South Africa & 1995 NPT Review: A Nonproliferation History

The specter of failure looms over the 2026 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, scheduled for April 27-May 22 in Recent York. Predictions of deadlock echo concerns voiced nearly three decades ago, during the pivotal 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. That earlier conference, while ultimately securing the indefinite extension of the treaty, laid bare deep divisions among signatory nations – fissures that, according to assessments from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and corroborated by recent analysis, remain strikingly wide today.

The Indefinite Extension and Its Discontents

The 1995 conference stands as a landmark, and a controversial one, in the history of the NPT. On May 11, 1995, delegates from 175 countries reached consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely, a decision that was seen as crucial to the treaty’s long-term viability. As documented in archival materials, the outcome was far from assured, requiring significant diplomatic maneuvering and compromise. The stakes were exceptionally high; without an extension, the future of the international nonproliferation regime was considered precarious.

However, the agreements reached in 1995, and subsequently reinforced at successful review conferences in 2000 and 2010, have largely unraveled. The current assessment, as highlighted by Jean du Preez in Arms Control Today, suggests a growing sense that another failed review cycle could render the NPT irrelevant, relegating it to the status of a Cold War relic. This pessimism stems from persistent disagreements on core issues that have plagued the treaty since its inception.

South Africa’s Role: From Pariah to Promoter

The involvement of South Africa in the 1995 conference is particularly noteworthy. Having dismantled its own nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s, South Africa emerged as a powerful advocate for the NPT and a proponent of universal adherence. This transition – from a state possessing nuclear weapons in secret to a champion of nonproliferation – was a significant diplomatic achievement. South Africa’s experience offered a unique perspective, demonstrating that denuclearization was not only possible but also beneficial for national security.

The country’s shift was driven by the finish of apartheid and a desire to reintegrate into the international community. The decision to dismantle its nuclear arsenal was a demonstration of good faith and a commitment to a more peaceful future. This stance positioned South Africa as a key player in the negotiations surrounding the indefinite extension of the NPT, lending credibility to the argument that the treaty could be effective in preventing further proliferation.

The Core Divides: Then and Now

The central disagreements that threatened the 1995 conference, and continue to plague the NPT today, revolve around several key issues. These include the obligations of nuclear weapon states to pursue disarmament, the rights of non-nuclear weapon states to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the strengthening of the treaty’s verification mechanisms.

Specifically, non-nuclear weapon states have consistently called for concrete steps towards disarmament by the nuclear powers – the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. They argue that the NPT’s bargain – nonproliferation in exchange for disarmament – is not being upheld. Nuclear weapon states, emphasize the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and have been reluctant to commit to specific timelines or targets for disarmament.

Another point of contention concerns the safeguards system administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). While the IAEA plays a crucial role in verifying that nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons purposes, there are ongoing debates about the scope and effectiveness of its inspections. Some states advocate for strengthening the IAEA’s authority and expanding its access to information, while others are wary of intrusive inspections that could compromise national security or commercial interests.

The Preparatory Process and the Road to 2026

The NPT operates on a five-year review cycle, with preparatory committees meeting in the years leading up to the main review conference. The preparatory committee meetings are intended to identify areas of consensus and disagreement, and to develop recommendations for the review conference. The preparatory process for the 1995 conference, as documented by the United Nations, was marked by significant challenges, including a failed preparatory committee meeting in 1999. Despite these difficulties, the parties were ultimately able to reach a consensus on the indefinite extension of the treaty.

The current preparatory process for the 2026 conference has also been fraught with difficulties. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the schedule of meetings, and geopolitical tensions have exacerbated existing divisions. The war in Ukraine, in particular, has raised concerns about the future of the nonproliferation regime, with some states questioning the commitment of Russia to its NPT obligations.

Global Implications and the Risk of Proliferation

The failure of the NPT review process has far-reaching implications for international security. A weakened NPT could embolden states to pursue nuclear weapons, leading to a dangerous proliferation cascade. This, in turn, could increase the risk of nuclear conflict and undermine global stability. The erosion of the NPT would also have implications for other arms control treaties and regimes, potentially leading to a broader unraveling of the international arms control architecture.

The consequences of proliferation are not limited to military security. The spread of nuclear weapons could also have economic and environmental consequences, as well as implications for international law and norms. The potential for nuclear terrorism is another serious concern, as terrorist groups could seek to acquire nuclear materials or weapons to carry out attacks.

What’s Confirmed vs. Unclear

Confirmed: The 2026 NPT Review Conference is scheduled for April 27-May 22 in New York. Divisions among states-parties on key issues remain substantial, mirroring those present at the 1995 conference. South Africa played a pivotal role in the 1995 conference, advocating for the indefinite extension of the treaty after dismantling its own nuclear weapons program.

Unclear: Whether the 2026 conference will reach consensus on a final document remains to be seen. The extent to which geopolitical tensions, particularly the war in Ukraine, will impact the negotiations is uncertain. The specific steps that states-parties will be willing to take to address the outstanding issues are yet to be determined.

Looking ahead, the success of the 2026 NPT Review Conference will depend on the willingness of states-parties to engage in constructive dialogue and to compromise on their positions. Strong diplomatic leadership and a renewed commitment to the principles of nonproliferation will be essential to avert a crisis of the international nonproliferation regime. The procedural path forward involves continued engagement in the preparatory committee meetings, focused on narrowing the gaps between states and identifying areas of potential agreement. Whether this will be enough to salvage the treaty’s relevance remains an open question.