Has NAM failed on NPT?<\/p>\n
By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): When ministers of the 112-nation Non-Aligned
\nMovement (NAM) recently ended their meeting in Bandung, West
\nJava, most headlines, both local and foreign, emphasized the
\nMovement's failure to reach a consensus on the extension of the
\nnuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).<\/p>\n
However, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas' departure to
\nthe NPT Conference in New York last week to carry the NAM
\nmessage, reveals that more was accomplished in Bandung than
\nheadlines would suggest.<\/p>\n
Even though the 104 signatories of the NPT have now expressed
\nsupport for an indefinite extension, the United States realizes
\nthat victory by a simple majority would undermine the moral force
\nof the treaty.<\/p>\n
Only through a general agreement or consensus on the part of
\nall signatories can the treaty retain its efficacy.<\/p>\n
A Review Conference of the 25-year-old NPT is currently
\nunderway in New York to determine the length of the treaty's
\nextension. Delegates are expected to decide on the issue by
\nFriday.<\/p>\n
The U.S. and it allies are pushing for an indefinite
\nextension, while Indonesia, with a number of other non-nuclear
\nstates, are against it. They say that the nuclear states have yet
\nto fulfill their obligations to disarmament.<\/p>\n
With the high expectations for the NAM meeting in Bandung, it
\nwas not surprising that the resulting statement on the NPT was
\nperceived as a failure by many since it completely avoided the
\ncontentious issue of extension.<\/p>\n
\"It is true that in the end we opted not to try for a common
\nposition on the extension itself,\" Alatas acknowledged.<\/p>\n
However, was it really a simple case of NAM failing to agree
\non the indefinite extension?<\/p>\n
True, NAM ducked the main issue of extension, nevertheless
\nIndonesia and other supporters of a definite extension gained a
\ndiplomatic triumph since the seven points adopted in the NAM
\nStatement highlighted much of the their arguments.<\/p>\n
First, it underscores that the acknowledged nuclear weapon
\nowning countries -- the United States, Britain, Russia, France
\nand China -- have failed to eliminate their nuclear weapons, or
\neven to guarantee their abolishment.<\/p>\n
In fact UN Security Council Resolution No. 984, adopted by the
\nbig five last month, pledging not to use nuclear weapons against
\nnon-nuclear states, only proves that they have no intent of
\neliminating their nuclear arsenal. Why make a pledge not to use a
\nweapon if one has already decided to give it up?<\/p>\n
In point four of the statement, NAM \"expressed deep concern
\nthat the nuclear weapon states have not adhered fully to the
\nobligations under the treaty.\"<\/p>\n
It also notes that the conference in New York \"offers a unique
\nopportunity for states parties to the Treaty to achieve the goal
\nof comprehensive disarmament, in particular in the nuclear
\nfield.\"<\/p>\n
By stating the above, NAM succeeded in pointing out the
\nterrible situation the world would be left in, if the NPT were
\nblindly extended without a provision requiring the nuclear states
\nto abolish their arsenals.<\/p>\n
Despite the fact that certain NAM countries already support an
\nindefinite extension, all member states have fixed the commitment
\nof total nuclear disarmament as a veritable condition.<\/p>\n
Second, the NAM statement addresses the need for a
\nComprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.<\/p>\n
As J. Soedjati Djiwandono, a member of the UN Secretary-
\nGeneral's Advisory Board on Disarmament, recently stated, \"There
\nshould be a link between the indefinite extension of the NPT and
\nthe pursuit of a comprehensive test ban treaty.\"<\/p>\n
Soedjati explained that such a link is intrinsic to any
\nserious commitment by the nuclear states to disarm.<\/p>\n
Third, the important yet often forgotten right of establishing
\nnuclear weapons free zones was defended by the NAM Statement.<\/p>\n
The U.S. has not been warm towards the creation of such zones
\nas Indonesian legislator Theo Sambuaga recently revealed.
\nWashington has never been overly enthusiastic at the
\nestablishment of a Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.<\/p>\n
Washington's grievances seem to be based on their fear of
\nloosing \"the right of innocent passage\" for their nuclear ships.<\/p>\n
Fourth, and probably the most important, NAM made clear that
\nthe question of an indefinite extension is not a case of do or
\ndie.<\/p>\n
NAM plainly states that \"the treaty shall be extended in
\naccordance to the options provided in paragraph 2 of Article X.\"<\/p>\n
This buries any doubt of NAM's commitment to extending the
\nNPT and at the same time stresses the fact that there are other
\nvalid options for an extension than just an indefinite one.<\/p>\n
The prevailing argument from Washington is that nuclear havoc
\ncould rule because anything less than an indefinite extension
\nmight signal the possibility of the treaty's end.<\/p>\n
By simply noting the extension mechanisms contained within the
\ntreaty, NAM has thwarted the argument of the issue just being
\nindefinite extension or the death of the NPT.<\/p>\n
NAM has reminded the delegates in New York that the world will
\nnot come to an end if there is not an indefinite extension
\nbecause the Treaty allows for prolongation through fixed
\nextensions.<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that in an initial draft statement
\npresented by Nigeria, the method of extension was stipulated with
\nfixed rolling periods of 25 years.<\/p>\n
Jean McSorley, of Greenpeace International, suggested that
\ndespite being removed from the final text of the NAM Statement,
\nthe very mention of the rolling 25 year extension has at least
\nplanted \"the germ (of the idea) in the delegates' minds\".<\/p>\n
Indonesia seemed to be banking on this strategy when it
\nproposed the rolling 25-year extension in New York just a few
\ndays ago.<\/p>\n
Despite reports that the U.S. now has the necessary votes to
\nmake the treaty permanent, it knows division would reduce the
\ntreaty's authority to bind the signatories.<\/p>\n
As NAM's chief executive assistant Nana Sutresna commented,
\nindefinite extension by a mere plurality of votes would leave \"a
\nbitter aftertaste\".<\/p>\n
Therefore, even if the permanency of the NPT looks certain,
\nthe recognition by the nuclear powers of the conditions set in
\nNAM's Statement would be a basis for the approval of all 178
\nsignatories for the permanency of the NPT.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/has-nam-failed-on-npt-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}