The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will meet from April 28 to May 9 at the United Nations Office in New York. This meeting is the third and last of three sessions that will have been held prior to the 2015 Review Conference.
This page will be updated daily during the conference. The activities of the daily meetings are presented below, from top to bottom, in reverse chronological order.
The Preparatory Committee, at its second session, elected Ambassador Enrique Roman-Morey of Peru as chairman of its third session. Roman-Morey opened the inaugural session urging delegates to avoid complacency in the face of lack of progress on the issue of nuclear disarmament, an issue that was expected to be at the center of deliberations.
The Preparatory Committee, at its second session, elected Ambassador Enrique Roman-Morey of Peru as chairman of its third session. Roman-Morey opened the inaugural session urging delegates to avoid complacency in the face of lack of progress on the issue of nuclear disarmament, an issue that was expected to be at the center of deliberations.
The purpose of the PrepCom is to prepare for the Review Conference in terms of assessing the implementation of each article of the 64-point Action Plan defined at the 2010 NPT Review Conference and facilitating discussion among States with a view to making recommendations to the 2015 Review Conference.
The NPT, which entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995, requires that review conferences be held every five years. The Treaty is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. It was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament, and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Friday, 9 May - Chair turns draft recommendations into a working paper reflecting the lack of consensus at the 2014 PrepCom.
The Chair reported he had turned his draft recommendations into a working paper, a move reflecting the lack of consensus for the draft recommendations of the PrepCom 2014 to the 2015 RevCon.
With the conference winding down, Brazil said it regretted that the 2014 PrepCom had failed to carry out its mandate to adopt recommendations to the 2015 RevCon.
The United States said the 2015 RevCon should make a balanced review of all three pillars of the NPT.
Cuba said that the step-by-step process cannot be a pretext for maintaining the status quo and that advances toward achievement of the disarmament pillar of the NPT cannot be postponed indefinitely.
Mexico said that it would be unacceptable that the 2015 RevCon simply rollover the 2010 Action Plan. In particular it said the Chair's working paper did not reflect concern expressed regarding the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
Switzerland said the Chair's paper will serve as a reference point in preparing for the RevCon, giving state parties a good reference point with which to prepare their engagement.
The PrepCom adopted a procedural report.
Thursday, 8 May - Reactions to the final draft recommendations draws critical comments from many sides with a divide evident between nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapons states.
Delegates to the 2014 PrepCom made a broad range of critical comments on the draft recommendations to the 2015 RevCon revealing a growing divide between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states.
Due to the critical comments, the United States said that the PrepCom should avoid a contentious debate on the draft recommendations and move. The United Kingdom said that more time was needed than that available and Russia suggested turning the draft into a Chair's summary.
The Chair said that as some delegations had made it clear that lack of time would prevent delegations from reaching a consensus, he would make revisions based on the comments received and present the draft as a Chair's summary on Friday.
In overall comments on the document, Russia and the United States, the main nuclear weapon states, said they were not not prepared to accept some of the the recommendation. The United Kingdom and France said the Chair's draft drifted away from the consensus language in the 2010 Action Plan's consensus language while the United Kingdom said it would have preferred a simpler document.
NAC, NAM, Austria, Brazil and Cuba said the amount of priority given to the three NPT pillars need to be put in to balance by strengthening the language on disarmament, while Canada noted with relation to the other two pillars that stronger actions were required as the draft only represented a reproduction of the 2010 plan in relation to those two pillars.
Cuba noted that the draft gave a disproportionate space to non-proliferation and and that the RevCon should adopt an updated plan. Switzerland called for more details in the document and Austria said that while the 2010 Action Plan represented a basis for work the draft needed to take into account new developments.
In the area of disarmament, Austria said many points of the 2010 Action Plan relating to disarmament remained unimplemented and that the draft needed to reflect urgent need for progress. NAC emphasized that the RevCon must be encouraged to map out further actions for nuclear disarmament.
