With Good Game Plan, U.S. Can Tough Out NPT Review Conference

With Good Game Plan, U.S. Can Tough Out NPT Review Conference
Titan 2 intercontinental ballistic missile, Titan Missile Museum, Arizona, May 7, 2007 (photo by Flickr user kingdafy, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license).

The Ninth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which begins next month, promises to be much more contentious than the previous 5-year review conference held in 2010. However, with a good game plan both before and during the conference, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration can limit the damage to U.S. interests and the nonproliferation regime.

Such a game plan should include reaffirming Washington’s commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament; highlighting the United States’ NPT-related achievements in some areas, even if admittedly limited; focusing attention on long-term future possibilities rather than past failures; blaming the relevant responsible actors for missed opportunities; and exploiting divisions among potential NPT critics. In a worst-case scenario, the U.S. should be prepared to accept deadlock in place of a bad final document emerging from the conference.

To begin with, the Obama administration should continue to affirm publicly its acceptance of the traditional view of the NPT’s three interlocking “pillars”: disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful nuclear energy. According to this interpretation of the treaty, the states with nuclear weapons commit to making progress toward eliminating them; the countries without nuclear weapons promise not to try to get them or help others do so; and all states are free to use nuclear energy for nonmilitary purposes under appropriate safeguards. Although lawyers and historians can argue the fine points of this traditional interpretation—such as whether the treaty accords a right to nuclear fuel enrichment, for instance—the administration of former President George W. Bush alienated other NPT signatories when it overtly challenged it at the 2005 conference.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review