MICHAEL HOPKIN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at critical point, observers say.
[LONDON] The Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will become marginalized
unless governments take a treaty review conference seriously,
antiproliferation groups are warning. An impasse exists, they say, between the United States, which
critics regard as unenthusiastic about the treaty, and nations that
have no nuclear weapons but want to see signs of disarmament from those
that do. This threatens to let the treaty wither on the vine, the
groups argue. A report released on 11 January by the British American Security
Information Council (BASIC) and the Oxford Research Group (ORG) says
the New York conference, which is scheduled for 2–27 May, is crucial to
the treaty's continued relevance. The two groups are planning a
campaign in the run-up to the meeting to make governments take the
conference more seriously. "We could break up on 27 May with the NPT in disarray," warns Ian
Davis, director of BASIC. He says that "resentment and retrenchment"
are brewing among the treaty's signatories as a result of differing
interpretations of it and a widespread perception that it favours
established nuclear powers. The treaty, which came into force in 1970,
calls on states with nuclear weapons to take concrete steps towards
getting rid of them — but none has shown any sign of doing so. The treaty's relevance is also threatened by the fact that India and
Pakistan, which have each tested nuclear weapons, and Israel, which is
widely assumed to possess them, have declined to sign it. Proliferation experts continue, nonetheless, to view the treaty as
important, because it is the main international agreement that seeks to
restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two groups plan to produce a series of non-technical research
reports between now and May to detail the areas where progress might be
made, says ORG director John Sloboda. They also aim to meet with key
delegates, including Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte, the conference president
and Brazil's ambassador-at-large for disarmament affairs. Such efforts are welcome, says Trevor Findlay, director of the
London-based organization VERTIC, which promotes effective verification
of nations' compliance with agreements such as the NPT. However, he
questions the claim by ORG and BASIC that the treaty is in danger of
collapse. "I think it's a longer-term danger," he says.
"Nuclear-weapons states have tended to ignore their disarmament
obligations. But the treaty is vital to them and they know it." At the last NPT review conference, held in New York in 2000, nuclear
states agreed on a 13-step programme to move towards global
disarmament. But the United States, in particular, has reneged on parts
of this deal, claims Matt Martin, a BASIC analyst based in Washington
DC. He cites the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, a move that is called for as one of the 13 steps. Martin says he is encouraged by last November's decision by the US
Congress to block funding for several new nuclear programmes, including
one to develop 'bunker-buster' bombs (see Nature 432, 542–543; 2004). But his
group wants to see signs from the nuclear-weapons states that they are
prepared to work towards disarmament. |
-- www.e-laser.org [email protected]