China said the draft needed to reflect the need to maintain strategic stability and recognize that nuclear disarmament will not happen overnight.
Cuba and Nigeria said the draft should more explicity call on nuclear weapon states not to modernize existing nuclear weapons nor develop new ones. Canada appaluded the disarmament recommendations. Australia said the draft should more accurately reflect the U.N. Secretary General's five-point plan but welcomed the references to de-alerting.
Japan recommended that the language on the humanitarian consequences, disarmament and transparency be strengthened.
With relation to non-proliferation, Brazil said the universalization of the AP should be linked to the elimination of nuclear weapons while China said the document reflected the underlying causes of proliferation.
In the area of regional issues, most focused on the MEWMDFZ Conference with NAC and NAM expressing strong support for carrying out the actions of the 2010 Action Plan. But the United States said the language of the draft might actually prevent the MEWMDFZ Conference from being held. Australia said the draft language should build on the positive progress to date.
The Arab Group said the draft was incomplete in that it did not reflect references to the 2010 plan, recognition of agreement reached between states of the region and letters of support for the overall MEWMDFZ process.
Japan and South Korea called for stronger language related to North Korea, and they also suggested strengthening language on withdrawal from the NPT.
Wednesday, 7 May - The Chair released the draft recommendations for the 2015 RevCon including call for urgent implementation of steps towards disarmament of the 2010 Action Plan.
The Chair Wednesday made public the draft recommendations of the 2014 Prepcom to the 2015 RevCon. Disarmament was the first subject covered in the document which included a call for urgent and effective implementation of the concrete steps of the 2010 Action Plan, especially by NWS, aimed at the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The recommendations in relation to the elimination of nuclear weapons were divided into three areas including: disarmament; practical steps and building blocks; and other steps in support of nuclear disarmament.
Overall, it reaffirms the importance of the full implementation by NWS of Article VI and the principles and objectives of 1995, as well as the importance of building on the practical steps resulting from RevCons from 1995 to 2010.
More specifically on disarmament, it recommends that timelines for the completion of the points of the 2010 Action Plan be agreed and specified, particularly in relation to the commitments of NWS under Point Five. It encourages NWS to reduce the alert status of nuclear weapons systems and the risk of their accidental use, as well as to refrain from developing new types of weapons and to minimize the role of nuclear weapons in policies and doctrines.
The draft consensus document welcomes reports submitted by NWS in a common format while also encouraging more detailed and specific reports as well other measures including meetings to enhance transparency and increase mutual confidence.
With regard to the HINW, it urged states to consider the devastation that would be visited upon all humankind by any use of nuclear weapons, particularly as there is no competent international capacity to address the resulting catastrophic humanitarian consequences. At the same time it reaffirmed that all states should comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.
It urged that states take note of the UNSG’s five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament.
In relation to practical steps, the draft recommends that the 2015 RevCon should reaffirm the importance of various multilateral measures that should be taken including: entry into force of the CTBT; negotiations of FMCT at the CD; NSA discussions at the CD and establishment of NWFZs.
The other measures mentioned were that the 2015 RevCon should consider additional measures, including those that would enhance confidence through improving transparency and developing efficient verification capabilities. In this sense it specifies implementation of relevant education initiatives and stresses the importance of regular reports.
In the area of nonproliferation, the recommendations are divided into recommendations for safeguards, export controls, and nuclear security.
On safeguards, the draft recommends that the 2015 RevCon should underline the importance of promoting non-proliferation commitments by calling on: the 12 remaining states to bring safeguards into force; states with Small Quantities Protocols to amend or rescind them; states without an Additional Protocol in place to conclude and bring it into force as soon as possible; states to provide political, technical and financial to the IAEA; states to ensure that CSAs are applied on all fissionable material.
In the area of export controls, the draft recommends that the 2015 RevCon ensure that nuclear-related exports do not assist the development of nuclear weapons in line with Articles I, II, and III of the NPT and the 1995 decision on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It encourages states parties to use international guidelines for export controls, to consider whether the recipient state has IAEA safeguards in force, and apply export control measures in a transparent fashion.
In the area of nuclear security, it recommends that the 2015 RevCon should enhance effective physical protection of all nuclear material and nuclear facilities by encouraging states to: maintain the highest standards of security and physical protection; recognize the IAEA’s central role; to adhere as soon as possible to the CPPNM and its 2005 Amendment as well as the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
In relation to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the PrepCom draft urges that the 2015 RevCon call on states to: respect each country’s choice in this area; reaffirm the rights of states parties to participate in exchange of equipment, materials and information; strengthen the IAEA technical cooperation program; ensure that the use of nuclear energy is accompanied by the implementation of safeguards as well as the highest level of safety and security; consider multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle; transport radioactive materials consistent with international safety standards; and bring into force a civil nuclear liability regime.
On regional issues, the PreCom urges that the Conference on creating a MEWMDFZ, delayed since 2012, be convened later this year. It recommends that the 2015 RevCon call on North Korea to return to the NPT and IAEA, resume diplomatic dialogue, refrain from conducting further tests and fulfill all of its obligations.
The draft recommends the 2015 RevCon should renew the call on India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to treaty as NNWS, call upon North Korea to resume adherence to NPT, and call on South Sudan to accede. It also calls for further discussion on how to respond to notices of withdrawal.
Tuesday, 6 May - The Chair works on a consensus for a draft of the final statement as states voice their opinions on a variety of lingering issues.
As the Chair Tuesday continued consultations to achieve a consensus for a draft of the final statement, different states voiced opinions on a variety of lingering issues.
Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, and NAM made new calls for a conference on the establishment of MEWMDFZ, which had originally been scheduled for 2012 and was one of the points of the 2010 RevCon Action Plan. The Czech Republic and Netherlands expressed support for such a zone.
Turkey, the Netherlands and Morocco welcomed the Joint Plan of Action with Iran. UAE, Czech Republic and the Netherlands called on Iran to resolve all outstanding issues with the IAEA.
The Czech Republic and Morocco called for the resumption of the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, which have been stalled since North Korea withdrew from the same in 2009. The talks were originally convened after North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and aim at addressing security concerns related to the country’s nuclear weapons program.
The United Arab Emirates, Czech Republic and Netherlands said that in order to ensure the peaceful nature of a state’s nuclear program both comprehensive safeguards and the Additional Protocol must be implemented. Turkey urged that civilian facilities within nuclear-armed states be subject to safeguards. The Netherlands said the IAEA’s State Level Concept is needed in order to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of verification efforts.
Delegates also dealt with the issues of the right of withdrawal from the NPT under Article Ten of the treaty with the United States, Netherlands, South Korea and France cautioning about the abuse of this right. Iran and Cuba said there was no consensus to amend the article on withdrawal, while Russia said it should not be amended. Brazil said in discussing how to prevent withdrawals less focus should be placed on punishment and more on incentives for staying within the NPT.
Nigeria and NAM called for the universalization of the NPT and on states outside the NPT to place their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.
Monday, 5 May - Monday – 5 May – In the Cluster Three talks on Monday the concern for nuclear safety was widely shared, especially by detractors of peaceful nuclear energy Cluster Three talks on peaceful uses of nuclear energy sees calls for increased commitment to nuclear safety while several countries reiterated their rejection of nuclear energy. Fukushima mentioned repeatedly.
The United States said that it was fully committed to right of all NPT parties to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and said that it would actively support all those that are in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.
Japan announced that it on April 11 had adopted a new Strategic Energy Plan that in the light of the nuclear power plant disaster at Fukushima in March 2011 reaffirmed Japan’s commitment to nuclear energy and placed the highest priority on nuclear safety, exemplified its commitment to restore and reconstruct the city of Fukushima.
