NPT Indefinite Extension Challenged

[The.Greenbase@gb.greenpeace.org]

>> NON-NUCLEAR COUNTRIES CHALLENGE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES OVER


                    ************************
                    GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE
                    ************************

>> NON-NUCLEAR COUNTRIES CHALLENGE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES OVER
INDEFINITE EXTENSION

United Nations, New York, 2 May 1995 (GP) A group of non-nuclear
states have challenged the nuclear weapon states' call for
indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the
United Nations today.

In a moderate proposal, a core group of Non-Aligned Countries led
by Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and Nigeria, among
others, have called for extension of the Treaty by 25 year
rolling periods. They argue this option would be a "golden mean"
between the option of indefinite and unconditional extension of
the NPT, or extension for a single fixed period.

A Canadian proposal calling for indefinite extension which has
been circulating at the Conference for several days has so far
failed to receive support from a majority of Parties.

Explaining their position, the non-aligned states say indefinite
extension would "imply the recognition in an international treaty
of the perpetuation of the existence of the nuclear weapon
states.  It is also flawed by the lack of a strong and effective
review procedure and an appropriate decision-making mechanism."

The same states have also called for Review Conferences every
five years to make concrete recommendations about how to meet
specific non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament objectives.

"This modest proposal from non-aligned countries could form the
basis for consensus at the Conference, but it clearly does not
provide the urgent incentives for nuclear disarmament needed to
make the nuclear weapon states truly accountable," Greenpeace's
Stephanie Mills noted. "Countries need to explore shorter periods
of extension as well as additional mechanisms to ensure that the
nuclear disarmament provisions of the NPT are enforced."

"Greenpeace sincerely hopes that the NPT's objective of the
elimination of nuclear weapons will be achieved well before 25
years are up," she said.  "The nuclear weapon states and advanced
nuclear states must listen to the voice of non-nuclear countries
now, and act to stop their own central role in nuclear
proliferation, or otherwise the NPT will continue to fail
miserably to reach its objectives."

She said that it would be entirely unreasonable of the nuclear
weapon states to reject States' rights to further appraise the
Treaty's effectiveness in 25 years. Moreover, given that the
Treaty was originally only established for 25 years, it could
hardly be argued that this option would destabilise or weaken the
NPT regime.

Greenpeace is continuing to advocate extension of the Treaty by
five year rolling periods, linked to a timetable for nuclear
disarmament, as the most effective way of enhancing the non-
proliferation regime and achieving the elimination of nuclear
weapons.

Contact: Stephanie Mills +212 941 0994 ext 211 or +212 755  3659.


TEXT OF DRAFT DECISION FROM NAM CORE GROUP:

1 May 1995

In conformity with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article X of
the Treaty,
The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Decides:-

That the Treaty shall continue in force for rolling fixed periods
of 25 years.  At the end of each fixed period, a Review and
Extension Conference shall be convened to conduct an effective
and comprehensive review of the operation of the Treaty.  The
Treaty shall be extended for the next fixed period of 25 years
unless the majority of the Parties to the Treaty decides
otherwise at the Review and Extension Conference.

In conformity with paragraph 3 of Article VIII, five years after
the adoption of this extension decision, a review conference
shall be convened and subsequent review conferences shall be
convened at intervals of five years thereafter to conduct
effective and comprehensive reviews of the operation of the
Treaty.

The review conferences shall identify specific objectives to be
achieved with a view to the full implementation of the purposes
of the Preamble and the obligations and commitments undertaken by
the Parties under the Treaty and shall make concrete
recommendations for the attainment of such objectives."

1 May 1005
Explanatory Memorandum

The decision on the extension of the Treaty on the Non-
proliferation of Nuclear Weapons should ensure the early
realization of its principal objectives - halting the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and advancing nuclear
disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons -
- and the desirable goal of the universality of its membership.
It should also faithfully reflect the spirit and the letter of
paragraph 2 of Article X and should be characterized by the
following principles:-

a. decision by consensus in the interest of strengthening the
Treaty
b.  recognition of the legitimate concerns and interests of all
States Parties
c. compatibility with the Treaty's stated objectives
d.  the essential requirement for a strong and effective review
mechanism by the State Parties for continued and careful periodic
scrutiny to ensure the full implementation of the provisions of
the Treaty, leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons;
and
e.  the essential requirement for a decision-making mechanism by
the Parties on the review of the operation of the Treaty and its
roll-over extension from one period to another.

The option of "indefinite and unconditional" extension of the
Treaty does not meet the afore-mentioned requirements.  Such an
option would imply the recognition in an international treaty of
the perpetuation of the existence of the nuclear weapon states.
It is also flawed by the lack of a strong and effective review
procedure and an appropriate decision-making mechanism.

The option of extension for a single fixed period does not meet
the afore-mentioned requirements either.  it is not considered to
be a viable option, as it will bring the Treaty to an end after
completion of the single fixed period.

The option of the extension for rolling fixed periods of 25
years, automatically renewable unless a majority of the Parties
decide otherwise at the end of each fixed period, with a strong
and effective review mechanism meets the afore-mentioned
requirements.  This option constitutes a gold mean between the
option of "indefinite and unconditional" extension and that of
extension for a single fixed period.  25 years is also a duration
long enough to facilitate the planning and implementation of the
transfer of technology for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as
envisaged in Article IV of the Treaty.

This option will serve to ensure the durability, stability,
continuity and effectiveness of the Treaty.  By using the
elements of the decision-making mechanism on extension, already
provided for in the Treaty, this proposal has the advantage of
presenting a simple, straight-forward and sound modality for the
extension of the Treaty.  The text of the proposed draft decision
on the extension of the Treaty is attached herewith as the annex
to this explanatory memorandum.
ENDS