London

Bombs away? The United States continues to run a fleet of aeroplanes that can carry nuclear devices. Credit: D. ROBINSON/US AIR FORCE

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will become marginalized unless governments take a treaty review conference seriously, antiproliferation groups are warning.

An impasse exists, they say, between the United States, which critics regard as unenthusiastic about the treaty, and nations that have no nuclear weapons but want to see signs of disarmament from those that do. This threatens to let the treaty wither on the vine, the groups argue.

A report released on 11 January by the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and the Oxford Research Group (ORG) says the New York conference, which is scheduled for 2–27 May, is crucial to the treaty's continued relevance. The two groups are planning a campaign in the run-up to the meeting to make governments take the conference more seriously.

“We could break up on 27 May with the NPT in disarray,” warns Ian Davis, director of BASIC. He says that “resentment and retrenchment” are brewing among the treaty's signatories as a result of differing interpretations of it and a widespread perception that it favours established nuclear powers. The treaty, which came into force in 1970, calls on states with nuclear weapons to take concrete steps towards getting rid of them — but none has shown any sign of doing so.

The treaty's relevance is also threatened by the fact that India and Pakistan, which have each tested nuclear weapons, and Israel, which is widely assumed to possess them, have declined to sign it.

Proliferation experts continue, nonetheless, to view the treaty as important, because it is the main international agreement that seeks to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The two groups plan to produce a series of non-technical research reports between now and May to detail the areas where progress might be made, says ORG director John Sloboda. They also aim to meet with key delegates, including Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte, the conference president and Brazil's ambassador-at-large for disarmament affairs.

Such efforts are welcome, says Trevor Findlay, director of the London-based organization VERTIC, which promotes effective verification of nations' compliance with agreements such as the NPT. However, he questions the claim by ORG and BASIC that the treaty is in danger of collapse. “I think it's a longer-term danger,” he says. “Nuclear-weapons states have tended to ignore their disarmament obligations. But the treaty is vital to them and they know it.”

At the last NPT review conference, held in New York in 2000, nuclear states agreed on a 13-step programme to move towards global disarmament. But the United States, in particular, has reneged on parts of this deal, claims Matt Martin, a BASIC analyst based in Washington DC. He cites the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a move that is called for as one of the 13 steps.

Martin says he is encouraged by last November's decision by the US Congress to block funding for several new nuclear programmes, including one to develop ‘bunker-buster’ bombs (see Nature 432, 542–543; 2004). But his group wants to see signs from the nuclear-weapons states that they are prepared to work towards disarmament.