Russia blocks UN nuclear treaty agreement over
Zaporizhzhia clause
Failure to agree a joint statement after weeks of
debate at UN marks latest blow to hopes of maintaining an arms control regime
Julian
Borger in Washington
Sat 27 Aug
2022 03.52 BST
Russia has
blocked an agreement at the United Nations that was aimed at bolstering the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) because Moscow objected to a clause
about control over the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine.
The failure
to agree to a joint statement after four weeks of debate and negotiation among
151 countries at the UN in New York is the latest blow to hopes of maintaining
an arms control regime and keeping a lid on a rekindled arms race.
The closing
session was put off for more than four hours over Russian refusal to agree to a
lengthy statement of support for the NPT which included a reference to the
Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is occupied by Russian forces close to
the frontline in Ukraine’s south-east.
Alarm was
raised on Thursday when the plant was temporarily cut off from the Ukrainian
electricity grid but the connection was restored. Russian forces are reportedly
planning to sever the plant more permanently from the grid, raising concerns of
a possible disaster.
A paragraph
in the final draft text on Friday stressed “the paramount importance of
ensuring control by Ukraine’s competent authorities of nuclear facilities …
such as the Zaporizhzia nuclear power plant”.
The Russian
delegation was the only one to speak against the agreed text, but blamed the
breakdown of the conference on Ukraine and its “protectors”, calling the
negotiations a “one-sided game”. After delivering its statement, the Russian
delegation walked out of the UN chamber.
The NPT was
a deal struck in 1968 in which nuclear weapons states pledged to disarm while
states without nuclear weapons promised not to acquire them. At the time there
were five acknowledged nuclear powers, though Israel had secretly developed a
weapon of its own by then. There are now nine states which possess nuclear
warheads. Before the NPT came into force, some had predicted there would be
dozens countries with their own arsenals.
It is the
second five-yearly review conference that has failed to issue a joint statement
recommitting to the goals of the treaty. It has been 12 years since there was
even partial agreement.
But Sarah
Bidgood, the director of the Eurasia nonproliferation program at the James
Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, said the NPT was not irreparably
broken, and that every other country would have accepted the text.
“The bigger
takeaway for me is just how far-reaching the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine
has become,” she said. “Even at some of the darkest moments of the cold war,
cooperation in support of the NPT was often possible. But what we saw at the
final plenary today does not bode well for the future of nuclear diplomacy,
including on issues like arms control.”
Beatrice
Fihn, the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons, said the disarmament elements in the proposed text had already been
diluted by all five of the official nuclear powers recognised by the treaty –
Russia, the US, France, the UK and China.
“So, in all
honesty, I don’t think it makes much difference,” she said. “This is the very
dangerous game the nuclear weapon states are playing by consistently failing to
achieve anything in this treaty. At some point, non nuclear weapon states are
really going to start questioning whether or not this treaty is worth the
effort, and if it’s relevant.”
Fihn argued
that the continued failure of NPT review conferences to find common ground
meant it was all the more important for countries to join the treaty for the
prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW), which seeks to ban them outright. It
came into force in January 2021, and so far 66 states have ratified or acceded
to the treaty.
“It’s going
to be really relevant that we quickly move forward with the TPNW and get more
states,” Fihn said. “It’s really an insurance that if [the NPT] continues to
fail, that we don’t stand without anything.”

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário