After four weeks of intense discussions at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT ended late Friday with no outcome document because Russia objected to the text of its control over Ukraine’s nuclear facilities.
United Nations Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said in statement.
Increased risk
Meanwhile, the head of the United Nations welcomed the sincere and meaningful participation of the parties and the fact that the Conference recognized NPT like the “foundation” of the global regime of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferationhe regrets not being able to address the pressing challenges that threaten global collective security.
“The international environment is full of and high risk of nuclear weapons being used, either by accident or by miscalculation, demanding urgent and resolute action. The Secretary-General urges all nations to use all avenues of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation to defuse tensions, reduce nuclear risks and eliminate the nuclear threat once and for all. Dujarric said.
“A world without nuclear weapons remains the highest priority of nuclear disarmament for the United Nations and a goal to which the Secretary-General remains firmly committed.”
Delays and disappointments
The NPT, which entered into force in March 1970, is the only binding commitment to the goal of disarmament of States that officially stockpile nuclear weapons.
It is organized around three pillars – disarmament, non-proliferation, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy – and 191 countries have joined the Treaty.
Review conferences are held every 5 years. The 2015 Session also ended without a result document while the 2020 Conference was adjourned due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Ambassador Gustavo Zlauvinen of Argentina, President of the Review Conference, told journalists he was “disappointed” that the parties had not adopted a written outcome by consensus.
Ukraine war ‘shadow’
Mr Zlauvinen said he knew the outlook was “very slim” even before the proceedings began, due to differing views on issues such as previous commitments to security guarantees.
“But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February exacerbated those tensions, and We knew that the war in Ukraine would cast a shadow over the Review Conference“He said at a press conference on Friday night.
The plenary meeting was finally delayed and then suspended for several hours, he said, due to last-minute negotiations, especially with the Russian delegation, which could not agree to the text “except for the when very important changes were introduced in language with regard to the situation of the Ukrainian nuclear facilities under Russian control. “
Mr. Zlauvinen tried to see if other delegations would accept the language, “and it is not the case”.
He believes that on the whole, the Review Conference was “meaningful”. The delegations involved discussed very complex issues and the lack of resulting documentation did not detract from their work.
“It was like we had a movie in four weeks, but we couldn’t take a single picture at the end of the movie,” he said. “So no photo that doesn’t reflect that the movie doesn’t exist. “
Double Effort: UN Disarmament Team Leader
The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, also spoke to reporters. Like the Secretary General, she was disappointed in the results.
“Of course, the final draft is not a perfect document. We all know that. But the vast majority of member states feel that it will still be in the interest of the international community,” she said.
“So our challenge now is to make sure we start here and if you want to, redouble our efforts to make sure that efforts towards nuclear disarmament will in fact be revived.”
Ms. Nakamitsu emphasized that while this marks the second time in a row the Conference has ended without a consensus result, the NPT will not collapse or suffer immediate damage.
“However, I think we have to make sure that we will reverse this confident trend and believe that the NPT mode continues to go down. We need to reverse the disappointment,” she said.
“And for that to happen, we have to make sure that there are serious and substantive commitment between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States, and of course, very importantly, between the nuclear-weapon States themselves”.
