Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference: Department briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

07 September 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
7 September 2005
NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Closing Statement by South Africa at the 2005 NPT Review Conference
South Africa’s Statement during the general debate of the 2005 NPT Review Conference
South Africa’s Closing Statement during the 2005 NPT Review Conference
Useful Internet Links
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Summary
The Department of Foreign Affairs briefed the Committee about the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. The briefing gave the Committee an insight into the history of previous NPT Review Conferences; the general debates surrounding the NPT; the work that the main committees and subsidiary bodies had done, and the roles of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), New Agenda Coalition, and South Africa.

The Conference raised several concerns regarding the current environment of nuclear proliferation. The most pressing were the unilateral approach of the United States (US), Iran's nuclear development capabilities and the dismantling of multilateral agreements that had taken place in the NPT Review Conferences.

The Committee expressed concern about the future of the NPT and the tense relationship that had developed between the European Union and Iran. Members had felt that Parliamentarians could do more to uphold the NPT by hosting regular bilateral talks with member countries. Members felt that no countries should have nuclear weapons and that nuclear energy development should be carefully administered. Members asked whether South Africa could adopt a different position to address conflict between member states.

MINUTES

Department briefing
Department Deputy Director-General, Mr Abdul Samad Minty, delivered a briefing on the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. At the outset, South Africa had not agreed with the US moratorium that no new countries could produce enriched uranium, while those who were currently producing it, could continue to do so. It had affected the inalienable rights of the Treaty and therefore had allowed non-members of the NPT to produce without penalties.

The NPT Review Conference had taken place in New York from the 2 to 27 May 2005. A lack of consensus between the three main committees and the subsidiary bodies had rendered the Conference a failure. Other factors that had contributed to the failure were:
- the time constraints;
- the unwillingness to reach a compromise;
- the selective insistence on fixed positions by certain states;
- the failure of some states to implement obligations under the Treaty, and
- the roll-back of agreements reached at previous conferences.

The general debates at the Conference had been around the moratorium on new enrichment and reprocessing facilities. The creation of 'multinational' facilities to control the supply of fuel for nuclear reactors had been a cause for concern for certain countries. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) had found it difficult to argue its position because certain developing member countries had close ties with the US and did not wanted to jeopardise their positions.

The central themes during the general debate had been the non-compliance by both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states; the protracted pace of nuclear disarmament, and confidence in the NPT to ensure that peaceful uses did not contribute to nuclear weapon proliferation. There had also been a growing number of countries that had questioned the 1995 decision to extend the treaty indefinitely because of the current unequal treatment of various provisions.

The allocation of time during the Conference had been inefficient for making decisions. The issue of nuclear disarmament had been a constant problem. The US had rejected most of the proposals on disarmament. This had included a report from the subsidiary body, and therefore no consensus could be reached.

Members of the NPT had to sign safeguard agreements with the Atomic Energy Agency. The experience in Iraq had proved that the agreement had been ineffective and therefore an Additional Protocol had been developed. It had a voluntary membership that Western countries had suggested should become a condition of supply. Those countries that signed it would receive nuclear technologies. Egypt did not accept this proposal. It was stressed that nuclear stations should be under the safeguard of the Atomic Agency and therefore would not pose a threat.

The Non-Aligned Movement had been well prepared for the Conference but its standing position had not been accepted by the Western countries. In 2000, the New Agenda Coalition had been developed to assert its views. The Coalition included New Zealand, Sweden, South Africa, Brazil, Ireland and Mexico. Some of these countries had been pressurised by Western countries and thus become more reluctant on security issues, but they were still in talks. Their main purpose was to advance nuclear disarmament.

South Africa had acted as a ‘deal-broker’ within the NAM and with other groupings at the Conference. Many countries had wanted to include South Africa in negotiations. There had been a deep respect for South Africa because they had wanted to keep the Treaty in place. The Khan Network opposed illicit trade across 20 countries. South African did not want to be associated with Pakistan that was a member of the Khan Network.

South Africa had opposed a new protocol that allowed nuclear states to transport nuclear materials. South Africa had suggested that amendments be made to the Treaty. The sharing of knowledge between countries had been a suggestion to combat illicit trade, but had not been accepted by all countries.

The next step for the Department had been to decide how to prepare for the next conference. The failure to reach conclusions at the Conference represented a serious crisis for the NPT. South Africa had wanted a Treaty 'regime' that would abide by its core principles, and not just ‘a Treaty in writing’.

