During the period from 19-21 October 2022, Ambassador Dr. Mounir Zahran participated in the conference held by the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), affiliated to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in cooperation with the Vienna Institute for Middle East Studies (VIIMES), under the title “The Nuclear Element in the context of the new reality in Russia’s relations with the West”, with a paper entitled “Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences”. It was attended by a number of ambassadors, parliamentarians, experts and researchers in the fields of disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, international relations and mediation from the countries of the Middle East, Russia, the European Union and the United States (who participated virtually and physically).
During his intervention, Ambassador Zahran mentioned the following in particular:
A- The wording of the treaty since its conclusion in 1968 included vague and evasive phrases, such as negotiating “in good faith” in Article 6, which talks about reaching a treaty on nuclear disarmament at an “early date.” This date has not been achieved more than fifty years after the Treaty entered into force in 1970.
B- The Treaty distinguished between the five nuclear-weapon states that are members of the Security Council, which are entitled to possess nuclear weapons, and the rest of the member states that are considered non-nuclear weapon states, in violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter contained in Article 2 thereof.
C- The Treaty provisions are being violated on a daily basis by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, when a nuclear country (the United States) places nuclear weapons on the territory of another member state of NATO, violating the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty, in what is called “Nuclear Sharing.”
D- The Treaty and the final documents of the review conferences did not stipulate specific deadlines and dates for the commitments related to nuclear disarmament, whether in Article VI or in the obligations of the nuclear-weapon states to implement the thirteen steps that were stipulated in the final document of the 2000 Review Conference, and did not specify time horizons for the implementation of the six additional commitments which came in the 2010 Review Conference document.
E- Even the international conference on the establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was agreed upon at the 2010 Review Conference, to be held at a date no later than the end of 2012. The United States requested that it be postponed in December 2012, and it has not been held yet. And when the United Nations General Assembly decided to hold a conference on the establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, and it was actually held in New York twice in 2019 and 2021, the United States and Israel boycotted it.
F- The ultimate purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is nuclear disarmament, as stated in the preamble to the treaty and Article 6 thereof, which would lead to a world free of nuclear weapons, which has not yet been achieved after more than half a century since the conclusion of the Treaty, which is what led to 130 countries to call for a conference on nuclear disarmament, the results of which were approved by 122 countries, and boycotted by the nuclear-weapon states and their allies. Its results were announced by the conclusion of a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons on July 7, 2017, which is (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and 91 countries signed that treaty, after it entered into force in 2021, and 68 countries joined it, while nuclear-weapon states and their allies boycotted it. I take this opportunity to call on these states to join that treaty and achieve what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty failed to achieve: freeing the world from nuclear weapons.
G- Until the world is freed from nuclear weapons and humanity is spared the scourge of this most lethal and destructive weapon, the United Nations General Assembly called on the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate the conclusion of two treaties, namely:
The first: Reaching a treaty providing for negative security assurances, according to which nuclear-weapon states refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.
Second: non-use of nuclear weapons.
However, negotiations over them did not take place, despite the repeated issuance of similar resolutions by the General Assembly, due to the paralysis that afflicted the Conference on Disarmament as a result of the objection of the nuclear-weapon states and their allies to agreeing on the Conference’s program of action.
H- That is why we demand the accession of all countries that have not yet acceded to that treaty, including the nuclear-weapon states and countries that have not joined the Treaty or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially Israel, India, Pakistan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
I- With regard to nuclear non-proliferation, it is noted that the nuclear-weapon states did not abide by it, taking advantage of the text of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has not yet entered into force, despite its conclusion since 1996 due to the incomplete ratification of the treaty by 44 countries in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, including nuclear countries, namely the United States, China, India, and Pakistan, and Egypt did not ratify it, given that Israel did not join it, as well as its non-accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; in addition, Article (1) of that treaty “Test Explosion” allows for non-explosive tests, including tests through the laboratories. During the negotiations, Egypt demanded the deletion of the term “Explosions” from Article (1), but the nuclear-weapon states refused to do so. This allowed the nuclear-weapon states to develop and modernize their nuclear weapons through vertical proliferation.
In response to what was raised by the former Austrian Defense Minister in connection with The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, which has already entered into force, expressing regret that Egypt did not join it, Ambassador Zahran indicated that Egypt’s non-ratification of the treaty is due to two reasons: First: there is an overlap between the scope of the Pelindaba Treaty and the Middle East region, and Egypt belongs to the two regions, as there has been no progress in establishing the Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons. Second: The scope of the Pelindaba Treaty did not include the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, belonging to the African state of Mauritius, due to the objection of Britain, which continued to occupy it, and even leased it to the United States, which stored nuclear weapons in it, and this island was used in the U.S.-British aggression against Iraq in 2003, and Egypt supports the independence and territorial integrity of Mauritius.
On the other hand, with regard to the comprehensive safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with Article (4) of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all states, including all nuclear-weapon states, must abide by it and also accede to the Additional Protocol.
In addition, it is necessary to point out that the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) does not have a verification system in its provisions, as is the case in the two Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, where there is a comprehensive safeguards system for the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out this task, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, as this task is carried out by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, therefore, the verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention, which was negotiated in the 1990s, but objected to by the United States, must be activated.