The European Union, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Philippines, and New Zealand pointed out the increased attention to nuclear safety after Fukushima.
Switzerland and New Zealand called for higher global standards in nuclear safety. New Zealand noted that nuclear emergencies, whether accidental or deliberate, do not respect national borders. The Czech Republic, Australia and Switzerland emphasized the importance of the IAEA peer review process for nuclear security.
The European Union urged states parties to recommend concrete measures to the 2015 RevCon to ensure responsible development of nuclear energy.
Austria, Ireland and New Zealandnoted that in formulating their national energy strategies they have rejected nuclear energy. In a short statement, Austria reminded all that is position was based on the belief that nuclear power is not 100% safe given the risks of accidents and the long-term effects of the nuclear fuel cycle.
It said it also does not contribute to sustainable development or help combat climate change.
The Republic of Koreasaid it looked forward to the report on the Fukushima accident and the comments on the lessons learned.
Italy announced that working with the United States under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative it has completed the removal from the country of a significant amount of excess highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, and will continue to eliminate additional stocks of special nuclear material.
In relation to the fuel cycle, the European Union welcomed steps to establish an IAEA low-enriched uranium fuel bank. Kazakhstan reported that it is holding intensive negotiations with the IAEA on the text of the host country for the low-enriched uranium fuel bank.
Brazil, saying the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses predated the NPT, pointed out the greatest dangers to humanity are posed by nuclear weapons and the large stockpiles of nuclear materials that are exempt from multilateral control mechanisms. It added that according to a U.N. study, 98% of the world’s highly enriched uranium and 86% of separated plutonium stockpiles are held by NWS. Brazil recalled that it along with fourteen other countries had submitted a statement to the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague in March stating that it is impossible to disassociate the quest for nuclear security from the implementation of disarmament commitments.
New Zealand called on all countries using nuclear energy to apply the highest standards of safeguards, safety and security throughout the complete fuel cycle.
Iran emphasized the importance they placed on maintaining a full fuel cycle.
In the area of nuclear security, Brazil, Japan and New Zealand welcomed the successful outcome of the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit. New Zealand reported that it is preparing to ratify the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
The Chair announced that the Chair’s draft paper would not be circulated until Tuesday.
Friday, 2 May - Delegates debate how to best achieve disarmament. Some question NWS reporting saying it fails to account for modernization. The role of the HINW reviewed.
The Cluster One session resumed on Friday turning to renewed debates on how to achieve disarmament. Many nuclear-armed states, or states under nuclear umbrellas, said the step-by-step approach is the only route that is realistically achievable while non-nuclear weapon states answered that a ban on nuclear weapons is the only effective solution as the step-by-step approach has been tried for years and has not achieved any progress.
Each side sought to provide a legal or rational underpinning to their arguments. Brazil said that as nuclear arms violate the concepts of distinction, proportionality and unnecessary harm, they are unacceptable under international law. France said its nuclear arsenal was defensive in nature and as such did not violate international law. The United Kingdom said nuclear arms were not inherently unacceptable.
Ireland said that a refusal to even talk about a ban was a position that would almost certainly assure that they are never eliminated. Chile argued that lack of progress towards disarmament could weaken the NPT and lead to further proliferation. Palau said that negotiations should proceed towards a ban on nuclear weapons even if NWS are not willing to participate.
Slovenia said that an outright ban on nuclear weapons would not bring the world any closer to the goal of disarmament and as such was not constructive. Canada said the disarmament process should balance humanitarian and security concerns.
In the area of reporting, Austria said that in their submission of reports required in the 2010 Action Plan the NWS failed to record any progress towards disarmament. Australia, Canada and Japan said that the fact that the reports were being made was positive but that they need to be built on in the future.