Discussion
Mr D Gibson (DA) wanted to know if there had been any alternative to the NPT. He asked whether there had been any realistic possibility of a more binding agreement. He questioned whether some states could make unilateral decisions about non-proliferation or disarmament. If that could not be done, progress should have been made toward the aims of the NPT.

He asked what Parliamentarians could do to advance South Africa's cause. South Africa had seemed to be supporting Iran's right to become a nuclear power. He asked whether this was true or whether South Africa had been supporting Iran's right to develop nuclear power for non-violent reasons. He wondered what negotiations had been made with Iran.

The Deputy Director-General stated that there was no other binding international instruments beside the NPT. There was a chemical and biological weapons convention, but no nuclear weapons convention, and no ad hoc grouping for controls. The emphasis of Western powers was on non-proliferation. The problem was the over-concentration of non-proliferation issues while disarmament was of secondary importance. There should be a genuine move toward multilateral disarmament through multilateral talks and negotiations basis.

He commented that the capacity of South African Parliamentarians had not been fully utilised. There were opportunities to establish bilateral talks with ‘countries of the South’ and with international embassies. Any assistance that the department would give would be useful.

Mr P Nefolovhodwe (AZAPO) asked whether Iran had been developing nuclear weapons for non-peaceful purposes. He questioned the actions of nuclear states such as Russia, China and North Korea, and the attitude of America towards Pakistan as a nuclear state.

The Deputy Director-General stated that the positions of Russia, China and other nuclear states had been that they would disarm if all other countries would disarm as well. There was an absence of public opinion groups in countries demanding nuclear disarmament. The Russian Federation had been working on reduction programmes with the USA. Russia had also been getting rid of its chemical weapons stockpile. It was felt that Russia should take the next step and disarm its nuclear capabilities. The capacity of North Korea was unknown. They had formally withdrawn from the NPT, but the withdrawal had not been accepted by other member states. The US policy on Pakistan had been determined by the Afghanistan war and other historical factors. Very few people believed that the Pakistan government did not know about the Khan Network.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) felt that the position of the US on the banning of nuclear tests by other countries, while it could develop and conduct nuclear tests, was unacceptable. There were clear contradictions between the US and the rest of the world concerning nuclear development policies. He asked how the Committee should relate to the current tensions in the United Nations.

He commented that India and Pakistan should not be granted the right to conduct nuclear testing because of their violent history. India had not been a signatory of the NPT but had stated in 1995 that all countries should disarm. The current debate was not whether nuclear weapons were bad or good but who had possession. Hegemony over nuclear development in the world had shifted because war instruments had changed.

He questioned the importance of containing nuclear states, even though recent history had shown that attacks could not be contained. He asked whether South Africa should review its approach and rather inspect other parts of the world that were considered the ‘Third Subsidiary’. He enquired whether there should be a re-adaptation of South Africa’s foreign policy toward prioritising the interests of Africa.

The Deputy Director-General noted that the US was a superpower and had unmatched technological infrastructure. Alliances would be a problem in 10 to 15 years with regard to the rise in China’s nuclear capabilities. Recent reports indicated that the US position on disarmament paralysed small nations from implementing decisions. The rollback of the Millennium Goals displayed a major threat to multilateralism.

The relationship between India and the US had been contentious. The US would supply technical items to India even though India had not been an NPT Member. In terms of safety, it had been debated that keeping India in the ‘fold’ had alienated other NPT members from receiving items. The Committee felt that such decision-making would be dangerous to binding agreements.

Mr L Greyling (ID) thought that the disregard for core bargains was depressing. He queried whether the world should start moving away from nuclear energy to nullify the threat of nuclear weapon development.

The Deputy Director-General stated that many EU countries had initially banned nuclear energy, but had now reverted back. Turning enriched uranium into weapons was extremely difficult and therefore did not pose a threat to nuclear energy development.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked for clarification on the difference between the position of the US to that of other nuclear countries, and where they differed.

Ms M Njobe (ANC) asked about the future of the Treaty. The Deputy Director-General stated that the future of the Treaty was in danger. Iran was a ‘war and peace issue’. Iran was a member of the NPT. The International Energy Agency (IEA) had been carrying out inspections for the past two years. The IEA had concluded that there was no material missing and no diversion to non-peaceful purposes. Iran had allowed visits to military bases for further inspection.

There had been a US claim that Iran had a secret programme. This claim was not supported by US allies. The British, French and Germans had negotiated the Paris Agreement, whereby Iran had been asked to stop all work on enrichment. Iran had refused the Paris Agreement and a major confrontation with the EU had been looming. South Africa had offered to negotiate with Iran and was willing to assist future discussions.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee needed mechanisms to follow up on programmes.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: