PIR Center’s Publications on 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and the NPT Indefinite Extension

We cannot agree to the alternative: indefinite treaty or nothing. The responsible approach is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The conference demonstrated that when multilateral diplomacy and the international community are confronted with a challenge that affects global interests, the international community is capable of responding with unity and resolve. As a result of the conference — and through our collective efforts — we have strengthened and made permanent a barrier against nuclear proliferation worldwide. We have also reinvigorated our progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons, as nuclear weapons pose an extraordinary threat to all of humanity due to their horrific and at times unpredictable nature.

The NPT referendum in New York was impressive. It showed that there are both intentions and opportunities to continue working together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. This opportunity is possible, among other factors, because during the New York conference, when, as is common in the case of such significant forums, a kind of “give-and-take” took place, and all nuclear-weapon states (including China, with all the peculiarities of its approach) demonstrated their readiness to make some concessions.

The duration of the NPT`s extension was not a question for us. Indefinitely only – that was our policy. For us, in particular, it is of fundamental importance that at a time when Russia is in the process of reducing its nuclear arsenals, no new sources of nuclear threat begin to emerge around us.

We need to find an intelligent, balanced, constructive line of Russia as a nuclear power, as a member of the UN Security Council, that would attract the signing of the Treaty and its extension.

The outcome of the Conference was a triumph of the diplomacy of the nuclear-weapon states (NWS). They succeeded in achieving their maximum objective: securing the indefinite extension of the Treaty without making concessions that would compromise their national interests. Indeed, on none of the contentious issues under discussion did the NWS assume any additional obligations. At the same time, the resolution on the indefinite extension — like the other three resolutions — is a political and recommendatory document.

To understand the positions of states during the PrepCom, the balance of power, and the sentiments of countries before the 1997 meeting, it seems important to us to show not only the general positions of groups of states regarding the NPT, but also the differences that became especially pronounced during the 1995 NPT Extension Conference.

The suspension of the extension deadline and the uncertainty about the fate of the treaty in general has prevented from focusing on a number of issues fundamental to strengthening the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The decision on indefinite extension removes some of the anxiety, nervousness of the nuclear-weapon states, and the need to keep thinking about NPT extension during the review process. Taking the extension issue off the agenda allows us to focus more than before on the NPT review process and the implementation by all parties of the Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

All countries will be winners of the New York non-proliferation marathon — unless the nuclear five and the three unofficial nuclear powers take its outcomes as a green light to substitute genuine nuclear disarmament with rhetoric centered on national interests.

We reached a really high degree of honest and good cooperation – both of those who wanted to extend the NPT indefinitely, among themselves and with the rest of the countries. This Conference was characterized by a broad degree of engagement.

The cooperation between the United States and Russia contributed significantly to extending the NPT without a vote. It was permeated with goodwill and a general spirit of partnership. The effectiveness of the U.S.-Russia cooperation could be attributed to the following factors: them having shared interest in preserving the NPT through its indefinite extension; the absence of specific tough NPT-related issues between them that needed to be resolved; and the fact that U.S. and Russian representatives had ‘robust professional and personal relations’.

We have successfully solved a five-part problem: first, the treaty has been extended; second, the treaty has been extended indefinitely; third, the treaty has been extended indefinitely without a vote; fourth, the mechanism for effective further implementation of the treaty’s provisions has been strengthened; and fifth, all the final documents of the Conference meet Russia’s national interests.

The NPT and the international nuclear nonproliferation regime established on its foundation have undoubtedly helped to curb nuclear proliferation.

The issue of the decision-making procedure was the most difficult. With regard to the review of treaty implementation, the procedure followed at previous review conferences was agreed without much discussion, namely that conference participants would seek to reach consensus on the assessment of treaty implementation, but if this proved impossible, a substantive vote would be postponed for 48 hours, but if this postponement did not lead to a compromise result, a vote would be taken in which decisions would be taken by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting states.

The main value of the seminar lies in the fact that this unofficial forum provided an informal setting to discuss the complex issues facing the conference. Another important outcome was that it gave young diplomats from a wide range of countries the opportunity to meet and exchange views with experienced senior experts. Both sides benefited from this interaction, which will ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of the issues — and thus contribute to their resolution.

The international nuclear non-proliferation regime, as demonstrated by the long experience of its existence, requires constant attention from both governments and the public. Only then can it expect to be further strengthened.

The issue of further reduction of nuclear arsenals up to their total elimination is particularly important today. Not to mention the fact that this problem is important in itself and requires constant and urgent attention, it is especially acute in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its forthcoming extension. Many non-nuclear-weapon states, even those willing to support the indefinite extension of the Treaty, cannot accept, as a matter of principle, the prospect of maintaining the inequality between those who possess nuclear weapons and those who have abandoned them forever.