The Wrap-Up: Day Nine of the NPT PrepCom 2012

The last day of the first PrepCom in the 2015 NPT Review Cycle moved quickly, as states concluded procedural matters and made brief statements. Like the rest of this Conference, the final session was characterized by optimism and a spirit of cooperation.

Procedural Report and Chairman's Summary

The final session opened about 45 minutes late, as the Chair was still concluding his consultations with delegations. The first order of business was to review the procedural report, which contains details about the decisions adopted by the Committee on the first day, such as the date and venue for the next PrepCom session, and other elements of the Conference, such as the participation of States Parties and the presence of representation from the IAEA.

The Chairman went through each paragraph of the procedural report and asked the Committee to adopt it. The only change to the draft report was that one paragraph relating to the Chair's Summary was removed. No objections were raised and no delegation wished to comment on any paragraph; thus the procedural report was adopted very quickly.

The Chair then offered some comments on his summary and on the PrepCom as a whole. He informed the parties present that he had had three ambitions as Chair: first, to resolve the procedural matters swiftly; second, to have a constructive debate on the Action Plan in the 2010 Final Document; and third, to produce a fair and balanced Chair's Summary. He was confident that he had succeeded in the first two goals; the third was a matter for subjective judgment. The Chair stated that he had decided early on not to annex his summary to the procedural report, which would have required a decision by consensus on the part of the Committee, but rather to submit it as a Chair's Working Paper. He acknowledged that no one would be entirely happy with the final text, but expressed his hope that delegates would at least find it fair.

The session concluded with an opportunity for any States Parties who wished to do so to make a statement. NPDI, NAM, the EU, Switzerland, Russia, Iran, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, France, Germany, the Arab Group, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Australia all spoke briefly. Some delegations commented on specific elements of the Chair's summary. Switzerland, for example, praised the inclusion of the humanitarian dimension of nuclear weapons. Russia praised the references to the Conference on the WMDFZ in the Middle East. France was pleased with the attention devoted to nonproliferation issues and the withdrawal clause, and Germany noted the commitment to the implementation of the Action Plan. The only criticisms of the summary came from China and Russia, both of whom were dissatisfied with the lack of reference to missile defense; both took the opportunity to express their view that missile defense systems and global disarmament are incompatible. Russia also argued that the paragraphs in the summary pertaining to disarmament should have better reflected the idea that further disarmament steps require strategic stability and undiminished international security.

With the exception of these comments, however, most statements simply expressed acknowledgment of and gratitude for the hard work of the Chair and his team, and praise for the organization of and discussion at the PrepCom. Many states also expressed their gratitude for the work of UNODA's Thomas Markram, who served as the Conference's Secretary and who will be taking on new responsibilities upon his return to New York. The final word was given to Australia, who told Ambassador Woolcott, "You brought credit to our country." Woolcott then offered his thanks to those who had helped to chair the meeting, to his team, and to Markram. The Conference was officially closed at 11:35 AM.

Brief Comments on the PrepCom

A longer analysis of this first PrepCom will be available on the CNS website shortly, but there were a number of striking elements that deserve a brief mention. First, the overall atmosphere of this Conference was remarkably positive. As a result, States Parties were able to move very rapidly through all of the items on the agenda, to the point where some were openly questioning the need to allot a full ten days to the PrepCom when many of the daily sessions wrapped up several hours early. However, this positivity and efficiency has not always been the driving spirit of the PrepCom, and this year's meeting must have been a relief for many delegates who remembered the delays of the 2007 PrepCom, the first in the previous review cycle.

The speedy wrap-up of discussions is also notable because it was often the result of few countries wishing to take the floor on particular issues. This was particularly notable in the sessions allotted to Cluster I issues, especially those related to disarmament and security assurances. Although many states alluded to the importance of these issues and the need for serious, sustained dialogue in their opening statements, few of them appeared willing to engage in such discussion or offer proposals during the time set aside to do so.

As others, including Reaching Critical Will and Acronym Institute, have noted, the humanitarian dimension of nuclear weapons use was very prominent in this year's discussions. The sixteen-nation statement delivered on the first day of the conference made it clear that there was a group of countries interested in forcing a discussion on the issue and in seeking to reframe the debate about nuclear weapons to include a humanitarian element. The other major driving factor in this year's PrepCom was the discussion on the Middle East and the upcoming Conference on a WMD-Free Zone; however, because consultations are still ongoing, there was little that states could contribute beyond rhetoric on this subject. While the 2010 Action Plan featured in the statements and working papers of many States Parties, there seemed to be general acknowledgment that all states needed more than two years to fully implement their commitments under this plan and that discussions on this matter would contribute throughout the 2015 review cycle, and possibly beyond.

Also notable at this year's PrepCom was the dynamic role played by civil society groups. Sixty non-governmental organizations sent nearly 500 representatives to the conference; many of these organizations delivered statements during the time allotted on the conference's second day. There were also numerous side events on various issues ranging from NATO and nuclear-sharing to the consequences on agriculture of a hypothetical nuclear war.

The States Parties rotate the chair for the PrepCom sessions among the three main regional groups, the Western Group, East European Group, and Non-Aligned Movement. Next year's chair will be proposed by the East European Group. However, they have so far been unable to unify behind a candidate, so it remains unclear who will chair next year's meeting.