signify their support for the plan.” To that end, there has been an informal meeting of 70 member states to discuss how to do so. Duarte said that Ban may update the plan, depending on future developments, but, he added, “I don’t think he will do that immediately.”

The combination of Obama’s statement, Ban’s plan, serious deliberations within governments and an energized civil society – a team of nongovernmental experts published a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention in 1997, which was submitted to the General Assembly by Costa Rica and Malaysia – offers a realistic chance for a serious international discussion on nuclear weapons abolition since the 1950s. The outcome of the May conference will be a clear signal as to whether that interest will move beyond the rhetoric.