Since the time of its elaboration, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has revealed serious differences among its members, which are evident in the examination conferences held every five years. The tenth starts this week and runs until August 26 in New York.
The NPT is considered the “cornerstone” of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime. All members of the international community, with the exception of North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan, are parties to the instrument.
Despite the troubled atmosphere due to the war waged by Russia against Ukraine, there is great interest in the permanence and strengthening of the treaty, which may contribute to defuse the atmosphere of debates. One of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction of countries that do not have these weapons is the absence of convincing evidence of the intention of the armed countries to adopt effective measures that lead to disarmament.
Since the NPT Review Conference in 2010, the debate on the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons has gained momentum in the international community. In 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPAN) came into force, which has 86 signatories, of which 62 have already ratified it. All these will certainly want to include positive mentions of the new instrument in an eventual final document, despite strong opposition from the nuclear countries.
In recent years, several agreements on nuclear weapons have been successively abandoned. All that remains is the important New START treaty between the US and Russia, which was extended for five years in 2021. However, there does not seem to be any climate for further reductions in arms in the immediate future.
The risk of using nuclear weapons has increased significantly not only because of the deteriorating relationship between the major powers but also because new so-called “tactical” weapons could be deployed in limited military action, which would cause an uncontrollable escalation.
Australia, the US and the UK last September announced a security agreement that has been criticized by many countries, especially China, for involving risks of atomic weapons proliferation in the region. The issue is of interest to Brazil, which is building a nuclear-powered submarine.
It seems extremely difficult to revive the agreement known by the acronym JCPOA between Iran and a group of Western countries, but a positive outcome of the current negotiations would be an important element for the success of the tenth conference.
For the success of the conference, it will be important to develop constructive formulas in relation to the TPAN and the humanitarian considerations that it incorporates, without the hostility shown so far by nuclear-armed countries, as well as to carry out an objective debate on the complementarity between the two treaties.
Advances in fulfilling the purposes of article 6 of the NPT will be essential to stop and reverse the erosion of the credibility of the international architecture in this field. To this end, it was suggested the adoption of a High Level Declaration that would reaffirm the commitments assumed by all members of the treaty, especially in the field of disarmament. Something similar would have a significant declaratory effect, but it must be accompanied by concrete evidence of adherence to those commitments.
The simple repetition of expressions of fidelity to the objectives of the treaty will probably be insufficient to mitigate old frustrations and mistrust.
