Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Fact Sheet: 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference

by John Isaacs [contact information]

by Leonor Tomero [contact information]

By Kirk Bansak

December 9, 2009

2010 will be an important year for nuclear security and nonproliferation. Two events in particular will impact the global nuclear nonproliferation regime: 1) the Global Nuclear Security Summit and 2) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.

NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE

BACKGROUND

The NPT is reviewed every five years by all states that are party to the Treaty. These meetings are known formally as the Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The next Review Conference is scheduled to take place May 3 to 28, 2010 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

PURPOSE

The NPT Review Conferences are intended to maintain and strengthen the effectiveness of the Treaty, which contains three pillars: nonproliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and disarmament.

SIGNIFICANCE

NPT Review Conferences are a chance for all states party to the Treaty to express their views. They also serve as a “barometer of the health of the nuclear nonproliferation regime.” The 2010 Review Conference will be a critical step in the ongoing process of consolidating and bolstering global confidence in the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The 2010 Review Conference comes at an opportune moment in history. While conventional wisdom warns that the world has reached a tipping point on nuclear weapons, a window of opportunity has emerged to inject new vitality into the nonproliferation regime. President Obama’s groundbreaking April 2009 Prague speech and his unprecedented nuclear nonproliferation agenda have kindled an ideal political atmosphere for the Review Conference.

The conference will be a mixed bag of challenges and expectations. Concrete items for discussion are likely to include the proliferation challenges presented by Iran and North Korea, ongoing and planned nuclear reductions, NPT universalization, Additional Protocol universalization, consequences for treaty violation and withdrawal, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

PREPARATION

In addition to Review Conferences held every five years, Sessions of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference (PrepComs) take place during the interim years. There have been three PrepComs leading up to the 2010 Review Conference. Progress during the first PrepCom, which took place in 2007, was marred by procedural disputes. The second and third PrepComs, however, proved to be productive.

In particular, the third PrepCom, which took place in May 2009, successfully untangled procedural knots and set the agenda for the 2010 Review Conference. Although it failed to agree on concrete recommendations, it established a framework for eventual negotiation of recommendations. By creating what has been described as “the most constructive and collegial atmosphere seen in an NPT meeting since 2002,” the third PrepCom bodes well for a successful 2010 Review Conference.

GOALS

As with all Review Conferences, the ultimate goal in 2010 will be achievement of a consensus final declaration, which is an indicator of universal approval of the Treaty’s status. However, this has proven in the past to be an exceedingly difficult task given the vast array of parties involved.

Success will also be measured by other deliverables. For example, Deepti Choubey suggests that strong chairmanship and a strong statement by the chair would be a good start. Additional coordinated statements—by institutional groupings, such as the P-5, and regional groupings, such as various nuclear-weapon-free zones—would also produce a sense of progress.

A more modest goal is simply to avert spoilers. The procedural wrangling that plagued the 2005 Review Conference is not likely to reemerge because the 2010 agenda has been set in advance, but substantive disagreements and unwillingness to compromise always threaten to derail progress. Avoiding deadlock requires each party to play a cooperative role and to deliver credible assurances of its intention to uphold Treaty obligations. In particular, increased solidarity between the Non-Aligned Movement (an international organization of 118 states who claim independence from the world’s major power blocs) and the nuclear weapon states will be critical.

OBSTACLES

Built into the NPT is a grand bargain between the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states: the non-nuclear weapon states agree to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in return for a pledge from the nuclear weapon states to “pursue negotiations in good faith” on disarmament. The progress made by the nuclear weapon states on their end of the bargain is always a potential sticking point at Review Conferences. For example, non-nuclear weapon states may express reluctance to take on further obligations, such as enhanced inspection protocols, until the nuclear weapon states exhibit genuine progress on disarmament. There is sometimes disagreement over what even constitutes genuine progress on disarmament.

Signature of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, expected by the end of 2009, should help to demonstrate the seriousness of the nuclear weapon states in upholding their own obligations. Ratification of the new treaty before the Review Conference would be even more constructive.

There also is disagreement over the role of NPT Review Conferences in general. Voices from within the Non-Aligned Movement have commented that the role of Review Conferences is not for addressing the specific non-compliance of particular nations, but rather for clarifying and adjusting the treaty itself. Instead of spending time bickering over the exact circumstances of one or two nations, these voices argue, shortcomings in the treaty should be addressed, thereby preventing future efforts to subvert the regime by would-be violators. These same voices indicate that there are other venues for addressing issues of non-compliance, including the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council.