In comments on specific areas of the reports, the De-Alerting Group regretted that no progress had been made in reducing the alert status of nuclear weapons since 2010 while Australia, Austria and Nigeria urged that NWS de-alert nuclear weapons. Switzerland said the reports indicated that NWS had failed to take into account concerns about modernization of nuclear arsenals as reflected in the 2010 action points. Austria said the reports lacked information on the modernization of nuclear arsenals. NAM said that modernization undermined disarmament and should be halted.
In relation to the future of the 2010 Action Plan, Australia said it saw the plan as a road map and that the main question was how to measure progress. Brazil and Ireland suggested that they were against a simple rollover of the 2010 Action plan at the 2015 RevCon, something that had been previously suggested by the United Kingdom.
The role of the HINW initiative was discussed with calls for the NWS to attend the third conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in late 2014. The United Kingdom asserted that while it was concerned about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons it also feared that the HINW initiative was asserting that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was inherently unacceptable. France said that some of those embracing the HINW approach ignored strategic concerns, weakening the NPT process.
Several countries, however, said the HINW initiative was an important driving force. Some like Chile, South Africa, Malaysia and Slovenia said it should be included in the NPT Review process while others like Australia welcomed it but also said there are no short cuts to disarmament.
Brief mention was made to the situation in the Ukraine with the European Union reminding Moscow that it committed to refraining from the use of force against the Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which Kiev joined the NPT by surrendering its nuclear weapons to Russia. Russia responded making references to a breach of the memorandum, describing the situation in the Ukraine from its perspective. The United States reaffirmed its commitment to the memorandum.
In isolated reference to NWFZs, the United Kingdom, France and the United States said they would sign the protocol to the Central Asian NWFZ. France and the United States said they were ready to sign the SEANWFZ. France said it signed with Mongolia a declaration on its NWF status.
Thursday, 1 May - Brief shift of attention to non-proliferation, although with permanent references to disarmament. More calls for a Middle East conference.
Cluster 1 debate on implementation of the three pillars of the NPT continued from Wednesday with a momentary shift in focus to the area of non-proliferation, but almost always with references to the imbalance in compliance between the two goals.
Brazil said that there was no question that on the back of the effort of non-nuclear weapon states the non-proliferation effort was the most successful of the three pillars of the NPT. It added that it was firmly committed to non-proliferation but that any effort that focused exclusively on that goal, without taking into account lack of progress in the area of disarmament, was doomed to failure. The South American country, seconded by several countries, objected to any attempt to speed up the universalization of the NPT Additonal Protocol (AP), saying that as agreed previously this could only occur once there was full disarmament. Egypt added that the NPT regime was proceeding in an imbalanced fashion and also objected to the practice of nuclear weapon states of parking nuclear weapons in third countries to be a violation of Article I and II of the NPT, relating to non-proliferation. NAM said nuclear disarmament should be verified by a standing committee of the IAEA.
The U.S. and European Union, on the other hand, referred to the AP and Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA) as standard methods of verification.
A large number of countries, including the European Union as a whole, stated their concern and regret that a Conference to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East had not yet taken place. NAM said that the resolution, calling for the Conference, remained valid until the conference takes place. Egypt urged that the Conference, originally scheduled for 2012, be held in 2014 prior to the 2015 Review Conference. In speaking of nuclear weapon free zones, Malaysia said that Israel’s accession to the NPT would enhance peace and stability in the Middle East.
