Nuclear power plant safety must supersede political considerations

[The following presentation to the NPT Working Group was delivered by European regional Vice President Dr. Angelika Claussen on behalf of IPPNW on 25 July in Vienna.]

Changes in structure and procedure may improve NPT outcomes, but a clear focus on the goals and purposes of the Treaty is essential for progress

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you during this Working Group session in preparation for the NPT PrepCom next week.  My name is Dr. Angelika Claussen and I am the Vice-President for Europe of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). I am speaking on behalf of our IPPNW federation, representing thousands of medical professionals and 55 national affiliates worldwide.

The focus of this week’s work is on structural and procedural changes that might improve outcomes in future NPT Preparatory Committee meetings and Review Conferences.  There are excellent suggestions put forth by our colleagues at WILPF and within your own discussions.  

Nevertheless, we believe that even if the structure of the discussion changes for the better, the outcomes probably will not, unless all parties understand that the focus on NPT goals, and the outcomes that advance those goals, need to prevail over attempts at political point scoring that prevent an agreement.

We can think of no more obvious example of the problems that losing focus on the unified goals of the NPT can cause than the section of last year’s NPT RevCon final document that related to access of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.  The language in dispute, about procedures for access for safety inspections to a nuclear power plant in a war zone, was not especially germane to the goals of the NPT, yet disagreement over the specific wording of it ended in the failure to reach consensus on the final document.  

States parties at the RevCon could have more productively focused on the general principle that IAEA inspections needed to take place, and that military actions at or near the reactors and other vulnerable facilities should be prohibited in this and in future cases.

Not attending to nuclear power plant safety threatens international consensus on the Third Pillar of the NPT—peaceful uses of nuclear technology. This concern needs to supersede any political considerations and more effort needs to be made to reach consensus to protect the peaceful uses—otherwise, no one will trust that their nuclear facilities can remain safe if and when their nation is at war.

Undermining any portion of the NPT undermines the treaty as a whole.  We at IPPNW find it ironic to be raising this point, as our 55 national affiliates are mostly, with some exceptions, in opposition to the use of nuclear energy for safety and nuclear non-proliferation reasons.  We wonder why nations that are strongly committed to nuclear energy development, and the nuclear energy industry itself, are not united in demanding clearer protective action and supporting the IAEA’s call for a clear line against attacking nuclear power facilities.  

Our hope is that you will examine this particular critical question during your deliberations in the coming two weeks, and we will be advocating for it.  If you are interested in more information from us on this topic, I have a separate document available here that will outline some of the potential dangers we identify in the current situation.  We will be releasing a new study on 2 August and holding a press briefing that day as well.

Leaving this example aside, the relevant point of our statement today is that, first and foremost, the general principles of the NPT need to be zealously guarded by all member states.  Because, regardless of any reforms to process and procedure you decide on this week to improve decision-making at these critical international meetings, ultimately, the only thing that will mark success is adherence to the Treaty and consistently and without undue delay implementing its core obligations.