TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY NPT REPORTING 2002-2012 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY NPT Reporting 2002-2012 About this Publication As agreed in 2000, States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are called to submit regular reports on their efforts to implement Article VI of the NPT—nuclear disarmament and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. This paper tabulates and summarizes reporting at the nine NPT review process meetings since then: the three Preparatory Committee sessions leading up to the 2005 Review Conference (2002-4), the 2005 Review Conference itself, the four Preparatory Committee sessions for the 2010 Review Conference, the 2010 Review Conference itself, and the first Preparatory Committee session for the 2015 Review Conference, held in 2012. The paper briefly reviews the background to the reporting obligation and offers recommendations for enhanced reporting that would more effectively reflect the “permanence with accountability” framework that is at its core. The paper was prepared by Project Ploughshares Program Officer Cesar Jaramillo. Previous editions were prepared by Cesar Jaramillo, Ernie Regehr, and Jessica West, with assistance from interns Adam Parsons, Laura Ashfield, and Melanie Ferrier. Acknowledgements We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of The Simons Foundation of Vancouver. Project Ploughshares Project Ploughshares is the peace centre of The Canadian Council of Churches. Project Ploughshares works with churches, nongovernmental organizations, and governments, in Canada and abroad, to advance policies and actions that prevent war and armed violence and build peace. Project Ploughshares is affiliated with the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Conrad Grebel University College, University of Waterloo. Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 Canada 519-888-6541 Fax 519-888-0018 [email protected] www.ploughshares.ca © Project Ploughshares 2012 First printed October 2012 Printer: Pandora Print Shop, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada ISBN 978-1-895722-93-2 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations 4 Introduction 5 Background to the Reporting Provision 7 Policy Considerations 14 Objective and Participation Rate 14 Frequency 15 Structure 16 Scope 17 Reporting to Date 19 NNWS Reporting 21 Support for the NPT and the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regime 21 Strategic reductions 22 Tactical or non-strategic reductions 23 Irreversibility 24 The CTBT and a testing moratorium 25 Fissile material controls 25 Security assurances 26 Verification 27 The Conference on Disarmament 28 Nuclear energy 29 Export controls 30 Safeguards 31 Nuclear-weapon-free zones 32 International cooperation 33 Transparency 33 Reporting 34 NWS Reporting 36 Warhead and delivery vehicle holdings 37 Operational status 38 Tactical and Strategic reductions 39 Affirmation of Article VI 40 Doctrine 41 Security assurances 42 Fissile material control 44 Sources for NWS reporting summary 45 Notes 47 Table 1: Tabulation 2002–2012 48 Acronyms and Abbreviations CD Conference on Disarmament CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban treaty EU European Union FMCT Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency INF Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty NAC New Agenda Coalition NAM Non-Aligned Movement NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NGO Nongovernmental Organization NNWS Non-nuclear Weapon State NPT Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty NSA Negative Security Assurance NWFZ Nuclear-weapon-free Zone NWS Nuclear Weapon State PrepCom Preparatory Committee RevCon Review Conference START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction 4 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Acronyms and Abbreviations Introduction The indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995 was agreed to in CD Conference on Disarmament the context of a collective commitment by States Parties to strengthening the Treaty’s review CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban treaty process and, in particular, with a heightened sense of the need for mutual accountability in the EU European Union implementation and furtherance of the aims of the Treaty. In 2000 states agreed (in step 12 of the 13 FMCT Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty practical steps) that such accountability would be advanced by a more formalized approach to IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency reporting by each State Party to its Treaty partners, providing regular information on the actions INF Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty taken and policies followed to meet the requirements of the Treaty and to implement additional NAC New Agenda Coalition measures agreed to in the review process. The framers of the reporting obligation understood NAM Non-Aligned Movement reporting―as they understood the review process itself―to be a potential prod to the more effective NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization pursuit of nuclear disarmament. NGO Nongovernmental Organization NNWS Non-nuclear Weapon State States Parties to the NPT have now had nine specific occasions to submit the “regular reports” that NPT Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty were agreed to in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference (RevCon), and included in NSA Negative Security Assurance the 2010 Action Plan. Since the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), 51 states have used NWFZ Nuclear-weapon-free Zone at least one of those opportunities and have together submitted 151 reports. Only three have NWS Nuclear Weapon State reported to each PrepCom and RevCon since 2000. PrepCom Preparatory Committee RevCon Review Conference This paper summarizes the reporting to date, provides background to the reporting commitment, START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty reviews the continuing discussion of the appropriate scope and format of reports, broadly surveys WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction the content of reports submitted, and recommends ways in which reporting can be strengthened and thus better meet the principle of accountability that was emphasized as part of the 1995 indefinite extension of the Treaty. As shown in Figure 1, just over one-quarter of the 189 States Parties to the NPT have reported at least once since 2000, and one in six submitted reports to the 2005 RevCon. At the 2007 Preparatory Committee one in 20 reported. And by 2009, only five reported – less than one in 30. The number increased at the 2010 RevCon, when 23 States Parties submitted reports. However, the number again decreased to five at the 2012 Preparatory Committee. Figure 1: Reporting by year (2002-2012) 51 States have submitted at least one report 10 States reported in 2002 28 States reported in 2003 (20 for the first time) 28 States reported in 2004 (8 for the first time) 35 States reported in 2005 (9 for the first time) 9 States reported in 2007 (none for the first time) 7 States reported in 2008 (none for the first time) 5 States reported in 2009 (none for the first time) 23 States reported in 2010 (3 for the first time) 5 States reported in 2012 (none for the first time) 17 States have submitted only once 3 States have reported to every PrepCom and RevCon since 2000 150 Reports have been submitted in the period 2002-2012 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 5 It is noteworthy that a relatively high proportion (almost two-thirds) of the 44 states in Annex 2 of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) have reported at some point since 2000 (see Figure 2, which identifies reporting by states within various groupings). Annex 2 lists states with some nuclear technology capability, three of which (India, Israel, and Pakistan) are not parties to the NPT. All must ratify the CTBT before it can enter into force. Only two nuclear weapon states (NWS) are included in the group of 51 reporting states. China submitted a report in 2005 and Russia in both 2005 and 2010. The three non-NPT states in possession of nuclear weapons are not under any formal reporting requirement because they are not NPT signatories. All of the NWS that are party to the NPT have reported informally through a variety of statements and background materials. For the most part, however, NWS have chosen not to provide formal reports, in defiance of the promise made when they agreed to the 2000 reporting provision. Figure 2: Reporting by states within various international groupings 6 New Agenda Coalition states that have formally reported: Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden (Egypt, also a member, has not reported) 14 Non-Aligned Movement states that have reported: Algeria, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand (106 of 120 NAM member states have not reported) 19 NATO states that have formally reported: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey (seven of NATO’s 26 members have not reported: Denmark, Estonia, France, Iceland, Slovenia, United Kingdom, United States) 20 EU states that have formally reported: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden (the following EU states have not reported: Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Malta, Slovenia, United Kingdom) 32 CTBT Annex 2 states that have formally reported: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia,