Towards the 2010 NPT RevCon
Chair: Prof. PR Chari, Research Professor, IPCS
Panelists:
Amb. KC Singh, Former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs
Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan, Professor, CIPOD, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Amb. KC Singh
The third session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference (RevCon) should be seen from India’s perspective. What are possible Indian approaches to the 2010 RevCon? Where does the NAM group stand at present?
What was different at the PrepCom meeting this time was, first, the continued defiance of Iran and North Korea; second, Obama’s ascendance and serious efforts towards nuclear disarmament; and third, India’s entry into the NPT whereas efforts to universalize the NPT was repetitive.
On the universalization of the NPT, what is unclear is the methodology for achieving the same, especially with regards to India. When India is repeatedly asked to sign the NPT, the question remains how - as a nuclear weapon state? India is a de-facto nuclear weapon state with the IAEA already having recognized India’s separation plan (civilian and military). It is, therefore, not possible for India to sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The world recognizes India’s weapons status, albeit not explicitly stated. So what are the possibilities of bringing India into the NPT regime as a de-jure weapon state?
Another interesting development was the linking of non-proliferation and disarmament, that is, the confidence of the nuclear weapon states to be able to disarm can be built only when proliferation does not take place and therefore, the nuclear weapon states require certain guarantee to build momentum on disarmament. This linkage was not present earlier. Also, because of this linkage the haves and the have-nots, for the first time, were talking to each other as opposed to previously when the haves only dictated terms to the have-nots.
The PrepCom was not able to decide on the recommendations for the RevCon. There were repeated references to Obama’s 5 April speech in Prague. The highlights at the third session was the need for a political and diplomatic push to get the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) ratified by states to enter into force, US negotiations with Russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons, and a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT).
Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan
The third session of the PrepCom meeting for the 2010 NPT RevCon was a much better and successful PrepCom than the one in 2005. The change in the atmosphere of the PrepCom can be attributed to the efforts taken by the Obama administration, especially his 5 April speech in Prague. There was a sense of reassurance that the agenda (disarmament, non-proliferation and right to civilian atomic energy) for the 2010 RevCon was agreed upon, although recommendations to the RevCon were not finalized.
From all the efforts taken by the Obama administration to the proceedings at the PrepCom, it seems that there is change in strategy rather than a change in goals. The focus is clearly on non-proliferation. Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration recognizes that even by being the most powerful nation in the world, it cannot apply force to create or generate consensus among nation states and that concessions matter in order to build some kind of consensus. This was reflected in Obama’s speech in Prague as well as in the PrepCom meeting.
The first draft recommendations was very strong on disarmament including specific measures such as the CTBT, verifiable FMCT, reducing the operational status of the nuclear forces, diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies, refraining from the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, placing fissile material recovered from dismantled nuclear weapons under IAEA monitoring and verification etcetera. In the second draft recommendations to the RevCon, the disarmament obligations were heavily diluted. The obdurate resistance from the NWS saw any reference to the ‘13 practical steps’ being dropped from the draft recommendations. The final draft seems like a compromise draft with a number of issues being scratched out even though the Chair was hoping that recommendations could be salvaged on the last day. However, by the end of the day the PrepCom left the matter to the 2010 RevCon. Perhaps, in the euphoria of having agreed on the agenda for the RevCon, the PrepCom may have considered that the recommendations need not be pushed too hard.
Discussion
Comments and Questions
- If India does decide to join the NPT, there will be a conscious presence of the country in the RevCon which will entail India to follow certain norms engendering out of its participation in global forums such as the RevCon. India’s observer status makes it a legal subject of international law. Given the differences over the perceptions on the NPT between India and the rest if the world, it will not be a good idea to join the NPT in any capacity.
- What is the advantage of India participating in the RevCon? What purpose will it serve?
- Does India really believe that the NPT regime will lead to a safer world? What is the official position of India in this regard?
- What is the current political or international posture relating to India over the no-proliferation issue? Does India see itself half-inside or half-outside the tent? Does India still take up the same approach which it took earlier where it constantly underlined the hypocrisy of the NPT regime or should it be taking up a more constructive position?
Responses
- India has always opposed the NPT but has supported non-proliferation. India has not clearly charted out its course of action regarding whether it supports the NPT in the current situation or not. India has to debate the issue based on where its interest lie.
- There is a lot of opaqueness in India’s stand on disarmament. What is a credible nuclear strategy? What is enough? New Delhi needs to have an extensive debate on these issues.
Note: Excerpts from a presentation at the IPCS on "Towards the 2010 NPT RevCon," held on 12 June 2009. Click here for full report.
Rekha Chakravarthi, Research Officer, IPCS
Yogesh Joshi, Research Intern, IPCS
