Editorial: Cornerstones

On Wednesday, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its annual and highly respected report on global military expenditure. Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair of the SIPRI Governing Board, noted that continuing high levels of world military spending “[u]ndermines the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world.”

Indeed it does, and the costs of nuclear weapons modernisation and development are staggering. It is confounding to juxtapose the spending trends in the SIPRI report with the emphasis that several states parties gave to the urgent necessity of socio-economic development during their interventions under cluster three just one day before. Developing countries are not by any stretch the largest military spenders but often are disproportionately impacted, including economically, by armed conflict and violence. Nuclear energy, framed often as a cleaner and better alternative to other energy sources, is in reality both expensive and dangerous, through each and every step of the fuel chain.  It is not compatible with the concept of sustainable development and can pose grave risks for the environment, both human and natural.

The unique environment of NPT-meetings was the focus of a specific issues session on Wednesday that discussed “improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process.”  In an editorial published in this report earlier this week, we spoke to the necessity of improving ways of working so as to take pressure off of the review conferences, enable progress, improve transparency, and better address compliance. Quite a lot of very solid suggestions were put forward in this vein by states on Wednesday, many of which drew from a working paper published by the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative and are described in greater detail separately in this edition. Others, like disarmament education, have received scant attention in governmental statements. This is despite the presence of numerous youth delegations attending the PrepCom with the express purpose of learning about disarmament and diplomacy.  “New generations have the knowledge and the necessary tools to be inserted effectively in the different spaces where disarmament is discussed, so that they strengthenthe debates and facilitate the conclusion of agreements,” emphasised Mexico. It is a missed opportunity to not allocate more time to disarmament education in NPT conferences or, more importantly, in society generally. More than once over last two weeks I have heard stakeholders talk about the necessity of doing more to build knowledge about the NPT among newer diplomats, the media, or the general public—as it can contribute, as Ireland noted, to “broadening the discussion on nuclear weapons beyond the silos of narrow security concerns.”

Such a human-centric approach to disarmament allows for greater diversity of perspectives. Despite a larger number of delegations during calling for gender diversity in nuclear disarmament and recognising the gendered impact of nuclear weapons, the plenary room has not been diverse, particularly through the second week of the conference during which only around one-third or fewer of statements each day have been delivered by women. An article published earlier this week describes the familiar phenomenon of the “marticle” which is a “cousin to the manel, or the all-male panel…a regular feature of the nuclear policy world, but subject to more focus and criticism.” It highlights the gender, and racial, bias rampant in this field. “The quality of the NPT review process and the NPT itself can only be strengthened by increasing the diversity of our perspectives,” Australia pointed out. We challenge states parties to tackle this problem head-on between now and the next PrepCom, in their programming, activities, delegation planning, and more.

Today, the PrepCom Chair Ambassador Bugajski will release his summary report of this PrepCom.  Chairperson’s reports are meant to capture what has been discussed at a given PrepCom and can provide an element of continuity for the next PrepCom. While not open to negotiation, states parties will nonetheless criticise the report if they feel it does not reflect accurately what has been put on the record. Given the sometimes-tense atmosphere of this PrepCom, the summary report will need to navigate carefully as if across a delicate tightrope.  The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has been welcomed including for its complementarity to the NPT by over 45 delegations including some regional or other groupings; only a few have openly criticised it. Yet, in other fora, this small group of objectors has prevented even innocuous references to the TPNW. It cannot be “blocked” in the same manner here; given the function of the PrepCom report, the TPNW should be reflected in line with how the majority of NPT states parties have presented it (i.e. favourably). Other areas of Treaty implementation where there are dissenting views and differences of opinion, particularly relating to disarmament, and the Middle East, similarly must be treated fairly. There have also been subtleties among the general welcoming of recent developments regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its stepping back from the development nuclear weapons, in which optimism, cautious or otherwise, has been mixed in with harder lines and condemnation of past actions.

It is said very, very often that the NPT is a cornerstone. Cornerstones are meant to be built upon, however, and join other things together—without those other elements a cornerstone would serve no purpose. Viewing the Treaty this way, rather than as end in itself, would be useful for many stakeholders as we move toward the end of this conference and toward the next. 

Political gridlock

Editorial: The best security assurance? Elimination

Editorial: Nuclear disarmament: an endurance sport