Written evidence submitted by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
BACKGROUND
1. On 24 April 2002, the Foreign Affairs
Committee asked to receive memoranda following each of the 2002,
2003 and 2004 sessions of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005
Review Conference on the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The FAC asked for the government's aims
for each meeting and whether they were achieved, together with
a summary of the proceedings and conclusions of each session of
the Committee. This memorandum reports on the 2004 session of
the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom).
2. The third session of the PrepCom was
held from 26 April to 7 May 2004 in New York, and was chaired
by Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of Indonesia as a representative
of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). As the third session of the
current review cycle, this year's PrepCom had the responsibility
to make every effort to produce a consensus report containing
recommendations for the 2005 Review Conference (RevCon).
UK OBJECTIVES AND
STRATEGY
3. The UK's primary objectives at the 2004
session of the PrepCom were:
(a) To set the tone for the 2005 Review Conference
by focussing on UK counter-proliferation objectives, in particular
measures to promote compliance, while also demonstrating our commitment
to the other pillars of the NPT: Peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and disarmament. A substantial element of our approach focused
on promoting the UK proposals on counter-proliferation as set
out in the Secretary of State's statement to the House of Commons
of 25 February.
(b) To ensure that the PrepCom agreed the
necessary recommendations on procedural issues to allow preparations
for the RevCon to proceed.
(c) To ensure that the PrepCom paved the
way for a successful outcome to the 2005 Review Conference, thereby
strengthening the NPT itself.
4. The United Kingdom worked to achieve
its objectives through formal statements to the PrepCom, a written
report on the Middle East, a presentation on verifying the dismantlement
of nuclear warheads, and our interventions in response to other
delegations. We also distributed a set of public diplomacy documents
entitled "Making a Safer World." These set out our detailed
proposals for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; outlined the various counter-proliferation initiatives
in which we have participated; emphasised our record on nuclear
disarmament; described how we safeguard our civil nuclear facilities
and outlined our research into the verification of nuclear disarmament.
Copies of all UK statements and reports have been placed in the
library of the House and are also available on the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office web site (www.fco.gov.uk/ukdis). The United
Kingdom also played an active part in the co-ordination between
European Union Member States of common statements in the general
plenary session and during the focused discussions.
SUMMARY OF
PROCEEDINGS
5. The PrepCom was attended by representatives
from 123 States Party to the Treaty, an increase of 17 over 2003.
The DPRK was not represented and the Chair followed the same procedure
as last year to accommodate the uncertainty over the DPRK's status
under the Treaty by taking its nameplate into his own custody
without prejudice to the wider debate. India, Israel and Pakistan
remain outside the Treaty and chose not to attend as observers.
The majority of committee meetings involved substantive discussion
of all aspects of the Treaty. In common with the practice of the
previous sessions of the PrepCom, there was specific time allocated
for focused discussion on nuclear disarmament, regional issues
and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Following a proposal made
by South Africa, States Party agreed that non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) would be allowed to attend the focused discussions in addition
to the general debate, however they were asked to leave the room
when textual negotiations begun.
PROGRESS ON
FIRST OBJECTIVE
6. In relation to our first objective of
helping to set out the overall tone, the UK national statement
was delivered on 26 April by Ambassador David Broucher, our Permanent
Representative to the Conference on Disarmament. The statement
was particularly well received by many delegates who recognised
it as a strong, clear and balanced approach. Our statement highlighted
our main concerns, many of which were later echoed in the national
statements of other countries. This was further complemented by
our additional statements on specific issues during the focused
debates and by our public diplomacy.
COMPLIANCE
7. On compliance, the UK urged all states
that had not done so to agree, to bring into force and to comply
with Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional. Protocols
to those agreements. We also highlighted the need for Iran to
resolve the questions relating to its nuclear programme and to
pave the way for a sustainable long-term solution. Statements
by the majority of countries from all major political groupings
expressed similar concerns. Iranian representatives responded
on several occasions, but neither the UK nor other countries felt
that they had sufficiently allayed our concerns. We now await
the discussion of the report by the Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's nuclear programme at the
June meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.
COUNTER-PROLIFERATION
8. The UK emphasised the importance of effective
counter-proliferation measures to ensure international security.
We highlighted our commitment to the Global Partnership and called
for the expansion of the work of the Proliferation Security. Initiative.
We emphasised the need for states to implement effective national
legislation to counter and criminalise proliferation.
DISARMAMENT
9. On disarmament, we restated our commitment
to the goal of global and verifiable nuclear disarmament and set
out our strong record of taking practical steps towards that objective.
We highlighted our commitment to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) and urged all states that had not done so to sign and ratify
the CTBT as soon as possible. We also made a presentation on the
work by the Atomic Weapon Establishment on the verification of
nuclear warhead dismantlement, which attracted interest from a
number of states and from NGOs.
10. The UK also explained why we did not
support calls from the Non Aligned Movement for a universal legally
binding negative security assurance treaty. We highlighted our
constructive role in supporting the development of nuclear weapon
free zones (NWFZ), making clear our view that the protocols to
the treaties establishing such zones provide the most appropriate
context for legally binding negative security assurances from
nuclear weapon states to non-nuclear weapon states.
PEACEFUL USES
11. On peaceful uses, whilst supporting
the principle that all States Party to the NPT should have access
to the benefits of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we stressed
that this right should be dependent on compliance with Articles
I-III of the Treaty. We highlighted the proposals outlined in
the Foreign Secretary's statement of 25 February that states not
in compliance with their safeguards obligations should forfeit
their right to proliferation sensitive enrichment and reprocessing
technology. This approach was welcomed by many as a sensible and
balanced approach to a difficult issue.
UNIVERSALITY
12. The UK, in common with most other countries,
took the opportunity to call on India, Israel and Pakistan, the
three states that remain outside the NPT, to accede as non-nuclear
weapon states. We also called on them to sign and ratify the CTBT,
to support the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty,
and in the interim to join us in a moratorium on the production
of fissile material.
PROGRESS ON
SECOND OBJECTIVE
13. In relation to our second objective,
the PrepCom was able to reach agreement on. key procedural issues
necessary to allow the 2005 RevCon to take place such as dates,
venue and funding. It also endorsed Ambassador Duarte of Brazil
as the Chair for the RevCon. However, there was no agreement on
an agenda or on which background papers should be prepared for
the Conference. The UK played a constructive role in attempting
to resolve the remaining procedural issues. This constitutes a
partial success, but at least gives the Chair of the RevCon a
mandate for his consultations in advance of the Conference; we
look forward to working with him during his consultations in preparation
for the 2005 Review Conference.
PROGRESS ON
THIRD OBJECTIVE
14. In relation to our third objective,
and as we, together with many other States Party, had anticipated,
the PrepCom proved unable to agree any substantive recommendations
to put to the 2005 RevCon. The divergence in positions among States
Party was in our view unlikely to be reconciled at this PrepCom.
It will be at the RevCon itself that negotiations, and any compromises,
on substantive issues will need to take place. However, the discussions
at the PrepCom did not break down, and there was agreement on
key procedural issues. This paves the way for the Review Conference
next year. We will continue work throughout the year and at the
Review Conference itself in order to ensure a successful outcome
in 2005.
SUMMARY OF
CONCLUSIONS
15. The report of the Preparatory Committee
was adopted by consensus on 7 May. This outlined the agreement
that the Review Conference should be held in New York from 2 to
27 May 2005, presided over by Ambassador Sérgio do Queiroz
Duarte of Brazil. A decision on the provisional agenda for the
2005 Review Conference was deferred to the Conference itself.
Ambassador Sudjadnan circulated a factual summary of the Preparatory
Committee. The UK, together with almost all other delegations,
questioned whether it was a full and complete record. As a result,
it was not agreed to annex it to the report of the Committee.
Ambassador Sudjadnan has therefore issued it under his own authority.
| 
