Has NAM failed on NPT?

Has NAM failed on NPT?

By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat

JAKARTA (JP): When ministers of the 112-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) recently ended their meeting in Bandung, West Java, most headlines, both local and foreign, emphasized the Movement's failure to reach a consensus on the extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

However, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas' departure to the NPT Conference in New York last week to carry the NAM message, reveals that more was accomplished in Bandung than headlines would suggest.

Even though the 104 signatories of the NPT have now expressed support for an indefinite extension, the United States realizes that victory by a simple majority would undermine the moral force of the treaty.

Only through a general agreement or consensus on the part of all signatories can the treaty retain its efficacy.

A Review Conference of the 25-year-old NPT is currently underway in New York to determine the length of the treaty's extension. Delegates are expected to decide on the issue by Friday.

The U.S. and it allies are pushing for an indefinite extension, while Indonesia, with a number of other non-nuclear states, are against it. They say that the nuclear states have yet to fulfill their obligations to disarmament.

With the high expectations for the NAM meeting in Bandung, it was not surprising that the resulting statement on the NPT was perceived as a failure by many since it completely avoided the contentious issue of extension.

"It is true that in the end we opted not to try for a common position on the extension itself," Alatas acknowledged.

However, was it really a simple case of NAM failing to agree on the indefinite extension?

True, NAM ducked the main issue of extension, nevertheless Indonesia and other supporters of a definite extension gained a diplomatic triumph since the seven points adopted in the NAM Statement highlighted much of the their arguments.

First, it underscores that the acknowledged nuclear weapon owning countries -- the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China -- have failed to eliminate their nuclear weapons, or even to guarantee their abolishment.

In fact UN Security Council Resolution No. 984, adopted by the big five last month, pledging not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, only proves that they have no intent of eliminating their nuclear arsenal. Why make a pledge not to use a weapon if one has already decided to give it up?

In point four of the statement, NAM "expressed deep concern that the nuclear weapon states have not adhered fully to the obligations under the treaty."

It also notes that the conference in New York "offers a unique opportunity for states parties to the Treaty to achieve the goal of comprehensive disarmament, in particular in the nuclear field."

By stating the above, NAM succeeded in pointing out the terrible situation the world would be left in, if the NPT were blindly extended without a provision requiring the nuclear states to abolish their arsenals.

Despite the fact that certain NAM countries already support an indefinite extension, all member states have fixed the commitment of total nuclear disarmament as a veritable condition.

Second, the NAM statement addresses the need for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

As J. Soedjati Djiwandono, a member of the UN Secretary- General's Advisory Board on Disarmament, recently stated, "There should be a link between the indefinite extension of the NPT and the pursuit of a comprehensive test ban treaty."

Soedjati explained that such a link is intrinsic to any serious commitment by the nuclear states to disarm.

Third, the important yet often forgotten right of establishing nuclear weapons free zones was defended by the NAM Statement.

The U.S. has not been warm towards the creation of such zones as Indonesian legislator Theo Sambuaga recently revealed. Washington has never been overly enthusiastic at the establishment of a Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.

Washington's grievances seem to be based on their fear of loosing "the right of innocent passage" for their nuclear ships.

Fourth, and probably the most important, NAM made clear that the question of an indefinite extension is not a case of do or die.

NAM plainly states that "the treaty shall be extended in accordance to the options provided in paragraph 2 of Article X."

This buries any doubt of NAM's commitment to extending the NPT and at the same time stresses the fact that there are other valid options for an extension than just an indefinite one.

The prevailing argument from Washington is that nuclear havoc could rule because anything less than an indefinite extension might signal the possibility of the treaty's end.

By simply noting the extension mechanisms contained within the treaty, NAM has thwarted the argument of the issue just being indefinite extension or the death of the NPT.

NAM has reminded the delegates in New York that the world will not come to an end if there is not an indefinite extension because the Treaty allows for prolongation through fixed extensions.

It is interesting to note that in an initial draft statement presented by Nigeria, the method of extension was stipulated with fixed rolling periods of 25 years.

Jean McSorley, of Greenpeace International, suggested that despite being removed from the final text of the NAM Statement, the very mention of the rolling 25 year extension has at least planted "the germ (of the idea) in the delegates' minds".

Indonesia seemed to be banking on this strategy when it proposed the rolling 25-year extension in New York just a few days ago.

Despite reports that the U.S. now has the necessary votes to make the treaty permanent, it knows division would reduce the treaty's authority to bind the signatories.

As NAM's chief executive assistant Nana Sutresna commented, indefinite extension by a mere plurality of votes would leave "a bitter aftertaste".

Therefore, even if the permanency of the NPT looks certain, the recognition by the nuclear powers of the conditions set in NAM's Statement would be a basis for the approval of all 178 signatories for the permanency of the NPT.