Wednesday, 30 April - Persistent criticism of slow pace of disarmament. Urgent calls for a Middle East Conference
On the third day of the 2014 PrepCom presentations were made by Ambassador Paul Robert Tiendrebeogo of Burkina Faso; Ambassador Samuel Moncada of Venezuela; Ambassador Jamal Fares Al-Rowaiei of Bahrain; Henk Cor van der Kwast of the Netherlands; Ambassador Hamad Ali Al Kaabi of the United Arab Emirates; Håkan Åkesson, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden; Ambassador Hussein Haniff of Malaysia; Ambassador Wilfried I. Emvula of Namibia; Ambassador Michael Biontino of Germany; Ambassador Karen Tan of Singapore; Ambassador Durga Prasad Battharai of Nepal; Archbishop Francis A. Chillikatt of the Holy See; Ambassador Richard Nduhuura of Uganda; Jasem M. Almubaraki of Kuwait; Ambassador Andy Rachmianto of Indonesia; Ambassador Sheikha Alya Ahmed Al-Thani of Qatar; Ambassador Framtisek Ruzicka of Slovakia; Ambassador Hoai Trung of Vietnam; Ambassador Abdou Salam Diallo of Senegal; Gholamossein Deghani, Chargé d'Affairs, Iran; Ambassador Tine Morch Smith of Norway; Ambassador Oscar Léon of Cuba.
Other presentations later in the day included: Breifne O'Reilly, Director for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Departement of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland; Ambassador Usman Sarki of Nigeria; Ambassador Barlybay Sadykov of Kazakhstan; Ambassador Eden Charles of Trinidad and Tobago; Ambassador Ramadhan M. Mwinyi of Tanzania; Shorna-Kay Marie Richards, Chargé d'Affaires, Jamaica; Cristina Pucarinho, Deputy Permanent Representative, Portugal; Nuran S. Niyazaliev, Deputy Permanent Representative, Kyrgyzstan; Mirza Palic, Councellor, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Fernando Lopez, Counsellor, Ecuador; Ambassador Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares, Secretary-General, Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), Abdelmajid Mahjoub, Arab Atomic Energy Agency.
The presentations continued emphasizing dissatisfaction with the pace of nuclear disarmament and compliance with Article VI of the NPT, sparking renewed calls for a global ban on nuclear weapons in particular a statement by the Holy See that nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states should work together to that end.
A variety of countries called for the urgent convening of a conference for the establishment of a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (MEWMDFZ). Iran said Israel's refusal to participate continued to be the only obstacle to a MEWMDFZ conference.
Members of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (SEANWFZ) urged nuclear weapon states to sign the SEANZ treaty without reservations. In a similar fashion, the OPANAL and Ecuador urged the nuclear weapon states to remove reservations to the Latin American and Caribbean nuclear weapon free zone under the Tlatelolco Treaty.
The Cluster One group discussed the implementation of the NPT provisions relating to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament, and international peace and security.
Tuesday, 29 April - Presentations continue to focus on disarmament. U.S. and Russia respond to suit by Marshall Islands
On the second day of the 2014 PrepCom presentations were made by: Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, the United States; Ambassador Yury Sergeyev of the Ukraine; Ambassador Mikhail Uliyanov of the Russian Federation; the Director of Defense of International Security of the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom, Peter Jones; Ambassador Mohamed Ali-Hakim of Iraq; Ambassador Abdallah Yahya Al-Mouallimi of Saudi Arabia; Ambassador Christian Barros of Chile; Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari of Syria; Ambassador Ibrahim Omar Dabbashi of Libya; Ambassador Jacek Bylica of the European Union; Ambassador Norachit Sinhaseni of Thailand; Ambassador Magus Kolga of Estonia; Ambassador Alexander Kmentt of Austria; Ambassador Gert Rewend of Guatemala; Ambassador Andrej Logar of Slovenia; Ambassador Abdul Momen of Bangladesh; Ambassador María Emma Mejía of Colombia; Lassina Zerbo of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organizations.
Civil Society Presentations included: Phon van den of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms; Hiroshima Mayor Matsui Kazumi and Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue for Mayors for Peace; Thomas Nash of Article 36; Jeremy Corbyn of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and Alexandra von Arce of Ban All Nukes Generation.
Presentations continued with repeated references to the progress in achieving goals related to the three pillars of the NPT regime, but all the same the disarmament pillar received the most attention for the lack of progress achieved by nuclear weapon countries in that area. The United Kingdom said that the 64-point Action Plan set at the 2010 NPT Review Conference did not have a deadline and should be rolled over in the 2015 Review Conference for the following period. There were repeated references to the possibility of a ban on nuclear weapons, including that made by Chile, which were met by other including the United Kingdom who opposed the possibility of a ban.
Austria announced that the Third International Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons will take place December 8-9 in Vienna.
On the sidelines of the event, the Russian Federation and the United States responded to the suit filed against the nuclear weapon states by the Marshall Islands with both countries claiming that they have made progress towards disarmament while representatives of the Marshall Islands responded that both countries continue to invest heavily in improving their nuclear capabilities.
Monday, 28 April - Opening Session - Early calls for focus on disarmament
The Third Session of the Preparatory Conference was opened by Angela Kane, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs of the United Nations, who after speaking presented the Chair of the Conference, Ambassador Enrique Roman-Morey of Peru, who delivered his opening remarks.
During the day the speakers were: Marty Natalegawa of Indonesia for the NAM; Ambassador Tony deBrum of the Marshall Islands; Ambassador Nobuo Kishi of Japan for the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative; Ambassdor Eduardo Ulibarri of Costa Rica for the Community of Latin American and Carribean States; Peter Tesch of Australia for the Vienna Group of 10; Ambassador Peter Woolcott of Australia; Ambassador Mohamed Ali Al-Hakim of Iraq for the Arab Group; Ambassador Patricia O’Brian of Ireland for the New Agenda Coalition; Ambassador Halit Cevik of Turkey; Ambassador Macharia Kamau of Kenya for the African Group; Ambassador Mootaz Khalil of Egypt; Ambassador Pedro Motta Pinto Coelho of Brazil; Ambassador Vinicio Mati of Italy; Ambassador Oh Joon of the Republic of Korea; Argentina; Ambassador Sabri Boukadoum of Algeria; Ambassador Wang Qun of China; the Chief Coordinator of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Cornel Feruta; Ambassador Od Och of Mongolia; Ambassador Jorge Lomónaco Tonda of Mexico; Ambassador Uffe A. Balslev of Denmark; Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko of South Africa; Ambassador Dell Higgie of New Zealand; Ambassador Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel of France; Ambassador Elissa Golberg of Canada; Ambassador Gonzalo Koncke of Uruguay; Ambassador Romaán Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain; Ambassador Irene Susan Natividad of the Philippines; Ambassador Benno Laggner of Switzerland.
The Chair set the tone for many of the presentations with pointed language on the question of disarmament. Roman-Morey warned against complacency in the face of lack of progress towards disarmament, urging that delegates not let the “D” of disarmament not be replaced in time with the “D” for dissuasion. The ambassador for the Marshall Islands, speaking in the morning, made reference to the suit filed by his country on April 25 against all nine nuclear states, accusing them of failing to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament in line with their international obligations under the NPT and other agreements.
Others suggested that review of the 2010 NPT Review Conference Action plan was likely to reveal major shortcomings in achieving the 64-objectives that had been agreed upon. Special attention was focused on point 5 of the 2010 Action plan in which countries committed to accelerate concrete progress on steps leading to disarmament and to make detailed report on specific tasks at the 2014 PrepCom.
The head of the U.S. delegation, Tom Countryman, made a public statement emphasizing the importance of all three pillars of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful useful of atomic energy within the scope of the appropriate safeguards. He said that the United States delegation would issue a report to detail the work done to comply with the goals set out for each of the three pillars of the NPT regime.
In side events, a session on the risks associated with any use of nuclear weapons was held to a full, standing-room only audience. Patricia Lewis and Heather Williams of Chatham House presented a new report titled “Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy.” Eric Schlosser, author of Command and Control, spoke about the propensity of machines including nuclear weapons to fail.
PrepCom 2014 Website
Reaching Critical Will - NPT News in Brief by Ray Acheson, and The Blog
Commentaries by NPSGlobal