The participants of the Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons could not agree on the final document. Russia and the United States have made mutual accusations about this – the Russian side believes that the reason is the "politicized and false" statements of some delegations on Ukraine. What is the significance of this platform and how much did Russia need this document?The participants of the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) failed to agree on the final document due to disagreements over the substantive part.
As stated by the Chairman of the conference Gustavo Zlauvinen, consensus was reached only on the timing of the next NPT conference in 2026 and the preparatory activities for it.
Adam Sheinman, the US President's Special Envoy for Nuclear nonproliferation, blamed Russia for the lack of a final document. According to him, the changes proposed by Moscow "in the last minutes" were "not insignificant at all." According to him, other delegations allegedly even went to meet Russia halfway, excluding condemnation of its actions from the points about the situation around the Zaporozhye NPP, the territory of which has been regularly shelled in recent weeks.
The Tenth NPT Conference was held in New York from 1 to 26 August. It was supposed to take place in 2020, but the coronavirus pandemic prevented it.
One of the most problematic topics of the event was the situation around the NPP, which is under the control of the Russian military. In the final version of the report proposed for adoption for the last session, the conference stressed "the paramount importance of ensuring control by the competent authorities of Ukraine over nuclear facilities", such as the Zaporizhia NPP.
According to the Japanese Kyodo news agency, the conference also expressed "serious concern" about military actions at the NPP. An earlier version of the document stated that military operations at the NPP were conducted by the "Russian Federation", but this reference was excluded due to the protest of the Russian delegation. Ukraine, however, argued that the link was necessary.
Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of aggravating the military situation around the nuclear power plant, which can lead to serious consequences. This week, the station was temporarily disconnected from the Ukrainian power grid for the first time.
Igor Vishnevetsky, Deputy Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry, answered Sheinman. According to him, besides Russia, many delegations had objections to the draft final document. In addition to the situation around the NPP, the discussion unfolded over Australia's plan to acquire nuclear submarines as part of a security cooperation pact with the United Kingdom and the United States. China, which takes a tough position in the areas of the South China Sea and near Australia, demanded to prescribe in the draft report a clause prohibiting the use of power plant manufacturing technologies for nuclear-powered ships in the production of weapons.
According to TASS, Vishnevetsky stressed that the key objections of the Russian delegation concerned points "that are frankly political in nature." "We have made our last attempt, proposed to modify these items, to bring them into line with the urgent agenda, which relates to the NPT Review Process, to clear them of political connotation. There are only five such items, and we are not talking about their removal, but about modification," Vishnevetsky explained, adding that the request of the Russian delegation did not find a response.
At the plenary session of the conference, the position of Russia was also stated in his speech by the deputy head of the delegation of the Russian Federation Andrey Belousov. This report focuses on the fact that the false and politicized statements of several delegations on Ukraine prevented reaching a consensus. "The Conference has become a political hostage for those who have been poisoning the discussions for four weeks with their politicized, biased, groundless and false statements about Ukraine. Thus, they did everything to prevent the constructive, effective work of the conference," Belousov said.
The diplomat called provocations attempts to "impose unacceptable political formulations on Ukrainian affairs" and "use the conference to settle accounts with Russia, raising topics that are not directly related to the treaty." At the same time, he stressed that the Russian side does not consider the absence of a final document a failure of the NPT conference. In an earlier version of the report, participants also discussed the call for States to adopt doctrines prohibiting the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, but this paragraph was deleted from the latest version.
The Americans also tried to focus attention on the fact that the main task of non-proliferation is not subject to revision. Sheinman said that the United States is ready to fulfill its obligations under Article 6 of the NPT. This is one of the key articles, which states that each party to the NPT "undertakes in good faith to negotiate effective measures to end the nuclear arms race in the near future and nuclear disarmament, as well as a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
The NPT entered into force on March 5, 1970 and has 191 participating countries. The treaty allows only five countries to have nuclear arsenals: Great Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Non-nuclear-weapon States have committed themselves not to produce or acquire them.
The final documents of the conference confirmed the extension of the contract for the next five years, but in 1995 the agreement was extended indefinitely, so since then the final document has lost its binding legal force. At the previous conference in 2015, the final document was not agreed due to the position of the United States and its allies on the prospects of creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
Alexander Chekov, a senior researcher at the MGIMO Center for Advanced American Studies, notes that assumptions about the absence of a final statement appeared even before the conference. The reason is the different positions of the leading nuclear powers, primarily Russia and the United States.
In addition, non-nuclear countries are promoting their own agenda. "But in any case, the conference is important as a kind of platform, it is an important universal tool for discussing pressing issues. The treaty itself is one of the most important agreements in the field of international security," Chekov explained.
Contradictions between nuclear and non-nuclear countries, which initiated the adoption of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, are deepening today, the interlocutor adds. A number of key agreements in the field of international security were also dismantled, primarily the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. "There were also difficulties with extending the validity of the bilateral agreement between Russia and the United States on further mutual reduction of strategic offensive weapons arsenals (START-3). All this causes displeasure of non-nuclear countries, because, according to article 6 of the NPT, the nuclear Powers have pledged to negotiate on the reduction of nuclear weapons. Today, such negotiations are practically not conducted," the expert said.
Nevertheless, the NPT platform is a place where non–nuclear countries can express their concerns and try to influence nuclear States in some way. "Therefore, even despite the absence of a final statement, the fact of a dialogue in such a broad format is very valuable. To date, there is simply no alternative to this platform," Chekov is convinced.
Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian Council for International Affairs, agrees that the results of the conference were predictable, but "after all, this is not the end of the world." "We cannot say that this is the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. But a signal has been given to give greater importance to this problem, which has not gone away," Kortunov believes.
He pointed out the lack of alternative platforms for such discussions. "One can complain about the imperfection of the conference and say that it is not a very effective mechanism. But there is no other and will not be in the near future. It is difficult for me to imagine how a multilateral structure could be created now that would deal with the problem of non-proliferation with great success. We need to work with what we have. The Conference reflected the current state of the problem. Let's be honest, this state cannot satisfy us, but we need to move forward," the interlocutor is sure.
According to the expert, the outcome of the conference is not the result that I would like to hope for, the general political background turned out to be "very unpleasant". "Recent years have not been very unsuccessful for the nonproliferation regime. There are problems with attempts to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program, with the Korean nuclear program. We see that a number of nuclear Powers are defiantly increasing their arsenals and are actually violating the NPT. I would like to hope that the next review conference, if it takes place, will be more productive," Kortunov stressed.
Andrey Rezchikov
