21 March 2000
(Spector: A sturdy NPT makes nuclear disarmament possible) (1030) By Jacquelyn S. Porth Washington File Security Affairs Writer Washington -- The international community needs a successful NPT Review Conference outcome, that will preserve the integrity and strength of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a senior U.S. Energy Department official says. "None of us will be better off with a weakened NPT," said Leonard Spector, assistant deputy administrator for arms control and non-proliferation in the Energy Department's Office of Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation. The United States, he added, is seeking "a balanced assessment of the Treaty." Spector made his comments March 17 at the annual conference on non-proliferation sponsored by the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Speaking as part of a panel discussion on the prospects for the sixth NPT Review Conference, scheduled to open in New York on April 24, he said that "a sturdy NPT" is one of the reasons that nuclear disarmament progress has been possible. That progress has been "very substantial," Spector said, pointing to a U.S. record of achievement that includes the dismantlement of 13,000 nuclear weapons during the past decade -- about 100 weapons per month. He also said 80 percent of American tactical nuclear weapons have been removed from service. Energy Secretary Richardson also told conference participants that the United States has eliminated more than a dozen types of nuclear warheads and has pared down its nuclear weapons production infrastructure dramatically. He said 226 tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium has been removed from the U.S. military stockpile. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General John Shalikashvili told the more than 400 conference attendees from Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K. that U.S. nuclear weapons "play a smaller role in our national security now than at any time since their inception, and we have no plan to build new types of warheads." The United States is moving in the opposite direction, he said: "Where we once had dozens of different types of warheads in our arsenal, we now have fewer than 10." Spector said the United States believes that the 2000 Review Conference should undertake a look both backward over the past five years and forward to the 2000 to 2005 period in evaluating the process of non-proliferation. This will be the first review conference since the NPT was made permanent in 1995. There was much discussion at the March 16-17 Carnegie conference about what would or would not constitute a successful Review Conference. Ambassador Norm Wulf, special representative to the president on non-proliferation, said the United States would like to see a classic review document evolve from the conference that at the same time is forward-looking. Speaking from the audience, Wulf said that the odds of this actually happening are not good at the moment. But even if no documents are issued, he said, the review conference could still achieve a successful conclusion on May 19 if there has been, at least, "a genuine effort" to meet the needs of the States Parties. The United States continues to support universal adherence to the NPT. Wulf said that adherence to the treaty has increased to a total of 187 members. As NPT Review Conference delegations prepare for the month-long deliberations, he emphasized that not all nuclear weapons states are alike. Two nations have huge nuclear arsenals, he said, and are in the process of dismantling them (the United States and Russia); two other countries have small stockpiles (France and the United Kingdom) and have taken a series of unilateral steps; and what he described as the "group of one" (China) is in a category by itself, not yet ready to be fully transparent on this issue. While not supporting the dire forecast some have made about the prospects for the Review Conference, Wulf also acknowledged that it is likely to be "a very rough go" for the U.S. delegation, which faces criticism on a number of fronts. Georgetown University professor Robert Gallucci said the problem is not that the U.S. Senate did not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in October so much as it is a concern that the expectations of the Non-Proliferation Regime have yet to be realized. John Simpson, director of the Mountbatten Centre for International Studies at the University of Southhampton, predicted that this Review Conference will not be "business as usual." He emphasized, however, that the NPT remains "a very robust structure" and that it is "the only global game in town" with the capability to manage nuclear threats. The challenge of nuclear non-proliferation, Gallucci said, is that the process of combating nuclear threats "will have to be continually managed." One area of particular concern, he said, is the prospect that the fissile material needed to produce nuclear weapons could be spread not only to new nations, but also to non-national groups. Ambassador Richard Butler, now a diplomat-in-residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, emphasized the need for a reliable NPT enforcement mechanism. Nations must know, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector said, that any treaty infraction that may occur would be addressed. Rebecca Johnson, an analyst and editor with the British-based Acronym Institute, told attendees that the NPT "is one of the most successful treaties in history." Whether or not the Review Conference is deemed a success, she said, the review process must still be carried out and ways found to move forward to reinforce treaty compliance and to establish measures that will set the stage for work ahead in the coming five years. She urged those who will gather in New York City next month to try to agree on the problems and programs that can be tackled in the short-term. The Review Conference will be described as successful, in her view, only "if its outcome is taken seriously." (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)