IEER SDA Volume 3, Number 3

Why Opt for Rolling Extension?

Signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty will decide how to extend the treaty at the upcoming conference. This important decision will have lasting effects on the treaty itself, how various signatories perceive the treaty, and on international efforts to control proliferation in general. Many signatories are lobbying for indefinite extension, while others favor long rolling extension, for instance every 25 years. Others advocate a far shorter rolling extension of various periods, some as short as 2 to 3 years.

The NPT rests on complex and dynamic political footings. When it entered into force in 1970, few signatories could have imagined how rapidly and deeply world politics would change before the extension conference twenty-five years later. To accommodate the swiftness of global change, the NPT should require short rolling periods. A rolling extension of ten years, with two or three review conferences within each extension period, would give the treaty the flexibility it needs without compromising international trust in the continuity of disarmament and non-proliferation goals.

The main advantage of a rolling extension when compared to indefinite extension of the NPT is that it would safeguard the principal form of power within the NPT wielded by non-nuclear weapon states: the ability to vote for or against extension of the treaty in the future. By agreeing to rolling extension, the nuclear weapon states would send a message that the power and voice of the have-nots and the non-aligned movement are taken seriously. Indefinite extension on the other hand, would cement the existing NPT, complete with all of its shortcomings. While this is true of all extension options, rolling extension would at least provide frequent review and extension conferences to assess the treaty's progress and narrow the gap between the haves and have nots. Another problem with indefinite extension is that the impetus to move toward and achieve disarmament would be compromised. The NPT was intended to be a transitional document to curb proliferation until disarmament could be achieved. Rolling extension would leave open the possibility of a new, more effective treaty.

A twenty-five year rolling extension, though a theoretical improvement over indefinite extension, is still a weak option. The grave crisis in the former Soviet Union has given rise to fundamental political and military changes there every year or two. The situation continues to be highly unstable and unpredictable. Recent events point to a time-scale for serious political changes in that region on the order of months, or years. This pace of change is fundamentally different from 1970, when NPT signatories decided on a 25-year period for the treaty to remain in force, under the presumption, evidently false, that the two superpowers would continue to exist as such into the indefinite future.

Return to Main Article, "Beyond the Nuclear Bargain"
Return to SDA Vol. 3 No. 3 Main Page
Return to SDA Main Page
Return to IEER Home Page
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Comments toOutreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

Last updated: September 1996