High Level Events in Stockholm to close SIPRI's Anniversary Year
Document Actions
Personal Essays and SIPRI Yearbook Extracts
FROM THE SIPRI YEARBOOK 1968/69
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is opened for signature
On 1 July [1968] the NPT was opened for signature at ceremonies in Moscow, Washington and London, capitals of the three depositary Governments. Fifty-seven countries signed it on the first day. Ireland, which sponsored the Irish resolution on non-proliferation passed by the General Assembly on 4 December 1961, was the first country to ratify the Treaty, doing so on the day it was opened for signature.
The United States immediately started its process of ratification. The NPT was referred to the US Senate on 9 July 1968 and hearings were held on the matter on 10-17 July. These hearings were studied with great attention by the United States' European allies, particularly by West Germany, which was seeking favourable interpretations of the European option and the security guarantees before signing the Treaty. During the hearings, the United States' Secretary of State made it clear that the security guarantee embodied in the Security Council resolution and the subsequent declaration of intent 'does not in any way extend the unilateral obligations of the United States'. The United States' mutual bilateral and multilateral security treaties would however remain in effect.
The ratification of the NPT by the United States and many other states was expected to be a matter of routine. However, after the entry of troops from five Warsaw Pact countries into Czechoslovakia in August the ratification was delayed in many countries while Governments reviewed the situation. The reaction was particularly pronounced in the United States, where new Senate hearings were not started until 18 February 1969; the NPT was, however, passed with an overwhelming majority by the Senate on 13 March. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom ratified the Treaty on 11 November 1968. The Soviet and United States Governments have not ratified as yet. They are said to be seeking agreement on a suitable moment for simultaneous deposit of their instruments of ratification.
Debate over a 'European option'
Strict as it looks, the adopted definition of a nuclear-weapon state [in the NPT] does allow-and this is no accident-for different interpretations if a new state emerges through the integration of several states, at least one of which is a nuclear-weapon state. The possibility of the creation of a federation of Western Europe, including France and perhaps the United Kingdom, makes this uncertainty a matter of importance. Such a federation might have both the necessary resources and the ambition to become a superpower. The final interpretation, like any issue involving German access to nuclear weapons, is of great concern to the Soviet Union. There are now two interpretations on the issue: a Soviet interpretation which could define a Western European federation as a non-nuclear-weapon state because it would be established after 1 January 1967; and a Western interpretation which would define it as a nuclear-weapon state because it would 'inherit' nuclear power status from at least France. The latter interpretation has been called the 'European option'.