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 as well as three free articles per month. You'll also receive our free email newsletter to stay up to date on all our coverage:

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 your own personal researcher and analyst for news and events around the globe. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of 15,000+ articles
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday
  • Weekly in-depth reports on important issues and countries
  • Daily links to must-read news, analysis, and opinion from top sources around the globe, curated by our keen-eyed team of editors
  • Your choice of weekly region-specific newsletters, delivered to your inbox.
  • Smartphone- and tablet-friendly website.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

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

More World Politics Review