As the Non-Proliferation Treaty is set to commemorate its Golden Jubilee in 2020, significant challenges posed by the global nuclear order, increasing tensions and deteriorating relations between the de jure Nuclear Weapon States, specifically the US, Russia and China, await the upcoming NPT Review Conference.
The NPT’s Quinquennial Review Conferences are held to evaluate whether the state parties are in compliance with the obligations of the treaty. Ever since the indefinite extension of NPT in 1995, these conferences have been acting as a watchdog on the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
With the beginning of next year’s review cycle, NPT’s old disputes concerning NPT’s review process, nuclear arms reduction and cessation, safeguards under the IAEA as well as regional issues including North Korea, South Asia and the Middle East have come to the surface. These issues are quite disquieting for the success of the 2020 review conference of states-parties to the NPT.
Concluded in May 2019, the final Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT conference failed to garner any consensus by the state parties for the next year’s review conference. Although most state parties showed a sanguine attitude towards the prospects of the 2020 conference and emphasised on the importance of NPT related commitments, debates during the two weeks of PrepCom 2019 pointed out the looming challenges apropos of RevCon in 2020, which pose serious threats to the treaty.
Following are the most significant among the threats that are likely to shape the future course of the conference:
The decision of the White House to pull out of the Soviet-era arms control treaty on account of rampant Russian violations has unravelled the US-Russia relations, which is certainly not good news for the nuclear crowd.
Trump administration’s withdrawal from Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 has not only increased the risk of another Cold War with Russia but also points to the potential failure of negotiations on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty whose expiration is due in 2021.
The decision of the White House to pull out of the Soviet-era arms control treaty on account of rampant Russian violations has unravelled the US-Russia relations
START agreement has played a vital role in capping both states’ nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems to a great extent.
Moreover, as per the reports by the US intelligence agency, Russia is advancing its nuclear arsenals by conducting low yield nuclear tests. Though denied by Russia, such allegations increase the risk of a reversal of non-proliferation efforts by the nuclear-weapon states. The US, in turn, might increase its nuclear arsenal as Trump’s preference for elevating the role of nuclear weapons in the US defence system is no secret anymore. Not just the US and Russia but even China is also enhancing its nuclear capabilities at an exceptional rate. Such steps by the nuclear-weapon states go against the conventional wisdom that undermines the credibility of NPT and might impact the result of RevCon 2020.
In addition, the waning prospects for a Weapon of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East (WMDFZME), which agitated a debate in the PrepComm ’19, has also been one of the primary reasons for non-consensus on RevCon 2015. If not negotiated, this issue would seriously impact the overall environment of the conference.
Furthermore, the US withdrawal from JCPOA would more likely worsen the issue. Despite complying with IAEA safeguards and NPT obligations, Iranian President Rouhani has already announced that due to increased US sanctions, Iran would increase its uranium enrichment and has threatened to end its commitment under JCPOA.
After withdrawing from the NPT, North Korea’s continued nuclear weapons and missile testing raise questions about the efficacy of the non-proliferation regime. A few weeks ago, one would be obliged to not consider North Korean nuclear program as a threat considering the positive developments showcased in the Trump-Kim meeting but Pyongyang’s testing of the missile on July 25 tells otherwise.
The inability of treaty members to involve North Korea in a meaningful dialogue over the disarmament and non-proliferation exposes the vulnerabilities of this global treaty.
Finally, there remains the contentious issue of abiding by article VI of the NPT, which calls upon state members to take effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and disarmament. The confusion over the article of the treaty should be seen as an imminent danger as it can undercut the credibility and integrity of the global non-proliferation regime. After half a century, the NPT remains a vital component of the non-proliferation regime. Regardless of the fact that it seldom provided specific answers to the apprehensions of the international community regarding nuclear diplomacy, it is still a crucial–very crucial–part of an ongoing search for peace and stability that can only be achieved if non-discriminatory, comprehensively elaborated and legally binding norms are adopted.
Even though the expectations from NPT RevCon 2020 are not high, the international community cannot afford to let the treaty slide into insignificance. In order to prevent yet another failure of the review conference, parties should, however, scrap the outdated model of, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Rather than determining the success of the conferences on the basis of consensus of treaty members, the parties should adopt a final document, which enlists the specific views and proposals along with countries supporting it.
One of mankind’s highest aspirations and a stated goal of the NPT, nuclear disarmament must not be deferred for another 50 years. The 2020 Review Conference should venture to further the Treaty’s aims, not rescue the status quo.
The author is a research intern at the Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad